Gender: Male
Status: In a Relationship
Age: 23
Sign: Capricorn
City: Nassau
State: New Providence
Country: BS
Signup Date:
08/15/05
|
Blog Archive
[ Older
Newer ]
|
|
 |
|
Friday, June 13, 2008
|
McCain Loopholes His Own Campaign Finance Law
Current mood:  annoyed
Category: News and Politics
New McCain Fund Gets Around Donation Limits
Elizabeth Holmes reports on the presidential race:
To help ease their fund-raising woes, John McCain's campaign has devised a new system to increase the maximum amount an individual can donate to the unofficial Republican nominee's election efforts.
Campaign manager Rick Davis released the details of the "McCain Victory 08" fund on Friday. He said the entity is a joint committee, combining the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and four key states under a "hybrid legal structure."
The idea is to tap donors for more than the $2,300 limit set by campaign finance laws. Under legislation pushed by McCain in his role as a senator from Arizona, an individual can donate a maximum of $2,300 to a presidential primary campaign and the same amount to the general election campaign. Although McCain received the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination in March, he will not be the party's official nominee until the convention in September—so he is still running a primary campaign.
The new structure allows up to $70,000 in individual contributions by channeling the money into different McCain-centric funds. The first $2,300 of that would go to McCain's primary campaign. The Republican National Committee would receive $28,500 of the donation. The remaining funds would be divided equally, up to $10,000 a piece, among four states the campaign has designated as battlegrounds for November: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico.
Davis said those four states were selected because they "probably don't have the capacity to fund directly out of their own organic resources in state." He added: "They will benefit from a national fund raising effort that will help funnel money to those state Victory programs."
The campaign also has individual Victory Fund programs in California, Ohio and Florida. Each of those states can also receive a maximum of $10,000 from an individual, Davis said.
Still in question is whether or not the McCain campaign will accept public financing for his general election campaign. In order to receive the money, McCain would have to abide by spending limits—roughly $85 million from the time he receives the nomination at the convention through Nov. 4. One of his Democratic opponents, Barack Obama, has expressed doubts about taking public financing and abiding by the spending limits. The McCain campaign said they will reserve judgment on their participation until the general election competition becomes clearer.
Source
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/19/new-mccain-fund-gets-around-donation-limits/
So much for the straight talk express huh!!! What a fucking hypocrite!!!
2:15 AM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
Saturday, June 07, 2008
|
New process generates hydrogen from aluminum alloy to run engines, fuel cells
Current mood:  accomplished
Category: News and Politics
Researchers demonstrate method for producing hydrogen
A Purdue University engineer has developed a method that uses an aluminum alloy to extract hydrogen from water for running fuel cells or internal combustion engines, and the technique could be used to replace gasoline.
The method makes it unnecessary to store or transport hydrogen - two major challenges in creating a hydrogen economy, said Jerry Woodall, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue who invented the process.
"The hydrogen is generated on demand, so you only produce as much as you need when you need it," said Woodall, who presented research findings detailing how the system works during a recent energy symposium at Purdue.
The technology could be used to drive small internal combustion engines in various applications, including portable emergency generators, lawn mowers and chain saws. The process could, in theory, also be used to replace gasoline for cars and trucks, he said. Hydrogen is generated spontaneously when water is added to pellets of the alloy, which is made of aluminum and a metal called gallium. The researchers have shown how hydrogen is produced when water is added to a small tank containing the pellets. Hydrogen produced in such a system could be fed directly to an engine, such as those on lawn mowers. "When water is added to the pellets, the aluminum in the solid alloy reacts because it has a strong attraction to the oxygen in the water," Woodall said. This reaction splits the oxygen and hydrogen contained in water, releasing hydrogen in the process. The gallium is critical to the process because it hinders the formation of a skin normally created on aluminum's surface after oxidation. This skin usually prevents oxygen from reacting with aluminum, acting as a barrier. Preventing the skin's formation allows the reaction to continue until all of the aluminum is used. The Purdue Research Foundation holds title to the primary patent, which has been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and is pending. An Indiana startup company, AlGalCo LLC., has received a license for the exclusive right to commercialize the process. The research has been supported by the Energy Center at Purdue's Discovery Park, the university's hub for interdisciplinary research. "This is exactly the kind of project that suits Discovery Park. It's exciting science that has great potential to be commercialized," said Jay Gore, associate dean of engineering for research, the Energy Center's interim director and the Vincent P. Reilly Professor of Mechanical Engineering. The research team is made up of electrical, mechanical, chemical and aeronautical engineers, including doctoral students.
