|
|
 | | From: | info at economicdemocracy.org | | Subject: | Earth's Water Cycle Disrupted by Pollution/Global Warming | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 10:55:23 -0800 |
|
|
 | "If only natural factors were involved, you wouldn't get these results.
Arctic rivers 'flowing faster'
By Alex Kirby
BBC News website environment correspondent
The amount of fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean from the rivers
that feed it is increasing, UK scientists report.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, they say the
increase is caused in part by human activities and is an early sign of
climate change.
The rise in fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean could change the
global distribution of water, the team says.
It could also affect the balance of the climate system itself and even
possibly alter the behaviour of the Gulf Stream.
The team is from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research,
part of the UK Met Office.
Knock-on effects
The global hydrological cycle is the exchange of water between the
land, the oceans and the atmosphere. The rate of the exchange is
expected to increase as the Earth warms.
Part of the process is likely to mean more precipitation (hail, rain,
sleet and snow) at higher latitudes, and so more water flowing down the
rivers.
If the global water distribution changes, this could have important
social and economic consequences. An altered hydrological cycle might
conceivably have a profound cooling effect on north-west Europe as
well.
The American Geophysical Union, publisher of the journal, says: "It
could also alter the balance of the climate system itself, such as the
Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a kind of conveyor belt.
"Cold water flows southward in the Atlantic at great depths to the
tropics, where it warms, rises, and returns northward near the surface.
"This flow helps keep northern Europe at a temperate climate, whereas
the same latitudes in North America are sparsely settled tundra or
taiga."
The Hadley researchers compared data published in 2002 from
observations of Siberian river flows with model simulations, to see
whether they could identify a human influence on the increase in fresh
water.
Making allowances
They point out that higher emissions of greenhouse gases, caused by
human activities, are expected to intensify the hydrological cycle in
the Arctic, with higher precipitation there balanced by a reduction in
the tropics.
They tested the model with four simulations which took into account
both human inputs and natural factors, including solar variability and
volcanic eruptions.
The results showed a steady increase in river discharges, especially
since the 1960s, with the annual rate of increase since 1965 8.73 cubic
kilometers, far greater than the long-term trend.
The simulations excluded human impacts in one instance and natural
impacts in another, and included all factors in a third.
Dominant part
The team concluded that if there had been no human inputs, the
hydrological cycle would have shown no trend at all in the 20th
Century.
Over the past four decades, they say, human activity played the major
role in the increased flows, and it is likely that the upward trend is
part of the early stages of an intensified hydrological cycle.
Dr Peili Wu, a team member, told the BBC: "It looks clear to us that
this is an early signal of human-induced climate change. If only
natural factors were involved, you wouldn't get these results.
"It is possible the increase in fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean
could contribute to an alteration in the thermohaline circulation,
because it is diluting the saltiness of the seawater and reducing its
density."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4190997.stm
Published: 2005/01/20 18:32:42 GMT
=A9 BBC MMV
|
|
| | From: | Jaberwokie | | Subject: | Re: Earth's Water Cycle Disrupted by Pollution/Global Warming | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:44:14 -0600 |
|
|
| Well, the only solution is to decrease Earth's population. If you get
rid of the internal combustion engine and all carbon based fuel source
energy users they would have to be replace by a huge increase in draft
animal power. Grass eaters, indeed, all living breathing consuming life
forms give off quantities of methane and carbon dioxide (green house
gasses). Maybe you can invent a catalytic converter that can be worn
around the waist and plugs into the arse.
info@economicdemocracy.org wrote:
> "If only natural factors were involved, you wouldn't get these results.
>
> Arctic rivers 'flowing faster'
>
> By Alex Kirby
> BBC News website environment correspondent
>
> snipped for brevity
|
|
| | From: | daophile at gmail.com | | Subject: | Re: Earth's Water Cycle Disrupted by Pollution/Global Warming | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 11:47:02 -0800 |
|
|
| >If only natural factors were involved, you wouldn't get these results.
