Saturday, January 12, 2008
John Redwood on the future of rail - he knows what he is talking about http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/01/02/labours-railway-more-delays-and-higher-fares/#comments
Electricity prices http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scitech/Ministers-to-rule-on-coalfired.3640343.jp# http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1944609.0.0.php2345433
Scots economy http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/We-will-hit-our-economic.3640444.jp#2345579
"Warming weather" http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters/Too-hot-for-comfort.3640324.jp
Tories wobbling http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/01/06/browns-vision-live-next-to-a-nuclear-power-station-a-new-housing-estate-or-a-larger-airport/#respond
Forth crossing http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/Businesses-demand-39Scotland-first39-policy.3644908.jp
Clinton's secretary of state, in an off the record briefing, told the western media that she had prevented the Serbs being offered a deal they could honourably accept because "the Serbs need a little bombing".
If Mrs Clinton is engaged in a "get tough strategy" does this mean she will be bombing hospitals in New Hampshire
Put Northern Rock into liquidation http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/Bid-to-prevent-hasty-deal.3648210.jp#2353139
£4,200,000,000 - Alleged cost of new Forth bridge which is less than
£4,673,000,000 - the cost given by the Scottish government for a Forth Tunnel which is officially why they chose a bridge.
less than 3 km - Length of Forth tunnel (though there would be 2 carriageways)
Cost per KM of similar tunnels built in Norway
£9 million - cost per km of Glendoe scheme (but remember tunnels are only a small fraction of total cost)
£19.5 million - cost of previous Forth bridge
£314 million - cost in today's money of previous Forth bridge.
13 times - degree to which proposed bridge cost exceeds cost of the last bridge
100 times - minimum degree to which Holyrood's "costing" of a tunnel exceeds what a tunnel could cost.
0 - Number of Parliamentarians willing to appear in public to explain this
the government regulator deliberately set electricity prices below cost. Nuclear costs are almost entirely fixed costs which is why it didn't quite break other generators. They forced BN to sell off all its foreign assets & reactor building capacity then nationalised it without compensation. Then the regulator put the prices back up.
This nasty bit of fraud did immense harm to our economy as the fact that we are going to have to hire the French to build our next reactors proves. Obviously it was supported by the eco-Nazis.
I make an error about windmills http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1951835.0.Thousands_without_power_as_80mph_winds_batter_Scotland.php
Green puts forward extermination of 30 million Brits as a preferred alternative to building nuclear power stations http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1951295.0.Fuel_price_rises_show_need_for_nuclear_power.php
Nuclear approved http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1954436.0.0.php
Our Moslem terrorist friends http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Exguerrilla---vows-to.3657658.jp#2360352
"What's the difference between a climate change fanatic and a terrorist?"
"You can sometimes negotiate with a terrorist."
A Lib Dem supports the EU
Response to my suggestion of a Forth tunnel - overwhelmingly positive
Nuclear "It is not merely that both correspondents, one of them from a major "environmentalist" organisation, are shading the truth but that both have, obviously quite deliberately, lied 100% Such total absolute & utter corruption & contempt for any trace of honesty whatsoever seem increasingly typical of eco-fascist proponents."
Re your comment, "Our Moslem Terrorist Friends", in the Scotsman.I can see that you are all too aware that the US government's "War on Terror" is
(just like their ostensible alleged opposition to self confessed Nazis) a complete and total, unadulterated fraud.
Here's a comment I just submitted to 'Israpundit' under their re-posting of Julia Gorin's brilliant piece "Nazis Love America". (see her terrific blog site blowing the lid off of the US and Western Europe's support of Nazis and Islamofascists in the Balkans, former Soviet Central Asia and the Middle East at http://www.juliagorin.com )
Thanks, Max Rosenthal.
A lot of people have wondered about how it is possible that the US government can covertly support fascist-racist Nazis and Islamist terrorists while simultaneously claiming to be fighting against them. People often wonder why US politicians like Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Joe Biden and Tom Lantos can say they are against Islamist terror whilst simultaneously supporting it in the Balkans (ex-Yugoslavia).
