I'm not a market analyst but I do have some common sense when it comes to the global economy. Having said that, I'm not real surprised by this article. I've been saying for quite some time now that there are limits to growth in any economy. At some point potentials buyers have already bought all the widgets they are going to need for a while, even in China, and then the market slows. Now this article blames the hurricanes and the new bankruptcy laws and that's probably true but I would also say it's because the US is feeling stiff competition, and rightly so, from the Middle East, Central Asia and South East Asia. This was only a matter of time.
As a country we should stop thinking about how we're going to elbow the competition out of the way and start thinking more progressively. We need to start embracing bold ideas like the basic income guarantee (BIG). It's the next step in economic evolution. There can only be so many producers of goods and services and then the rest of us just need to go on a permanent vacation.
In the meantime, here's the story:
More businesses will fail in 2006 as global economic growth slows, according to a report released on Tuesday by credit insurer Euler Hermes.
Failures may increase in the U.S. next year for the first time since 2001 as Gulf Coast businesses struggle in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, said Euler Hermes, a division of Germany's Allianz AG (AZ: news).
The company's Global Index of Business Failures, which tracks the demise of enterprises in more than 25 countries including the U.S., Japan and China, is expected to rise 1% in 2006, after falling 2% in 2005 and 5% in 2004.
Fewer businesses failed in 2004 as global economic growth reached a record 4%. That rate will likely slow to an estimated 3.2% in 2005 and 2.8% next year, Euler Hermes said.
That slowdown will be chiefly driven by the U.S., which accounts for about a third of the world's economy, and has already begun to feel the effects of this year's hurricanes, the firm added.
"The impact of Katrina has without doubt accelerated the collapse of local businesses and will weaken the financial situation of numerous companies and small businesses," Euler Hermes, said in a statement.
About 40,000 U.S.-based businesses failed in 2001, the year the Internet-investing bubble burst. As the economy slowly recovered, that number dwindled to an annualized 32,400 at the end of the second quarter of 2005, Euler Hermes said.
That favorable trend was brought to an abrupt end not only by the hurricanes in the third quarter, but by new bankruptcy laws that were introduced in the U.S.
"The amendments to the bankruptcy law came into force on Oct. 17, making Chapter 11 conditions weigh more heavily on debtors," Euler Hermes said. "For this reason some businesses (airlines, car equipment manufacturers), starting with the biggest, applied for Chapter 11 protection during the third quarter, just before the change came into force."
Heard at Blogtalkradio.com/whiskeyrebellion every Tuesday Night at 8:00 PM Eastern, Call In At (646) 915-8862 Intellectual Honesty is a Greater Virtue Than Party Loyalty
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Iran Training Chechen Rebels — Paper
Well, isn't this a kick in the nuts to the Russians!
Vladimir Putin pretty much staked his entire presidency on crushing Chechnya and anything else that got in his way. Russian forces under Putin have bombarded, raped and pillaged Chechnya over and over again, further fanning the flames of the terrorists that have taken over schools, theaters and other soft targets. The plan to put down any seperatist movement there resembles less our own Civil War and more a loose plan of extermination.
Meanwhile, Iran and the Russians have been signing more and more deals as of late. Iran needs Russia to give it sufficient cover as the West continues to use WMD's as a reason for yet another regime change. Russia needs Iran in order to establish prominence on the world stage. If the Russian's can successfully contain the mullahs it makes them a player along side the EU and the US. Needless to say there are many mutual benefits in an Iranian-Russian partnership.
So why are the Iranians training the mortal enemies of the Russians to continue the murderous fight against them? Why indeed...
Iran is secretly training Chechen rebels to enable them to carry out more effective attacks against Russian forces.
Teams of Chechen fighters are being trained at the Revolutionary Guards’ Imam Ali training camp, located close to Tajrish Square in Tehran, the Sunday Telegraph cited Western intelligence reports.
In addition to receiving training in the latest terror techniques, the Chechen volunteers undergo ideological and political instruction by hardline Iranian mullahs at Qom.
The paper noted that this information would not “go down well in Moscow, which regards itself as a close ally of the Iranian regime.”
The paper pointed out that Russia had sided with Iran in the diplomatic stand-off over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program. While the British and American governments have accused Iran of having a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the Russians, who are building Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, back Tehran’s claim that their nuclear intentions are solely peaceful.
A senior intelligence official quoted by the paper said Iran’s hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could have sanctioned the training of Chechen fighters in Tehran. “Just as they have orchestrated attacks against British troops in Basra to pressure Britain to drop its opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, so they are trying to put pressure on Moscow by backing Chechen fighters,” he said.
Vladimir Putin pretty much staked his entire presidency on crushing Chechnya and anything else that got in his way. Russian forces under Putin have bombarded, raped and pillaged Chechnya over and over again, further fanning the flames of the terrorists that have taken over schools, theaters and other soft targets. The plan to put down any seperatist movement there resembles less our own Civil War and more a loose plan of extermination.
Meanwhile, Iran and the Russians have been signing more and more deals as of late. Iran needs Russia to give it sufficient cover as the West continues to use WMD's as a reason for yet another regime change. Russia needs Iran in order to establish prominence on the world stage. If the Russian's can successfully contain the mullahs it makes them a player along side the EU and the US. Needless to say there are many mutual benefits in an Iranian-Russian partnership.
So why are the Iranians training the mortal enemies of the Russians to continue the murderous fight against them? Why indeed...
Iran is secretly training Chechen rebels to enable them to carry out more effective attacks against Russian forces.
Teams of Chechen fighters are being trained at the Revolutionary Guards’ Imam Ali training camp, located close to Tajrish Square in Tehran, the Sunday Telegraph cited Western intelligence reports.
In addition to receiving training in the latest terror techniques, the Chechen volunteers undergo ideological and political instruction by hardline Iranian mullahs at Qom.
The paper noted that this information would not “go down well in Moscow, which regards itself as a close ally of the Iranian regime.”
The paper pointed out that Russia had sided with Iran in the diplomatic stand-off over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program. While the British and American governments have accused Iran of having a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the Russians, who are building Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, back Tehran’s claim that their nuclear intentions are solely peaceful.
A senior intelligence official quoted by the paper said Iran’s hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could have sanctioned the training of Chechen fighters in Tehran. “Just as they have orchestrated attacks against British troops in Basra to pressure Britain to drop its opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, so they are trying to put pressure on Moscow by backing Chechen fighters,” he said.
Monday, November 28, 2005
US seeks Iran's help to quell unrest in Iraq
I think we can safely say that for the time being, any assault on Iran by the US is going to be put on hold for some time if not indefinitely. Some analysts have put an invasion of Iran off until at least 2007, after the mid-term elections. Who knows? Certainly in the interim the US' plan for Iran is to move along the diplomacy route with lots of carrots in hand. I'm not personally moved by the contents of this article as one might suspect. Given the state of multi-tier diplomacy and our history of doing business with dubious dictatorships, the fact that we're going to Iran for help, despite all that we already know about them, is really not all that surprising. I think it's kind of ballsy actually. Iran had a hand in fomenting the Shiite insurgency under Muqtadar early on in the Iraq war and to this day, it is believed that they are still funding terrorist operations there. It almost makes some degree of sense to just call Iran out on their BS and say, "We know what you're doing and we want you to stop." It won't work but I'm all for trying.
Here's the story:
US President George W Bush has asked American Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to reach out to Iran for assistance in controlling the unrest in Iraq, a media report said.
United States Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad was quoted by Newsweek as saying he has received explicit permission from Bush to begin a diplomatic dialogue with Iran on the issue.
"I've been authorised by the president to engage the Iranians as I engaged them in Afghanistan directly," Khalilzad told Newsweek. "There will be meetings, and that's also a departure and an adjustment."
But he also emphasised the dangers of a panicky pullout of US troops.
"People need to be clear what the stakes are here," he said. "If we were to do a premature withdrawal, there could be a Shia-Sunni war here that could spread beyond Iraq. And you could have Iran backing the Shias and Sunni Arab states backing the Sunnis," he said.
There could be a regional war for a very long time and affect the security of oil supplies, he added.
Besides, "terrorists could take over part of this country and expand from here. And given the resources of Iraq, given the technical expertise of its people, it will make Afghanistan look like child's play," he said.
In the new year, there will be a new coherent strategy on the ground in Iraq, largely the handiwork of Gen George Casey, commander of the Multinational Forces, and Khalilzad, Newsweek says in its upcoming issue.
Here's the story:
US President George W Bush has asked American Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to reach out to Iran for assistance in controlling the unrest in Iraq, a media report said.
United States Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad was quoted by Newsweek as saying he has received explicit permission from Bush to begin a diplomatic dialogue with Iran on the issue.
"I've been authorised by the president to engage the Iranians as I engaged them in Afghanistan directly," Khalilzad told Newsweek. "There will be meetings, and that's also a departure and an adjustment."
But he also emphasised the dangers of a panicky pullout of US troops.
"People need to be clear what the stakes are here," he said. "If we were to do a premature withdrawal, there could be a Shia-Sunni war here that could spread beyond Iraq. And you could have Iran backing the Shias and Sunni Arab states backing the Sunnis," he said.
There could be a regional war for a very long time and affect the security of oil supplies, he added.
Besides, "terrorists could take over part of this country and expand from here. And given the resources of Iraq, given the technical expertise of its people, it will make Afghanistan look like child's play," he said.
In the new year, there will be a new coherent strategy on the ground in Iraq, largely the handiwork of Gen George Casey, commander of the Multinational Forces, and Khalilzad, Newsweek says in its upcoming issue.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Saudi Arabia to invest US$ 650 billion in infrastructure up to 2015
There are lots of ways to read this story. The implications of this level of Saudi investment in one of the US' major South American trading partners is not to be ignored or taken lightly. Just as a strong economic bond between Iran and Russia gives the mullahs enough cover to protect itself from most US aggression, the Saudi's appear to be hedging their bets as well as covering their own behinds by building a similar relationship with Brazil. As per usual, money talks. The US is so long is it is the engine that drives the world economy. However, that will all changed when that same energy is found elsewhere and in various places around the globe. Here's the story in full:
São Paulo - Saudi Arabia plans on investing US$ 650 billion in infrastructure projects, such as the construction of highways, airports and ports, between the years of 2006 and 2015. The information was disclosed yesterday (23) by the secretary general of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Riyadh, Hussein Al Athel, to the Brazilian delegation that is in the capital city of the Arab country. Athel spoke of the interest Saudi Arabia has that Brazil participates in this process.
According to the secretary general of Chamber of Riyadh, Brazil is currently a priority trade partner for Saudi Arabia, next to China, India and South Africa. "Companies from China and India already are in Saudi Arabia. The opportunities for Brazilian companies are also great," said the secretary general of the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, Michel Alaby, who participated in the meeting, headed by the Brazilian ambassador in Riyadh, Luís Sérgio Gama Figueira.
Yesterday the two Brazilian construction companies that are participating in the delegation, Odebrecht and Andrade Gutierrez, had meetings with seven great players in the Saudi Arabian construction sector. Alaby is also bringing the contacts of these companies to Brazil to forward it to other companies in the sector. There are currently two great projects for the construction of ports with open biddings in the Arab country, one in Jeddah and another in Dhahran.
The companies that are part of the Brazilian delegation, good part in the building materials sector, are meeting with potential Saudi trade partners, which should yield future sales and partnerships. Amongst the participants in the mission are companies such as Docol, of metal fixtures, Braskem, of chemical products, trading company Comexport, Granimex, in the marble and granite sector and Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil company, as well as the Espírito Santo Ornamental Stone Union (Sindirochas-ES).
More trade
Trade between Brazil and Saudi Arabia has been increasing. During the first ten months this year, global trade between the two countries reached US$ 2 billion, the same value for the whole of last year. The Saudis, however, are willing to exchange even more.
In a meeting between representatives of the Bank of Brazil and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), yesterday, the Saudi British Bank and the Samba Financial Group showed their willingness in giving lines of credit for trade between Brazil and Saudi Arabia. The two Brazilian banks are members of the mission, whose activities end today.
New actions
Representatives of the Saudi Ministry of Trade and Industry have also showed, during a meeting that took place yesterday with the Brazilians, themselves willing to increase relations with the country. The group was hosted by the director of the Department of Foreign Trade of the Ministry, Ahmed Bedaiwi, and by the executive director of the Foreign Trade Agency, Fahd Al Shammary. They suggested that an exhibit of Brazilian products should be held at the beginning of next year in Riyadh or Jeddah.
The secretary general of the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce also suggested to the Saudis, during the meeting, the creation of a mixed governmental committee and a business council between the two countries to discuss trade approximation and joint investments. The representatives of the ministry also invited the Brazilian companies to participate in fairs in the construction and foodstuff fields in Saudi Arabia.