Woodall discovered that liquid alloys of aluminum and gallium spontaneously produce hydrogen if mixed with water while he was working as a researcher in the semiconductor industry in 1967. The research, which focused on developing new semiconductors for computers and electronics, led to advances in optical-fiber communications and light-emitting diodes, making them practical for everything from DVD players to automotive dashboard displays. That work also led to development of advanced transistors for cell phones and components in solar cells powering space modules like those used on the Mars rover, earning Woodall the 2001 National Medal of Technology from President George W. Bush. Continue Reading
12:57 AM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
Does Hillary Really Own The Popular Vote?
Current mood:  amused
Category: News and Politics
Hillary's Popular Vote?
The -20 Million Dollar Campaign Debt Question
We all know that Hillary loves to brag about her winning 18 million voters and that more people voted for her than anyone else. Now at first glance, you might believe her, hell even the media continues to throw this in our face. However, when you really take a hard look at the numbers, her argument goes from being credible to downright fallacious.
"Nearly 18 million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history." ~ Hillary Clinton
Now let's take a step back and really analyze this. If you were to consider this entire primary season and count all the states, She can claim the victory however, she can't because you cannot count Michigan where she was the only candidate on the ballot. Thus her argument only holds true if you count Michigan.
Obama won more total votes than Clinton in the contests where they both appeared on the ballot. Clinton won the popular vote only if you count votes from Michigan, where Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.
Any way you cut it, the candidates' vote totals are within less than 1 percent of each other. Both candidates got roughly 18 million votes, but since four states don't list official counts, the precise totals can't be known.
The political Web site Real Clear Politics has an excellent tally, with links to official reports from state election authorities. Those show that even counting Clinton's win in Florida, where the two were on the ballot but did not campaign due to the state's violation of party rules, Obama beat Clinton in the popular vote by 41,622 votes – a small margin, only 0.1 percent. Obama's margin grows to 151,844 votes, or 0.4 percent, when estimates are included for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, which did not release official totals of popular votes.
Only by counting Michigan, where Clinton's name was on the ballot but Obama's was not, can Clinton claim to have won more votes. Counting only officially reported results, Michigan puts Clinton's total ahead nationally by 286,687 votes or 0.8 percent. Once estimated votes from the four non-reporting states are included, the margin becomes less significant: 176,465 votes, or 0.5 percent. And if Michigan's "uncommited" votes were accorded to Obama, he'd have a 61,703-vote lead (0.2 percent), counting estimates from the non-reporting states.
For the record, Clinton hasn't always been so eager to count Michigan votes. On Oct. 11, 2007, she said of the state, "It's clear, this election they're having isn't going to count for anything." But that was when she was wooing New Hampshire voters, who cherish their first-in-the-nation primary and who were upset that Michigan was violating party rules designed to protect it. She was responding to an interviewer for New Hampshire Public Radio who asked, "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, 'Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?' " Clinton went on to win the New Hampshire primary.
Interesting isn't it? I hope that this has been informative for those die-hard Clinton Supporters who believe everything she says. Hey did you know the makers of the matrix got the bullet time effect from Hillary. Remember the Bosnia Sniper Fire incident; yep who do you think Neo learn't how to dodge bullets in the blink of an eye from? Yep you guessed it, Hillary!!!
Another Hillary lie? Let's take a look at those numbers again.
Anyways this is G.Q. signing off.
12:04 AM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
Friday, June 06, 2008
|
McCain’s Lies About Katrina
Current mood: amused
Category: News and Politics
Katrina Kerfuffle
June 5, 2008
McCain claims he "supported every investigation" into the government's role regarding the hurricane, when in fact he twice voted against an independent commission.
Summary
McCain was asked by a New Orleans reporter why he voted twice against an independent commission to investigate the government's failings before and after Hurricane Katrina, and he incorrectly stated that he had "voted for every investigation."
McCain actually voted twice, in 2005 and 2006, to defeat a Democratic amendment that would have set up an independent commission along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. At the time of the second vote, members of both parties were complaining that the White House was refusing requests by Senate investigators for information.
