No checks for bombs in certified air cargo in united states
read more | digg story
Saturday, August 25, 2007
No checks for bombs in certified air cargo
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is planning to allow cargo packed by approved shippers to be loaded onto passenger airplanes without any further inspection for bombs, despite a new law requiring freight shipments to receive the same level of scrutiny as checked suitcases.
Earlier this month, President Bush signed a bill into law that requires some type of inspection of all freight carried on passenger planes. The airline industry had fought such a requirement, contending that it would be too slow and costly. When Republicans controlled Congress, the industry succeeded in getting the legislation blocked. But in late July, Democrats passed the measure.
The new law was celebrated as a victory by pilot and flight attendant unions, as well as its main congressional champion, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Malden. Markey put a video of a triumphant House floor speech on his website, proclaiming "After four years, Representative Markey wins his fight to ensure 100 per cent screening of cargo on passenger planes."
But the Transportation Security Administration, which was given three years under the law to develop a full inspection program, says it is interpreting the statute to allow boxes sealed by government-certified shippers to be loaded directly on planes. TSA spokesman Christopher White said freight "is inherently screened" if it is packed with tamper-evident seals at a facility that meets federal security standards.
Airline unions and air-safety advocates said they expected that under the new law freight would be either X-rayed or inspected by hand, just like bags checked by passengers. They said the Bush administration's decision to implement the new law with a "certified shippers" program is only a slight improvement over the current system, which allows cargo from "known shippers" to be loaded directly onto passenger planes. The only difference is that "known shippers" merely register with the TSA and do not have to meet security standards.
"As usual, the TSA is working to circumvent what we want and what we feel is the best type of security," said Captain Paul Onorato, president of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations. "The [checked] bags that go to the airport have inspection machines up on the deck where they run it through. That's what we want" for cargo.
Markey, for his part, said he is reserving judgment until the TSA's procedures are finalized. But the early signs, he said, show that "it will be necessary to very closely monitor how this law is implemented."
"I am outraged that the Bush administration and the airline industry would even think that they could get away with anything less than a full physical screening of all cargo that goes onto passenger planes," Markey said.
Markey has crusaded since 2003 to require the inspection of all cargo that is placed alongside luggage in passenger planes. He has filed six bills and eight amendments, called four press conferences, and issued 17 news releases. He is known for using props to demonstrate how terrorists could plant bombs in airline cargo.
But the passenger airline industry had stoutly resisted any such requirement, saying it would cause delays that could jeopardize $4.3 billion per year in cargo business for air carriers.
The airline industry has also long insisted that machines do not exist that can screen certain densely-packed cargo boxes. But Markey has pointed to neutron-pulsing scanning machines that have been tested at several airports. The company that makes the machines says they can inspect large shipments of cargo without unpacking them.
Despite Markey's calls for action, the Bush administration had been unwilling to impose such a regulation on its own, and Republican leaders in Congress had blocked Markey's attempts to enact a law requiring such screening. Immediately after Democrats won control of Congress in the November 2006 election, airline industry lobbyists expressed fear that Markey would get his bill passed.
"If you have 100 percent physical inspection of cargo, you are basically going to shut that part of the economy down," said Jim May, president of the Air Transport Association, days after the election.
Nonetheless, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed Markey's proposal as part of the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act, which Bush signed Aug. 3.
The statute requires the TSA to set up a cargo-screening system that will "provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked bags" within three years. Many supporters of the bill assumed that meant that individual shipments of cargo would have to be screened in the same manner as checked bags, which are either X-rayed or physically inspected.
The statute says the TSA must require more than a simple check of a shipment's paperwork against a database of registered shippers. The law requires that if such data checks are used, they must be paired with a physical check or screening method approved by the TSA.
The statute does not require the screening to be performed on the airport premises or specify any screening method, but lists several examples of methods that would suffice, including X-ray machines, explosive detection systems, bomb-sniffing dogs, and a physical search.