Visas
According to Alaby, at the meeting with the secretary general of the Chamber of Commerce of Riyadh, the delegation also asked Saudi Arabia to improve the entry of Brazilian businessmen in the country through simplifying the process for obtaining visas. The Saudis will start giving visas at the airport for entrepreneurs of the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and, according to Alaby, the Brazilians wish for a similar treatment. "We will establish contacts between the two Chambers (Arab Brazilian and of Riyadh) for looking into the topic and searching for a solution", he states.
Vaccines
The representative of the Ministry of Health of Brazil in the mission, Fabio Webbert Tagliari, met yesterday with the general director of Parasite and Infectious Diseases of the Saudi Ministry of Health, Nasser Al Zueim, and the technician at the Vaccines division, Mohamed Baksh, who demonstrated interest in buying Brazilian vaccines.
São Paulo - Saudi Arabia plans on investing US$ 650 billion in infrastructure projects, such as the construction of highways, airports and ports, between the years of 2006 and 2015. The information was disclosed yesterday (23) by the secretary general of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Riyadh, Hussein Al Athel, to the Brazilian delegation that is in the capital city of the Arab country. Athel spoke of the interest Saudi Arabia has that Brazil participates in this process.
According to the secretary general of Chamber of Riyadh, Brazil is currently a priority trade partner for Saudi Arabia, next to China, India and South Africa. "Companies from China and India already are in Saudi Arabia. The opportunities for Brazilian companies are also great," said the secretary general of the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce, Michel Alaby, who participated in the meeting, headed by the Brazilian ambassador in Riyadh, Luís Sérgio Gama Figueira.
Yesterday the two Brazilian construction companies that are participating in the delegation, Odebrecht and Andrade Gutierrez, had meetings with seven great players in the Saudi Arabian construction sector. Alaby is also bringing the contacts of these companies to Brazil to forward it to other companies in the sector. There are currently two great projects for the construction of ports with open biddings in the Arab country, one in Jeddah and another in Dhahran.
The companies that are part of the Brazilian delegation, good part in the building materials sector, are meeting with potential Saudi trade partners, which should yield future sales and partnerships. Amongst the participants in the mission are companies such as Docol, of metal fixtures, Braskem, of chemical products, trading company Comexport, Granimex, in the marble and granite sector and Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil company, as well as the Espírito Santo Ornamental Stone Union (Sindirochas-ES).
More trade
Trade between Brazil and Saudi Arabia has been increasing. During the first ten months this year, global trade between the two countries reached US$ 2 billion, the same value for the whole of last year. The Saudis, however, are willing to exchange even more.
In a meeting between representatives of the Bank of Brazil and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), yesterday, the Saudi British Bank and the Samba Financial Group showed their willingness in giving lines of credit for trade between Brazil and Saudi Arabia. The two Brazilian banks are members of the mission, whose activities end today.
New actions
Representatives of the Saudi Ministry of Trade and Industry have also showed, during a meeting that took place yesterday with the Brazilians, themselves willing to increase relations with the country. The group was hosted by the director of the Department of Foreign Trade of the Ministry, Ahmed Bedaiwi, and by the executive director of the Foreign Trade Agency, Fahd Al Shammary. They suggested that an exhibit of Brazilian products should be held at the beginning of next year in Riyadh or Jeddah.
The secretary general of the Arab Brazilian Chamber of Commerce also suggested to the Saudis, during the meeting, the creation of a mixed governmental committee and a business council between the two countries to discuss trade approximation and joint investments. The representatives of the ministry also invited the Brazilian companies to participate in fairs in the construction and foodstuff fields in Saudi Arabia.
Visas
According to Alaby, at the meeting with the secretary general of the Chamber of Commerce of Riyadh, the delegation also asked Saudi Arabia to improve the entry of Brazilian businessmen in the country through simplifying the process for obtaining visas. The Saudis will start giving visas at the airport for entrepreneurs of the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and, according to Alaby, the Brazilians wish for a similar treatment. "We will establish contacts between the two Chambers (Arab Brazilian and of Riyadh) for looking into the topic and searching for a solution", he states.
Vaccines
The representative of the Ministry of Health of Brazil in the mission, Fabio Webbert Tagliari, met yesterday with the general director of Parasite and Infectious Diseases of the Saudi Ministry of Health, Nasser Al Zueim, and the technician at the Vaccines division, Mohamed Baksh, who demonstrated interest in buying Brazilian vaccines.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Israeli Warplanes Hit Targets in Lebanon
[Editor's Note: Last post for the week as I will be in Cleveland for Thanksgiving. Have a happy holiday folks!]
There's not much to say here. This may spark the beginning of an overt Israeli-Iranian confrontation, or we may see more of the same. Certainly it's another example of how the Arab/Persian world can't seem to do any long term harm to Israel when it comes to military might. As always, we shall see.
Israeli said its warplanes struck in Lebanon on Tuesday in what Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz described as the largest-scale Israeli response to cross-border attacks by Lebanese guerrillas since 2000.
Mofaz spoke just hours after Israeli fighter jets attacked a command post of Hezbollah guerrillas in south Lebanon and after army bulldozers entered Lebanon to demolish a Hezbollah post just north of the community of Ghajar.
Hezbollah and the Lebanese army denied Israeli warplanes struck in southern Lebanon on Tuesday. On Monday, Israeli warplanes struck a number of Hezbollah targets, Israeli security officials said.
The Israeli strike came a day after the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah fired mortars and rockets toward the Israeli-Lebanese border, wounding 11 Israeli soldiers and damaging a house in an Israeli border community. The shelling sent thousands of Israeli civilians into bombshelters. Israeli return fire killed four Hezbollah guerrillas.
Monday's Hezbollah attack "was the largest-scale, most hostile since the departure of Israeli forces from Lebanon (in 2000)," Mofaz said in remarks broadcast on Israel Radio. The Israeli response "was the widest against attempts by Hezbollah to escalate the situation."
Mofaz said Israel hit targets that "had not been attacked since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon," including Hezbollah command, intelligence and communication posts.
The defense minister also said Hezbollah apparently suffered the greatest number of casualties since Israel's pullout from Lebanon. More
There's not much to say here. This may spark the beginning of an overt Israeli-Iranian confrontation, or we may see more of the same. Certainly it's another example of how the Arab/Persian world can't seem to do any long term harm to Israel when it comes to military might. As always, we shall see.
Israeli said its warplanes struck in Lebanon on Tuesday in what Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz described as the largest-scale Israeli response to cross-border attacks by Lebanese guerrillas since 2000.
Mofaz spoke just hours after Israeli fighter jets attacked a command post of Hezbollah guerrillas in south Lebanon and after army bulldozers entered Lebanon to demolish a Hezbollah post just north of the community of Ghajar.
Hezbollah and the Lebanese army denied Israeli warplanes struck in southern Lebanon on Tuesday. On Monday, Israeli warplanes struck a number of Hezbollah targets, Israeli security officials said.
The Israeli strike came a day after the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah fired mortars and rockets toward the Israeli-Lebanese border, wounding 11 Israeli soldiers and damaging a house in an Israeli border community. The shelling sent thousands of Israeli civilians into bombshelters. Israeli return fire killed four Hezbollah guerrillas.
Monday's Hezbollah attack "was the largest-scale, most hostile since the departure of Israeli forces from Lebanon (in 2000)," Mofaz said in remarks broadcast on Israel Radio. The Israeli response "was the widest against attempts by Hezbollah to escalate the situation."
Mofaz said Israel hit targets that "had not been attacked since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon," including Hezbollah command, intelligence and communication posts.
The defense minister also said Hezbollah apparently suffered the greatest number of casualties since Israel's pullout from Lebanon. More
Monday, November 21, 2005
Japan to back Russia's bid to join WTO
A quick scan of the news tells us today that the US is backing Russia's plan to enrich Iran's uranium. However, the Iranian's still haven't accepted that proposal. Meanwhile, the Russian Duma on Saturday expressed support for cooperation with Iran in all fields, particularly in peaceful nuclear activities, despite Iran's stance that they have an indisputable right to enrich uranium.
Now clearly we're in one of those complex binds. Russians are our "friends" yet they a partners with the "enemy." However, even our most important allies are working the Russians so where exactly does that leave us with Iran and other rogue regimes? This is why I've backed away from the hawkish rhetoric. It's all simply more complicated than just bombing people into submission. We're too solidly interconnected now and the "sides" are not so evenly split or loyal.
TOKYO Japan agreed Monday to back Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization, as leaders of the two countries promised to work toward resolving a territorial dispute that has hampered relations for 60 years.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi also agreed on a joint program to combat terrorism and cooperate in energy, communications and tourism.
Their summit focused largely on economic ties, which the leaders said would help pave the way toward progress in the dispute over four tiny, sparsely populated islands that has prevented the nations from signing a World War II peace treaty.
The islets in the Kuril chain, known as the Northern Territories in Japan, were seized by Soviet troops in the closing days of the conflict. Control over the islands, which are surrounded by rich fishing grounds and also speculated to have natural gas deposits, has since become a hot political and nationalistic issue on both sides.
''We will further deepen our economic cooperation to strengthen mutual confidence, so that in the future we can sign a peace treaty,'' Koizumi said at a joint news conference with Putin.
Putin said he was ''fully determined to work in that direction to solve all the issues we face.''
Putin, who arrived in Japan on Sunday for a three-day visit, said stronger economic relations between Russia and Japan will help improve overall ties between the countries, which remain strained by the territorial dispute.
Putin will return home with Japan's blessing for its WTO bid. Russia, which has to strike separate deals with WTO members as a condition for joining the 148-member global trade body, has launched economic and legal reforms in order to qualify for the membership. It has yet to negotiate a deal with the United States.
''Russia's accession into this organization will help strengthen trade ties with Japan and make them more stable,'' Putin said.
Putin also encouraged Japan companies to invest more in Russia, noting that Japan accounts for only 1 percent of accumulated foreign investment in his country.
Putin said also Monday that Russia remains committed to building an oil pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that would deliver Siberian crude to Japan and other nations in the region. More
Now clearly we're in one of those complex binds. Russians are our "friends" yet they a partners with the "enemy." However, even our most important allies are working the Russians so where exactly does that leave us with Iran and other rogue regimes? This is why I've backed away from the hawkish rhetoric. It's all simply more complicated than just bombing people into submission. We're too solidly interconnected now and the "sides" are not so evenly split or loyal.
TOKYO Japan agreed Monday to back Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization, as leaders of the two countries promised to work toward resolving a territorial dispute that has hampered relations for 60 years.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi also agreed on a joint program to combat terrorism and cooperate in energy, communications and tourism.
Their summit focused largely on economic ties, which the leaders said would help pave the way toward progress in the dispute over four tiny, sparsely populated islands that has prevented the nations from signing a World War II peace treaty.
The islets in the Kuril chain, known as the Northern Territories in Japan, were seized by Soviet troops in the closing days of the conflict. Control over the islands, which are surrounded by rich fishing grounds and also speculated to have natural gas deposits, has since become a hot political and nationalistic issue on both sides.
''We will further deepen our economic cooperation to strengthen mutual confidence, so that in the future we can sign a peace treaty,'' Koizumi said at a joint news conference with Putin.
Putin said he was ''fully determined to work in that direction to solve all the issues we face.''
Putin, who arrived in Japan on Sunday for a three-day visit, said stronger economic relations between Russia and Japan will help improve overall ties between the countries, which remain strained by the territorial dispute.
Putin will return home with Japan's blessing for its WTO bid. Russia, which has to strike separate deals with WTO members as a condition for joining the 148-member global trade body, has launched economic and legal reforms in order to qualify for the membership. It has yet to negotiate a deal with the United States.
''Russia's accession into this organization will help strengthen trade ties with Japan and make them more stable,'' Putin said.
Putin also encouraged Japan companies to invest more in Russia, noting that Japan accounts for only 1 percent of accumulated foreign investment in his country.
Putin said also Monday that Russia remains committed to building an oil pipeline to the Pacific Ocean that would deliver Siberian crude to Japan and other nations in the region. More
Friday, November 18, 2005
New Review: Condi VS Hillary
The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:The presidential race of 2008 promises to be even more bombastic than the 2004 race, which at times, seemed to nearly send this country into civil war. In many ways it will be a sequel or continuation of the events that made 2004 stand out in the annals of political history. Because 527s such as Moveon.org and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were able to vociferously shake the foundation of electoral politics, you can be sure that more groups will surface to promote their candidate du jour and the word “shrill” won’t even begin to describe them. Add to the mix a large helping of former Internet donors/bloggers and the election cycle of 2008 promises to be more entertaining than a barrel of monkeys on ecstasy.
Nearly everyone on the planet with the exception of my father believes that the honorable junior senator from New York, former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, is running for the seat currently occupied by President George W. Bush. The political wisdom of the day is that she has been eyeing the oval office ever since she attended Wellesley College and now is in a tenable position to effectively contend for that much-coveted role of Commander In Chief. Because Senator Clinton is such a relatively powerful and (more importantly) famous public servant, likely challengers and their chances at beating her in a national election have become somewhat of a cottage industry in the American public marketplace.
