So Russia’s swift and brutal spanking of Georgia for daring stretch relations further West, NATO-bound, and friendly to U.S. geo-political ambitions - provides such a wonderful opportunity for eager to declare an eager rush to the days of Soviet aggression and U.S.-led honor and nobility for the sake of Democracy and Freedom etc etc.

In April of 2008 Former Russian President Vladimir Putin “strongly criticized NATO’s eastward expansion plans” … “but ruled out chances of a new Cold War, insisting instead that Moscow wants to be friends with the Western military alliance.” - a story printed by AP. (link).

The story continued, “[Putin speech] The emergence of the powerful military bloc at our borders will be seen as a direct threat to Russia’s security,” Putin said. “I heard them saying today that the expansion is not directed against Russia. But it’s the potential, not intentions that matters.”

The world continued to turn and the West continued to lay pressure on Russia with wider and deeper agreements with former Soviet-ruled nation states eagerly joining NATO, missile defense pacts, and the stationing of U.S. / NATO forces on their territory.

A moderate and wholly honest politician of firm stature and sincerity has finally admitted what no Western leader is willing to admit. The Western Nations pushed Russia too hard, too fast and without giving a damn for the consequences.

In a speech given today by former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, an honest and wholly refreshing sincerity:

Article posted in the Age publication (theage.com.au):

PAUL Keating has accused Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and George Bush of squandering the chance for peace and co-operation created by the Soviet Union’s collapse.

Instead, he said the West had “ring-fenced” Russia, treating it as a virtual enemy at a time when the risk of Moscow launching nuclear war by mistake was greater than during the Cold War.

In a speech at the Melbourne Writers Festival yesterday, the former Labor prime minister criticised Western leaders for seeking to impose democracy on other countries at a time when American power was in decline.

World leaders needed a strategy based on “the progress of human existence and not simply the propagation of democracy”, he said.

Western leaders had failed to grasp a potential “new era of peace and co-operation” created by the end of the Soviet Union in 1990, and failed to find a place for Russia in the global “strategic fabric”.

“(Former US president) George H. Bush talked about a New World Order, then lost to Bill Clinton. And what happened then? Well, nothing happened then! The Americans cried victory and walked off the field.”

The Clinton administration “rashly decided to ring-fence Russia” by inviting former Soviet-dominated states to join NATO. “By doing so, the US failed to learn one of the lessons of history - that the victor should be magnanimous with the vanquished,” he said.

As a result, NATO states now were on the borders of Russia, which kept its nuclear arsenal on full alert. “This posture automatically carries with it the possibility of a Russian nuclear attack by mistake,” Mr Keating said.

Russia had allowed its nuclear surveillance and early warning systems to “ossify”. To compensate, it kept its nuclear arsenal on full alert.

“This means that while the Cold War is over, the risk of a mistaken pre-emptory (nuclear) response has increased,” he said.

Mr Keating said the alienation of Russia played into the hands of Russian nationalists while weakening the hand of liberal democrats.

“The old West then complains about Vladimir Putin being a poorly disguised Russian autocrat and nationalist when the West has played a large role in creating him,” he said.

If nuclear weapons were the world’s most pressing problem, its greatest challenge was building “a truly representative structure of world governance which reflects global realities but which is also equitable and fair”, he said.

“For two Clinton presidential terms and two George W. Bush terms, the world has been left without such a structure - certainly one able to accommodate Russia and the great states like China and India.”

Instead, they had left the world with a template forged at the end of World War II, “where Germany and Japan were left on the outside, and still are 60 years later, and in which China and India are tolerated and palely humoured”.

He said the world was witnessing the eclipse of American power but recent US presidents had done nothing “to better shape the institutions of world governance”. Nor did “old powers” like Britain or France offer any help. Former British Labour prime minister Tony Blair had offered nothing new or free-thinking - “he thought being an American acolyte was all that was required”.

Brilliant speech. Long over due and very needed.

Related Business Week Article : “The New Cold War?”

There is no doubt the kid should have put his bravado firmly in check. Absolutely. The kid should have played by the rules of polite and civil behavior. Certainly. The kid deserved to be dragged by four policemen and Tasered as he screamed in pain? I don’t bloody think so!

The first thought that came to mind after watching the video? We’re trying to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people and an obnoxious (yes!) Student at the University of Florida is Tasered for asking one too many questions to a U.S. Senator? The mainstream media has ignored this sickening spectacle. I’m disgusted.

More coverage at the StarBanner news (and clearly but shorter video).