>Arctic rivers 'flowing faster'
Aren't Humans and what they do 'natural'? What is so unnatural about
humans anyway? are birds' nests unnatural? or a beavers dam?
|
|
| | From: | lo yeeOn | | Subject: | The Harming Impact of Modern Wars Re: Earth's Water Cycle Disrupted by Pollution/Global Warming | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 17:08:14 -0500 |
|
|
| In article <1106336822.168936.124260@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
>>If only natural factors were involved, you wouldn't get these results.
>
>
>>Arctic rivers 'flowing faster'
>
>Aren't Humans and what they do 'natural'? What is so unnatural about
>humans anyway? are birds' nests unnatural? or a beavers dam?
It's the explosions of bombs, especially the big bombs like the daisy
cutters, the release of DU (depleted uranium), the firings of bullets
and missiles, and the release of thousands of tons of exhaust gases
from the B52, the F16s, the transport planes, the helicopters, the
tanks, the humvees, and the bradley vehicles that are making human
activities unnatural. And the more wars we fight, the more we have
these kinds of unnatural human activities committed against Mother
Nature.
And I call the extreme weather conditions we witness today around the
globe war weathers. The massive explosions bring to the atmospheric
system great amount of heat and pollutants of all kinds as well as
great instability. That is exactly what modern shock-and-awe wars do
to Mother Nature, impacting us all, and that is everybody.
Aggressive wars are not only intrinsically immoral for killing many
innocent people and causing massive dislocation and suffering to the
people being attacked but also harmful to the environment and hence
all living being on earth. And that's why the talk of fighting for
liberty using great big destructive devices is evil. And that's why
there is no idealism in George Bush's inaugural speech; rather it was
a specch stuffed with code-words for more wars against other nations,
acts which will achieve no liberty for anyone except bringing great
harm to all.
lo yeeOn
========
1) Original post (concerning the role of _modern_ systematic human
activities on the environment)
"If only natural factors were involved, you wouldn't get these results.
Arctic rivers 'flowing faster'
By Alex Kirby
BBC News website environment correspondent
The amount of fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean from the rivers
that feed it is increasing, UK scientists report.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, they say the
increase is caused in part by human activities and is an early sign of
climate change.
The rise in fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean could change the
global distribution of water, the team says.
It could also affect the balance of the climate system itself and even
possibly alter the behaviour of the Gulf Stream.
The team is from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research,
part of the UK Met Office.
Knock-on effects
The global hydrological cycle is the exchange of water between the
land, the oceans and the atmosphere. The rate of the exchange is
expected to increase as the Earth warms.
Part of the process is likely to mean more precipitation (hail, rain,
sleet and snow) at higher latitudes, and so more water flowing down the
rivers.
If the global water distribution changes, this could have important
social and economic consequences. An altered hydrological cycle might
conceivably have a profound cooling effect on north-west Europe as
well.
The American Geophysical Union, publisher of the journal, says: "It
could also alter the balance of the climate system itself, such as the
Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a kind of conveyor belt.
"Cold water flows southward in the Atlantic at great depths to the
tropics, where it warms, rises, and returns northward near the surface.
"This flow helps keep northern Europe at a temperate climate, whereas
the same latitudes in North America are sparsely settled tundra or
taiga."
The Hadley researchers compared data published in 2002 from
observations of Siberian river flows with model simulations, to see
whether they could identify a human influence on the increase in fresh
water.
Making allowances
They point out that higher emissions of greenhouse gases, caused by
human activities, are expected to intensify the hydrological cycle in
the Arctic, with higher precipitation there balanced by a reduction in
the tropics.
They tested the model with four simulations which took into account
both human inputs and natural factors, including solar variability and
volcanic eruptions.
The results showed a steady increase in river discharges, especially
since the 1960s, with the annual rate of increase since 1965 8.73 cubic
kilometers, far greater than the long-term trend.
The simulations excluded human impacts in one instance and natural
impacts in another, and included all factors in a third.
Dominant part
The team concluded that if there had been no human inputs, the
hydrological cycle would have shown no trend at all in the 20th
Century.