Enter “Condi VS. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race,” by former Clinton political consultant, pollster, and Fox News contributor Dick Morris and his wife, CEO of Vote.com Eileen McGann. This might be considered the third installment of Dick Morris’ loose trilogy of books apparently designed to eviscerate the Clinton’s legacy and more to the point, derail Hillary’s attempt to re-enter the White House as President of the United States. After taking Hillary and Bill head on in their respective autobiographical responses, “Rewriting History,” and “Because He Could,” Morris takes a different tact with “Condi VS. Hillary.”
This book is promotional material meant to jumpstart a “Draft Condi” movement well ahead of the 2008 presidential election cycle. In this work, Morris compares and contrasts both women with the intent of selling Madame Secretary of State on the US public as a viable challenger to the supposed juggernaut that is a Hillary candidacy. At least half of the book is written in such a way that Ms. Rice comes across as Jesus of Nazareth coming to bring salvation to American voters, while Hillary is something akin to the plagues of Exodus meant to drive us all into the sea. (More)
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Carbon Dioxide Storage a Success
This sounds like good news. While I'm a proponent of finding alternative fuel sources, I am not foolish enough to think that under any circumstances, a total divorce from fossil fuels is going to happen in short order. I am a believer in parallel planning however. As the US and other countries begin to research, experiment and invent cars and such that use hydrogen, biodiesel, ethanol and so on, so must we develop the science to curb the pollution caused by fossil fuels now. In short, we must work the problem at both ends. The far left environmentists have it all wrong. The answer to stopping global warming and greenhouse gases is not to roll back the clock on the economic and structural development of a nation, but to refocus their energies (no pun intended) into developing appropriate conservation and recycling technologies. The following article is an example of just that.
An experimental project in Canada to inject carbon dioxide into oil fields has proven successful, removing 5 million tons of the heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas, while enhancing oil recovery, the Energy Department said Tuesday.
If the methodology could be applied worldwide, from one-third to one-half of the carbon dioxide emissions that go into the atmosphere could be eliminated over the next century and billions of barrels of additional oil could be recovered, the department said.
The project is a joint effort by the Energy Department, the Canadian government and private industry. Carbon dioxide is piped from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in Beulah, N.D., where it is a byproduct from coal gasification, to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada.
"The success of the Weyburn Project could have incredible implications on reducing CO2 emissions and increasing America's oil production," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.
Bodman, who is visiting the Middle East, said in a statement released by his office that if the process were used in all the oil fields of western Canada, "we would see billions of additional barrels of oil and a reduction of CO2 emissions equivalent to pulling more than 200 million cars off the road for a year."
The completion of the first phase of the experimental project gives government officials and industry an indication of how carbon sequestration can both reduce the risk of climate change and allow enhanced oil recovery, extending the oil field's life.
Carbon dioxide, produced from the burning of fossil fuels, is the leading so-called "greenhouse" gas because when released into the atmosphere it creates a heat-trapping blanket. Many scientists believe the growth of manmade sources of these gases will lead to a warming of the earth if the trend is not reversed.
In the Weyburn project, the carbon dioxide when pumped into the oil reservoir increased the pressure and brought more oil to the surface. It increased the field's production by 10,000 barrels a day and "demonstrated the technical and economic feasibility of permanent carbon sequestration," the DOE said in a statement.
Such a process can enhance oil recovery up to 60 percent, extend the life of aging oil fields by decades, and provide a permanent repository for the carbon dioxide in geologic formations, the DOE said.
Now that the first phase of the Weyburn project is completed, researchers are developing a manual on the findings for industry. They also will expand the carbon injection process to an adjacent field where the plan to develop try to improve injection efficiencies and refine the process, according to the DOE statement.
An experimental project in Canada to inject carbon dioxide into oil fields has proven successful, removing 5 million tons of the heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas, while enhancing oil recovery, the Energy Department said Tuesday.
If the methodology could be applied worldwide, from one-third to one-half of the carbon dioxide emissions that go into the atmosphere could be eliminated over the next century and billions of barrels of additional oil could be recovered, the department said.
The project is a joint effort by the Energy Department, the Canadian government and private industry. Carbon dioxide is piped from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in Beulah, N.D., where it is a byproduct from coal gasification, to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada.
"The success of the Weyburn Project could have incredible implications on reducing CO2 emissions and increasing America's oil production," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.
Bodman, who is visiting the Middle East, said in a statement released by his office that if the process were used in all the oil fields of western Canada, "we would see billions of additional barrels of oil and a reduction of CO2 emissions equivalent to pulling more than 200 million cars off the road for a year."
The completion of the first phase of the experimental project gives government officials and industry an indication of how carbon sequestration can both reduce the risk of climate change and allow enhanced oil recovery, extending the oil field's life.
Carbon dioxide, produced from the burning of fossil fuels, is the leading so-called "greenhouse" gas because when released into the atmosphere it creates a heat-trapping blanket. Many scientists believe the growth of manmade sources of these gases will lead to a warming of the earth if the trend is not reversed.
In the Weyburn project, the carbon dioxide when pumped into the oil reservoir increased the pressure and brought more oil to the surface. It increased the field's production by 10,000 barrels a day and "demonstrated the technical and economic feasibility of permanent carbon sequestration," the DOE said in a statement.
Such a process can enhance oil recovery up to 60 percent, extend the life of aging oil fields by decades, and provide a permanent repository for the carbon dioxide in geologic formations, the DOE said.
Now that the first phase of the Weyburn project is completed, researchers are developing a manual on the findings for industry. They also will expand the carbon injection process to an adjacent field where the plan to develop try to improve injection efficiencies and refine the process, according to the DOE statement.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Rice emerges as key in Gaza-border pact
For the record, Dick Morris and I think alike. Both of us feel that the mullahs of Iran don't want to see the world's only self-proclaimed Islamic Republic blown to smithereens so much of their rhetoric is just gimmick with no real substance. But that's not what I want to talk about today.
I've just finished reading Dick Morris' new book "Condi VS Hillary" and in it, one of Morris' proclamations is that if Rice can settle a good piece of the Palestinian/Israel dispute, surely she will be seen as a possible Commander In Chief worth voting for against Hillary Clinton in 2008. There's more but you'll have to read my review when it's posted.
In the meantime, as it turns out the Seattle Times has an interesting article about how Rice just brokered a deal allegedly opening a major border crossing to the Gaza Strip and in theory, ending the territory's isolation. This is no small feat. First off, if you've been following the Palestinian/Israeli dispute you'll know that not much gets done between these two factions. Certainly when HTIC (head terrorist in charge) Yasser Arafat was alive and running things, peace was nearly impossible to achieve no matter how many times Clinton or anyone else for that matter tried. Even Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia thought Arafat was rediculous for calling for a second intafada and instigating the Israeli's into more bloodshed.
Since he's died and Mahmoud Abbas has taken over there's been an ebb and flow toward at least a cease fire if not an actual attempt at real co-existence. This latest successful effort by Rice is yet another chapter in the volatile relations between the Israeli's and the Palestinians and obviously more work must be done. But the point of the article is to give Madame Secretary an "atta girl!" for the job well done in bringing this agreement to the fore.
Just as this is a small piece in a larger puzzle of Middle Eastern politics, for Rice, this is just part of what will eventually be the pitch for voter for her against Hillary Clinton in 2008. The pundits will be saying, "Rice was able to accomplish more in the name of Middle Eastern peace than either Clinton have in their many collective years as public servants." It won't be a fair comment but all is fair in politics and war.
Here's the story:
Since Condoleezza Rice took over as America's top diplomat in January, she has tended to use her influence more behind the scenes than in front of the cameras.
The secretary of state has presided quietly over important shifts in U.S. foreign policy — such as deciding to work with European allies to try to end Iran's sensitive nuclear activities, and moving Washington, D.C., closer to its four negotiating partners in talks to coax North Korea to give up atomic weapons.
But over the past two days, she stepped into the limelight and put her credibility on the line to broker Tuesday's agreement between Israelis and Palestinians on opening a major border crossing to the Gaza Strip and ending the territory's isolation.
In Middle East politics, seemingly rock-solid deals often unravel before the ink is dry. But if Tuesday's accord holds, it will be as much a victory for Rice as for the Palestinians and Israelis.
After a day of talks Monday, including meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Rice upped the ante early in the evening by declaring her intent to forgo the first day of a gathering of Pacific Rim leaders and foreign ministers in South Korea scheduled to start Tuesday. Instead, she told her staff members, she would stay in the Mideast until there was a deal.
The decision, made Monday afternoon less than an hour before her scheduled departure for Asia, was a calculated gamble for Rice. But it added pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians, and in the end, proved crucial.
I've just finished reading Dick Morris' new book "Condi VS Hillary" and in it, one of Morris' proclamations is that if Rice can settle a good piece of the Palestinian/Israel dispute, surely she will be seen as a possible Commander In Chief worth voting for against Hillary Clinton in 2008. There's more but you'll have to read my review when it's posted.
In the meantime, as it turns out the Seattle Times has an interesting article about how Rice just brokered a deal allegedly opening a major border crossing to the Gaza Strip and in theory, ending the territory's isolation. This is no small feat. First off, if you've been following the Palestinian/Israeli dispute you'll know that not much gets done between these two factions. Certainly when HTIC (head terrorist in charge) Yasser Arafat was alive and running things, peace was nearly impossible to achieve no matter how many times Clinton or anyone else for that matter tried. Even Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia thought Arafat was rediculous for calling for a second intafada and instigating the Israeli's into more bloodshed.
Since he's died and Mahmoud Abbas has taken over there's been an ebb and flow toward at least a cease fire if not an actual attempt at real co-existence. This latest successful effort by Rice is yet another chapter in the volatile relations between the Israeli's and the Palestinians and obviously more work must be done. But the point of the article is to give Madame Secretary an "atta girl!" for the job well done in bringing this agreement to the fore.
Just as this is a small piece in a larger puzzle of Middle Eastern politics, for Rice, this is just part of what will eventually be the pitch for voter for her against Hillary Clinton in 2008. The pundits will be saying, "Rice was able to accomplish more in the name of Middle Eastern peace than either Clinton have in their many collective years as public servants." It won't be a fair comment but all is fair in politics and war.
Here's the story:
Since Condoleezza Rice took over as America's top diplomat in January, she has tended to use her influence more behind the scenes than in front of the cameras.
The secretary of state has presided quietly over important shifts in U.S. foreign policy — such as deciding to work with European allies to try to end Iran's sensitive nuclear activities, and moving Washington, D.C., closer to its four negotiating partners in talks to coax North Korea to give up atomic weapons.
But over the past two days, she stepped into the limelight and put her credibility on the line to broker Tuesday's agreement between Israelis and Palestinians on opening a major border crossing to the Gaza Strip and ending the territory's isolation.
In Middle East politics, seemingly rock-solid deals often unravel before the ink is dry. But if Tuesday's accord holds, it will be as much a victory for Rice as for the Palestinians and Israelis.
After a day of talks Monday, including meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Rice upped the ante early in the evening by declaring her intent to forgo the first day of a gathering of Pacific Rim leaders and foreign ministers in South Korea scheduled to start Tuesday. Instead, she told her staff members, she would stay in the Mideast until there was a deal.
The decision, made Monday afternoon less than an hour before her scheduled departure for Asia, was a calculated gamble for Rice. But it added pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians, and in the end, proved crucial.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
China sides with developing world in WTO row
This doesn't really surprise me in any way. I've complained about farm subsidies before citing the hypocrisy of Western World trade policies that demand more open markets to sell their products in but then don't reciprocate. But even besides that, farm subsidies in general hurt agriculture and the environment in the long run than just letting the free market dictate how much food should be grown and sold, and where it should be grown in the first place. Though China's developing superpower nature poses many issues for the US to contend with, here's a spot where having multipolar world is probably a good thing. This is yet another example where unchallenged, the US and the EU are not moved to do what's right by other countries and are only moved to cooperate when another big dog bares its teeth.
Here's the story:
China said it stood with the developing world in a row over agriculture subsidies that threatens to derail global trade talks and next month's WTO meeting in Hong Kong.
Developing nations have argued that the chief stumbling block in the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks is the high level of agricultural subsidies in the United States and the European Union, along with barriers to farm imports.
'We hope that the WTO round in Hong Kong will be of a constructive nature and bring benefits to the members of the WTO, particularly the developing members,' Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said in South Korea, according to Agence France-Presse.
WTO Director General Pascal Lamy and trade ministers from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum held talks here amid growing fears next month's WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong could end in failure.