Article posted on CNN — “Tutu: Poverty fueling terror.”

HONG KONG, China (CNN) — The global “war on terror” can’t be won if people are living in “desperate” conditions, Archbishop Desmond Tutu told CNN.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu says “war on terror” will be thwarted by poverty, disease and ignorance.

“You can never win a war against terror as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate — poverty, disease, ignorance, et cetera,” the Nobel laureate said.

Tutu is in Hong Kong, where he is due to give a lecture on conflict resolution, reconciliation and forgiveness.

He said the disparity between the rich and poor in parts of the world causes instability and insecurity, but added that he was hopeful the relationship between the two was becoming clear.

“I think people are beginning to realize that you can’t have pockets of prosperity in one part of the world and huge deserts of poverty and deprivation and think that you can have a stable and secure world,” he said.

The former head of South Africa’s Anglican church is an advocate of reconciliation, and he often speaks out against violence and is a frequent critic of human rights abusers.

Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his vocal opposition and leadership against South Africa’s apartheid system — a government-sanctioned policy of racial separation which ended in 1994.

Both neighboring countries have been long accused by the United States of meddling inside Iraq and are both accused of fueling the ongoing insurgency against U.S. forces.

At the same time … the U.S. has begrudgingly recognized the role both nations can play in soothing the civil unrest between the religious and tribal factions inside and across Iraq. Joint talks between the Iraq, Iran, Syria and the U.S. have yielded some promise, but for whom?

Iraq must increase its oil output significantly before it can improve its long term economic self-sustanence and the pipeline deal appears to be a win-win for all nations involved.

As previously mentioned, Iran might have some of the world’s largest oil reserves but its centralized economy, run by inept and corrupt Mullah’s, has done little to maintain nor invest in its refinery infrastructure and Iran’s domestic demand for energy has far outpaced its energy supplies. Iran needs Iraqi energy appetite and recent rioting across Iran demonstrates the scale of the energy crunch faced by the Iranian government.

I wonder what the U.S. will make of the pipeline announcement?

It is a compelling read full of assumptions - yes - but balanced, and disturbing.

If the U.S. is truly contemplating a unilateral attack on Iran then Hell with break loose. Read this report and consider the who’s, how’s and when’s before you break the bad news at the water cooler, dinner table and car pool.

Full Report Attached in .pdf

“Such a strike would take “shock and awe” to a new level and leave Iran with few if any conventional military capabilities to block the conventional military support to insurgents in Iraq.”

Supporting Reading :

- The National Security Study 2006
- GlobalSecurity.Org
- Time Magazine | “Prelude to an Attack on Iran”

Related Opinionist Posts :
Cold War II | Russia Gives Iran Long Range Offensive Capabilities
A Tactical Strike on Iran | ‘Perfect Storm’ Conditions?
Iranian Brinksmanship and a Rancid Dead Duck Bush Administration
The Best Iraq Exit Strategy for U.S. is Through Iran?

All IRAN related posts

Entitled, “Prelude to an attack on Iran.”

Begins:

Reports that the Bush Administration will put Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list can be read in one of two ways: it’s either more bluster or, ominously, a wind-up for a strike on Iran. Officials I talk to in Washington vote for a hit on the IRGC, maybe within the next six months. And they think that as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran’s nuclear facilities. An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will. But frankly they’re guessing; after Iraq the White House trusts no one, especially the bureaucracy.

As with Saddam and his imagined WMD, the Administration’s case against the IRGC is circumstantial. The U.S. military suspects but cannot prove that the IRGC is the main supplier of sophisticated improvised explosive devices to insurgents killing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most sophisticated version, explosive formed projectiles or shape charges, are capable of penetrating the armor of an Abrams tank, disabling the tank and killing the crew.

[Full Article]

Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

[end]

This is posted not to prove an opinion either to prove or disprove the notion of climate change - but to simply say this topic is complex and needs a moderate, careful and open debate by the scientific community and the governments of the world.
The downside is way too large to simply shuffle evidence one way or another without an agreed / non-partisan consensus.

Each candidate entered tonight’s debate with a mission that had to be addressed quickly. Pre-debate, USAToday/Gallup reported that Edwards trails in third place with just 12 percent of the likely Democratic primary electorate — far behind Sen. Clinton (48 percent) and Sen. Obama (26 percent). Edwards’s mission: to find his sweet spot and demonstrate his worth in this debate – or else remain increasingly relegated to “also ran” status and out of serious contention.