Over the past four decades, they say, human activity played the major
role in the increased flows, and it is likely that the upward trend is
part of the early stages of an intensified hydrological cycle.
Dr Peili Wu, a team member, told the BBC: "It looks clear to us that
this is an early signal of human-induced climate change. If only
natural factors were involved, you wouldn't get these results.
"It is possible the increase in fresh water entering the Arctic Ocean
could contribute to an alteration in the thermohaline circulation,
because it is diluting the saltiness of the seawater and reducing its
density."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4190997.stm
Published: 2005/01/20 18:32:42 GMT
2) Words at best don't mean anything; at worst are meant to deceive.
``Bush likes to compare the war on terrorism to World War II, both
generational battles against tyranny -- a word he used five times
Thursday. Bush uttered "liberty" 15 times and "freedom" 27 times.''
In World War II, Germany and Japan were the aggressors and Adolf
Hitler also made fiery inaugral speeches that the German press saw
as uplifting when his party won the election by a democratic
process which ushered him into power. No doubt, Hitler used the
word Freiheit many times and told his people that he was going to
lift them from the tyranny the world had imposed against them.
Today, Bush is leading the US as the aggressor riding in his
juggernaut disguised as the poor Little Red Riding Hood's
``loving'' grandmother.
Yahoo! News Fri, Jan 21, 2005
Analysis: Iraq Shadows Bush's Inaugural
Fri Jan 21,10:49 AM ET
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
WASHINGTON - Not a word on Iraq (news - web sites). President Bush
(news - web sites)'s inaugural address contained 2,000 words of
passion and promise for his second term, but no direct mention of the
war that could sink it.
The conflict in Iraq, win or lose, could define his presidency. Bush
knows this as well as anyone, which explains his strategic omission.
As he swore the oath for a second time, U.S. casualty totals in Iraq
stood at more than 1,360 dead and 10,500 wounded. The war already cost
$100 billion, with a pricetag running at more than $1 billion a week.
A majority of Americans say the conflict is not worth the cost in
lives and money, polls show, though they seem willing to give the
president time to stabilize Iraq.
Bush asked for the public's patience Thursday, as he did during his
re-election campaign. "Our country has accepted obligations that are
difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon," the
president said.
That, along with a tribute to fallen troops, is the closest Bush got
to mentioning Iraq.
He focused instead on the global war against terrorism, which Bush has
deftly linked to Iraq. With allies already wary of his aggressive
world view, Bush pledged to fight evil wherever it lurks: "The
survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of
liberty in other lands."
Democrat Franklin Roosevelt used a similar logic in his 1945
inaugural, delivered months before his death during World War II. "We
have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own
well-being is dependent upon the well-being of other nations, far
away," Roosevelt said.
Bush likes to compare the war on terrorism to World War II, both
generational battles against tyranny -- a word he used five times
Thursday. Bush uttered "liberty" 15 times and "freedom" 27 times.
Fighting and killing terrorists has the advantage of being politically
popular, and his promise to do so stirs memories of the Sept. 11
attacks -- "a day of fire" and Bush's shining hour.
Indeed, the key to Bush's re-election victory was his ability to
convinced a majority of voters that Iraq is part his anti-terrorism
campaign. Despite what Bush has suggested, voters did not ratify his
Iraq policies last November -- not in their entirety. Americans did
accept his explanation, for the time being, that Iraq is part of the
broader battle against the nation's enemies.
Will voters continue to accept Bush's rationale?
"That's the great unanswered question," said Tom Rath, a Bush ally and
senior member of the Republican National Committee (news - web sites).
"Iraq has the capacity of draining the president politically or, if it
works out, mobilizing people behind him."
"If the perception is that democracy is taking hold, he becomes
virtually invulnerable," Rath said. "If not, well, let's not talk
about that."
They do talk about worst-case scenarios in halls of the White House,
but only in whispers.
