Archive for May 18th, 2008
Bush a échoué dans sa visite au Moyen-Orient
Bush a échoué dans sa visite au Moyen-Orient
18/05/2008
Le Président américain, George W Bush a échoué à réaliser ses objectifs, surtout économiques, lors de sa visite dans la région, et en particulier en Arabie Saoudite. George Bush a reçu une fin de non-recevoir de la part des autorités saoudiennes à sa demande d’augmenter leur production du pétrole. Les autorités saoudiennes n’ont accepté que d’augmenter de 300.000 barils par jour leur production du pétrole, ce qui a été perçu comme un échec politique et économique pour les Etats-Unis.
CANADA: 96 MILLIARDS $ DE PLUS POUR L’ARMÉE
CANADA: 96 MILLIARDS $ DE PLUS POUR L’ARMÉE
BIEN QUE N’AYANT NI UNE TRADITION DE CONQUÉRANT NI DE COLONISATEUR, LE CANADA SE CROIT MENACÉ AU POINT D’INVESTIR PLUS DE 96 MILLIARDS DE $ DANS LES ARMEMENTS. QUI SONT DONC CES ENNEMIS QUI MENACENT AUTANT UN PAYS AUSSI INOFFENSIF ? UN TEL INVESTISSEMENT, AU MOMENT OÙ LES DÉFAVORISÉS ETLES CLASSES MOYENNES DOIVENT SE SERRER DE PLUS EN PLUS LA CEINTURE, DEVRAIT SOULEVER DES QUESTIONS,
En lisant ce titre dans Le Devoir du 15 mai 2008, je me suis posé bon nombre de questions. La toute première est évidemment celle portant sur les ennemis potentiels pouvant mettre en danger la sécurité du peuple canadien.
J’ai commencé par nos voisins les plus proches : les États-Unis au Sud et la Russie au Nord. Dans un cas comme dans l’autre toutes nos armes n’arriveront pas à la cheville des pouvoirs militaires dont ils disposent. Dans pareille cas, le vieux sage dirait mieux vaut négocier les différents que de les régler par un duel. Alors, qui sont donc les autres pouvant justifier pareil investissement, particulièrement en une période où les prix des aliments montent en flèche, que les pétrolières font la loi du prix du pétrole, que les travailleurs et travailleuses sont soumis aux compagnies nationales et multinationales lesquelles décident du jour au lendemain de fermer ici leurs entreprises pour les ouvrir ailleurs.
Évidemment, il y a les terroristes, ceux dont on entend parler sans jamais voir leurs visages. Vous me direz que le visage de Ben Laden est connu de par le monde entier. C’est vrai, mais est-ce bien Ben Laden qui justifie autant d’investissements dans la défense nationale : frégates, portes avions, chars d’assauts, avions des plus sophistiqués, hélicoptères de tous les modèles, satellites et quoi d’autres encore? Certains disent que ce personnage, associé au terrorisme, est mort depuis plusieurs années déjà. S’il est vivant, il faut croire qu’il n’est plus beaucoup très fort. Quoi qu’il en soit supposons que le terrorisme soit le véritable ennemi et que son mode d’intervention soit à visage caché, à quoi serviront alors les avions à réactions, les frégates et toute cette panoplie d’armes lourdes contre des individus fondus dans les foules?
Pour ma part, je pense que le pire ennemi pouvant mettre la sécurité des canadiens en danger demeure l’injustice érigée en système. Il y a en tout premier lieu celle qui affecte les canadiens dans leur système politique, économique et social. Nous savons que lorsque les effets de ces injustices atteignent le citoyen dans ses réalités vitales surgissent inévitablement des situations de crises que les avions militaires les plus sophistiqués n’arriveront pas à résoudre. À cette situation d’injustice nationale s’ajoute l’injustice qui affecte le système international, lequel conditionne les relations politiques, économiques et sociales des états et des peuples, faisant des deux tiers de l’humanité les sous-développés de la terre. L’ennemi devient alors les états qui forcent le maintien de privilèges au détriment du droit international ou se livrent à la défense d’intérêts corporatifs au détriment de celui du BIEN COMMUN. Si le Canada investissait tout cet argent (96 milliards $) à se faire le promoteur et le défenseur d’un système nationale et international de justice au service du Bien commun des individus et des peuples, sa sécurité serait assurée. À moins que ses véritables ennemis soient au nombre de ses amis actuels lesquels lui tiendraient rigueur d’une politique fondée sur la justice et le respect du Bien commun.
Je souhaite entendre la voix de nos conférences épiscopales sur ces investissements militaires et sur le sens à donner à la sécurité nationale. Je souhaite également entendre des voix de ce groupe des sages qui s’était fait un devoir de sonner l’alarme sur les dépenses et l’endettement de nos gouvernements, laissant les jeunes générations avec des dettes allant au dessus de leurs moyens. Ils ont même eu cette image de l’huissier frappant à la porte de nos enfants et petis enfants pour y saisir leurs biens. Si les dépenses dans le social pour s’occuper de la santé les préoccupaient tellement, combien plus de telles dépenses pour l’armée devraient-elles leur poser question.