APEC members have expressed frustration with the EU's failure to offer substantial cuts in farm subsidies, and today's meeting drew up a hard-hitting statement calling for concessions from all nations without specifically naming the EU.
Li said the finger pointing would not resolve anything, but made it clear that China would stand with developing nations in seeking greater concessions.
'I'm afraid the parties involved need to be constructive -- complaints or blaming sometimes don't have much (effectiveness),' Li said.
'China is a member of the developing world and also a member of the WTO, so we will work together with other parties to seek more progress,' he said.
Here's the story:
China said it stood with the developing world in a row over agriculture subsidies that threatens to derail global trade talks and next month's WTO meeting in Hong Kong.
Developing nations have argued that the chief stumbling block in the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks is the high level of agricultural subsidies in the United States and the European Union, along with barriers to farm imports.
'We hope that the WTO round in Hong Kong will be of a constructive nature and bring benefits to the members of the WTO, particularly the developing members,' Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said in South Korea, according to Agence France-Presse.
WTO Director General Pascal Lamy and trade ministers from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum held talks here amid growing fears next month's WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong could end in failure.
APEC members have expressed frustration with the EU's failure to offer substantial cuts in farm subsidies, and today's meeting drew up a hard-hitting statement calling for concessions from all nations without specifically naming the EU.
Li said the finger pointing would not resolve anything, but made it clear that China would stand with developing nations in seeking greater concessions.
'I'm afraid the parties involved need to be constructive -- complaints or blaming sometimes don't have much (effectiveness),' Li said.
'China is a member of the developing world and also a member of the WTO, so we will work together with other parties to seek more progress,' he said.
Monday, November 14, 2005
US drives a wedge between Russia, Iran
Iran has shot itself in the foot again. This time they rejected the proposal that I covered last week in which, Iran would be allowed to carry out an initial step in making nuclear fuel—converting uranium ore into the uranium hexafluoride gas that is the feedstock for making enriched uranium - but enrichment itself would be done in Russia. This was a plan that the US and EU could have lived with. Instead, the AP reported Sunday that, "The head of Iran's nuclear agency ruled out a compromise proposal that uranium enrichment for his country's controversial nuclear programme be carried out in Russia, saying Saturday that enrichment must be done in Iran..."
The Russians are a little upset. Right now their foreign policy seems to be one of playing both sides of the world against each other. They do business with the US and the EU, as well as China and Venezuela. Then there's Iran, which is also a strategic partner. It's a good plan but then theoretically so was doing business with Saddam Hussein and we all know how that turned out.
As Scott Ritter and I have stated in previous posts, history seems to be repeating itself with regards to a military intervention in Tehran. For example, much like Colin Powell's Powerpoint presentation, the US are running around with a "laptop" allegedly containing evidence of a plan to create nuclear warheads small enough to fit their Shahab missiles. To paraphrase Whitesnake, "Here we go again."
This latest rejection by the mullahs only gives the UN Ambassador John Bolton more cause to call for war against Iran in the UN Security Council. I stated last week that the Russians and the Chinese have too much to lose if the US does indeed attack Iran. This past weekend I had the pleasure of talking to two US Marines whom were on leave from Iraq and the scuttlebutt from them is that the US military is already planning an "Afghanistan style" invasion of Iran sometime in the near future. Our intentions is to either support a homegrown resistance militia in the same vein as the Northern Alliance or if that can't be accomplished just move the troops stationed in Iraq over to Iran. This is all conjecture mind you, but it's what they told me they've heard so I figured I'd report it.
Now Russia has to start making some hard choices. Moscow has to find a way to get its "ally" to comply with international demands or it must come face to face once again with more American troops in its backyard.
For more on this conundrum, here's the story:
Later this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will debate the Iran issue, and already in the welter of competing interests and considerations riveting the attention of the IAEA's governing board, the issue of where Russia stands has gained a unique prominence.
This is because Russia is Iran's sole nuclear partner and, until now, the only major power explicitly acknowledging Iran's nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-based right to the full nuclear fuel cycle. Moscow has clear economic and geostrategic vested interests with Iran, has consented to Iran's observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and is disinclined to join the US-European Union cooperation vis-a-vis Iran.
However, there are strong indications that Russia's position on Iran's nuclear program is less than iron-clad, and that might explain the latest bite in US-EU diplomacy meant to weaken Moscow's opposition to sending Iran's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council, and, perhaps, to achieve a Russian turnaround to the detriment of Tehran's interests.
According to reports, the US and European governments dealing with Iran on the nuclear issue (Britain, France and Germany) have hammered out a new proposal that calls for Iran's nuclear fuel fabrication on Russian soil. Under the plan, Iran would continue to operate its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, which converts raw uranium to uranium hexafluoride. That gas would then be shipped to Russia, where it would be enriched to a level suitable for use in nuclear power generation but not for nuclear weapons.
In this manner, Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which is where it is feared the highly enriched uranium needed to build a nuclear weapon could be produced, would be circumvented.
This proposal, which is reportedly still being worked out and yet somehow leaked to the world press, will most likely meet Iran's rejection in light of Tehran's determined stance to protect what it considers to be its "inalienable right" as per the articles of the NPT. The new proposal has been tailored less to garner an Iranian positive reaction and more to solicit a Russian turnaround from its unconditional support for Iran's right to enrich uranium, and it is far from certain that it will fail, due to the following reasons.
First, contrary to appearances, there is no Russian "groupthink" on Iran's nuclear program that would be immune to such concerted efforts led by Washington. Russia is occasionally reminded of the perils of a nuclear-armed Iran, and the recent Iranian announcement of willingness to share nuclear technology with other Muslim nations cannot possibly be music to the ears of Moscow policy leaders grappling with their home-gown threats of Muslim extremism. More
The Russians are a little upset. Right now their foreign policy seems to be one of playing both sides of the world against each other. They do business with the US and the EU, as well as China and Venezuela. Then there's Iran, which is also a strategic partner. It's a good plan but then theoretically so was doing business with Saddam Hussein and we all know how that turned out.
As Scott Ritter and I have stated in previous posts, history seems to be repeating itself with regards to a military intervention in Tehran. For example, much like Colin Powell's Powerpoint presentation, the US are running around with a "laptop" allegedly containing evidence of a plan to create nuclear warheads small enough to fit their Shahab missiles. To paraphrase Whitesnake, "Here we go again."
This latest rejection by the mullahs only gives the UN Ambassador John Bolton more cause to call for war against Iran in the UN Security Council. I stated last week that the Russians and the Chinese have too much to lose if the US does indeed attack Iran. This past weekend I had the pleasure of talking to two US Marines whom were on leave from Iraq and the scuttlebutt from them is that the US military is already planning an "Afghanistan style" invasion of Iran sometime in the near future. Our intentions is to either support a homegrown resistance militia in the same vein as the Northern Alliance or if that can't be accomplished just move the troops stationed in Iraq over to Iran. This is all conjecture mind you, but it's what they told me they've heard so I figured I'd report it.
Now Russia has to start making some hard choices. Moscow has to find a way to get its "ally" to comply with international demands or it must come face to face once again with more American troops in its backyard.
For more on this conundrum, here's the story:
Later this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will debate the Iran issue, and already in the welter of competing interests and considerations riveting the attention of the IAEA's governing board, the issue of where Russia stands has gained a unique prominence.
This is because Russia is Iran's sole nuclear partner and, until now, the only major power explicitly acknowledging Iran's nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-based right to the full nuclear fuel cycle. Moscow has clear economic and geostrategic vested interests with Iran, has consented to Iran's observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and is disinclined to join the US-European Union cooperation vis-a-vis Iran.
However, there are strong indications that Russia's position on Iran's nuclear program is less than iron-clad, and that might explain the latest bite in US-EU diplomacy meant to weaken Moscow's opposition to sending Iran's nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council, and, perhaps, to achieve a Russian turnaround to the detriment of Tehran's interests.
According to reports, the US and European governments dealing with Iran on the nuclear issue (Britain, France and Germany) have hammered out a new proposal that calls for Iran's nuclear fuel fabrication on Russian soil. Under the plan, Iran would continue to operate its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, which converts raw uranium to uranium hexafluoride. That gas would then be shipped to Russia, where it would be enriched to a level suitable for use in nuclear power generation but not for nuclear weapons.
In this manner, Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which is where it is feared the highly enriched uranium needed to build a nuclear weapon could be produced, would be circumvented.
This proposal, which is reportedly still being worked out and yet somehow leaked to the world press, will most likely meet Iran's rejection in light of Tehran's determined stance to protect what it considers to be its "inalienable right" as per the articles of the NPT. The new proposal has been tailored less to garner an Iranian positive reaction and more to solicit a Russian turnaround from its unconditional support for Iran's right to enrich uranium, and it is far from certain that it will fail, due to the following reasons.
First, contrary to appearances, there is no Russian "groupthink" on Iran's nuclear program that would be immune to such concerted efforts led by Washington. Russia is occasionally reminded of the perils of a nuclear-armed Iran, and the recent Iranian announcement of willingness to share nuclear technology with other Muslim nations cannot possibly be music to the ears of Moscow policy leaders grappling with their home-gown threats of Muslim extremism. More
Friday, November 11, 2005
New Review: Kremlin Rising
The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:This is a story about a boss. A strong boss. The kind of boss that could bring stability to a land that has only flirted with normalcy throughout its long and storied history. This is a story about one such man and his people who apathetically traded in democracy for a chance at normal life.
Those who have studied Russia/The Soviet Union know full well just how dysfunctional its society can be. Whether it was the tsars/czars or the communists, Russian people often didn't know what or who was going to be in charge. If there has been one characteristic of the Russian people, it has been a desire for somebody to take control and give them the stability that has eluded them for far too many years.
“Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the End of Revolution,” by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, former Moscow bureau chiefs for the Washington Post, is a blow by blow account of how a former KGB agent rose from mediocrity to become President of the newly democratic Russia -- only to cancel democracy and become a quasi-dictator. It is also a neat account of how the people of Russia have gone along with this rollback of democracy, which in many ways highlights the psycho-social dynamics of the folks who populate the former Soviet Empire. (More)
Thursday, November 10, 2005
U.S., Europe Ready to Compromise With Iran
Not too long ago I suggested in the cases of the Palestinians and North Korea that the strategy should be to give them nearly everything they ask for but the kitchen sink. If they in turn honor their respective agreements with the West then all the better. If not, the West can then say that they tried, they were reasonable but both regimes are just irresponsible pariahs and then move forward with a more aggressive strategy. It's a diplomatic public relations tact for sure but a necessary one when you consider how many Westerners themselves continue to feel as if American and some cases Europe, are the real evil empires of the world. Despite attending conferences where they openly discuss a World Without Zionism, I believe, as it seems is already happening, that we should utilize this same tact with Iran.
The main point of the article below indelibly ties the fate of Iran to Russia. I believe that Russia, while wanting to show off its prominence and re-establish its dominant role in the world, will not provoke or be in any way responsible for a nuclear war. Buy connecting Iran and Russia's fate we in all probability tame Iran from doing serious damage to the US without the cost of a real live military invasion or an attempted coup. This argument follows for China and Iran as well.
Russia doesn't want war. They want cash. They want bragging rights. They want the US out of Central Asia. This can all be accomplished by propping up Iran as a regional superpower, which is exactly what they want as well. Now, if Iran were to do something insanely stupid and provoke a serious military retaliation from the US than all parties lose. First, there will be no more Iran after we're done with it, therefore the Russians will have lost yet another major economic investment (see Iraq). Second, any provocation by Iran against the US will only result in further occupation Central Asia or as the Russians call it, the former Soviet Republics (all those unpronouncable -stans you know and love). This is counter to what the Russians are trying to accomplish.
The below article may sound like a defeat but in all actuallity, it's the best decision for all parties involved. The only way playing hardball with a regime like Iran works is if they are in near total isolation. Obviously they aren't. And when you come right down to it, whatever Iran's role is in the Iraqi insurgency or terrorism in general is probably equal to Saudi Arabia's role in terrorism (with the exception of the occasional raid on Al Qaeda). And you'll notice we have no problem doing business with those people.
The United States and Europe are ready to compromise with Iran over its nuclear program and have tentatively approved a plan that would allow it to make the gas used in producing enriched uranium, senior officials and diplomats said Thursday.
The officials and diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing the strategy, said the plan would allow Iran to convert raw uranium into the gas that is spun by centrifuges into enriched uranium. But the actual enrichment would take place in Russia, they told The Associated Press.
Depending on its level, enrichment can be used to generate energy or make nuclear weapons. Iran insists it is interested in the technology only to produce power, but the United States and many other countries fear Tehran wants to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels to use as the fissile core in warheads.
Iran has refused to bow to international demands that it renounce its right to enrichment and related activities and in August resumed the uranium conversion process.
That prompted Britain, France and Germany to break off talks with Tehran meant to dispel fears about its nuclear agenda. It also led a September meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board to approve a resolution clearing the path for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council at a Nov. 24 board meeting.