The mission for Sen. Clinton, clearly the favorite of both the mainstream media and her Republican adversaries? Correct an ambiguity over her expressed trust and affection for the influencers of legislation: K Street lobbyists. For Sen. Obama - recently ridiculed by Republican presidential wannabe, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney for his ‘Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove’ metamorphosis – the mission was to either steer clear of foreign policy assertions or clearly and succinctly explain his desire to invade Pakistan and attack President Bush’s unstable ally in the “War on Terror,” General Musharraf.

The second tier of candidates clearly entered the debate with absolutely nothing to lose except the cash-debilitating effects of being labeled a “hopeless” candidate with little or no chance of becoming anything more than a cute election-process-tchotchke.

The AFL/CIO - an organization serving proud blue-collar labor unions – suggested many loaded questions that covered nationalized healthcare, worker rights, job-creation policies, and pension-protection measures. Surprisingly, foreign policy focused less on Iraq and more on the skewed Chinese trade imbalances and the migration of manufacturing jobs to other countries.

MS-NBC’s Keith Olbermann maintained a rapid but wholly friendly pace of questions and the array of discussions were diverse and well crafted. The audience – labor union workers – applauded sensible, honest, or just plain populist answers with loudly and derisively jeered those candidates who took the easier paths of waffling, dodging, and criticisms of fellow-party candidates.

Sen. Obama managed to dance very lightly and with well-rehearsed deftness around questions of his foreign policy naiveté and stuck to his “diplomacy first - heavy stick second” sound bite on Pakistan, Al Qaeda, and Afghanistan. His argument firmly rested on coalition failures in Iraq and the neglect of Afghanistan.

He deftly explained the U.S. was not safer since 9/11 and that Bush’s misadventures in Iraq had accomplished little besides fanning the flames of anti-Americanism and the neglect of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

“I want to fight on the right battlefield,” he explained. “Afghanistan! Not Iraq.”

Edwards continued to label other candidates as Washington insiders who were anything but the change Americans wanted. He argued Washington had consistently let the average working American down, that America didn’t want to replace one Washington insider with another – but with real change. He loudly voiced his opposition to lobbyist money and what he views as the rigged system.

“Give the power back to Americans by saying ‘No’ forever to the money and influence of lobbyists.”

With great energy, all of the candidates leaped on the topic of infrastructure – the decay and neglect of America’s roads, waterways and environment. Each eagerly poured the sticky blame on the Bush White House, ranging from the Katrina disaster in New Orleans the use of federal and state money to fund sports stadiums (to the detriment of more important infrastructure obligations ). Somehow, President Bush failed here also and the audience nodded their heads in agreement.

There were some firefights between candidates, with most attacks coming from second-tier candidates including Sen. Joe Biden (D. – Del.). Joe got his chance to tear into Sen. Obama and appeared to thoroughly enjoy it. When Obama has been asked about NAFTA, he has declared his desire to personally phone Mexico and Canada and inform them of his desire to revoke or heavily reform the much maligned trade agreement. His often-used, well-crafted catchphrase, “Trade agreements should be good for Main Street, not just Wall Street” was a mild applause line. Biden took the opportunity to stomach-punch Sen. Obama by replying, “A president’s role is to create jobs, not export jobs. It is a distinct lack of presidential leadership to ask Mexico and Canada to help fix things.”

When Sen. Christopher Dodd (D.- Conn.) was challenged by Olbermann to explain his description of Obama’s foreign policy statements as “confusing and unwise,” an uninvited Sen. Clinton willingly stepped into the breach with her own opinion on the matter. “It is a very big mistake to telegraph the world with what we’d do … Pakistan has nuclear weapons. When Musharraf is gone, his replacements will have these weapons. Think big but don’t tell everyone what you think.”

This quip actually backfired for Clinton and Obama seized the chance to push the point further in his favor by saying, “I did not say we’d go into Pakistan unilaterally. I said we should work with Musharraf to fix the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Americans have the right to know about this debate – not just Washington’s insiders.”

The strongest attack of the night was launched by Sen. Biden against the seemingly opportunistic John Edwards. When Edwards boasted of his participation in union pickets and town hall meetings, Biden threw back a charge of political grandstanding and campaign trail theater, saying Edwards had only gotten involved in union activities and support since his declared interest in the 2008 presidential process. It was a charge Edwards deftly manhandled and the blowback effect on Biden was more than a few naughty jeers from the audience of labor union activists.

The clown in the crowd – the court jester – remained Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D. – Ohio). His honesty and refreshing radicalism were marred by the sheer improbability of his campaign. When he continually uttered specific anti-Bush keywords, the decent reception he received from the audience was like the way a parent might patronize a tired but eager 3 year old showing off his wooden blocks. Entertaining but bordering on silly!