The McCain campaign accused the Obama campaign of "tired negative attacks" for pointing out and documenting McCain's gaffe. Story Continues
I would definitely encourage you guys to read the rest of that article. It seems the straight talk candidate isn't so straight afterall.
Look forward to your comments!!!
G.Q.
11:58 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
Setting McCain Straight
Current mood: annoyed
Category: News and Politics
Debunking McCain's Fallacious Arguments
Part 1Credit to FactCheck.org: for the research done on their part.
Yes it does feel good to be back doing what I onced loved and that is reporting what those idiots in the mainstream media fail to. Now we all know that this year's Presidential primary season was an eventful and exciting one and there are a few things that was said on the campaign trail that many in the media dont' seem to correct. We all know John McCain is a veteran and his service to this country is one that cannot go without being honoured. With that said, it does not excuse him for making fallacious claims about Barack Obama's judgement on foreign policy. Although McCain is more exprienced, his voting records suggests he is the one that lacks the judgement and the war in Iraq is fine example, and his report when he came back stating that Iraq was peaceful (considering he was in a marketplace surrounded by more than a dozen soldiers) and secure. For someone who claims to be a Mavrick, and one that does not play party politics, John McCain is once again contradicting himself by attacking Barack Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. If you have been following the news report (which I hope you have), this amendment was tabled before the senate and lists specifically to label the Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a terrorist organization. According to McCain, Obama opposed the measure and in doing so is being sympathetic to Iran. Here are the facts that our News Media forgot to mention: Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that also called for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment did more than just label the IRGC terrorists. Obama stated at the time that he opposed the bill on the grounds that it constituted "saber-rattling."
McCain claims that Obama must oppose calling the IRGC a terrorist group because Obama's Web site doesn't say anything about the IRGC. McCain's argument is a glaring example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Now let us continue. We all know that McCain was at AIPAC this week clealry trying to discredit Obama in an attempt to pull jewish voters away from him. We'll now take a look at McCain's claim in detail: "We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama. He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a "wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region." ~ John McCain at AIPACIn an attempt to add salt to the wound, McCain had it posted on his website where he further continued his fallacious attacks on Obama. " The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps A Terrorist Organization - But Senator Obama Opposed It." ~ johnmccain.comFor the average person, who would fail to do research, this type of attack can be very damaging to a candidate running for office. The tone of of the argument is seductive and quite compelling, if you look at it from the surface. However upon further inspection of McCain's points, one can point out where the fallacy comes in. McCain oversimplifies the position that becasue Obama does not want to support the Bill, then he is soft on Iran. Let us take a step back for a moment and consider this. Before the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was introduced, Obama cosponsored a bill that called for the IRGC to be designated as "a Foreign Terrorist Operation." Obama was one of 72 cosponsors of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which states (in part): Iran Counter-Proliferation Act: The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization ... and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224.Interesting isn't it? Yet Obama is soft on Iran. Even with this evidence out there, the McCain camp has the audacity to state that the bill has yet to reach the floor for a vote. Yes this is true, however, one cannot deny that Obama's involvement in drafting and sponsoring this bill, proves that he does in fact consider the IRGC a terrorist organization. The Kyl-Lieverman amendment which McCain seems to be the biggest cheerleader for also calls for this, and was in fact passed by a vote of 76-22 on the 26th of Sept. 2007. However, two senators were missing when that crucial vote took place; Senators McCain and Obama. Don't you just love how interesting this just got? FactCheck.org has an excerpt of the Amendment which I shall save you the time for going there by posting it here. Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (excerpt)
Sec. 1538 of H.R. 1585
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.But the amendment did more than just urge the president to name new terrorist groups. It also expressed the sense that it is "a critical national interest" to prevent Iran from "turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force." Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate." Obama did not actually vote on the amendment – he was campaigning at the time. But he did publicly oppose it, calling it excessively provocative: Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.The 19 Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent who voted against the amendment included many of the Senate's leading voices on foreign relations. Joseph Biden, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, opposed the amendment, as did Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the same committee. In fact, nine of the 23 senators who opposed the amendment sit on the Foreign Relations Committee.Isn't it interesting that the members of the Senate who opposed this bill are the ones sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee. Yet McCain never mentions this because this would completely invalidate his argument which is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. McCain Web site: After The Kyl-Lieberman Vote, Barack Obama Often Criticized The Amendment Without Mentioning Any Support For IRGC Designation ... Before Responding To John McCain, Obama's Website Provides No Indication That Obama Favors Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization.Again, we can point out the fallacious nature of this argument. As you recall, we have established that Obama does designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, and is on record of co-sponsoring a bill for it. We can even try this, and say that even if Obama never co-sponsored a bill, arguing that his failure to state support for something by posting it on his website is another fallacious argument. This argument falls flat because Obama not advertisign this on website does not prove his support or opposition for the bill. These petty antics by John McCain just goes to show you the type of President he will be. Such reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy that philosophers call an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an argument from ignorance. The fallacy occurs when someone asserts that the lack of evidence against a claim means that the claim is true. Should we conclude that because McCain's Web site says nothing about torturing kittens that he supports it? Of course not. Another thing I want to point out is the that McCain the biggest cheerleader for the bill never showed up to vote for it. Now tell me, how can you criticize Obama for not supporting a bill you never showed up to vote for yourself? Boy I tell ya!!!! To my dear readers I look forward to your questions and comments This is G.Q. siging out.