But White, the TSA spokesman, said the agency believes the law will be satisfied merely if cargo comes from a "certified" facility, one that meets certain security standards. He said the agency is also considering whether to require tamper-evident seals on cargo shipments. Together, such precautions would be good enough, he said.
The Air Transport Association, a lobbying group for the airline industry, declined to comment on the new screening law. Instead, it pointed a reporter to a little-noticed statement put out by its president when Congress passed the bill. At the time, May praised the law though he had previously spent years saying Markey's proposal would bring disaster.
"Congress prudently adopted legislation that incorporates a multi-layered approach to cargo screening, balancing the need for enhanced security with the free flow of commerce," May said.
Shane Larson, the government affairs director for the Association of Flight Attendants, said it sounded as if the TSA and the airline carriers had agreed to interpret the law in a way that would allow for minimal changes, contrary to "what we believe is the intent of the law."
Markey said he is willing to give the TSA a chance to demonstrate that a "pack and seal approach" could really achieve the same level of security screening for bombs that checked luggage receives at airports, but expressed doubts.
If Congress decides that the final regulations for freight security are not truly "commensurate" with the level of security that checked bags receive, Markey said, he and other lawmakers will seek to change them.
"There will be very vigorous congressional oversight that ensures that the Bush administration has complied with the requirement that all of the cargo placed on passenger planes is actually screened for bombs," Markey said.
"If the Bush administration tries to bend the law, it is going to discover that there is a new sheriff in town."
Earlier this month, President Bush signed a bill into law that requires some type of inspection of all freight carried on passenger planes. The airline industry had fought such a requirement, contending that it would be too slow and costly. When Republicans controlled Congress, the industry succeeded in getting the legislation blocked. But in late July, Democrats passed the measure.
The new law was celebrated as a victory by pilot and flight attendant unions, as well as its main congressional champion, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Malden. Markey put a video of a triumphant House floor speech on his website, proclaiming "After four years, Representative Markey wins his fight to ensure 100 per cent screening of cargo on passenger planes."
But the Transportation Security Administration, which was given three years under the law to develop a full inspection program, says it is interpreting the statute to allow boxes sealed by government-certified shippers to be loaded directly on planes. TSA spokesman Christopher White said freight "is inherently screened" if it is packed with tamper-evident seals at a facility that meets federal security standards.
Airline unions and air-safety advocates said they expected that under the new law freight would be either X-rayed or inspected by hand, just like bags checked by passengers. They said the Bush administration's decision to implement the new law with a "certified shippers" program is only a slight improvement over the current system, which allows cargo from "known shippers" to be loaded directly onto passenger planes. The only difference is that "known shippers" merely register with the TSA and do not have to meet security standards.
"As usual, the TSA is working to circumvent what we want and what we feel is the best type of security," said Captain Paul Onorato, president of the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations. "The [checked] bags that go to the airport have inspection machines up on the deck where they run it through. That's what we want" for cargo.
Markey, for his part, said he is reserving judgment until the TSA's procedures are finalized. But the early signs, he said, show that "it will be necessary to very closely monitor how this law is implemented."
"I am outraged that the Bush administration and the airline industry would even think that they could get away with anything less than a full physical screening of all cargo that goes onto passenger planes," Markey said.
Markey has crusaded since 2003 to require the inspection of all cargo that is placed alongside luggage in passenger planes. He has filed six bills and eight amendments, called four press conferences, and issued 17 news releases. He is known for using props to demonstrate how terrorists could plant bombs in airline cargo.
But the passenger airline industry had stoutly resisted any such requirement, saying it would cause delays that could jeopardize $4.3 billion per year in cargo business for air carriers.
The airline industry has also long insisted that machines do not exist that can screen certain densely-packed cargo boxes. But Markey has pointed to neutron-pulsing scanning machines that have been tested at several airports. The company that makes the machines says they can inspect large shipments of cargo without unpacking them.
Despite Markey's calls for action, the Bush administration had been unwilling to impose such a regulation on its own, and Republican leaders in Congress had blocked Markey's attempts to enact a law requiring such screening. Immediately after Democrats won control of Congress in the November 2006 election, airline industry lobbyists expressed fear that Markey would get his bill passed.