So who won? Each of the top three candidates needed to wipe a few ugly ambiguities off their policy declarations and wild statements of opinion before the stains became permanent. This was accomplished quite successfully by all three – with the mild exception of Hillary, whose support for lobbyists “that are just hard-working Americans like you and me” will remain a bit too grisly to swallow.

It almost seemed as if the second-tier candidates tag-teamed their assaults on one popular candidate while cuddling gently and with a touchy-feely camaraderie with another top-tier hopeful. Biden attacked Edwards while praising Clinton. Dodd continued his critique of Obama but had pleasantries for Edwards. And Kucinich? He attacked everyone but did so with great gusto and humor.

The media obsession with debate winners and losers will certainly continue in the coming days as the debate continues to be dissected. New opinion polls will add some clarity to the leader board and trends will emerge. The debate was successful however in promoting greater thought, consideration, and discussion among those who attended the Soldier Field forum and the few dozen cable TV viewers who watched it live on MS-NBC. That is a result we can all be proud of.

Why does the Whitehouse have such a crappy and incompetent communications office? Even if the Whitehouse Spokesperson, Tony Snow, stood on the podium and said, “It’s complicated!’. How difficult would that be?

Of the $63 billion in arms, a reportedly large chunk - $20 billion - is singled out for Saudi Arabia. Whilst $20 billion is a considerable weapons deal for one nation - past purchase record of arms deals with Saudi’s - dating back to 1992 - show a healthy and consistent arms trade relationship between the U.S. and the ‘House of Saud’ that publicly accounts for more than $56 billion since 1992 - which is approximately $3.5 billion a year in lovely military hardware, consulting services and camouflaged table napkins.

The JTA reported Senator Obama’s problem with the deal:

Obama, like Edwards a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Israel’s security was “paramount” in considering such a sale, and added: “We should not believe arms sales will be a replacement for the hard diplomatic slog we’ve got to go through in the region in order to not only stabilize Iraq, but to make sure Iran and Syria and other countries that historically have been hostile to us aren’t getting stronger.”

Clearly Obama believes diplomacy is the core solution for Middle East peace - which is admirable, honest, and a much needed contrast to the NeoCon military wet dream current pursued by the Bush/Cheney crew but a wee bit naive. It appears an unfortunate reality but the Middle East has become the ColdWar theatre for Russia’s multi-polar vision and Putin’s desire to destablize and weakness America’s dominant position in the region. Does Obama recognize Russia as the leading arms supplier to Iran, Syria and ‘other countries that historically have been hostile to us’ and are getting stronger!?

The insanely high price of oil can legitimately be blamed, in part, on Bush’s lack of vision, a lack of stones, or worse yet - an agenda in line with the global oil corporations. Of course the rapid economic ascent of China, India and other emerging economic giants with exponential oil demands has hardly helped but the U.S. military jaunt in Iraq certainly does not help to lower the price of oil.
$80 oil is making the enemies of the West, Iran, Syria, Venezuela included, rich. Putin has made a parle with this rogue nations and has become their arms dealer as a result.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni muslim nations are deeply suspicious, and rightly so, of Shiite Iran and their distrust is eased by the spiraling arms race supported by the U.S. and thoroughly enjoyed by Russia’s President Putin. Putin is in a win-win. As Russia becomes one of, if not the largest, oil exporter in the world - the price of energy is turning Russia into an economic super-power. As the middle east continues the weaponry version of ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’ Russia both enjoys influence and satisfaction at the ire and continued weakness of American influence in this troubled hotspot.

To throw an additional jab into the Bush administration’s ribs, Putin visited this week with former U.S. ambassador for Saudi Arabia, and now Secretary General of the Saudi National Security Council Prince Bandar bin Sultan. As Putin rarely travels abroad without a few glossy weapons brochures, you can be sure the topic came into discussion. How would that affect the mix? Putin out to nix U.S. weapons deals or simply present himself as a smiling alternative source?

Luckily perhaps for Bush, Prince Bandar, or ‘Bandar Bush’ as his close Bush family friends have nicknamed him, remains a pro-Western and wholly moderate member of the Saudi family that continues to rule unabashedly over the oil-rich and otherwise distinctly conservative nation.

