4,000 dead American soldiers / 5 years.
--------------------------------------
800 dead American soldiers per year
800 dead American soldiers / 365 days (I get my calculator out)
-----------------------------------------
2.2 dead American soldiers per day
This 2.2 soldiers per day for ALL THAT OIL? How can that be bad?
LINKS
- Wikipedia: Oil reserves Iraq
- Democracy Now: U.S. Deaths in Iraq Reach 4,000
From The Sunday Times
September 16, 2007
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
- Times Online: Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson
- Wikipedia: Alan Greenspan
- Wikipedia: War in Iraq
I wish I had made the following up - From "The Canadian"
Stéphane Dion continues to ignore New American Union project to take over Canada.Yeah, I thought so.
The Stéphane Dion led Liberal Party of Canada has totally abdicated supporting vital cross-Canada public discussions on the efforts of the Stephen Harper government to work with the U.S. Bush administration's effort to consolidate the continentalist agenda to create a "New American Union" (NAU). The NAU is a plan to replace democratically elected governments in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a fascistic "capitalistocracy" run by a greed-driven North American political-military-industrial complex. [...]
Wasn't environment "THE" issue for Stephane Dion?While Mr. Dion markets his leadership as pro-Canada and pro-environmentalistic [...] , the "New American Union" agenda [leads] to the accelerated destruction of Canada's environment.
There's something fishy about Oilweek's latest article "Some facts about the Atlantic accords".
Here's the full article, the comments are mine :)
Some facts about the Atlantic accords: (Offshore-Dispute-Quic)Facts are good.
Original Deals: The federal government first signed the original Atlantic accords with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in 1985 and 1986, respectively. The accords spell out how Ottawa and the two provinces share revenue from the offshore energy sector.
Updates: The agreements were updated in 2005 to ensure the provinces become the “primary beneficiaries‘‘ of their offshore oil and gas industries.New deals sound good too.
New protection: The new deals gave each province 100 per cent protection from clawbacks of equalization payments.
Result: That means the provinces wouldn't be penalized with smaller equalization payments as their offshore revenue grew.These results are clear too! But then this:
Budget changes: Both provinces now say the March 19 federal budget guts the two accords by reviving the equalization clawback and introducing a cap on equalization payments _ changes that could cost both provinces billions of dollars.Indeed, and what Both provinces say is not only what they say, it's a.k.a. the truth. Why not putting it this way? Reviving the equalization clawback and introducing a cap on equalization payments could cost both provinces billions of dollars. So much for sticking to the facts. But read on, more deliberate ambiguity ahead.
Ottawa‘s position: The federal government argues that the revamped accords remain in place and both provinces have the option of sticking with them.The question of course is; Is this argument actually valid? Little do we find out about this from Oilweek's "facts about the Atlantic accords". Somehow that doesn't surprise me though. There's something fishy about Oilweek. More to unfold:
Provincial anger: Both provinces say Prime Minister Stephen Harper had promised a better equalization deal (italics mine), so offering the status quo (italics mine) amounts to a broken promise.What does Oilweek mean with a "better equalization deal"? Isn't the 2005 "the" deal that was being promised in the first place? Isn't Oilweek a bit disingenuous by putting it this way?
The Independent, today:
Daryl Hannah, the actress turned environmentalist, is adding her voice to a campaign demanding redress for the inhabitants of Ecuador's Amazon region, which has been blighted by 30 years of oil exploration by Texaco.
Democracy Now!, guest John Perkins:
So the lawsuit today that’s being brought by a New York lawyer and some Ecuadorian lawyers -- Steve Donziger here in New York -- is for $6 billion, the largest environmental lawsuit in the history of the world, in the name of 30,000 Ecuadorian people against Texaco, which is now owned by Chevron, for dumping over eighteen billion gallons of toxic waste into the Ecuadorian rainforest. That’s thirty times more than the Exxon Valdez. And dozens and dozens of people have died and are continuing to die of cancer and other pollution-related diseases in this area of the Amazon. So all this oil has come out of this area, and it’s the poorest area of one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. And the irony of that is just so amazing.
Chevron insists they have done no wrong, and that one of the reasons that lawsuits like these come up, is because of lawyers who smell easy money. Perkins has a different view:But what I think -- one of the really significant things about this, Amy, is that this law firm has taken this on, not pro bono, but they expect if they win the case, which they expect to do, to make a lot of money off of it, which is a philosophical decision. It isn’t because they wanted to get rich off this. It’s because they want to encourage other law firms to do similar things in Nigeria and in Indonesia and in Bolivia, in Venezuela and many other places. So they want to see a business grow out of this, of law firms going in and defending poor people, knowing that they can get a payoff from the big companies who have acted so terribly, terribly, terribly irresponsibly in the past.
by Robert McClelland
Are you being gouged at the pump? Find out with this handy Gasoline Price Gouge Meter from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Here in London we’re paying $1.11/litre and here’s what the GPG Meter had to say about it.
Your gas prices are 23.2¢ per litre above the normalized cost of 87.8¢ per litre in London
With today’s crude oil price of $65.20 USD per barrel and the US dollar at $1.09 CAD, the price of regular unleaded gasoline in London should be 87.8¢ per litre at normal profit margins.
At a price of $1.11 per litre, you are paying 23.2¢ per litre in pure excess profit. Across Canada, an extra margin of 23.2¢ per litre generates an additional profit of 23.2 million dollars per day.