"If you have 100 percent physical inspection of cargo, you are basically going to shut that part of the economy down," said Jim May, president of the Air Transport Association, days after the election.
Nonetheless, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed Markey's proposal as part of the 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act, which Bush signed Aug. 3.
The statute requires the TSA to set up a cargo-screening system that will "provide a level of security commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger checked bags" within three years. Many supporters of the bill assumed that meant that individual shipments of cargo would have to be screened in the same manner as checked bags, which are either X-rayed or physically inspected.
The statute says the TSA must require more than a simple check of a shipment's paperwork against a database of registered shippers. The law requires that if such data checks are used, they must be paired with a physical check or screening method approved by the TSA.
The statute does not require the screening to be performed on the airport premises or specify any screening method, but lists several examples of methods that would suffice, including X-ray machines, explosive detection systems, bomb-sniffing dogs, and a physical search.
But White, the TSA spokesman, said the agency believes the law will be satisfied merely if cargo comes from a "certified" facility, one that meets certain security standards. He said the agency is also considering whether to require tamper-evident seals on cargo shipments. Together, such precautions would be good enough, he said.
The Air Transport Association, a lobbying group for the airline industry, declined to comment on the new screening law. Instead, it pointed a reporter to a little-noticed statement put out by its president when Congress passed the bill. At the time, May praised the law though he had previously spent years saying Markey's proposal would bring disaster.
"Congress prudently adopted legislation that incorporates a multi-layered approach to cargo screening, balancing the need for enhanced security with the free flow of commerce," May said.
Shane Larson, the government affairs director for the Association of Flight Attendants, said it sounded as if the TSA and the airline carriers had agreed to interpret the law in a way that would allow for minimal changes, contrary to "what we believe is the intent of the law."
Markey said he is willing to give the TSA a chance to demonstrate that a "pack and seal approach" could really achieve the same level of security screening for bombs that checked luggage receives at airports, but expressed doubts.
If Congress decides that the final regulations for freight security are not truly "commensurate" with the level of security that checked bags receive, Markey said, he and other lawmakers will seek to change them.
"There will be very vigorous congressional oversight that ensures that the Bush administration has complied with the requirement that all of the cargo placed on passenger planes is actually screened for bombs," Markey said.
"If the Bush administration tries to bend the law, it is going to discover that there is a new sheriff in town."
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Police: Boss Killed Employees After They Asked For Raise
FULTON COUNTY, Ga. -- Police say a business owner who was having financial problems shot and killed two of his employees after they asked him for a raise.
The suspect in the murders, 38-year-old Rolandas Milinavicius, turned himself in to East Point authorities Saturday. Officials said Milinavicius was the victims' boss.
East Point police said Milinavicius confessed to the killings. Officials said he told them he was under a lot of stress because of heavy debts with his business.
Milinavicius told authorities conversations in recent weeks with his only two employees about pay raises pushed him over the edge.
East Point detectives launched a nationwide manhunt for the Lithuanian native Thursday after his wife discovered the employees' bodies at R.M. Auto International on Willingham Drive near Central Avenue.
A 28-year-old man and 25-year-old woman had been shot to death.
"Motive was about money. There were some problems with money in the workplace and basically the stress of him being the owner and running a business got to him," said Capt. Russell Popham with the East Point Police Department.
Milinavicius faces two counts of murder. Officials said more charges are pending.
He is due to go before a judge at the Fulton County Jail Monday afternoon.
The suspect in the murders, 38-year-old Rolandas Milinavicius, turned himself in to East Point authorities Saturday. Officials said Milinavicius was the victims' boss.
East Point police said Milinavicius confessed to the killings. Officials said he told them he was under a lot of stress because of heavy debts with his business.
Milinavicius told authorities conversations in recent weeks with his only two employees about pay raises pushed him over the edge.
East Point detectives launched a nationwide manhunt for the Lithuanian native Thursday after his wife discovered the employees' bodies at R.M. Auto International on Willingham Drive near Central Avenue.