"Unless we get Iraq straightened out, and quick, anything else we try
is futile," said a senior White House aide who spoke on condition of
anonymity to avoid stepping on the president's inaugural message.
Bush begins a second term in a politically perilous position. His
approval rating is about 50 percent, lower than any recent second-term
president with the exception of Richard Nixon. Most Americans give him
high marks for fighting terrorism, but are skeptical of his policies
on Social Security (news - web sites), taxes, the national debt,
immigration and health care.
Iraq is the source of greatest concern. Six in 10 say the Iraqi
elections this month will not stabilize the country, though just as
many say it's a good first step.
The war has become a personal tragedy in millions of American
households. On the morning of Bush's inauguration, newspapers across
the country carried reports of car bombings in Iraq. The Star-Ledger,
New Jersey's largest newspaper, wrote about a local National Guard
battalion deploying to Iraq for a year.
Preparing his troops for their dangerous mission, Lt. Col. Roch
Switlike said, "Anyone who looks like they're going to mess with us,
you give them a look that says, `If you mess with us, you will be
dead.' Who knows, they may just say `Whoa' and wait for the next guy."
While these and other troops hope not to be "the next guy," Bush is
focusing the nation on an unusually ambitious second-term agenda. He
wants to revamp Social Security, the tax code and the legal system
while putting conservative judges on the bench and expanding his
education initiatives.
"You didn't elect me to do small things," Bush told RNC members in a
private session this week. "I got four years and I'm going to use
them."
How effectively he uses that time will likely depend upon, in a word,
Iraq.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE: Ron Fournier has covered politics and the White House
for The Associated Press since 1993.
3) The Little Riding Hood parable (see the wisdom footnote) by Charles
Perrault:
Once upon a time there lived in a certain village a little country
girl, the prettiest creature who was ever seen. Her mother was
excessively fond of her; and her grandmother doted on her still more.
This good woman had a little red riding hood made for her. It suited
the girl so extremely well that everybody called her Little Red Riding
Hood.
One day her mother, having made some cakes, said to her, "Go, my dear,
and see how your grandmother is doing, for I hear she has been very
ill. Take her a cake, and this little pot of butter."
Little Red Riding Hood set out immediately to go to her grandmother,
who lived in another village.
As she was going through the wood, she met with a wolf, who had a very
great mind to eat her up, but he dared not, because of some
woodcutters working nearby in the forest. He asked her where she was
going. The poor child, who did not know that it was dangerous to stay
and talk to a wolf, said to him, "I am going to see my grandmother and
carry her a cake and a little pot of butter from my mother."
"Does she live far off?" said the wolf
"Oh I say," answered Little Red Riding Hood; "it is beyond that mill
you see there, at the first house in the village."
"Well," said the wolf, "and I'll go and see her too. I'll go this way
and go you that, and we shall see who will be there first."
The wolf ran as fast as he could, taking the shortest path, and the
little girl took a roundabout way, entertaining herself by gathering
nuts, running after butterflies, and gathering bouquets of little
flowers. It was not long before the wolf arrived at the old woman's
house. He knocked at the door: tap, tap.
"Who's there?"
"Your grandchild, Little Red Riding Hood," replied the wolf,
counterfeiting her voice; "who has brought you a cake and a little pot
of butter sent you by mother."
The good grandmother, who was in bed, because she was somewhat ill,
cried out, "Pull the bobbin, and the latch will go up."
The wolf pulled the bobbin, and the door opened, and then he
immediately fell upon the good woman and ate her up in a moment, for
it been more than three days since he had eaten. He then shut the door
and got into the grandmother's bed, expecting Little Red Riding Hood,
who came some time afterwards and knocked at the door: tap, tap.
"Who's there?"
Little Red Riding Hood, hearing the big voice of the wolf, was at
first afraid; but believing her grandmother had a cold and was hoarse,
answered, "It is your grandchild Little Red Riding Hood, who has
brought you a cake and a little pot of butter mother sends you."
The wolf cried out to her, softening his voice as much as he could,
"Pull the bobbin, and the latch will go up."