It is no surprise then that Israel has accepted the U.S.’s arms deal with the Saudis with not so much as a quiet ‘ho hum’ even. The threat of Iran on Israel, the Middle East, and therefore Saudi Arabia is seen as a blessing perhaps and a incentive for the continuation of peace talks with any and all Arab nations willing to stand up to the Shiite threat whether real or perceived.

Saudi Arabia has already declared its obligation to defend Sunni interests inside Iraq should and when the United States depart the Iraq debacle under growing home-based political and social unhappiness. Such actions by the Saudi’s would be an immediate threat to Iran and its own greedy ambitions for a Shia Islamic state inside Iraq.

So perhaps the one saving grace of the whole Middle East disaster is the bringing together, potentially of fair-play Arab nations and a gingerly open-minded Israel - with one common distrust and loathing of Iran’s ambitions and regional power-play.

There is one winner in the whole game - and it appears to be Russia.

The JPost article, entitled “Reports: Iran to buy jets from Russia”, suggests Russia is to sell 250 ‘advanced long-range Sukhoi-30 fighter jets’ to the Islamic Republic of Iran in an ‘unprecedented billion-dollar deal.’

In addition - the JPost continues - ‘Teheran also plans to purchase a number of aerial fuel tankers that are compatible with the Sukhoi and capable of extending its range by thousands of kilometers … thus granting Iran long-range offensive capabilities.‘

Russia’s nationalized Defense Industry exports corporation - Rosoboronexports - has and continues to arm those nations around the world most outspoken against the perceived ‘unipolar’ imperialism of the United States.

These nations including Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Cuba, China have enjoyed steady and consistent arms sales deals with Putin’s Russia and have equally enjoyed the political weakness bestowed upon the U.S. wholly related to and as a result of the war in Iraq.

The world is changing rapidly. The U.S.’s singular dominance on the world stage is being questioned and new energy and economic super-powers - of the Middle East, China, Brazil and India - continue to dilute the power and influence of the United States and its very few willing and capable allies. Disgruntled nations, uneasy over President Bush’s attitude towards unilateral foreign policy adventures around the world, continue to call for a balance multi-polar world where the reach of the United States can be tied down by counter-weight efforts of equally strong nations. This ambition is slowly being realized.

Trade and military defense pacts between an oil-rich Venezuela, a skittish and nervous Syria and an increasingly unpredictable Iran further deteriorates the notion of geopolitical stability and peace. Bush’s adventures in Iraq serve only to distract the West from this bigger threat.

The Bush administration tripped over it’s own over-inflated ego and its perception of power in the Middle East and bad people are sensing its weakness and baying for some measure of bloodletting.

You can understand the not wholly misplaced distrust the Iranians hold against the United States and the United Nations. Whilst the U.S. aggressively sought to mediate an end to the bloody conflict - they also aided and abetted an power-hungry Saddam Hussein and gave him the gift chemical and biologicial weapons. This uneven playing-field tactic turned the war in Saddam’s favor and … Saddam being Saddam … he sought opportunity where other’s might see further bloodshed and death.

The Persian Journal’s article, written by Bahman Aghai Diba, is entitled, “The end of Iran-Iraq War and the 598 Resolution.”

[The full article can be read here]

In a nutshell:

The opening paragraph:

20th of July was the anniversary for the end of 8 years of horrible and destructive Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The war resulted in millions of dead and two devastated states. Although the acceptance of the Resolution 598 of the United Nations Security Council officially ended the war, the politics outside the UNSC played a great role in the termination of war and the later developments of the region.

- Iraq was losing the war against Iran, despite being the one that initiated it!

- The United States mediated and closed the cease-fire and ultimate Resolution agreement and that was that.

Saddam Hussein saved face - then became a major military customer for the United States before running foul with certain Kuwait-based poor decisions and, well, the rest is an ugly history of U.S. double-talk and confusing agendas.

Iran remains a the symbol of evil for the United States and, without any doubt, vice-versa for Iran’s distrusting viewpoint of the U.S.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration believes the cold-shoulder treatment of Iran will force it to comply with the demands of the United Nations and the ‘West’ - even though Iran has suffered and survived far worse treatment - including territorial invasion, chemical and biological weapons and multiple-decades of trade sanctions and embargoes.

Iran’s distrust and turbid dismissal of the United States and the United Nations is - unfortunately - understandable. The next step to resolving is?