A 28-year-old man and 25-year-old woman had been shot to death.
"Motive was about money. There were some problems with money in the workplace and basically the stress of him being the owner and running a business got to him," said Capt. Russell Popham with the East Point Police Department.
Milinavicius faces two counts of murder. Officials said more charges are pending.
He is due to go before a judge at the Fulton County Jail Monday afternoon.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Georgia: Russia fired missile at village
Russian fighter jets have reportedly attacked a village close to the Georgian capital Tbilisi, plunging deeply strained relations between the ex-Soviet neighbours into serious crisis.
Farmers examine what is claimed to be a motor from the missile
Farmers with what is claimed to be a motor from the missile
The government of President Mikhail Saakashvili condemned what it called an unprovoked "act of aggression" by Moscow and summoned Russia’s ambassador to Tbilisi to demand an explanation.
Vano Merabishvili, Georgia’s interior minister, said that two Sukhoi attack aircraft entered Georgian airspace from Russia at 7.30 pm last night and fired at least one air-to-surface missile towards the village of Tsitelubani, 40 miles west of Tbilisi.
The missile carved a 5-metre deep crater into a corn and potato field but failed to detonate.
The Kremlin was quick to deny Russian involvement in the attack.
Mr Merabishvili said sappers had defused the missile and were now studying Cyrillic markings on its tail-fin to establish its exact provenance.
Map of Georgia
Neighbouring Georgia and Russia have a history of tense relations
"We cannot understand why this has happened," he said by telephone from Tbilisi.
"This village has no political or military importance. But less than 5 kilometres from the area is a Georgian tracking radar, and it is my view and the view of our military that this was the target."
President Saakashvili summoned his ministers for and emergency cabinet meeting. He is expected to make a statement later today.
Relations have been strained between Russia and Georgia since the westernising Mr Saakashvili was swept to power in the Rose Revolution of 2003.
Determined to break the Kremlin's grip on the country, the president has pushed to join both the European Union and Nato - prompting fury in Moscow.
Simmering tensions escalated last year after Georgia expelled four Russian officers accused of spying.
Moscow responded by closing its embassy in Tbilisi and severing transport and postal links.
Thousands of Georgians living in Russia were also rounded up and deported - a move that prompted international condemnation.
The two countries have also bickered over the future of two breakaway regions of Georgia whose rebel administrations are backed, and possibly armed, by Moscow.
The site of the alleged attack is close to South Ossetia, one of those regions, which has seen an upsurge of fighting between separatists and Georgian soldiers since 2004.
Hopes had been raised recently, however, for a peace settlement - something opposed by sections of the Russian military who have profited from South Ossetia’s lawlessness.
Farmers examine what is claimed to be a motor from the missile
Farmers with what is claimed to be a motor from the missile
The government of President Mikhail Saakashvili condemned what it called an unprovoked "act of aggression" by Moscow and summoned Russia’s ambassador to Tbilisi to demand an explanation.
Vano Merabishvili, Georgia’s interior minister, said that two Sukhoi attack aircraft entered Georgian airspace from Russia at 7.30 pm last night and fired at least one air-to-surface missile towards the village of Tsitelubani, 40 miles west of Tbilisi.
The missile carved a 5-metre deep crater into a corn and potato field but failed to detonate.
The Kremlin was quick to deny Russian involvement in the attack.
Mr Merabishvili said sappers had defused the missile and were now studying Cyrillic markings on its tail-fin to establish its exact provenance.
Map of Georgia
Neighbouring Georgia and Russia have a history of tense relations
"We cannot understand why this has happened," he said by telephone from Tbilisi.
"This village has no political or military importance. But less than 5 kilometres from the area is a Georgian tracking radar, and it is my view and the view of our military that this was the target."
President Saakashvili summoned his ministers for and emergency cabinet meeting. He is expected to make a statement later today.
Relations have been strained between Russia and Georgia since the westernising Mr Saakashvili was swept to power in the Rose Revolution of 2003.
Determined to break the Kremlin's grip on the country, the president has pushed to join both the European Union and Nato - prompting fury in Moscow.