Iran is the focus of an IAEA probe of nearly 18 years of covert nuclear activities, including experiments that could be used in weapons development, that were revealed more than three years ago. It recently agreed to accelerate cooperation with IAEA inspectors to blunt the threat of Security Council action.
Publicly, both the Americans and the three European nations representing the European Union in the talks have insisted that Iran needed to stop all enrichment-related activity - including uranium conversion - to defuse the threat of Security Council referral.
But a senior European official told the AP Thursday that the EU-Three and Washington were now prepared to allow Iran to continue conversion as long as the gas produced was shipped to Russia and enriched there. That would allow international control over the level of enrichment, ensuring that it was below the levels that can be used for weapons. More
The main point of the article below indelibly ties the fate of Iran to Russia. I believe that Russia, while wanting to show off its prominence and re-establish its dominant role in the world, will not provoke or be in any way responsible for a nuclear war. Buy connecting Iran and Russia's fate we in all probability tame Iran from doing serious damage to the US without the cost of a real live military invasion or an attempted coup. This argument follows for China and Iran as well.
Russia doesn't want war. They want cash. They want bragging rights. They want the US out of Central Asia. This can all be accomplished by propping up Iran as a regional superpower, which is exactly what they want as well. Now, if Iran were to do something insanely stupid and provoke a serious military retaliation from the US than all parties lose. First, there will be no more Iran after we're done with it, therefore the Russians will have lost yet another major economic investment (see Iraq). Second, any provocation by Iran against the US will only result in further occupation Central Asia or as the Russians call it, the former Soviet Republics (all those unpronouncable -stans you know and love). This is counter to what the Russians are trying to accomplish.
The below article may sound like a defeat but in all actuallity, it's the best decision for all parties involved. The only way playing hardball with a regime like Iran works is if they are in near total isolation. Obviously they aren't. And when you come right down to it, whatever Iran's role is in the Iraqi insurgency or terrorism in general is probably equal to Saudi Arabia's role in terrorism (with the exception of the occasional raid on Al Qaeda). And you'll notice we have no problem doing business with those people.
The United States and Europe are ready to compromise with Iran over its nuclear program and have tentatively approved a plan that would allow it to make the gas used in producing enriched uranium, senior officials and diplomats said Thursday.
The officials and diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing the strategy, said the plan would allow Iran to convert raw uranium into the gas that is spun by centrifuges into enriched uranium. But the actual enrichment would take place in Russia, they told The Associated Press.
Depending on its level, enrichment can be used to generate energy or make nuclear weapons. Iran insists it is interested in the technology only to produce power, but the United States and many other countries fear Tehran wants to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels to use as the fissile core in warheads.
Iran has refused to bow to international demands that it renounce its right to enrichment and related activities and in August resumed the uranium conversion process.
That prompted Britain, France and Germany to break off talks with Tehran meant to dispel fears about its nuclear agenda. It also led a September meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board to approve a resolution clearing the path for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council at a Nov. 24 board meeting.
Iran is the focus of an IAEA probe of nearly 18 years of covert nuclear activities, including experiments that could be used in weapons development, that were revealed more than three years ago. It recently agreed to accelerate cooperation with IAEA inspectors to blunt the threat of Security Council action.
Publicly, both the Americans and the three European nations representing the European Union in the talks have insisted that Iran needed to stop all enrichment-related activity - including uranium conversion - to defuse the threat of Security Council referral.
But a senior European official told the AP Thursday that the EU-Three and Washington were now prepared to allow Iran to continue conversion as long as the gas produced was shipped to Russia and enriched there. That would allow international control over the level of enrichment, ensuring that it was below the levels that can be used for weapons. More
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Europe at War
Mark Steyn, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, and I have at least one thing in common, we both believe that Europe is under siege. Obviously we all know about the big attacks in Spain and London and what they meant in the often dubious but ever changing global war on terror. If all Europe had to deal with was the occasional massive bombing of civilians in transit to work, I wouldn’t be writing this column. Unfortunately, Europe has a far greater problem on their hands, a Euroarab civil war. The worst part about it is, the people of Europe of have brought this on themselves.
The issue at hand begins in France. On October 27th, a number of young Muslim and African young men, in a fit of rage over the accidental deaths of two North African teenagers who thought they were being chased by police, began rioting from their Paris housing project. They burned cars, threw projectiles and bashed in peoples skulls. And the violence didn’t stop there.
Rioting spread to 300 French towns by late Sunday night, as vandals burned more than 1400 vehicles. Dozens of police officers were wounded and almost 400 people were arrested.
As of this writing, the rioting in France has gone on for 12 days and after a State of Emergency was declared, there are some signs that daylight may be breaking in France after this long arduous night. The rest of Europe does not appear to be so lucky. The unrest that began in a Parisian housing project has already spread to parts of Denmark, Germany, and Belgium, leaving other European countries with large Muslim populations holding wondering if and when they will be next.
The spin on this story is that these are disaffected, unemployed youths whom are victims of French racism. They lack adequate opportunity and that’s why they are angry. When interviewed, they stop blowing up buses to tell the press that, “We hate the police!” “It's the start of war,” yells another. And after Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy called the rioters “scum,” another “marginalized youth” blurted, “Put this in your notebook...” and then rattled off a string of obscenities meant to cut the man down.
Google searches of this watershed moment in modern European life deliver a ton of articles that mildly justify or validate these acts of violence due to the way the French government has treated its Muslim and African immigrants. David Ignatius of the Washington Post even cites James Baldwin in trying to figure out the genesis of this tragic event.
One day in the late 1970s, the writer James Baldwin was explaining to an Arab friend that he wanted to go back to America after many years as an expatriate in France. "America has found a formula to deal with the demon of race," Baldwin told Syrian businessman Raja Sidawi, who had a house near him in St. Paul de Vence. In France and the rest of Europe, people pretended that the race problem didn't exist, Baldwin said, but "someday it will explode."
Baldwin was right, on both counts. The United States began to find solutions for its tormenting "original sin" after its cities burned in the 1960s. And France, unable to make the same transition toward racial integration, is now watching flames engulf the poor suburbs of Paris that are home to many of its black and brown immigrants.
Mr. Ignatius is somewhat right. Civil unrest is the bi-product of high unemployment and a general malaise among your more impoverished people. These are the folks whom are typically prone to street violence, drug abuse, passing of terminal diseases and STD’s and are most likely to have children carrying on the pattern of self-destruction who themselves are born to underage parents out of wedlock. In that, there is some validity to the claim that the poor black youth in France are just expressing their rage at a system that builds high walls to keep the riffraff out of white French society.
To stop there in the analysis however misses a rather big point and it seems that only a few people like Mark Steyn have really understood what has unfolded across the pond.
In his column he writes, ”Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's Western Standard back in February.
Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a week of urban unrest.''
''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.”
It is not as if the radical Muslim leadership has been coy about their intentions for Europe. Dr. Zaki Badwari, former Director of the Islamic Cultural Centre of London wrote, "A proselytizing religion [like Islam] cannot stand still. Islam endeavors to expand in Britain. It aims at bringing its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community, the Umma."
There’s more of this sort of rhetoric out there. The plan appears to be to have as many Muslims immigrate to Europe has possible and then simply fight the “heathens,” from within. This is a fairly good plan when you consider how the attacks in Spain and London went down.
Obviously some of this could have avoided had the French treated there own citizens right. Even more could have been avoided had they not decided to embrace welfare as a way of life. But no argument stemming form economic disparity excuses the intent and methods of radical Muslims intent on bring war to the doorsteps of every man, woman and child around the Western world.
The issue at hand begins in France. On October 27th, a number of young Muslim and African young men, in a fit of rage over the accidental deaths of two North African teenagers who thought they were being chased by police, began rioting from their Paris housing project. They burned cars, threw projectiles and bashed in peoples skulls. And the violence didn’t stop there.
Rioting spread to 300 French towns by late Sunday night, as vandals burned more than 1400 vehicles. Dozens of police officers were wounded and almost 400 people were arrested.
As of this writing, the rioting in France has gone on for 12 days and after a State of Emergency was declared, there are some signs that daylight may be breaking in France after this long arduous night. The rest of Europe does not appear to be so lucky. The unrest that began in a Parisian housing project has already spread to parts of Denmark, Germany, and Belgium, leaving other European countries with large Muslim populations holding wondering if and when they will be next.
The spin on this story is that these are disaffected, unemployed youths whom are victims of French racism. They lack adequate opportunity and that’s why they are angry. When interviewed, they stop blowing up buses to tell the press that, “We hate the police!” “It's the start of war,” yells another. And after Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy called the rioters “scum,” another “marginalized youth” blurted, “Put this in your notebook...” and then rattled off a string of obscenities meant to cut the man down.
Google searches of this watershed moment in modern European life deliver a ton of articles that mildly justify or validate these acts of violence due to the way the French government has treated its Muslim and African immigrants. David Ignatius of the Washington Post even cites James Baldwin in trying to figure out the genesis of this tragic event.
One day in the late 1970s, the writer James Baldwin was explaining to an Arab friend that he wanted to go back to America after many years as an expatriate in France. "America has found a formula to deal with the demon of race," Baldwin told Syrian businessman Raja Sidawi, who had a house near him in St. Paul de Vence. In France and the rest of Europe, people pretended that the race problem didn't exist, Baldwin said, but "someday it will explode."
Baldwin was right, on both counts. The United States began to find solutions for its tormenting "original sin" after its cities burned in the 1960s. And France, unable to make the same transition toward racial integration, is now watching flames engulf the poor suburbs of Paris that are home to many of its black and brown immigrants.
Mr. Ignatius is somewhat right. Civil unrest is the bi-product of high unemployment and a general malaise among your more impoverished people. These are the folks whom are typically prone to street violence, drug abuse, passing of terminal diseases and STD’s and are most likely to have children carrying on the pattern of self-destruction who themselves are born to underage parents out of wedlock. In that, there is some validity to the claim that the poor black youth in France are just expressing their rage at a system that builds high walls to keep the riffraff out of white French society.
To stop there in the analysis however misses a rather big point and it seems that only a few people like Mark Steyn have really understood what has unfolded across the pond.
In his column he writes, ”Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's Western Standard back in February.
Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a week of urban unrest.''
''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.”
It is not as if the radical Muslim leadership has been coy about their intentions for Europe. Dr. Zaki Badwari, former Director of the Islamic Cultural Centre of London wrote, "A proselytizing religion [like Islam] cannot stand still. Islam endeavors to expand in Britain. It aims at bringing its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community, the Umma."
There’s more of this sort of rhetoric out there. The plan appears to be to have as many Muslims immigrate to Europe has possible and then simply fight the “heathens,” from within. This is a fairly good plan when you consider how the attacks in Spain and London went down.
Obviously some of this could have avoided had the French treated there own citizens right. Even more could have been avoided had they not decided to embrace welfare as a way of life. But no argument stemming form economic disparity excuses the intent and methods of radical Muslims intent on bring war to the doorsteps of every man, woman and child around the Western world.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Hermes Gift
When the subject of renewable energy comes up, we mostly talk in terms of fuel for automobiles. Beyond our collective driving needs, one must consider the greater implications of renewable, clean energy in all other facets of life. Electricity for our homes comes immediately to mind. In many cases we are dependent on gas to heat our homes and additionally we depend on nuclear power for electricity. The problem with nuclear energy, other than the occasional 3 Mile Island disaster, is that it tends to produce tons of pollution and is a major cause of cancer to the residents where plants are located. Congruently, we all know the problem with depending on imported foreign crude oil, which also wreaks havoc on our lives.
Obviously this is unacceptable. Many years ago there may not have been economically viable alternatives to foreign crude oil or nuclear power available to the average middle income and lower income consumer in the marketplace. In previous writings I’ve sung the praises of biodiesel and ethanol as alternative fuels for automobiles. However, there’s more going on in the world of alternative energy than just what you can fill your Hummer with.
For example, there are many newsworthy items coming out of the world of wind energy. Other than what happens around my house after a heavy Mexican dinner, “wind energy [is a form of power that] converts kinetic energy that is present in the wind into more useful forms of energy such as mechanical energy or electricity. Wind energy is a pollution-free, infinitely sustainable form of energy. It doesn’t use fuel; it doesn’t produce greenhouse gasses, and it doesn’t produce toxic or radioactive waste.
Windmills that were used to grind grain are an example of early uses of wind energy. Modern uses of wind energy include generation of electricity and pumping water. Current wind energy machines are called "wind turbine generators", "wind pumps", or more generally, "wind turbines".”