Background reading: ‘Crimes of War: The Book‘ by Jonathan C. Randal
Crimes of War

Will the U.S. face the same demoralizing economic and political malaise suffered by Great Britain at the end of the Second World War through to the late Seventies? The unwinding of a global power. The instability of second-guessing, political introspection and economic lethargy? It appears the U.S. economy can survive thanks entirely to the stunning success of globalization and the explosion in growth of the new economic powerhouses - Brazil, Russia, India and China. This quarter’s earnings announcements by U.S. corporations almost entirely reflect massive profits in these overseas markets buffering the less than appetizing decline in the performance of the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy - however - is going to the crapper at a fast and furious pace.

The U.S. Dollar used to enjoy status of safe haven during bouts of global insecurity but no longer. The U.S. Dollar is trading at record lows against the European powerhouse Euro, the Japanese Yen and, embarrassingly, even against the bloody Canadian Dollar! What gives?

Politically - the U.S. is extremely weak, thanks to the decline in its global stature and the criminally incompetent policies and actions of the Bush administration. The domestic political bickering, presidential posturing and introspective navel-examining self-criticisms of political leaders within the mechanisms of U.S. politics are keenly watched and enjoyed by the growing list of nations sharing common grudge against decades of U.S. bravado, meddling and general buffoonery. Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, China, Cuba, France but to name a few nations enjoying the spectacle of U.S. political despair.
It seems our political statesmen are hanging their dirty laundry in full view of the neighbors and it is further unhinging a global reputation already in crisis mode.

Economically - the U.S.’s decades old policy of bankrolling disgusting amounts of money on the backs of foreign governments happy to enjoy the benefits of the world’s strongest economy has finally come to an end. The U.S. economy is barely growing and soon lose the status of ‘world’s biggest economy’ to the Chinese and then the Republic of India much sooner than anticipated. Those nations that used to purchase U.S. debt (U.S. assets including treasury bonds) are now rather keen to place their money in better performing markets with higher growth rates and faster returns. As a result, the credit boom is coming to a sticky end, the U.S. debt is being dumped on the open markets and the U.S. Dollar’s luster is starting to tarnish.
The media is reporting that New York City is no longer the world’s financial market place. It appears London is now the place to reside for the global financial institutions - thanks in no small part to less red tape, a healthier tax rate and, most importantly, better access to the new economic dynamo markets in the Middle East and Asia. Not good at all!

Perhaps the end of a unipolar world dominated by an increasingly unwanted and disliked United States might not be a bad thing - for the United States! Screw the ambitions of the world community anyway!. From a purely selfish perspective - the U.S. can stop bankrupting itself with the global policeman act. It can better focus on what it is the very best at!. A beacon for freedom, innovation and righteousness. I don’t mean this to sound quite as corny is it appears. Why not level the playing field for all those nations so eager to grab the limelight on the world stage. Let’s ponder an effort to rebuild the United Nations to fix those many disturbing problems we all face. One shared effort and, more importantly, one shared cost!.

Perhaps when our beloved political shmoes in D.C. realize that the U.S. lost in terms of global prestige - they might fix our broken Government, restore its credibility in the eyes of the common citizen, and replace the world’s vision of the U.S. from unilateral opportunist wielding a big stick and a cage in ‘Gitmo’ to that ’shining city upon a hill’ that embodied everything great about this nation in the eyes of those seeking freedom and possibilities.

The article begins:

A world trade deal that benefits all economies is within reach if countries are prepared to negotiate seriously on draft texts released this week, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said on Friday.

“A major final push will be needed to close the gaps, but with the right spirit, there is now a deal on the table to be seized,” Zoellick, a former chief trade negotiator for the United States, said in a statement.

Although the Doha round talks have been “long and arduous,” a pair of draft texts released this week by diplomats in charge of the agricultural and industrial goods negotiations provide hope of a deal, Zoellick said.

“The papers reveal just how much significant progress has already been achieved, and that the remaining gaps can be specified to achieve results, even though the topics are contentious,” Zoellick said.

The [NeoCon] CATO Institute pushes the advantages of Globalism as:

For less developed countries, globalization offers access to foreign capital, global export markets, and advanced technology while breaking the monopoly of inefficient and protected domestic producers. Faster growth, in turn, promotes poverty reduction, democratization, and higher labor and environmental standards.

While globalization may confront government officials with more difficult choices, the result for their citizens is greater individual freedom. In this sense, globalization acts as a check on governmental power that makes it more difficult for governments to abuse the freedom and property of their citizens.

A more balanced report on the pro’s and con’s of Globalism can be found in great depth and clarity at ICAAP - an academic think-tank / publications portal.