US-Saudi oil axis faces day of truth
US-Saudi oil axis faces day of truth
When President George Bush went to see Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah in January to plead for higher oil output, he was politely rebuffed.
President Bush shares a laugh with Saudi Prince Salman, brother of Saudi King Abdullah
The rematch today is likely to be a great deal more strained.
If the Saudis deny help once again, they risk incalculable damage to their strategic alliance with Washington. The price of crude has rocketed by over $30 a barrel since that last fruitless meeting, briefly touching the once unthinkable level of $127.
Goldman Sachs fears a “super-spike” to $200 a barrel this year.
Asked what he would tell King Abdullah this time, Mr Bush said caustically: “the price is even higher.”
advertisementIndeed, it is, especially the political price.
The US-Saudi tango has been on thin ice ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Sixteen of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. The Bush family has cleaved closely to the Saudi monarchy, but strong factions in Washington see Riyadh’s Wahabi monarchy as part of the Mid-East problem– not the solution.
Saudi Arabia’s one saving grace — in the eyes of US critics — is that it has over the years been willing to cap extreme surges in the price of oil, deploying its power as the world’s swing producer. This time Riyadh is giving no ground.
Oil minister Ali al-Naimi insists that there is plenty of oil about, blaming the latest spike on “the internal logic of the financial markets”, meaning hedge funds and speculators. The US Congress gave its riposte this week.
Population explosion means $100 barrel is here for years
Is it slick to invest your money in oil?
New York Senator Charles Schumer is pushing for sanctions against Saudi Arabia, targeting $1.4bn in sales of bomb kits, light armoured vehicles, as well as gear for AWACS aircraft and F-15 fighters.
“You need our arms, but we need you to cooperate and not strangle American consumers.
“Saudi Arabia could do a lot more than they have done,” he said.
The Democrats are also pushing legislation that would penalize the OPEC producers cartel for “anti-competitiveness practices”.
The Bush White House has rolled its eyes in exasperation at such blunt methods, but hot feelings are aroused in American public discourse.
Read more by Ambrose Evans Pritchard
Oil could hit $200 in ’super-spike’
There have been calls for a food blockade of the Arabian peninsular on the US talk radio circuit. “Let them eat sand”, has been the rallying cry of the shock-jocks. OPEC has — in effect — cut production repeatedly.
The Saudis have let their output fall from 9.5m to 8.5m bpd over the last two years, camouflaging the move behind the accession of Ecuador and Angola to the group (which boosted nominal supply). OPEC failed to compensate for a 330,000 bpd drop in Nigerian production in April, allowing the market to tighten further.
Dr Fadhil Chalabi, a former OPEC secretary-general and now director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said the Saudis have roughly 2m barrels per day of scare capacity. Three quarters is heavy sulfurous crude that requires special refineries, which are already working flat out.
“They have about half a million barrels a day of good crude that they could put on the market. The puzzle is why they are not doing it. The soaring price is obviously telling us that the world needs more oil,”he said. “I can’t understand why the Saudis would risk their strategic relationship with the US over this.
“They need the US more than ever given the growing influence of Iran in the region,” he said.
One clue comes from the March bulletin of OAPEC, the Arab sub-group of the OPEC producers’ cartel. It notes sourly that President Bush is aiming to reduce US dependency on oil imports “particularly from the Middle East”, by 75pc by the year 2025.
“This has created some ambiguity in the US position on the future of oil consumption,” it said. Touchee.
King Abdullah’s retort to the Bush speech was to announce that Saudi Arabia would stop developing big projects after the Khurais field comes on stream in next year with 1.2m bpd, leaving the country’s oil in the ground for future generations.
Chris Skrebowski, Editor of Petroleum Review, said the awful truth is that
Saudi Arabia cannot raise oil output much even if it tries. “The myth of Saudi spare capacity is convenient for everybody: it gives OPEC leverage, and it gives the West hope.
“But Saudi reserves are secret. They have never been verified,” he said.
Mr Skrebowski said oil is soaring because output is falling in Mexico, the US, and the North Sea. Russia stunned the markets with a 1pc fall in first quarter in Russia. “We are running the system flat out,”he said. The jury is out on the durability of this oil rally.
Bulls bet that roaring Chinese demand growth of 400,000 bpd each year will keep going, while fuel subsidies in much of Asia and the Mid-East insulate users from the real cost of crude.
But if the downturn spreads from North America to Europe, Japan, and even China, it could upset with the delicately balance forces of supply and demand. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says demand will cool to 86.8m bpd this year, falling below supply for several quarters.
It estimates for demand growth in 2008 at just 1m bpd , less than half the level predicted last July.
US inventories are creeping up. They are slightly above their five-year average of 326m barrels. Eduardo Lopez, the IEA’s chief oil analyst, says OPEC is fears that prices could tumble as the slowdown bites.