Little Red Riding Hood pulled the bobbin, and the door opened.
The wolf, seeing her come in, said to her, hiding himself under the
bedclothes, "Put the cake and the little pot of butter upon the stool,
and come get into bed with me."
Little Red Riding Hood took off her clothes and got into bed. She was
greatly amazed to see how her grandmother looked in her nightclothes,
and said to her, "Grandmother, what big arms you have!"
"All the better to hug you with, my dear."
"Grandmother, what big legs you have!"
"All the better to run with, my child."
"Grandmother, what big ears you have!"
"All the better to hear with, my child."
"Grandmother, what big eyes you have!"
"All the better to see with, my child."
"Grandmother, what big teeth you have got!"
"All the better to eat you up with."
And, saying these words, this wicked wolf fell upon Little Red Riding
Hood, and ate her all up.
Moral: Children, especially attractive, well bred young ladies,
should never talk to strangers, for if they should do so, they may
well provide dinner for a wolf. I say "wolf," but there are various
kinds of wolves. There are also those who are charming, quiet,
polite, unassuming, complacent, and sweet, who pursue young women
at home and in the streets. And unfortunately, it is these gentle
wolves who are the most dangerous ones of all.
4) Bush's speech at the inaugural invoked the flowery words of freedom
and liberty many times, making no secret he was going to bomb here
and there around the world, spilling a lot of blood to force regime
change to nations, making his mis-adventures which he deceptively
identified as pursuits of "the great objective of ending tyranny".
``George W. Bush embarked on an ambitious second term as
president Thursday, telling a world anxious about war and
terrorism that the United States would not shrink from new
confrontations in pursuit of "the great objective of ending
tyranny."''
No doubt Hitler used the word Freiheit many times and told his
people that he was going to lift them from the tyranny the world
had imposed against them. Today, Bush is leading the US as the
aggressor riding in his juggernaut disguised as a liberator to in
the great pursuit to end ``tyranny'', when his juggernaut is the
world's greatest tyranny in the history of humanity.
Yahoo! News Thu, Jan 20, 2005
Bush Starts New Term, Seeks End to Tyranny
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON - George W. Bush embarked on an ambitious second term as
president Thursday, telling a world anxious about war and terrorism
that the United States would not shrink from new confrontations in
pursuit of "the great objective of ending tyranny."
Four minutes before noon, Bush placed his left hand on a family Bible
and recited 39 tradition-hallowed words that every president since
George Washington has uttered.
With 150,000 American troops deployed in Iraq (news - web sites) at a
cost of $1 billion a week and more than 1,360 killed, Bush also
beseeched Americans for patience.
"Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill
and would be dishonorable to abandon," the president declared in the
first wartime inauguration in more than three decades.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80 years old and frail with
thyroid cancer, administered the oath in his first public appearance
in three months -- a gesture Bush called "incredibly moving."
Rehnquist's ill health may give Bush a second-term opportunity to
nominate the Supreme Court's first new justice in nearly 11 years.
It was the first inauguration since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, and the capital was enveloped in a security blanket of thousands
of police and miles of metal barricades. Snipers lined rooftops, while
bomb-sniffing dogs toiled down below.
Bush spoke before a shivering throng at the West Front of the Capitol,
the monuments of American government -- Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln
-- stretched before him on a snowy landscape. Sen. John Kerry (news -
web sites), D-Mass., who had battled Bush for the presidency, watched
along with other lawmakers.
The nation's 55th inauguration celebration began with a 40-minute
morning prayer service at St. John's Church and ran late into the
night at 10 black-tie balls. Bush began the evening at a Salute to
Heroes party honoring Medal of Honor recipients.
"I can't tell you how much confidence I have in the members of our
military," Bush told the crowd, which cheered him with "hoo-ahs." At
the next stop, the Constitution Ball, the president and his wife
delighted the crowd by dancing.
Bush rode in an armored limousine, behind police on motorcycles in a V
formation, to lead the inaugural parade 1.7 miles down Pennsylvania
Avenue to the White House. The license plate read: USA 1.