11:15 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
Guess Who’s Back!!!!
Current mood:  blessed
Yes It's been a while since I posted sometihng heere on myspace and to all my loyal readers I do apologise for being away for so long. Rest assured, I am back, and with a vengeance. But firstly let me take some time to thank those who have supported me over there years.
Gina
Imperator
The doc. [Apoch]
Brian
The Resistance
Renaissance Ninja
Noah
Mike
and of course my most loyal reader (he changed his name)
Beer Tastes Like Chicken
10:56 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
|
PRESS RELEASE: FASHIONS HOW
Current mood: accomplished
Category: Fashion, Style, Shopping
NIKESAHE GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD
The Innovative Face of Fashion.
University of The West Indies
Student Union Bldg.
Mona, Kingston 7
(876)-382-1965
cco.nikesahe@gmail.com
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
For more information contact:
NIKesahe Public Relations Department.
Phone: (876) 813-9906
E-mail: cco.nikesahe@gmail.com.
Integration Thursday
Fashion Show featuring: Caribbean Integrated Fashions & NIKESAHE
Kingston Jamaica, On Thursday November 29th, 2007, NIKESAHE., in collaboration with Caribbean Integrated Fashions produced a stellar fashion show that was well received among the university populace. nikesahe models came out in fine style to much anticipated regular mass of students and persons. The show went along superbly with each model assigned being in attendance as well as our C.E.O and C.C.O playing one of the most integral roles that night.
The show was pulled off with designers of interest, namely, La Pluma Negra, Kulcha Vybes, Drenz, Sassie, Tuff like Iron as well as some jewelry designers.
"Each model in specific, offered much to the program and, it is my honor to commend each of them individually" said Satish Boodoosingh, Director of Client Relations of NIKESAHE
"The combined effort of nikesahe & CIF on Thursday is a hint of things to come. With our continued collaboration, I look forward to the level of work our two teams can continue to bring not only to the patrons of these events but to potential clients as well. We may not have the budgets of the big players but the quality of our work is unparallel anywhere." said K. Renaldo Collie, Chief Executive Officer of NIKESAHE.
NIKESAHE is an Image Management, Modeling and Advertising Services company. It is known for its high standard work with Rebel Unit Clothing Co, & La Pluma Negra, The company contracts 12 models in the greater Kingston area and is on track to become the premiere fashion company for its innovate ideas and unprecedented level of customer service.
8:30 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
|
NIKESAHE
Current mood: accomplished
Category: Life
..
Who would a thought a political blogger like me would grow to become the CEO of a premire Caribbean Image Managment and Advertising Services Company. I remember by days of blogging on the internet looking for ways to bring down the establishments and realized that I no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't take them down. The reason being I didnt' have the power they had nor did I have the resources they had. Now I do, and to all my political bloggers out there, I will do everything in my power to continue to fight the good fight and take on the scums of this Earth. This time we have the fire power to fight the fire.
CEO G.Q.