ICAAP’s report entitled, “Globalization: The two faces of globalization: Impoverishment or Prosperity?” begins:

Globalization is certainly the buzzword of the new millennium. The nature and impact of globalization has been the subject of profound debate and concern in economic circles since the mid-1990s. The controversy surrounding the on-going debates about globalization is whether unfettered market forces will further diverge or converge income the world over. On the one hand, proponents of globalization say it has promoted information exchange, led to a greater understanding of other cultures, raised living standards, increased purchasing power (most especially in the west) and allowed democracy to triumph over communism.1 On the other hand, opponents of globalization, such as those who protested against the ministerial meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle and most recently in Quebec City, say the West’s gain is at the expense of developing countries. These opponents charge that globalization is synonymous with imperialism and does little more than encourage corporations to relocate factories to countries with the cheapest labor and the weakest environmental laws.2 They further argue that, “even in the developed world, not everyone has been a winner. The freedoms granted by globalization are leading to increased insecurity in the workplace. Unskilled workers in particular are under threat as companies shift their production lines overseas to low-wage economies.”

Re: The Salazar Language (aka “Beam Me Up Scotty!”) [Andy McCarthy]

Lemme make sure I have this straight:

It is to be the sense of Congress that as long as we maintain a dialogue with the people whose imperative is “Death to America,” who have been actively killing Americans since we got to Iraq (to say nothing of the previous quarter-century), and whose most devout wish — other than wiping Israel off the map — is the destruction of America, we can draw down our troop commitment — which at current levels has been unable to defeat the enemy — to a skeleton rapid-reaction force … which, of course, will be ineffective to stop al Qaeda from setting up a beach-head in Iraq, which will be a sitting duck for terrorists whose ne plus ultra is to kill Americans, but which will enable the NYTimes to say Democrats did not call for a complete withdrawal?

And that’s the superior alternative to the Democrats’ plan?

Planet Earth to President Bush and the Republicans: Al Qaeda — having killed nearly 3000 Americans on 9/11 and promising to do it again — is baking 11-year-old Iraqis and serving them as cannibal fare to their own parents!!! The impediment between these barbarians setting up shop and civilization is OUR TROOPS. Do you think, maybe, there might kinda, sorta be something here we could work with — y’know, assuming, just for argument’s sake, of course, that we might possibly want to, um, take on the Left and rebut their insanity before we go along with all this?

Do you think maybe if you — repeatedly and convincingly — made clear to Americans what is going on over there, they might think, like, maybe we really do have to kill these savages — whose biggest target is us and who will get bigger and stronger if we leave? Do you think the American people, no matter how unhappy they are with you and how low your approval numbers are, will be content to lose a war to al Qaeda?

Is it possible that, instead of filling the media with stories about how your administration is trying to find a way out, we might possibly have you get on TV with some of the pictures Michael Yon has been publishing — and, y’know, like, friggin’ P-E-R-S-U-A-D-E the American people that our troops are over there for a reason that makes a difference for AMERICAN lives.

I can’t believe we’re losing to these guys — in Iraq or Washington. Can’t anybody here play this game?

Full article here.

The FT continues, “The world is facing an oil supply “crunch” within five years that will force up prices to record levels and increase the west’s dependence on oil cartel OPEC, the industrialized countries’ energy watchdog has warned.”

Fingers are also being pointed at the lack of credible oil refinery capacity inside the United States! The proof? The futures markets - the seers of future oil and gasoline prices - are increasingly pricing a spread between the price of unrefined crude versus the refined gasoline prices. This means the premium on gasoline over crude is increasing that suggests either demand for gasoline will strip supply or supply will decrease - or both!

Refineries have not been built inside the United States for almost thirty years! New legislation was passed over two years ago to ease and improve regulatory acceptance of new refinery construction and yet the oil giants have refused to jump on board and plough their hundreds of billions of dollars worth of profits into this critically important new investment.

An article in the San Diego Times in June of this year, “U.S. law to spur new oil refineries a bust so far“, suggests the oil giants are simply not interested, despite terrific tax credits and tax relief legislation.

Exxon Mobil’s perspective? A decent comment as posted as far back as September of ‘05 by the Houston Chronicle’s Blog:

Yesterday, as part of a daylong seminar on the energy industry for reporters at the Chronicle’s offices, Exxon Mobil Vice President Kenneth Cohen offered some insights on why the company doesn’t build more new refineries in the U.S. Basically, Cohen said, building even a small refinery would require an investment of $2 billion to $3 billion.

“Once you’ve made that investment, what you’re looking at is `what’s the growth?’ It’s just like any other business,” he said.