Hundreds of anti-war protesters, some carrying coffin-like cardboard
boxes to signify the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq, stood along the
parade route. They jeered and shook their fists as Bush rode past.
"Worst president ever, impeachbush.org" one sign said. Another read:
"Guilty of war crimes."
Rows of law enforcement officers stood between the protesters and the
parade, and Bush's motorcade sped up as it passed the demonstration
area. The president and his wife, Laura, got out of the car to walk
the last two blocks to the White House.
Democrats attended the inauguration but didn't hide their unhappiness.
"Personally, I don't feel much like celebrating," said House
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "So I'm going to mark
the occasion by pledging to do everything in my power to fight the
extremist Republican's destructive agenda."
Entering his second term with one of the lowest approval ratings of
any recent two-term president, Bush was unapologetic in his speech
about the course he had set over four tumultuous years.
He challenged critics of his quest to spread democracy across the
Middle East, saying that now "is an odd time for doubt." And he voiced
eagerness to confront oppressive rule around the globe in the name of
spreading freedom.
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States
will not ignore oppression or excuse your oppressors," Bush said.
"When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."
The United States' policy is to promote democratic movements and
institutions in every nation and culture "with the ultimate goal of
ending tyranny in our world," he said.
"This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend
ourselves and our friends by force when necessary," the president
said.
The spread of freedom and liberty are the oldest ideals of America,
Bush said. "Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security,
and the calling of our time."
After the inauguration, Bush joined congressional leaders and other
dignitaries at a Capitol luncheon of scalloped crab and lobster and
roasted quail.
"I'm looking forward to putting my heart and soul into this job for
four more years," he said, making no mention of the legislative
battles ahead over taxes, expanding immigration laws, Social Security
(news - web sites), the burgeoning budget deficit, judges and more.
"We're ready to go to work," replied Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio,
voting record), R-Miss., chairman of the congressional inaugural
committee.
Eager to begin, the GOP-controlled Senate convened at mid-afternoon
and confirmed Mike Johanns as secretary of agriculture and Margaret
Spellings as secretary of education, the first of Bush's nine new
second-term Cabinet officers to win approval.
White House chief of staff Andy Card accused Democrats of "petty
politics" for blocking the swift confirmation of Condoleezza Rice
(news - web sites) as secretary of state. Card swore in Spellings in a
private ceremony.
With his oath, Bush began a new chapter in a presidency transformed by
the 2001, terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. What was
an unremarkable presidency to that point, preoccupied by tax cuts and
education initiatives, found its purpose.
A president who had come to power in a disputed election and had
battled low expectations became a symbol of confidence and resolve in
the war against terrorism.
But Bush also angered many allies with what was perceived as an
arrogant approach to foreign policy and an unwarranted war in Iraq,
based on the erroneous belief that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)
was harboring weapons of mass destruction.
The president did not mention Iraq in his inaugural address, but he
said the United States had helped tens of millions of people -- in
Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq -- achieve freedom.
He said U.S. efforts have lit "a fire in the minds of men. It warms
those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress and
one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of
our world."
5) This War on Terrorism is Bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure
its global domination
Michael Meacher
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1036688,00.html
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too.
The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit,
retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first
step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam
Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of
mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However
this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal
murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the
Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the
UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American
global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding
American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says
"even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a
threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American
forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent
"enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria
and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the
creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a
blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an
agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11
than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several
ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to
pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA
and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided
included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could
crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon,
the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them
to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large
airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had
radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer,
which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month
before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin
Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September
11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than
8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at
10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from
the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until
after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There
were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before
9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched
fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP,
August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft
has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent
up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus,
has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services
prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for
either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October
2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin
Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US
official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war
on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider
US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted
at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to
have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened
on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10
separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to
9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13
2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute
of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner
of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence
to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the
report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the
US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6
2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted
with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext
for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well
planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance
warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached
the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US
public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of
September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence
of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for
a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise
have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for
both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed
that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of
that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July
2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was
the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining
world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British
participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of
BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies
in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a
British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to
potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10
2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies
required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and
junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for
British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more
objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this
whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a
radical change of course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
6) A PNAC Primer
Bernard Weiner
. . .