1:17 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
|
Sunday, June 24, 2007
|
The New Middle East
Current mood:  uncomfortable
Category: This is going to lead to war News and Politics
..>
| Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a "New Middle East" | ..> "Hegemony is as old as Mankind…" -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor
The term "New Middle East" was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the "Greater Middle East." This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the "New Middle East," was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a "New Middle East" was being launched from Lebanon. This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli "military roadmap" in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan. The "New Middle East" project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of "constructive chaos." This "constructive chaos" --which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region-- would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives. New Middle East Map Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that "[w]hat we're seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the 'birth pangs'—of a 'New Middle East' and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one."1 Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force. The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's speech on the "New Middle East" had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon --which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London-- have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the "neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world orders," and that "creative destruction [in] the United States was, in the words of neo-conservative philosopher and Bush adviser Michael Ledeen, 'an awesome revolutionary force' for (…) creative destruction…"2 Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out. (See map below) Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. The Middle East is to some extent the southern tier of Central Asia. Central Asia in turn is also termed as "Russia's Southern Tier" or the Russian "Near Abroad." Many Russian and Central Asian scholars, military planners, strategists, security advisors, economists, and politicians consider Central Asia ("Russia's Southern Tier") to be the vulnerable and "soft under-belly" of the Russian Federation.3 It should be noted that in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus4) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Map of the "New Middle East" A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the "New Middle East." MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST
Map: click to enlarge
Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.
This map of the "New Middle East" seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East. The map of the "New Middle East" was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel's book, Never Quit the Fight, which was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military's Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5 It should be noted that Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon's foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy. It has been written that Ralph Peters' "four previous books on strategy have been highly influential in government and military circles," but one can be pardoned for asking if in fact quite the opposite could be taking place. Could it be Lieutenant-Colonel Peters is revealing and putting forward what Washington D.C. and its strategic planners have anticipated for the Middle East? The concept of a redrawn Middle East has been presented as a "humanitarian" and "righteous" arrangement that would benefit the people(s) of the Middle East and its peripheral regions. According to Ralph Peter's: International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war. The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally. While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam, but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats. Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia [Muslims], but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire. Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East. Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosphorus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected. 6
(emphasis added) "Necessary Pain"
Besides believing that there is "cultural stagnation" in the Middle East, it must be noted that Ralph Peters admits that his propositions are "draconian" in nature, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or "birth pang" in order to create the "New Middle East" that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision. Moreover, it is worth noting that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is being politicized and stimulated in Europe to offend Turkey.7 The overhaul, dismantlement, and reassembly of the nation-states of the Middle East have been packaged as a solution to the hostilities in the Middle East, but this is categorically misleading, false, and fictitious. The advocates of a "New Middle East" and redrawn boundaries in the region avoid and fail to candidly depict the roots of the problems and conflicts in the contemporary Middle East. What the media does not acknowledge is the fact that almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas. Many of the problems affecting the contemporary Middle East are the result of the deliberate aggravation of pre-existing regional tensions. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States and Britain in various parts of the globe including Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Iraq is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of "divide and conquer." Other examples are Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan. Amongst the problems in the contemporary Middle East is the lack of genuine democracy which U.S. and British foreign policy has actually been deliberately obstructing. Western-style "Democracy" has been a requirement only for those Middle Eastern states which do not conform to Washington's political demands. Invariably, it constitutes a pretext for confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are examples of undemocratic states that the United States has no problems with because they are firmly alligned within the Anglo-American orbit or sphere. Additionally, the United States has deliberately blocked or displaced genuine democratic movements in the Middle East from Iran in 1953 (where a U.S./U.K. sponsored coup was staged against the democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh) to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the Arab Sheikdoms, and Jordan where the Anglo-American alliance supports military control, absolutists, and dictators in one form or another. The latest example of this is Palestine. The Turkish Protest at NATO's Military College in Rome Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters' map of the "New Middle East" has sparked angry reactions in Turkey. According to Turkish press releases on September 15, 2006 the map of the "New Middle East" was displayed in NATO's Military College in Rome, Italy. It was