Simmering tensions escalated last year after Georgia expelled four Russian officers accused of spying.
Moscow responded by closing its embassy in Tbilisi and severing transport and postal links.
Thousands of Georgians living in Russia were also rounded up and deported - a move that prompted international condemnation.
The two countries have also bickered over the future of two breakaway regions of Georgia whose rebel administrations are backed, and possibly armed, by Moscow.
The site of the alleged attack is close to South Ossetia, one of those regions, which has seen an upsurge of fighting between separatists and Georgian soldiers since 2004.
Hopes had been raised recently, however, for a peace settlement - something opposed by sections of the Russian military who have profited from South Ossetia’s lawlessness.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Climate change.?
# It was Tony Blair who decided that Western Europe had the moral duty to restore order in Serbia. It was Tony Blair who felt that the situation with Saddam Hussein in Iraq was untenable. It was Tony Blair who felt that climate change is a real issue. We don't give Blair enough credit for what the... USA did. At the G8 meeting of june 2007, suddenly Bush expressed his concern with climate change and agreed on a united policy to reduce the emission of dangerous gases.
The Kyoto protocol was a failed protocol, that rewarded Russia and punished the developed countries (the countries that drive the world economy's biggest economic boom in history) and that absolved mainland China of its polluting acts (China will soon overtake the USA as the main polluter in the world). The Kyoto Protocol was also based on really bad science, which is never a good way to plan the future (See The US reneges Kyoto: idiot or savant?).
If the G8 comes up with a better plan to control pollution (and not only "global warming", but the many instances of pollution that account for thousands of deaths every year in countries like mainland China), that would be welcome by almost everybody (except, possibly, the government of mainland China). But one has to be suspicious of these Western leaders who suddenly feel compelled to fight pollution, after having been elected by special-interest lobbies that represent the very polluters.
There might be two reasons for Bush's change of heart and for much of the passion with which Blair and Merkel support it. The first one is nuclear power. The West (except France) has lived in the fear of nuclear power for too long. The West is becoming a vassal of the Middle East because its dependence on oil kept increasing for three decades, instead of decreasing after the first oil crisis. This amounts to collective suicide. The only way out of this economic slavery is to install hundreds of nuclear powers all over the Western world. This cannot be done because the suicides are not the political leaders but the masses. The Western masses would rather send trillions of dollars/euros to the Middle Eastern tyrants than risk a nuclear accident on their own soil. It's a very expensive form of life insurance. And, ironically, it has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Western citizens by Islamic fundamentalists who were funded with the money that the West used to buy oil from the Middle East. Nuclear power would solve the problem forever, making each country largely independent of the energy resources of other countries. The good news is that uranium is mostly in the hands of democratic and responsible countries such as Australia and Canada. The political leaders of the West may have come to see the debate on "global warming" as an excellent opportunity to promote nuclear power to the masses. Basically, the question is becoming: do you want life to become extinct on Earth or the minor risk of a nuclear accident near your home?
The second reason for rediscovering the danger of climate change is that it hurts mainly mainland China, not the USA. The Western leaders are beginning to realize that the countries that would be punished the most by a fair world policy to control dangerous emissions are the emerging competitors. Basically, any policy to effectively control gas emissions would be a tax on emerging powers such as mainland China. As the USA well knows, taxing the colonies is a good way to keep them from becoming too competitive (that's how the USA's independence war against Britain started). Mainland China is right to be suspicious of any talk about "gas emission reduction". It almost certainly means that the more technologically developed West will come up with a new line of business while developing countries like mainland China (and most of the poor countries of the world) will be left behind yet again.
A fair deal in the name of protecting the poor peoples of the world would result in the poor peoples of the world becoming even poorer, missing the chance they have today of catching up with the rich countries. The British and French empires specialized in this kind of deals with their colonies, and always found a way to do it in the name of a moral duty.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
# (march 2007) The danger with national oil companies. We live in the age of nationalization of the oil companies. While most of the world is moving away from government-owned businesses, the governments of oil-rich countries have been moving towards nationalizing their oil industries. Mostly, this is due to the desire to maximize profits from the oil business and use them for the domestic economy.