"I'm not making up this stuff," I said. "It's all talked about openly
by the neo-conservatives of the Project for the New American Century
-- who now are in charge of America's military and foreign policy --
and published as official U.S. doctrine in the National Security
Strategy of the United States of America."
. . .
In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and
power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right.
The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New
American Century. (PNAC) Their aim was to prepare for the day when the
Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped,
the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision
of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready
to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.
This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick
Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol,
James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb
Bush,
. . .
The "outsiders" from PNAC are now powerful "insiders," placed in
important positions from which they can exert maximum pressure on U.S.
policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary,
Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's
Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at
the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the
Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard
Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon,
former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc.
(PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of Rupert Murdoch's The
Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC has a lock on military
policy-creation in the Bush Administration.
. . .
Here is a shorthand summary of PNAC strategies that have become U.S.
policy.
1. In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a strategy
report drafted for the Department of Defense, written by Paul
Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. In it, the U.S.
government was urged, as the world's sole remaining Superpower, to
move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The report called
for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the U.S.
should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be
orchestrated." The central strategy was to "establish and protect a
new order" that accounts "sufficiently for the interests of the
advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our
leadership," while at the same time maintaining a military dominance
capable of "deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a
larger regional or global role." Wolfowitz outlined plans for military
intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital
raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from
terrorism. (For the essence of the draft text, see Barton Gellman's
"Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower"
in the Washington Post.
2. Various Hard Right intellectuals outside the government were
spelling out the new PNAC policy in books and influential journals.
Zalmay M. Khalilzad (formerly associated with big oil companies,
currently U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan & Iraq ) wrote an
important volume in 1995, "From Containment to Global Leadership:
America & the World After the Cold War," the import of which was
identifying a way for the U.S. to move aggressively in the world and
thus to exercise effective control over the planet's natural
resources. A year later, in 1996, neo-conservative leaders Bill
Kristol and Robert Kagan, in their Foreign Affairs article "Towards a
Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," came right out and said the goal for
the U.S. had to be nothing less than "benevolent global hegemony," a
euphemism for total U.S. domination, but "benevolently" exercised, of
course.
3. In 1998, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack
Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The January letter from
PNAC urged America to initiate that war even if the U.S. could not
muster full support from the Security Council at the United Nations.
Sound familiar? (President Clinton replied that he was focusing on
dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells.)
4. In September of 2000, PNAC, sensing a GOP victory in the upcoming
presidential election, issued its white paper on "Rebuilding America's
Defenses: Strategy,Forces and Resources for the New Century." The PNAC
report was quite frank about why the U.S. would want to move toward
imperialist militarism, a Pax Americana, because with the Soviet Union
out of the picture, now is the time most "conducive to American
interests and ideals...The challenge of this coming century is to
preserve and enhance this `American peace'." And how to preserve and
enhance the Pax Americana? The answer is to "fight and decisively win
multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars."
In serving as world "constable," the PNAC report went on, no other
countervailing forces will be permitted to get in the way. Such
actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the
United Nations," for example. No country will be permitted to get
close to parity with the U.S. when it comes to weaponry or influence;
therefore, more U.S. military bases will be established in the various
regions of the globe. (A post-Saddam Iraq may well serve as one of
those advance military bases.)
5. George W. Bush moved into the White House in January of 2001.
Shortly thereafter, a report by the Administration-friendly Council on
Foreign Relations was prepared, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges
for the 21st Century," that advocated a more aggressive U.S. posture
in the world and called for a "reassessment of the role of energy in
American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly cited as a
"security imperative." (It's possible that inside Cheney's
energy-policy papers -- which he refuses to release to Congress or the
American people -- are references to foreign-policy plans for how to
gain military control of oilfields abroad.)