“Even if they increased supply today, it would not hit the market until June or July, just as demand slows. They are bad memories from past cycles. Some of these countries are spending so much that they can barely get by with prices at $125, so they are very worried about losing revenues. Iran and Venezuela are textbook cases,” he said.
James Williams of West Texas Research Group said OPEC was right to be wary of the turning cycle. “If stocks build up at a time of recession, it creates the possibility of an unmanageable collapse. Oil could drop like a rock,”he said.
Have your say
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments:
How come we had no problem modifiying the landscape whilst extermininating the Native population, and now we cant do anything because the liberals whine about everything and everybody else just stands around with their C–k in their hands, and yes that means YOU!
Posted by Chris on May 16, 2008 11:28 PM
Report this comment
Here are a few suggestions:
1. Pull the hell out of the middle east and politely let them know that if they so much as blow up a firecracker in the U.S., the U.S. will wipe them off the map. In return, the U.S. will let them kill themselves and live out their fanatical lifestyles.
2. Get Bush and the oil barons out of office – let the door hit Cheney on his way out.
3. Get resourceful and develop alternative energy sources NOW.
4. Stop buying crap that doesn’t matter.
Incredible amounts ingorance, selfishness, and utter foolisheness on display in this collection of comments.
Call me an environemental whacko, and a peacnik all you want. It does not change the fact that living beings depend on an ecosystem to survive and exist. If you think economic collapse is a bitch, try ecological collapse on for size.
Bequeathing a livable planet to our great great great grandchildren might be desirable goal. It is one of mine. Judging by the commentary here, it appears no one cares. Our descendants will curse us for what we are doing now, and that is assuming there will be any left alive to do so.
How ironic! We ask the Sandi’s to increase their oil production, Schumer and other libs start whining when refused—-but they same bunch of libs won’t let us drill, produce coal, build refineries or build nuclear plants. They refuse to seek our own energy independence.
I guess they would rather pay huge sums of money to people that don’t like or down right hate us—so they can take that money and sponsor terrorism against us and the rest of the world.
We covered up Iraqi bomb attack which destroyed a £30million Hercules, admits MoD
We covered up Iraqi bomb attack which destroyed a £30million Hercules, admits MoD
By: MATTHEW HICKLEY, Daily Mail on: 18.05.08
The Ministry of Defence covered up the fact that Iraqi insurgents destroyed a £30million RAF Hercules transport aircraft by planting bombs next to a runway.
Military spokesmen claimed publicly that the C-130J aircraft, with 64 people on board, had been accidentally damaged on landing – and that there was no evidence of enemy action.
The cover-up was an attempt to deny the Iraqis a further propaganda coup following the earlier loss of another Hercules. It is revealed in official documents seen by the Mail.
In reality, the aircraft was blasted by a string of at least five bombs buried next to the runway, the Board of Inquiry report reveals.
They exploded just before it touched down in darkness – destroying aircraft systems, injuring passengers and setting fire to the wing close to the fuel tanks.
Those on board had a lucky escape because the pilots’ night vision goggles were temporarily blinded by the explosions and the burning aircraft veered off the runway at more than 100mph.
Commanders decided they could not secure the hostile area of Maysan Province long enough to repair the badly- damaged Hercules and it was blown up to stop it falling into enemy hands.
The Board’s findings congratulate RAF officials on their “well-reasoned” cover-up of the incident last February, lying to the media and the public to minimise interest and ‘denying the enemy the opportunity to exploit the situation’ for propaganda purposes.
The report highlights the way insurgents were able to sneak up to the airstrip in south-eastern Iraq – which was in regular use by the RAF supplying ground forces – and to plant five bombs next to the touch- down point. These were missed by soldiers who ‘cleared’ the site ready for the Hercules to land.
A similar RAF aircraft had been shot down by insurgents north of Baghdad in January 2005, with the loss of all ten servicemen aboard.
On that occasion insurgent groups issued grim footage of the wreckage, boasting of their success. The MoD was anxious to avoid another enemy propaganda coup.
The losses have put pressure on the remaining Hercules aircraft, which are supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have led to problems with maintaining parachute training for the Army.
The Board of Inquiry report describes the drama as the Hercules was riddled with shrapnel from the blast, knocking out key equipment on the flight deck. One soldier on board was only saved from serious injury by his body armour.
All the soldiers and RAF crew scrambled out of the burning aircraft and huddled in the dark, trying to contact their commanders.
Another Hercules offered to pick them up, and then lost radio contact-The pilot opted to land anyway-not knowing the runway was littered with debris and flanked by 5ft-deep bomb craters. The second aircraft was damaged on landing but able to recover those on the ground and take off again.
The report says British forces were at fault for “pattern setting” in the way they used the airstrip, helping insurgents predict where and when the Hercules would land.
Group Captain Paul Atherton, station commander of the Hercules fleet at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, praised the crew of both aircraft for responding “quickly and decisively.”