While wind may sound like one of those perfect cure-all’s for our energy needs, there have been some expressed downside issues with this idea. First, some analysts that have looked into wind power say that the output is inconsistent as compared to nuclear power. The other problem is an issue of aesthetics. Many people have kvetched that they are just too darn loud and are awfully ugly to look at. On a side note, that tells you a lot about our priorities as a culture. We could have a cheap cure for AIDS but if it inconveniences too many people or isn’t pretty as a picture, we’ll all collectively spit on it. Patooey!
Luckily for those of us with a little more concrete sense of needs versus wants, the good people from Terra Moya Aqua Inc. have offered a product that should satisfy the most finicky of energy consumers.
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - Recent howling winds have been like sweet music to one local company, which says its new vertical wind turbine is substantially more efficient than traditional propeller designs.
Officials at Terra Moya Aqua Inc. unveiled their new turbine Friday, saying the design already had attracted interest from both domestic and foreign buyers.
"We have people nationally and internationally who want to buy this turbine now," said Ron Taylor, TMA's founder and chief executive officer.
Company officials said traditional propeller-driven turbines are able to convert 25 percent to 40 percent of wind power into transmittable energy. But TMA's design is 43 percent to 45 percent efficient, creating up to 80 percent more power from the same wind.
That power is generated even though the blades are moving slower than on traditional propeller models, meaning the turbines are less noisy and less dangerous to birds, the company said. And since they stand no taller than 96 feet, the turbines can be used in industrial areas where taller propeller-driven models are not allowed.
Former Gov. Jim Geringer, who serves on TMA's board of directors, said the design improvements could help persuade doubters of wind's potential.
"To some people, wind is a four-letter word," Geringer said. "With what we're talking about here, it's anything but a four-letter word."
Well, I’m glad Wyoming has had something to contribute to the world other than Dick Cheney.
Anywho, a newer, shorter, quieter, and more efficient product is just what the energy market needs at this critical juncture. According to Renewable Energy Access financing for wind power projects is increasing but so is demand. In fact demand for merchant wind plants has risen so high that supplies of turbines for said plants is too low. One example of this is that, “GE Energy's order books are filled through 2007. Most turbines are sold out in the U.S. for 2006, and 2007 appears to be rapidly filling, according to Robert Poore, president of Global Energy Concepts.”
Wind energy is not just an American trade. Our good friends over in the Far East are also looking to harvest the wind. The Dominican Today writes that, ”On the eve of the Beijing International Renewable Energy Conference (BIREC)1, a new report released by the Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association (CREIA) and sponsored by Greenpeace and the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) shows that China could at least double its current wind energy target for 2020.
Energy Bureau Director of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), Xu Dingming said: “The development of renewable energy plays a crucial strategic role in the power supply of China. Wind energy growth in China is now on a fast track and globally we believe that wind power will become the primary alternative energy in the future.”
According to the CREIA report, Wind Force 12 in China, China’s current wind energy plan is to reach 20 Gigawatts (GW)2 by 2020. Germany, the world wind energy leader today, has just under 17GW. However experts within the Chinese industry believe that 40GW can be delivered within 15 years; rising to ten times this by 2050. This scale of wind power would need 20,000 typical modern wind turbines by 2020 and the investment generated could be worth USD 40 billion; putting China on track to become the world’s biggest wind energy market by 2020.
The wind is more than just a destructive force that wrecks cities throughout Florida and Gulf of Mexico region. It is a gift from Hermes (or whatever Pagan god you pray to) that keeps on giving so long as we are committed to developing better technology to control it and find a place for it in our ever changing global marketplace.
Obviously this is unacceptable. Many years ago there may not have been economically viable alternatives to foreign crude oil or nuclear power available to the average middle income and lower income consumer in the marketplace. In previous writings I’ve sung the praises of biodiesel and ethanol as alternative fuels for automobiles. However, there’s more going on in the world of alternative energy than just what you can fill your Hummer with.
For example, there are many newsworthy items coming out of the world of wind energy. Other than what happens around my house after a heavy Mexican dinner, “wind energy [is a form of power that] converts kinetic energy that is present in the wind into more useful forms of energy such as mechanical energy or electricity. Wind energy is a pollution-free, infinitely sustainable form of energy. It doesn’t use fuel; it doesn’t produce greenhouse gasses, and it doesn’t produce toxic or radioactive waste.
Windmills that were used to grind grain are an example of early uses of wind energy. Modern uses of wind energy include generation of electricity and pumping water. Current wind energy machines are called "wind turbine generators", "wind pumps", or more generally, "wind turbines".”
While wind may sound like one of those perfect cure-all’s for our energy needs, there have been some expressed downside issues with this idea. First, some analysts that have looked into wind power say that the output is inconsistent as compared to nuclear power. The other problem is an issue of aesthetics. Many people have kvetched that they are just too darn loud and are awfully ugly to look at. On a side note, that tells you a lot about our priorities as a culture. We could have a cheap cure for AIDS but if it inconveniences too many people or isn’t pretty as a picture, we’ll all collectively spit on it. Patooey!
Luckily for those of us with a little more concrete sense of needs versus wants, the good people from Terra Moya Aqua Inc. have offered a product that should satisfy the most finicky of energy consumers.
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - Recent howling winds have been like sweet music to one local company, which says its new vertical wind turbine is substantially more efficient than traditional propeller designs.
Officials at Terra Moya Aqua Inc. unveiled their new turbine Friday, saying the design already had attracted interest from both domestic and foreign buyers.
"We have people nationally and internationally who want to buy this turbine now," said Ron Taylor, TMA's founder and chief executive officer.
Company officials said traditional propeller-driven turbines are able to convert 25 percent to 40 percent of wind power into transmittable energy. But TMA's design is 43 percent to 45 percent efficient, creating up to 80 percent more power from the same wind.
That power is generated even though the blades are moving slower than on traditional propeller models, meaning the turbines are less noisy and less dangerous to birds, the company said. And since they stand no taller than 96 feet, the turbines can be used in industrial areas where taller propeller-driven models are not allowed.
Former Gov. Jim Geringer, who serves on TMA's board of directors, said the design improvements could help persuade doubters of wind's potential.
"To some people, wind is a four-letter word," Geringer said. "With what we're talking about here, it's anything but a four-letter word."
Well, I’m glad Wyoming has had something to contribute to the world other than Dick Cheney.
Anywho, a newer, shorter, quieter, and more efficient product is just what the energy market needs at this critical juncture. According to Renewable Energy Access financing for wind power projects is increasing but so is demand. In fact demand for merchant wind plants has risen so high that supplies of turbines for said plants is too low. One example of this is that, “GE Energy's order books are filled through 2007. Most turbines are sold out in the U.S. for 2006, and 2007 appears to be rapidly filling, according to Robert Poore, president of Global Energy Concepts.”
Wind energy is not just an American trade. Our good friends over in the Far East are also looking to harvest the wind. The Dominican Today writes that, ”On the eve of the Beijing International Renewable Energy Conference (BIREC)1, a new report released by the Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association (CREIA) and sponsored by Greenpeace and the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) shows that China could at least double its current wind energy target for 2020.
Energy Bureau Director of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), Xu Dingming said: “The development of renewable energy plays a crucial strategic role in the power supply of China. Wind energy growth in China is now on a fast track and globally we believe that wind power will become the primary alternative energy in the future.”
According to the CREIA report, Wind Force 12 in China, China’s current wind energy plan is to reach 20 Gigawatts (GW)2 by 2020. Germany, the world wind energy leader today, has just under 17GW. However experts within the Chinese industry believe that 40GW can be delivered within 15 years; rising to ten times this by 2050. This scale of wind power would need 20,000 typical modern wind turbines by 2020 and the investment generated could be worth USD 40 billion; putting China on track to become the world’s biggest wind energy market by 2020.
The wind is more than just a destructive force that wrecks cities throughout Florida and Gulf of Mexico region. It is a gift from Hermes (or whatever Pagan god you pray to) that keeps on giving so long as we are committed to developing better technology to control it and find a place for it in our ever changing global marketplace.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Iran’s Plan for War Against The World of Arrogance
We are divided. Some of us think that the mullahs of Iran aren’t totally serious when they say they want to wipe Israel and the US off the map. Some of us think otherwise. Some of us believe that the threat from Tehran is real and we should not waste time waiting for them to be armed, rather we should take decisive military action against the Iranians before it is too late. I myself have contended that the mullahs are merely issuing propaganda for their own personal sake and that violence against the West will never amount to more than what we’ve already experienced, surely nothing nuclear.
However, the rhetoric coming out of Iran sometimes becomes so over the top and ridiculous, the doubters have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, these people actually believe the garbage they are spewing. I was alerted to an article on Regime Change Iran that at best is quite disturbing. I’ve read it a few times now and while I stand by belief that these people are not going to seriously provoke a nuclear war with Israel and the West, these pictures do need serious consideration.
The following photos feature recently elected Iranian hardliner, President Ahmadinejad speaking at the "World Without Zionism" conference, which is also where he spoke of wiping "Israel off the map."
This is the banner on the podium where the message we’re are supposed to glean is that time is running down on the global conflict between the Islamic world and, as President Ahmadinejad calls us, the World of Arrogance. A further look at the graphic shows that in these people’s minds America has already been beaten and that Israel is on its way to be pushed into the sea.
I can only assume that they believe America is beaten first because of 9/11, second because of the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and thirdly because Iran has successfully managed to garner the strategic help of Russia and China. I can only assume that in the minds of these people we are beaten because it appears we do have the will to fight against them the way they wish to fight against us; by committing total destruction and genocide.
This picture shows President Ahmadinejad referring directly to the graphic and more than likely he is saying something like this:
”We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.”
“The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels, and in their hearts they want to empty the Islamic world.”
"... They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…
"When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah’s regime can be toppled]?’
"That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime… and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it.”
This alone doesn’t bother me. In America alone there are hundreds if not thousands of conferences and meetings between any number of groups going on all the time. In America, there are all kinds of meetings being held where vile words are spoken about many groups of people including the Black Panthers, the Klu Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the 12 Tribes of Israel and the Democratic National Committee. :::insert rim shot here::::
Like I said, nonsense-speak doesn’t bother me. The fact that Muslims gather to talk about how they want to kill Israeli’s doesn’t excite me, not even if one of the speakers is the Iranian President. As I’ve said before, one can only assume that this sort of thing serves the purpose of rallying support behind a regime that under normal circumstances should have been revolted against years ago.
The reason I’m somewhat disturbed and maybe even a little worried is what I was reading here. According to an opinion article in the Richmond Times Dispatch, last may, Hassan Abbassi, head of the Center for Security Doctrines Research of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC) and leading adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stated rather emphatically that, ” We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization and for the uprooting of the Americans and the English. The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.”
Mind you, this is the man some in the Middle East call "The Kissinger of Islam", after Henry Kissinger. If you don’t know what kind of policies Kissinger advocated for during the Nixon administration with regards to South East Asia, I suggest you go look at it up and then come back.
According to Abbasi , the global balance of power is in a state of flux and every nation should fight for a place in a future equilibrium. The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that "looks formidable on paper." But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become "risk-averse."
"The Western man today has no stomach for a fight," Abbasi says. "This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man."
Abbasi believes that the US intervention in Iraq, which involved "slightly higher risks" than the invasion of Afghanistan, was the very last of its kind. And even then, the US went into Iraq because of President George W Bush's "readiness to do what no other American leader would dare contemplate."
So now we are back to the original question of just how crazy are these Iranians? It’s not out of the ordinary to have a plan to attack your adversaries. Hell, we have a plan to attack Canada should we run out of strategic reserves of maple syrup and hockey players. That’s not the point. Having lots of contingency war plans is a good idea. Actually utilizing your war plans to commit genocide because you’re a zealous nut is a bad idea. As I consider the above information it is hard to figure out where the propaganda ends and the insanity begins. Just how serious is Iran’s commitment to fighting the World of Arrogance? Just how serious are we in defending our World of Arrogance from Islamic fundamentalists?
I don’t know and that’s the scariest part of all.
However, the rhetoric coming out of Iran sometimes becomes so over the top and ridiculous, the doubters have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, these people actually believe the garbage they are spewing. I was alerted to an article on Regime Change Iran that at best is quite disturbing. I’ve read it a few times now and while I stand by belief that these people are not going to seriously provoke a nuclear war with Israel and the West, these pictures do need serious consideration.
The following photos feature recently elected Iranian hardliner, President Ahmadinejad speaking at the "World Without Zionism" conference, which is also where he spoke of wiping "Israel off the map."
This is the banner on the podium where the message we’re are supposed to glean is that time is running down on the global conflict between the Islamic world and, as President Ahmadinejad calls us, the World of Arrogance. A further look at the graphic shows that in these people’s minds America has already been beaten and that Israel is on its way to be pushed into the sea.I can only assume that they believe America is beaten first because of 9/11, second because of the ongoing insurgency in Iraq and thirdly because Iran has successfully managed to garner the strategic help of Russia and China. I can only assume that in the minds of these people we are beaten because it appears we do have the will to fight against them the way they wish to fight against us; by committing total destruction and genocide.