additionally reported that Turkish officers were immediately outraged by the presentation of a portioned and segmented Turkey.8 The map received some form of approval from the U.S. National War Academy before it was unveiled in front of NATO officers in Rome. The Turkish Chief of Staff, General Buyukanit, contacted the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and protested the event and the exhibition of the redrawn map of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.9 Furthermore the Pentagon has gone out of its way to assure Turkey that the map does not reflect official U.S. policy and objectives in the region, but this seems to be conflicting with Anglo-American actions in the Middle East and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan. Is there a Connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Eurasian Balkans" and the "New Middle East" Project? The following are important excerpts and passages from former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives. Brzezinski also states that both Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states of the "Eurasian Balkans," located on its southern tier, are "potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts [balkanization]," and that, "If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable."10
It seems that a divided and balkanized Iraq would be the best means of accomplishing this. Taking what we know from the White House's own admissions; there is a belief that "creative destruction and chaos" in the Middle East are beneficial assets to reshaping the Middle East, creating the "New Middle East," and furthering the Anglo-American roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia: In Europe, the Word "Balkans" conjures up images of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalries. Eurasia, too, has its "Balkans," but the Eurasian Balkans are much larger, more populated, even more religiously and ethnically heterogeneous. They are located within that large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability (…) that embraces portions of southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia [Pakistan, Kashmir, Western India], the Persian Gulf area, and the Middle East. The Eurasian Balkans form the inner core of that large oblong (…) they differ from its outer zone in one particularly significant way: they are a power vacuum. Although most of the states located in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East are also unstable, American power is that region's [meaning the Middle East's] ultimate arbiter. The unstable region in the outer zone is thus an area of single power hegemony and is tempered by that hegemony. In contrast, the Eurasian Balkans are truly reminiscent of the older, more familiar Balkans of southeastern Europe: not only are its political entities unstable but they tempt and invite the intrusion of more powerful neighbors, each of whom is determined to oppose the region's domination by another. It is this familiar combination of a power vacuum and power suction that justifies the appellation "Eurasian Balkans." The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia's richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant. Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold. The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy, and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea. Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. The situation is made all the more volatile by the fact that the region is not only a power vacuum but is also internally unstable. (…) The Eurasian Balkans include nine countries that one way or another fit the foregoing description, with two others as potential candidates. The nine are Kazakstan [alternative and official spelling of Kazakhstan] , Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia—all of them formerly part of the defunct Soviet Union—as well as Afghanistan. The potential additions to the list are Turkey and Iran, both of them much more politically and economically viable, both active contestants for regional influence within the Eurasian Balkans, and thus both significant geo-strategic players in the region. At the same time, both are potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts. If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable, while efforts to restrain regional domination by Russia could even become futile. 11 (emphasis added) Redrawing the Middle East The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up the First World War. In the wake of the the First World War the borders of the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn. This region experienced a period of upheaval, violence and conflict, before and after World War I, which was the direct result of foreign economic interests and interference. The reasons behind the First World War are more sinister than the standard school-book explanation, the assassination of the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Economic factors were the real motivation for the large-scale war in 1914.
Norman Dodd, a former Wall Street banker and investigator for the U.S. Congress, who examined U.S. tax-exempt foundations, confirmed in a 1982 interview that those powerful individuals who from behind the scenes controlled the finances, policies, and government of the United States had in fact also planned U.S. involvement in a war, which would contribute to entrenching their grip on power.
The following testimonial is from the transcript of Norman Dodd's interview with G. Edward Griffin;
We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?
Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country [the United States], than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows [wars] in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. And finally, they answer that question as follows: we must control the State Department.
And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective. Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. And finally, of course, the war is over.
At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out.
(emphasis added)
The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region.
The Middle East has been conditioned by outside forces into a powder keg that is ready to explode with the right trigger, possibly the launching of Anglo-American and/or Israeli air raids against Iran and Syria. A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel. NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan has been successfully divided, all but in name. Animosity has been inseminated in the Levant, where a Palestinian civil war is being nurtured and divisions in Lebanon agitated. The Eastern Mediterranean has been successfully militarized by NATO. Syria and Iran continue to be demonized by the Western media, with a view to justifying a military agenda. In turn, the Western media has fed, on a daily basis, incorrect and biased notions that the populations of Iraq cannot co-exist and that the conflict is not a war of occupation but a "civil war" characterised by domestic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda.
Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a "divide and conquer strategy" which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.