The US government foreign policy establishment has supported the creation of Nazi and Islamist fundamentalist states and backed the perpetrators of terrorism in numerous countries (not just in the Middle East) spanning several decades.
It is also beyond dispute that the US government has cooperated with Iran for decades in spreading Islamist terror against target countries. The “US dependence on Arab oil” rationale to explain these sustained policies of supporting Islamist terror and the creation of fundamentalist Muslim states all over the globe over several decades falls flat on its face for a whole host of reasons.
We are analysing policies made by US officials, who presumably are fully grown adults intelligent enough to know the consequences of their policies (actions);policies that have been the result of systematic and painstakingly constructed geostrategic planning by expert specialists in the field of geopolitical grand strategy and psychological operations warfare departments over many years.
We are not analysing the acts of a hapless naive teenager who has fallen into a bad crowd and got caught smoking crack, mugging old ladies and stealing cars who naively could not forsee the consequences of his actions or at least somehow (inexplicably) had good intentions or benign ulterior motives in committing these acts, but somehow "screwed up".
How for example can it make any sense that the U.S. foreign policy establishment intended to support and strengthen fundamentalist Iran well before the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war?
Did it make sense to first nurture and support al Qaida during the 1980’s in Afghanistan and the 1990’s in Europe (Balkans, i.e. Bosnia, Kosovo)without expecting adverse consequences in the future like 9/11 and the train bombings of Madrid and London?
Or are the US foreign policy establishment planners all just incredibly stupid imbeciles who could not have forseen such consequences, or if they were intelligent enough to see the consequences of their actions, did their “cost-benefit” analyses deem a few thousand civilian deaths in the US and Europe “the price of doing business” for political elite self-interests (often confused with the “national interest” of America and its people)?
Does it make sense for the American political establishment,which claims to be an avowed enemy of Islamism and terrorism, to steep an entire generation of Afghanis in Islamist terrorist violence by shipping millions of US made fundamentalist Jihadist textbooks into Afghanistan’s Islamic religious schools for the last 26 years: all funded and paid for by American taxpayers?
Does it make sense to continue to ship these millions of fundamentalist textbooks despite the terrorist atrocity of 9/11?
Does it make sense that the media doesn’t discuss this? Does it make sense that the “neocons” - the supposed enemies of Islamism - never halted this policy and never called for an immediate government investigation? And why did Bush lie about it if he is genuinely opposed to the spread of Islamism in Afghanistan and elsewhere?
Does it make sense that the above is not a major media scandal the likes of Watergate, BCCI,Savings & Loan and Iran-Contra, but is instead kept quiet?
Oops,”we have screwed up”, “unintended consequences”, or “benign ulterior motives”?
Does it make sense that the US planned Islamist fundamentalist rule - complete with repressive Sharia law - for Afghanistan long before the Soviet invasion of 1979 and that this is now being already implemented despite the terrorist atrocity of 9/11?
Does it make sense that the US government has the same plan of Islamist fundamentalist rule for Iraq as they have in Afghanistan?
Does it make sense that the US is doing the same in neighboring Central Asian states like Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan?
Fundamentalist Iran happens to be right next door to the above states as is Afghanistan itself - well what a coincidence! (You know, that supposedly “former” Taliban place where the Taliban form part of the new government and where we shipped millions of Islamist fundamentalist textbooks for the last 26 years at taxpayers’ expense and why we also backed a conference in December of 2002 in Rome advocating Sharia law for Afghanistan.)
Does it make sense that we never heard anything about this on the evening news?
Oops, “we have screwed up”, “unintended consequences”, or “benign ulterior motives” again?
See map of Central Asia here
Does it make sense that Islamists from all over the world hold anti-Western Jihadist terrorist conferences in US-controlled Afghanistan (and the Balkans,i.e., Bosnia and Kosovo) right under the noses of US officials and military without anything being done to prevent such a conference from taking place?
Does it make sense that US government officials in co-operation with Iran, have backed the creation of TWO Islamist terror states right in the heart of Europe for nearly the last 20 years?
Oops, “we have screwed up”, “unintended consequences”, or “benign ulterior motives” (yet again)?