This picture shows President Ahmadinejad referring directly to the graphic and more than likely he is saying something like this:”We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.”
“The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels, and in their hearts they want to empty the Islamic world.”
"... They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…
"When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah’s regime can be toppled]?’
"That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime… and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it.”
This alone doesn’t bother me. In America alone there are hundreds if not thousands of conferences and meetings between any number of groups going on all the time. In America, there are all kinds of meetings being held where vile words are spoken about many groups of people including the Black Panthers, the Klu Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the 12 Tribes of Israel and the Democratic National Committee. :::insert rim shot here::::
Like I said, nonsense-speak doesn’t bother me. The fact that Muslims gather to talk about how they want to kill Israeli’s doesn’t excite me, not even if one of the speakers is the Iranian President. As I’ve said before, one can only assume that this sort of thing serves the purpose of rallying support behind a regime that under normal circumstances should have been revolted against years ago.
The reason I’m somewhat disturbed and maybe even a little worried is what I was reading here. According to an opinion article in the Richmond Times Dispatch, last may, Hassan Abbassi, head of the Center for Security Doctrines Research of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (RGC) and leading adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stated rather emphatically that, ” We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization and for the uprooting of the Americans and the English. The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.”
Mind you, this is the man some in the Middle East call "The Kissinger of Islam", after Henry Kissinger. If you don’t know what kind of policies Kissinger advocated for during the Nixon administration with regards to South East Asia, I suggest you go look at it up and then come back.
According to Abbasi , the global balance of power is in a state of flux and every nation should fight for a place in a future equilibrium. The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that "looks formidable on paper." But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become "risk-averse."
"The Western man today has no stomach for a fight," Abbasi says. "This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man."
Abbasi believes that the US intervention in Iraq, which involved "slightly higher risks" than the invasion of Afghanistan, was the very last of its kind. And even then, the US went into Iraq because of President George W Bush's "readiness to do what no other American leader would dare contemplate."
So now we are back to the original question of just how crazy are these Iranians? It’s not out of the ordinary to have a plan to attack your adversaries. Hell, we have a plan to attack Canada should we run out of strategic reserves of maple syrup and hockey players. That’s not the point. Having lots of contingency war plans is a good idea. Actually utilizing your war plans to commit genocide because you’re a zealous nut is a bad idea. As I consider the above information it is hard to figure out where the propaganda ends and the insanity begins. Just how serious is Iran’s commitment to fighting the World of Arrogance? Just how serious are we in defending our World of Arrogance from Islamic fundamentalists?
I don’t know and that’s the scariest part of all.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Bush sends staff back to ethics class
This has probably got to be the king of all PR stunts! The irony of George W. Bush sending anyone to "ethics school" is enought to give the average man convulsions if he were to think about it for too long.
Here's the cockamamie story:
With his chief political aide under investigation as part of a probe into the public unmasking of a CIA operative, President Bush is sending his staff back to school -- ethics school.
Bush is requiring his executive office staff to attend refresher courses on ethics and handling classified materials, according to a White House memo.
"The President has made clear his expectation that each member of his Executive Office of the President (EOP) staff adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of all rules governing ethical conduct for EOP staff," states the memo sent to Bush's staff.
Staff members with security clearances will attend mandatory sessions next week, and those without security clearances will attend mandatory sessions the following week.
The memo went to all EOP staff, which numbers about 3,000, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
The refresher course comes as Bush's top aide, Karl Rove, is under investigation and as Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, faces indictments in connection with the outing of a CIA operative. (More)
{Editor's Note: shout out to John for sending me this story, thus completing my weekend.}
Here's the cockamamie story:
With his chief political aide under investigation as part of a probe into the public unmasking of a CIA operative, President Bush is sending his staff back to school -- ethics school.
Bush is requiring his executive office staff to attend refresher courses on ethics and handling classified materials, according to a White House memo.
"The President has made clear his expectation that each member of his Executive Office of the President (EOP) staff adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of all rules governing ethical conduct for EOP staff," states the memo sent to Bush's staff.
Staff members with security clearances will attend mandatory sessions next week, and those without security clearances will attend mandatory sessions the following week.
The memo went to all EOP staff, which numbers about 3,000, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
The refresher course comes as Bush's top aide, Karl Rove, is under investigation and as Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, faces indictments in connection with the outing of a CIA operative. (More)
{Editor's Note: shout out to John for sending me this story, thus completing my weekend.}
Friday, November 04, 2005
Ford, Verasun team up to promote ethanol
Little by little the business world and the political world are making moves to divorce the American public from foreign non-renewable oil. Even under the best and most noble circumstances, the flow of new technology from the laboratory to the factory floor to the consumers home is painfully slow. Only the monied classes get first crack at new toys and then years later they become available at a price the rest of us can afford. Hell, I know people who still can't afford cable television let alone a hybrid car.
None-the-less, we must continue to push for renewable sources of transportation fuel from both the business world as well as the political world. The last time I dealt with this subject, I cited articles that talked about state and city legislation that promoted biodiesel. The article below talks about utlizing ethanol, which is, "also known as ethyl alcohol or grain alcohol, is a flammable, colorless chemical compound, one of the alcohols that is most often found in alcoholic beverages...Ethanol can be used as an alcohol fuel (often mixed with gasoline) and in a wide variety of industrial processes."
I'd rather be driving a car with grain alcohol than drinking grain alcohol, I'll tell you that much. If you've ever drank the stuff, imagine your the inside of your entire body melting and then shooting up volcano style through your eyeballs...yeah, just make fuel out of that stuff and call it a day.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (F) announced on Friday a tie-up with VeraSun Energy Corp., a renewable energy company, aimed at expanding support for vehicles capable of running on up to 85 percent ethanol, known as E85.
The partnership will concentrate on growing the ethanol infrastructure in 2006 and converting existing fuel pumps to VeraSun's branded E85 in existing retail outlets. A consumer awareness campaign will also be launched.
None-the-less, we must continue to push for renewable sources of transportation fuel from both the business world as well as the political world. The last time I dealt with this subject, I cited articles that talked about state and city legislation that promoted biodiesel. The article below talks about utlizing ethanol, which is, "also known as ethyl alcohol or grain alcohol, is a flammable, colorless chemical compound, one of the alcohols that is most often found in alcoholic beverages...Ethanol can be used as an alcohol fuel (often mixed with gasoline) and in a wide variety of industrial processes."
I'd rather be driving a car with grain alcohol than drinking grain alcohol, I'll tell you that much. If you've ever drank the stuff, imagine your the inside of your entire body melting and then shooting up volcano style through your eyeballs...yeah, just make fuel out of that stuff and call it a day.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (F) announced on Friday a tie-up with VeraSun Energy Corp., a renewable energy company, aimed at expanding support for vehicles capable of running on up to 85 percent ethanol, known as E85.
The partnership will concentrate on growing the ethanol infrastructure in 2006 and converting existing fuel pumps to VeraSun's branded E85 in existing retail outlets. A consumer awareness campaign will also be launched.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
U.S. DISCUSSES INVASION OF SAUDI ARABIA
This is the only article I've seen discussing this topic so take it for what it's worth.
Now, what we have here ostensibly is a policy wonk talking about a "what if" scenario where an "Osama bin Laden-type" were to overthrow the Saudi royal family and take over the country. I'm not getting a really strong vibe that we're on the road to war in Saudi Arabia of all places. If anything the wonks at the Pentagon are singularly focused on Syria these days and then Iran and I've stated many times in the past month or so, I doubt a serious military incursion is in the actionable works.
So why should you or I care about this story? Well, for one I find it fascinating that Congress is even entertaining the thought of a military response to a Arabian coup. I also find it fascinating that the "oil economy" seems to be the major impetus to action if this scenario should come to pass. Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised we'd actually "war for oil." I'm just flabbergasted that somebody in Washington said it out loud in the prescence of reporters.
Here's the story:
WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has raised the prospect of a military invasion of Saudi Arabia.
The response could include the deployment of three U.S. Army divisions backed by fighter-jets and airborne early-warning and alert aircraft. In all, the U.S.-led mission could include up to 300,000 troops.
The House Armed Services Committee was briefed on the prospect of a Saudi coup and U.S. response during a hearing on Oct. 26. The scenario was outlined by Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, who cited a Saudi coup as one of several threats to the United States.
"How should the United States respond if a coup, presumably fundamentalist in nature, overthrows the royal family in Saudi Arabia?" O'Hanlon asked. "Such a result would raise the specter of major disruption to the oil economy."
Now, what we have here ostensibly is a policy wonk talking about a "what if" scenario where an "Osama bin Laden-type" were to overthrow the Saudi royal family and take over the country. I'm not getting a really strong vibe that we're on the road to war in Saudi Arabia of all places. If anything the wonks at the Pentagon are singularly focused on Syria these days and then Iran and I've stated many times in the past month or so, I doubt a serious military incursion is in the actionable works.
So why should you or I care about this story? Well, for one I find it fascinating that Congress is even entertaining the thought of a military response to a Arabian coup. I also find it fascinating that the "oil economy" seems to be the major impetus to action if this scenario should come to pass. Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised we'd actually "war for oil." I'm just flabbergasted that somebody in Washington said it out loud in the prescence of reporters.
Here's the story:
WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has raised the prospect of a military invasion of Saudi Arabia.
The response could include the deployment of three U.S. Army divisions backed by fighter-jets and airborne early-warning and alert aircraft. In all, the U.S.-led mission could include up to 300,000 troops.
The House Armed Services Committee was briefed on the prospect of a Saudi coup and U.S. response during a hearing on Oct. 26. The scenario was outlined by Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, who cited a Saudi coup as one of several threats to the United States.
"How should the United States respond if a coup, presumably fundamentalist in nature, overthrows the royal family in Saudi Arabia?" O'Hanlon asked. "Such a result would raise the specter of major disruption to the oil economy."
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Alito filibuster is unlikely
The democrats have absolutely no reason to filibuster this nominee unless complete government shutdown is their aim. I don't have much more to say on this except that the DNC should know that they cannot block every nominee the President puts up for the Supreme Court. Memories are long in politics and if the Dems become completely unworkable in Congress then the GOP will most likely react in kind. As it stands, unless he strangled a black child during his legal career, there isn't anything in his record that should bar him from being an appropriate Supreme Court judge.
Now what's sad here is that the Dems will act like an opposition party, complete with all the blustery trimmings, regardless of how pointless the endeavor will be. Alito should by all rights have a quick confirmation as he's already been confirmed at least once as an appellate judge and I'm fairly certain that during that time he didn't do anything that would drastically alter his record. However, people who like TV time and are running for President (here's looking at Joe Biden) will take this opportunity to show off their verbal muscle, dragging this pointless process out for the next two months if not longer. Again, that's just sad. Energy bills need to be written. The border needs to be strengthened. The deficit and the budget needs a good once over, we don't need blowhards doing monologues about nothing in the middle of all this before Congress breaks again for the year.
As I've yelled to Phil Anselmo at every Superjoint Ritual show I've ever gone to, "Get on with it!"
Despite the heated response by a group of liberal Democrats to Judge Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, opponents would face long odds in killing his chances to join the court with a filibuster.
Interviews with moderate Republican and Democratic senators Tuesday indicated that most do not expect to find anything so alarming in his record or background to merit such a drastic parliamentary tactic. At worst, many said that they would like to wait and see how Alito fares during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination.
President Bush's choice of Alito on Monday was greeted with dismay by several senior Democrats with sway over Senate opinion: Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Leahy called the nomination "needlessly provocative," and Schumer warned that it would divide the country.
But so far, their warnings have not sparked a bandwagon effect in opposition to Alito.
"There's not going to be a filibuster," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., flatly declared, urging her colleagues to wait for the vetting process and the hearings to take place. (More)
Now what's sad here is that the Dems will act like an opposition party, complete with all the blustery trimmings, regardless of how pointless the endeavor will be. Alito should by all rights have a quick confirmation as he's already been confirmed at least once as an appellate judge and I'm fairly certain that during that time he didn't do anything that would drastically alter his record. However, people who like TV time and are running for President (here's looking at Joe Biden) will take this opportunity to show off their verbal muscle, dragging this pointless process out for the next two months if not longer. Again, that's just sad. Energy bills need to be written. The border needs to be strengthened. The deficit and the budget needs a good once over, we don't need blowhards doing monologues about nothing in the middle of all this before Congress breaks again for the year.
As I've yelled to Phil Anselmo at every Superjoint Ritual show I've ever gone to, "Get on with it!"
Despite the heated response by a group of liberal Democrats to Judge Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, opponents would face long odds in killing his chances to join the court with a filibuster.
Interviews with moderate Republican and Democratic senators Tuesday indicated that most do not expect to find anything so alarming in his record or background to merit such a drastic parliamentary tactic. At worst, many said that they would like to wait and see how Alito fares during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination.