Source
2:56 AM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
CIA Plot to Assinate Chavez
Current mood: amused
Category: They just don't know when to give up!!! News and Politics
Is The CIA Trying to Kill Venezuela's Hugo Chávez?
by Chris Carlson
"I want to kill that son of a bitch," said the Capitan of the Venezuelan National Guard, Thomas Guillen in a recorded telephone call with his wife. In the call, played on Venezuela's state TV channel last month, the Capitan reveals his and his father's plans to kill President Hugo Chávez. The next day, the Capitan and his father, retired General Ramon Guillén Dávila, were arrested and taken into custody for conspiring to kill the President of Venezuela. [1]
In recent weeks, Hugo Chávez has increasingly warned that the United States has plans to kill him and is stepping up its activity against him and his government. Chávez has also claimed that the CIA is working with associates of the famous Cuban terrorist and CIA agent Posada Carriles, designing plans for his assassination. But could there be any truth to all of this? Could this be a classic CIA-conspiracy to kill another official "enemy" of the United States? A quick look at the connections between the CIA and the General Ramon Guillén Dávila shows that it definitely is a possibility.
The United States manages to spread its tentacles into different countries around the world in various ways, influencing and intervening in the politics of sovereign nations. In Latin America, one of the most common ways is through supposed "drug operations." The CIA has been known to run "anti-drug" operations in countries like Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador.
In Venezuela, such CIA-created "anti-drug" operations were led in the 1980's by the same General Ramon Guillén Dávila who was recently planning to kill Chávez. According to the Miami Herald, Guillen was the CIA's most trusted man in Venezuela and the senior official collaborating with the CIA during the 1980's. [2]
As head of the Venezuela National Guard, Guillén worked closely with the CIA to infiltrate and gather information about Colombian drug trafficking operations. But instead of curbing drug operations, Guillén and the CIA ended up smuggling cocaine themselves, and the whole thing exploded when 60 Minutes aired an expose in 1993. The CIA had collaborated with Guillén to smuggle the incredible sum of 22 tons of cocaine into the United States. [3]
After US customs intercepted a shipment of cocaine entering the country through Miami Internatoinal Airport, an official investigation revealed that General Guillén was responsible. But according to investigative journalist Michael Levine, Guillén was a CIA "asset" operating under CIA orders and protection, a fact that was later admitted by the CIA. General Guillén was never extradited for trial in the U.S. [4]
So is General Ramon Guillén Dávila still a CIA "asset" working to knock off the Venezuelan President? Whether or not the General maintains ties with the CIA, it does seem that he would be a likely candidate for destabilization efforts against the Chávez government.
According to the web page School of the Americas Watch, General Guillén graduated from the infamous U.S. combat training school in 1967. [5] The School of the Americas, renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001, is a US military facility that is used to train Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques and interrogation tactics.
As another of the many tentacles of the U.S. Empire, the School of the Americas has been called the "biggest base for destabilization in Latin America." Located in Fort Benning, Georgia, the school sends its graduates throughout the region to repress left-wing and communist movements and to influence the political situations in Latin American countries. The school has frequently supported regimes with a history of employing death squads and torture to repress their populations.
Last week, during the 5th anniversary of the 2002 U.S.-supported coup attempt against the Venezuelan government, Chávez emphasized that "the empire never rests." He assured that the United States, along with the Venezuelan elite will continue conspiring in order to remove him from power, and that they would never accept the Bolivarian Revolution.
It would be no surprise, however, if the CIA were planning to kill or overthrow Hugo Chávez. The criminal organization has a long and dirty history of covert operations including assassinations, economic warfare, and rigged elections. In Latin America alone the CIA has overthrown numerous regimes in places like Nicaragua, Chile, Panama, Brazil, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and, most recently, Haiti in 2004.
What would be more surprising is if the CIA is not searching for a way to get rid of the popular Venezuelan President. After all, Chávez has proven to be quite a threat to the interests of the U.S. Empire and their corporate sponsors. Chávez has sharply rejected Washington's neo-liberal agenda, nationalized major sectors of the economy, freed his country from IMF and World Bank mandates, strengthened OPEC, taken control of the nation's oil industry, and strengthened south-south integration across the world.
However, what is even more threatening to the interests of the empire is that the revolution in Venezuela serves as an example in the region, and is now spreading to other places. Countries like Bolivia and Ecuador are now living their own revolutions, replicating the Venezuelan experience.
It seems feasible that former CIA "asset" General Ramon Guillén Dávila was conspiring with the CIA to get rid of the most consolidated leftist movement in Latin America today. But regardless of whether or not the CIA can manage to extinguish the fire in Venezuela, it might be too late for them to control the growing wave of leftist revolutions in the region.
Source
2:52 AM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
|
|