6. Mere hours after the 9/11 terrorist mass-murders, PNACer Secretary
of Defense Rumsfeld ordered his aides to begin planning for an attack
on Iraq, even though his intelligence officials told him it was an
al-Qaida operation and there was no connection between Iraq and the
attacks. "Go massive," the aides' notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it
all up. Things related and not." Rumsfeld leaned heavily on the FBI
and CIA to find any shred of evidence linking the Iraq government to
9/11, but they weren't able to. So he set up his own fact-finding
group in the Pentagon that would provide him with whatever shaky
connections it could find or surmise.
7. Feeling confident that all plans were on track for moving
aggressively in the world, the Bush Administration in September of
2002 published its "National Security Strategy of the United States of
America." The official policy of the U.S. government, as proudly
proclaimed in this major document, is virtually identical to the
policy proposals in the various white papers of the Project for the
New American Century and others like it over the past decade.
Chief among them are:
1. the policy of "pre-emptive" war -- i.e., whenever the U.S. thinks a
country may be amassing too much power and/or could provide some sort
of competition in the "benevolent hegemony" region, it can be
attacked, without provocation. (A later corollary would rethink the
country's atomic policy: nuclear weapons would no longer be considered
defensive, but could be used offensively in support of
political/economic ends; so-called "mini-nukes" could be employed in
these regional wars.)
2. international treaties and opinion will be ignored whenever they
are not seen to serve U.S. imperial goals.
3. The new policies "will require bases and stations within and beyond
Western Europe and Northeast Asia."
In short, the Bush Administration seems to see the U.S., admiringly,
as a New Rome, an empire with its foreign legions (and threat of
"shock and awe" attacks, including with nuclear weapons) keeping the
outlying colonies, and potential competitors, in line. Those who
aren't fully in accord with these goals better get out of the way;
"you're either with us or against us."
. . .
For complete article, please visit
Linkname: A PNAC Primer
URL: http://themeridiannews.com/pnac.html
|
|
| | From: | L Alpert | | Subject: | Re: The Harming Impact of Modern Wars Re: Earth's Water Cycle Disrupted by Pollution/Global Warming | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:32:54 -0800 |
|
|
|
"lo yeeOn" wrote in message
news:csruge$8fi$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <1106336822.168936.124260@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> wrote:
>>>If only natural factors were involved, you wouldn't get these results.
>>
>>
>>>Arctic rivers 'flowing faster'
>>
>>Aren't Humans and what they do 'natural'? What is so unnatural about
>>humans anyway? are birds' nests unnatural? or a beavers dam?
>
> It's the explosions of bombs, especially the big bombs like the daisy
> cutters, the release of DU (depleted uranium), the firings of bullets
> and missiles, and the release of thousands of tons of exhaust gases
> from the B52, the F16s, the transport planes, the helicopters, the
> tanks, the humvees, and the bradley vehicles that are making human
> activities unnatural. And the more wars we fight, the more we have
> these kinds of unnatural human activities committed against Mother
> Nature.
>
> And I call the extreme weather conditions we witness today around the
> globe war weathers. The massive explosions bring to the atmospheric
> system great amount of heat and pollutants of all kinds as well as
> great instability. That is exactly what modern shock-and-awe wars do
> to Mother Nature, impacting us all, and that is everybody.
>
> Aggressive wars are not only intrinsically immoral for killing many
> innocent people and causing massive dislocation and suffering to the
> people being attacked but also harmful to the environment and hence
> all living being on earth. And that's why the talk of fighting for
> liberty using great big destructive devices is evil. And that's why
> there is no idealism in George Bush's inaugural speech; rather it was
> a specch stuffed with code-words for more wars against other nations,
> acts which will achieve no liberty for anyone except bringing great
> harm to all.
>
IMO, commercial planes and personal autos contribute much more than any war
efforts towards pollutants and global warming.
As far as code words, I would think not. No deciphering needed for his
message. I'm not sure who is/was worse, GWB or Nixon.
|
|
|