Exxon predicts U.S. oil demand may begin to fall by 2030, which means the company faces a limited window for return. More importantly, though, while the number of refineries has fallen since 1986, U.S. refining capacity has increased by 25 percent. That’s what Cohen refers to as “creep.” That is, refining technology has improved, allowing refiners to operate more efficiently.

“We’re able to produce much more with the same stuff.”

The creep has kept pace with rising oil demand, at least until the past year or two. Even so, from Exxon’s standpoint it’s hard to justify the cost of investing in building a new U.S. refinery. I doubt even tax incentives would sway Exxon’s opinion.

Cohen noted that Exxon does have ventures underway to build refineries in Asia.

“We’re going where the demand is,” he said.

I’m sorry - but $164 billion in profits for 2006 - based on the suffering of Mr. and Mrs. Tax-payer and Exxon still don’t get it? Sure, building oil refineries where the demand is … means moving resources as fast as you can to China - with their rocketing appetite for oil and their exploding (whoops, downside?) economy but guys, you are bending the average citizen of the U.S. over a chair and giving it to them in the ass and you don’t are asking, “What’s the growth?”

When the U.S. economy collapses BECAUSE of your insistence that $80, $90 or $100 is completely acceptable whilst you play nice with an EPA-ignoring China market, … who will be blamed? You guys?

Frankly, the blame will (and almost certainly should) be placed on the shoulders of those demonic morons in Washington (both sides of the political fence) for their acceptance of Oil Lobbyists, their short time and insanely blinkered self-serving legislative incompetence.

Alternative energy? This is a matter of national security if ever I saw it and what is happening? Billions and billions every day is spent in Iraq. The oil industry advertises on T.V. in all major markets telling us the oil industry feels our pain (BP, “Beyond Petroleum”, my ass) and yet they’ve done nothing to avoid refinery capacity decline.

What if a visionary president had stood up in 2000 and challenged the nation, this fine country that delivers world-leading innovation and self-improvement - to find an alternative to the combustion engine within ten years!? Some JKF’esque Moon-Shot speech that was supported by fantastically massive federal investment!? Jobs creation, spin offs in products and services, a safer environment, a bullish economy and a light at the end of the tunnel on saying ‘sa.yo.na.ra‘ to those fellas at OPEC?

[Written in a hurry because I'm pissed off.]

SO; it is a shame when a visitor to my blog makes an ‘anonymous’ comment that delivers criticism (awesome) but wrapped in name calling (:-( It makes me want to address. So here goes!

The comment (below) referred to my post: ‘China’s Imminent Implosion | Upside for U.S. or Disaster?‘

The comment:

“omgz teh chineze r coming
Drivel from start to finish. However you want to dress up a world-affecting recession culminating in an oil or fiscal shock, it’s lipstick on a pig as far as any sane economist is concerned. Your sinophobia is transparent, and it’s clouding your judgement.”

So, as an attempt to turn into ’snide’ into ‘pleasant’ …

I don’t think I’m a ‘Sinophobic’. I just don’t trust them and history and current events might add to the sense that the Chinese leadership don’t deserve our trust at the moment.

Reasons? (not in order of importance)

- China is building up its military forces at a stunning rate. It is designing weapons specifically to address weaknesses in U.S., Taiwanese and Japanese naval deployments in the region - including missile systems specifically designed to destroy aircraft carrier groups.

- China is blatantly ignoring United Nations sanctions applied on Iran to encourage it to open up and create transparency in its nuclear ambitions. Chinese weapons sales to Iran continue despite global criticism.

- China builds oil pacts with leading anti-U.S. oil producers - Iran and Venezuela.

- Chinese cyber-warfare is a very real and credible threat against the United Nations and the West. Chinese state-managed hackers are probing the U.S. military and industrial infrastructure for weaknesses and intelligence.

- China is manipulating the Chinese currency to keep their exports to the United States well below the competitive edge of U.S. manufacturing abilities. China is distorting world trade agreements - abusing the openness of the U.S. economy whilst blocking the legitimate competition of U.S. corporations inside China.

- China’s track record on human rights is shocking and persistent. Historically China’s genocide in the 20th century continues into this century. Treatment of political prisoners in Tibet makes ‘Gitmo’ look like a Sunday school. China’s acceptance of religious freedoms inside China is - wanting - at the very least and inhumane.

So, in conclusion, am I sinophobic? No. I just don’t trust the Chinese government, their history, their ambitions, their slight of hand, and diplomatic double-talk. Is that fair enough?

Your feedback and opinions are most wanted! Email addresses optional but pleasant!