Bastards!
Now mind you, I’m not upset over paying $1.11/litre for gas. It’s not really an outrageous amount of money to pay. But what does piss me off is that the oil companies are engaged in what can only be described as outrageously greedy capitalism at its worst. What is even more appalling is that these same greedy bastards are the driving force behind the anti-climate change fight. They cry that they’ll suffer undue hardship if Canada tries to meet its Kyoto target while gouging consumers at the pumps and raking in record profits.
It’s time to put an end to this nonsense. The excessive greed in the oil industry needs to be regulated and taxes on gasoline need to be raised so we can afford to repair the damage done to our environment. The oil industry will survive with a few less dollars in their pockets and the consumer, while not paying any less, will at least know their money will be used for a greater good.
- My Blagh
- CCPA: Gas Price Gouge Meter
Since Canada's neo-cons love to come up with analogies, here's mine for intensity targets:
You own an old chevy, and you drive daily from Victoria (BC) to Sidney (BC) and back, which is about 60 kilometers. Now, you're asked to limit your reductions, but, you actually have ideas to travel around the world.Yes, that's what intensity targets are about; make small improvements to your dirty industry, then you can pollute as much as you like. Who cares if the overall pollution rises?
The Conservatives make both possible!
Just buy a small Toyota that will reduce at least 6% per kilometre and you can drive as far as you like, pollute as much as you like.
Oil industry is like a dirty old Chevy
Interesting post by Robert McClelland:
Hey, the poor oil companies can barely manage to get by on their tens of billions of dollars in profit every year so why shouldn’t the taxpayer fork over a billion dollars to help them out.
Alberta wants Ottawa to help build a $1.5-billion pipeline that would put carbon dioxide emissions from the northern oilsands industry to work in oil wells hundreds of kilometres away.
Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Guy Boutilier is pushing Premier Ed Stelmach’s plan to capture C02 and send it through a $1.5-billion, 400-kilometre pipeline that would allow it to be used to help get more oil out of low-producing wells.
Boutilier wants Ottawa to pony up with $500 million for the pipeline, which would start in his riding in northeastern Alberta. Another $500 million each would come from the province and industry, he said.
You really have to admire the Conservatives on this one for showing their compassionate side by extending a helping hand to the downtrodden billionaires in this country. For that and your rejection of liberal NIMBYism–as demonstrated by your willingness to allow this project to begin in your own backyard–I salute you, Mr. Boutilier.
Big Oil and Health Canada; together we're strong?
A small Alberta community is rallying behind a local doctor they believe is being silenced by Health Canada because he raised concerns about high rates of cancer near the booming oilsands.
Health Canada officials have filed a complaint against Dr. John O'Connor.
O'Connor alerted the media last year to what he believed was a disproportionately high incidence of colon, liver, blood and bile-duct cancers in patients who live in Fort Chipewyan, a small community downstream from major petroleum refineries.
In filing the complaint against O'Connor with the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons, Health Canada did not explain the action, but said the doctor was causing undue alarm.
Meanwhile, physicians who work alongside O'Connor in Fort Chipewyan believe officials are targeting their colleague because his comments potentially threaten billions of dollars of investment in the province's oilsands.
"I am absolutely shocked that they would treat a physicians of this calibre like this. There's a deliberate attempt to beat him down or shut him up," the area's head nurse, George MacDonald, said.
See it yourself:
General Wesley Clarke about the US plans for future wars:
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in.Wesley Clark about the Middle East and the America's interests in the Middle East:
He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.”
I said, “Well, you’re too busy.”
He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”
This was on or about the 20th of September.
I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?”
He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.”
So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.
I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?”
And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
The truth is, about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa. The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop [the wars in Africa].
There's no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the [Middle East] has sparked great power involvement. Whether that was the specific motivation for the coup or not, I can't tell you. But there was definitely -- there's always been this attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region.
Do you want to know the connections between the Conservatives and Big Oil? Too bad; meetings are behind closed doors.
A handful of industry chief executives met behind closed doors with Environment Minister John Baird, Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn to discuss the Conservative government’s new green agenda.
“As [Mr. Baird] reiterated, the Prime Minister wants to do this in a way that doesn’t harm the economy, and that recognizes that capital stock and technology take some time to bring into place,” said Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
The two-hour meeting was part of the government’s consultations ahead of firming up policy to deal with Canada’s growing greenhouse gas emissions. The three ministers held a series of private meetings in Calgary, where there’s rising anxiety about how aggressive the government will get to boost its environmental credentials at the expense of oilpatch growth plans, particularly in the oilsands.
Mr. Baird described the meeting as “a good exchange of ideas. We learned more about some of the challenges, some of the opportunities.”Yeah, it's better not to confuse the people with "exchanges of good ideas". Transparency, Conservative style.
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
Progressive Media
Democracy Now!
Center for Media and Democracy
Human Rights and Activism
Wikileaks.org
Amnesty International
Amnesty International Canada
Human Rights Watch
Transnational Institute
Council of Canadians
Dutch News
Nova
NRC Handelsblad
Radio Netherlands
Qatar
Al Jazeera
UK News
BBC News
Guardian
Independent
US News
Democracy Now!
BC Blogs
Paul Willcocks
US Blogs
Noam Chomsky
Norman Solomon
ZNet Blogs
Buttons
Sponsors
Marketas Bed and Breakfast Victoria BC
Victoria B&B
Personal Life Coaching