None of it makes sense unless you understand the geostrategic grand strategy plans that the US foreign policy establishment has been implementing for the last three decades in Central Asia, Europe and the Middle East.
These officials have bragged openly about how the US needs to take over Central Asia on the first step to conquering the giant resource rich continent of Eurasia in order to rule the world. They have bragged openly about how they created,nurtured and developed Islamist terrorism as a geopolitical weapon of destabilization against states that the US wishes to conquer and control.
The major obstacle to taking over the giant resource-rich continent of Eurasia is, you guessed it: Russia. Hence the need to surround Russia with hostile US created fundamentalist Islamist states in Central Asia. Remember, the Chechen Muslim terrorists who murdered all those Russian school children a while back? The very same Chechen fundamentalist terrorists have been covertly aided by the US government and that of NATO. Terrorist attacks like the Beslan school atrocity against the Russians will be the norm rather than the exception if US policy planners have their way in Central Asia.
Similarly,the massive ethnic cleansing and mass murder of Serbs and Jews in Kosovo, Croatia-Krajina and Bosnia could never have occurred without covert US government support of the drug running,child-sex slavery racketeering Thaci-Ceku fascist dominated KLA in Kosovo,Tudjman's Holocaust-denying Nazi "Ustasha" regime in Croatia and Izetbegovic's Islamofascist Iranian and al Qaeda-backed SDA regime in Bosnia;covert US support, which by the way, began with the Republican George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush Snr) and not Bill Clinton.
Aiding and abetting Islamist fundamentalist terrorists and pouring billions of dollars of US financial aid, military training and advanced weaponry to put these very same terrorists into state power (as occurred in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Central Asian states like Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan,etc.) is a bi-partisan affair which transcends party lines.
In order to conquer Eurasia (of which Russia is an integral part) US policy planners say they need to control Central Asia, but in order to control Central Asia, Washington says it needs to control neighboring Afghanistan and Iran [see map here].
The US policy planners know that they can’t crush Iran militarily as easily as they did Iraq and Afghanistan, hence the need for cooperation with Iran’s mullahs (what some people call “appeasement” or “cowardice”)and the need for setting up fundamentalist Islamist states in Central Asia which can be used to destabilize Russia (just as they openly boast about how they destabilized the Soviet Union via al Qaeda - aka “Mujaheddin” - in Afghanistan during the 1980’s, causing the USSR’s eventual collapse) and eventually break up Russia into much smaller and more manageable statelets that Washington can control.
None of this is “conspiracy theory” speculation or conjecture because these officials have bragged about it openly in their own policy papers, books, lectures and in interviews with the European press(which interestingly enough,for some “strange” reason, do not get picked up in any major way by the US establishment media).
I will leave you with the words of the United States’ top geopolitical grand strategist,Zbigniew Brzezinski, who boasts about the US plan for takeover of Eurasia by first taking over Muslim Central Asia (formerly part of the Soviet Union); he also boasts about the fact that Islamism was created in Washington.
Remember, despite having no official cabinet position, Zbigniew Brzezinski (along with Zalmay Khalilzad) is the US foreign policy establishment's chief geopolitical grand strategist, so it is not just Brzezinski's mere "opinion" or "personal views" we are examining here in this interview, but rather, the current policies of the US foreign policy establishment.
Watch Brzezinski’s response to the question posed by the French reporter that, is it not true that fundamentalist Islam represents a dire world wide threat?
What does Brzezinski say to this?
Brzezinski’s Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur
Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA’s support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army’s invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.
Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: It’s not exactly like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.
Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this…Do you regret nothing today?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: “We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war.” Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.
Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don’t you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Le Nouvel Observateur: “Some hotheads?” But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat…
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It’s said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That’s hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let’s look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries…
[End of Brzezinski's interview with Le Nouvel Observateur]
An examination of selected quotes from the blueprint of the US foreign policy establishment's geopolitical grand strategy: Brzezinski's book “The Grand Chessboard,” written in 1997.
“…The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power… (p. xiii)
“… But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)
“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)
“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)
“America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p. 30)
“In that context, how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent.
About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)
It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” (p.35)
“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;… second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above…” (p. 40)
“…To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)
“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)