President Bush's choice of Alito on Monday was greeted with dismay by several senior Democrats with sway over Senate opinion: Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Leahy called the nomination "needlessly provocative," and Schumer warned that it would divide the country.
But so far, their warnings have not sparked a bandwagon effect in opposition to Alito.
"There's not going to be a filibuster," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., flatly declared, urging her colleagues to wait for the vetting process and the hearings to take place. (More)
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The Russian Way
{Editor's Note: I just flew back in from a weekend trip to Boston and boy are my arms tired...wait that's terrible...but I did just get back from Boston so PC should be returning to its normal programming schedule.}
My pappy once said, wars of the future won't be fought with guns or by seizing land. Wars of the future will be fought with money as he who dies with the most toys wins. Well as the Iraqi's keep reminding us, we're not totally done with traditional combat just yet but a quick survey of international news shows us that economic partnerships and opportunity are more and more becoming the most powerful weapons of choice.
First there's this story:
Russia becoming increasingly attractive for businessmen
Russia is looking at diversifying its economy so as to be less dependent on the export of natural resources.
And with increasing oil prices and a robust economy, businessmen say Russia is becoming an attractive place to do business.
As the world's second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia, Russia's economic performance has been closely tied to oil prices.
Increasing oil prices, along with seven consecutive years of economic growth, have spurred demand for consumer goods in the country.
With a population of 10 million in Moscow and 145 million in all of Russia, businessmen say the country holds tremendous business opportunities, especially with an emerging middle class.
Russians are the second largest drinkers of instant coffee, after the Americans.
Singapore firm Master Beverage, which is selling its 3-in-1 coffee mix in Russia, aims to enlarge its share of the market. (More)
American businesses are primed and ready to start dumping oodles of cash into Russia's economy and to keep the dough rolling in, Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to make stability one of the pillar's Russian society. At this juncture he isn't seeking a third term but he has vowed to make sure that the country does not descend into chaos during the next transition of power. That says to me to that the Kremlin will be sticking their bear hands in the voting boxes but, that's elections for you. Just ask those in Ohio.
The flipside to opening Russia for Western capital is that theoretically the money they take in can be reinvested in other nations that are super friendly to them, such as Iran and Syria.
Iran Says Contracts With Russia Could Reach $10Bln
The chairman of the Iranian parliament’s (Majlis) Energy Committee, Kamal Daneshyar, has said industrial contracts between Iran and Russia could reach $10 billion per year if Moscow participates in various oil projects and more construction of nuclear power plants in Iran, the Tehran Times daily reports.
In a meeting with Yuri Savelyey, head of the Iran-Russia parliamentary friendship group, Daneshyar noted that the ground is currently set for the expansion of all-out ties between the two countries.
“Iran and Russia, as two important energy abundant countries, have great potential for further cooperation and can benefit from the oil and gas markets through encouraging joint ventures between Iranian and Russian oil and gas companies,” he stressed.
Welcoming Russia’s proposal to expand technological cooperation with Iran particularly in the field of oil extraction and plans to optimize oil exploitation systems, Daneshyar added that the parliament supports efforts to deepen scientific, technical and commercial ties between the two countries.
Savelyey, for his part, described scientific and industrial ties as very important, stressing that the countries’ parliaments should make efforts to improve the level of ties and make joint projects feasible.
Of course we know that this is significant because the US, UK and Israel are categorically accusing Iran of attempting to build nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear power program. As we've seen in Pakistan with AQ Khan, just because the government of a nuclear nation isn't directly trading in WMD technology, doesn't mean some othe aspiring anarchist trying to make a buck within the government won't. Corruption in the Russian military makes anything you hear about the US look like a Sunday picnic by comparison (see forthcoming review of Kremlin Rising). It's not unlikely that somebody is Russia is going to get froggy and give the mullahs just what they're looking for. However, because of their strong economic ties, I believe the West is pretty much disarmed from stopping this alliance and with that any transfers of technology.
And speaking of alliances:
Russia says it's not building Asian military alliance
Russia's Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov rejected allegations that recent joint manoeuvres with Chinese and Indian troops were intended to pave the way for a new military alliance in Asia, according to an interview published Tuesday.
The August exercise involving Russian and Chinese troops and last month's joint drills of Russian and Indian forces were intended to practice joint action against international terrorists and to showcase state-of-the art Russian weapons to traditional customers, Mr. Ivanov told the daily Izvestia.
The exercises “didn't threaten interests of any third nation and didn't signal an intention to create a new military-political bloc in the region,” Mr. Ivanov said.
The eight-day manoeuvres with 7,000 Chinese troops and 1,800 Russians underscored growing military ties between the former Cold War enemies, motivated by their common unease with U.S. dominance in world affairs. (More)
Right...of course it's not a military alliance...and I'm not sitting here in my underpants blogging...
Anywho, both China and Russia want the US out of Asia, both physically and diplomatically. All they want is your tourist and investment money. I can't say I blame officials in Moscow and Beijing for that considering the fact that there are those on Capitol Hill who still very much want to fight the Cold War. Even if nary a shot is fired at the West from this Pan-Asian military connection, the fact that it does indeed exist is enough to thwart any attempt of the US to further influence or mold Greater Asia (Middle East to SE Asia) to the singular benefit of US interests.
One example of this comes out of the Syria-UN battle going on over Rafik Hariri's assassination.
Russia defends its UN stance on Syria
Russia on Tuesday defended its stance on Syria at the United Nations, saying its action at the Security Council had spared Damascus the threat of sanctions and being linked, without proof, with terrorist activities.
The Security Council voted unanimously on Monday for a resolution ordering Syria to cooperate fully with a U.N. investigation of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri or face possible "further action."
But unanimity was achieved only after the United States, France and Britain, sponsors of the resolution, agreed at the last minute to drop an explicit threat of economic sanctions against Syria. Otherwise Russia, China and Algeria may have abstained, diplomats said.
A statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry said: "Thanks to the efforts of the Russian side and other delegations politicised stances, that had nothing to do with the investigation of Hariri's death, were withdrawn."
"The threat of automatic sanctions against Syria as a state was removed. Attempts to accuse Damascus, without proof, of involvement in terrorist activities were rejected," it said.
Russia, a close ally of Syria since Cold War times, said the Security Council resolution, as passed, opened the way for "broad and effective dialogue of the Syrian side with international investigators". (More)
If there is conclusive proof out there that links Syrian officials explicitly to the death of Hariri then there won't be much more the Russians can do to save the Assad regime. Courting Western capitol is a tenuous game and one doesn't win the prize acting like Kruschev, banging shoes on tables and what not. No, Russia has to walk the line, protecting its allies so long as they don't do something monumentally stupid (like nuke Israel, Iran you know where I'm looking). For now, that is the Russian way.
My pappy once said, wars of the future won't be fought with guns or by seizing land. Wars of the future will be fought with money as he who dies with the most toys wins. Well as the Iraqi's keep reminding us, we're not totally done with traditional combat just yet but a quick survey of international news shows us that economic partnerships and opportunity are more and more becoming the most powerful weapons of choice.
First there's this story:
Russia becoming increasingly attractive for businessmen
Russia is looking at diversifying its economy so as to be less dependent on the export of natural resources.
And with increasing oil prices and a robust economy, businessmen say Russia is becoming an attractive place to do business.
As the world's second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia, Russia's economic performance has been closely tied to oil prices.
Increasing oil prices, along with seven consecutive years of economic growth, have spurred demand for consumer goods in the country.
With a population of 10 million in Moscow and 145 million in all of Russia, businessmen say the country holds tremendous business opportunities, especially with an emerging middle class.
Russians are the second largest drinkers of instant coffee, after the Americans.
Singapore firm Master Beverage, which is selling its 3-in-1 coffee mix in Russia, aims to enlarge its share of the market. (More)
American businesses are primed and ready to start dumping oodles of cash into Russia's economy and to keep the dough rolling in, Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to make stability one of the pillar's Russian society. At this juncture he isn't seeking a third term but he has vowed to make sure that the country does not descend into chaos during the next transition of power. That says to me to that the Kremlin will be sticking their bear hands in the voting boxes but, that's elections for you. Just ask those in Ohio.
The flipside to opening Russia for Western capital is that theoretically the money they take in can be reinvested in other nations that are super friendly to them, such as Iran and Syria.
Iran Says Contracts With Russia Could Reach $10Bln
The chairman of the Iranian parliament’s (Majlis) Energy Committee, Kamal Daneshyar, has said industrial contracts between Iran and Russia could reach $10 billion per year if Moscow participates in various oil projects and more construction of nuclear power plants in Iran, the Tehran Times daily reports.
In a meeting with Yuri Savelyey, head of the Iran-Russia parliamentary friendship group, Daneshyar noted that the ground is currently set for the expansion of all-out ties between the two countries.
“Iran and Russia, as two important energy abundant countries, have great potential for further cooperation and can benefit from the oil and gas markets through encouraging joint ventures between Iranian and Russian oil and gas companies,” he stressed.
Welcoming Russia’s proposal to expand technological cooperation with Iran particularly in the field of oil extraction and plans to optimize oil exploitation systems, Daneshyar added that the parliament supports efforts to deepen scientific, technical and commercial ties between the two countries.
Savelyey, for his part, described scientific and industrial ties as very important, stressing that the countries’ parliaments should make efforts to improve the level of ties and make joint projects feasible.
Of course we know that this is significant because the US, UK and Israel are categorically accusing Iran of attempting to build nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear power program. As we've seen in Pakistan with AQ Khan, just because the government of a nuclear nation isn't directly trading in WMD technology, doesn't mean some othe aspiring anarchist trying to make a buck within the government won't. Corruption in the Russian military makes anything you hear about the US look like a Sunday picnic by comparison (see forthcoming review of Kremlin Rising). It's not unlikely that somebody is Russia is going to get froggy and give the mullahs just what they're looking for. However, because of their strong economic ties, I believe the West is pretty much disarmed from stopping this alliance and with that any transfers of technology.
And speaking of alliances:
Russia says it's not building Asian military alliance
Russia's Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov rejected allegations that recent joint manoeuvres with Chinese and Indian troops were intended to pave the way for a new military alliance in Asia, according to an interview published Tuesday.
The August exercise involving Russian and Chinese troops and last month's joint drills of Russian and Indian forces were intended to practice joint action against international terrorists and to showcase state-of-the art Russian weapons to traditional customers, Mr. Ivanov told the daily Izvestia.
The exercises “didn't threaten interests of any third nation and didn't signal an intention to create a new military-political bloc in the region,” Mr. Ivanov said.
The eight-day manoeuvres with 7,000 Chinese troops and 1,800 Russians underscored growing military ties between the former Cold War enemies, motivated by their common unease with U.S. dominance in world affairs. (More)
Right...of course it's not a military alliance...and I'm not sitting here in my underpants blogging...
Anywho, both China and Russia want the US out of Asia, both physically and diplomatically. All they want is your tourist and investment money. I can't say I blame officials in Moscow and Beijing for that considering the fact that there are those on Capitol Hill who still very much want to fight the Cold War. Even if nary a shot is fired at the West from this Pan-Asian military connection, the fact that it does indeed exist is enough to thwart any attempt of the US to further influence or mold Greater Asia (Middle East to SE Asia) to the singular benefit of US interests.
One example of this comes out of the Syria-UN battle going on over Rafik Hariri's assassination.
Russia defends its UN stance on Syria
Russia on Tuesday defended its stance on Syria at the United Nations, saying its action at the Security Council had spared Damascus the threat of sanctions and being linked, without proof, with terrorist activities.
The Security Council voted unanimously on Monday for a resolution ordering Syria to cooperate fully with a U.N. investigation of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri or face possible "further action."
But unanimity was achieved only after the United States, France and Britain, sponsors of the resolution, agreed at the last minute to drop an explicit threat of economic sanctions against Syria. Otherwise Russia, China and Algeria may have abstained, diplomats said.
A statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry said: "Thanks to the efforts of the Russian side and other delegations politicised stances, that had nothing to do with the investigation of Hariri's death, were withdrawn."
"The threat of automatic sanctions against Syria as a state was removed. Attempts to accuse Damascus, without proof, of involvement in terrorist activities were rejected," it said.
Russia, a close ally of Syria since Cold War times, said the Security Council resolution, as passed, opened the way for "broad and effective dialogue of the Syrian side with international investigators". (More)
If there is conclusive proof out there that links Syrian officials explicitly to the death of Hariri then there won't be much more the Russians can do to save the Assad regime. Courting Western capitol is a tenuous game and one doesn't win the prize acting like Kruschev, banging shoes on tables and what not. No, Russia has to walk the line, protecting its allies so long as they don't do something monumentally stupid (like nuke Israel, Iran you know where I'm looking). For now, that is the Russian way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)