Thus today the "seven sisters" are not Western multinations but national oil companies: Saudi Arabia's Aramco, Russia's Gazprom, Iran's NIOC, Venezuela's PDVSA, Malaysia's Petronas, etc.
Socialist-leaning ideologues might be happy to see that profits from a country's oil wells go directly to the people of that country (minus, of course, the money lost because of inefficiency and corruption). But there is a reason if capitalism has won its war against communism: over the long distance, capitalism works better. If i give one dollar to the 100,000 poorest people in the world, all of them will be one dollar richer for one day, but the following day we will all be penniless (not only them, but also myself). On the other hand, if i take from them the few pennies they have and put together enough money to invest wisely, tomorrow we will all be rich. Communism may sound more humanitarian, and capitalism more cruel, but capitalism tends to feed people while communism tends to starve people.
That is precisely the fear. The national oil companies do not invest in the future as much as the multinationals do. It sounds great that Chavez is spending oil money for the poor people of Venezuela, but this means that he is not investing much on the future of his oil industry, which means that tomorrow Venezuela may not be able to sell as much oil as it does today.
On top of the uncertainty about the growing demand for oil in the developing world, the world is now facing another uncertainty: the one about the decreasing will of oil producers to invest in producing oil.
The Kyoto protocol was a failed protocol, that rewarded Russia and punished the developed countries (the countries that drive the world economy's biggest economic boom in history) and that absolved mainland China of its polluting acts (China will soon overtake the USA as the main polluter in the world). The Kyoto Protocol was also based on really bad science, which is never a good way to plan the future (See The US reneges Kyoto: idiot or savant?).
If the G8 comes up with a better plan to control pollution (and not only "global warming", but the many instances of pollution that account for thousands of deaths every year in countries like mainland China), that would be welcome by almost everybody (except, possibly, the government of mainland China). But one has to be suspicious of these Western leaders who suddenly feel compelled to fight pollution, after having been elected by special-interest lobbies that represent the very polluters.
There might be two reasons for Bush's change of heart and for much of the passion with which Blair and Merkel support it. The first one is nuclear power. The West (except France) has lived in the fear of nuclear power for too long. The West is becoming a vassal of the Middle East because its dependence on oil kept increasing for three decades, instead of decreasing after the first oil crisis. This amounts to collective suicide. The only way out of this economic slavery is to install hundreds of nuclear powers all over the Western world. This cannot be done because the suicides are not the political leaders but the masses. The Western masses would rather send trillions of dollars/euros to the Middle Eastern tyrants than risk a nuclear accident on their own soil. It's a very expensive form of life insurance. And, ironically, it has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Western citizens by Islamic fundamentalists who were funded with the money that the West used to buy oil from the Middle East. Nuclear power would solve the problem forever, making each country largely independent of the energy resources of other countries. The good news is that uranium is mostly in the hands of democratic and responsible countries such as Australia and Canada. The political leaders of the West may have come to see the debate on "global warming" as an excellent opportunity to promote nuclear power to the masses. Basically, the question is becoming: do you want life to become extinct on Earth or the minor risk of a nuclear accident near your home?
The second reason for rediscovering the danger of climate change is that it hurts mainly mainland China, not the USA. The Western leaders are beginning to realize that the countries that would be punished the most by a fair world policy to control dangerous emissions are the emerging competitors. Basically, any policy to effectively control gas emissions would be a tax on emerging powers such as mainland China. As the USA well knows, taxing the colonies is a good way to keep them from becoming too competitive (that's how the USA's independence war against Britain started). Mainland China is right to be suspicious of any talk about "gas emission reduction". It almost certainly means that the more technologically developed West will come up with a new line of business while developing countries like mainland China (and most of the poor countries of the world) will be left behind yet again.
A fair deal in the name of protecting the poor peoples of the world would result in the poor peoples of the world becoming even poorer, missing the chance they have today of catching up with the rich countries. The British and French empires specialized in this kind of deals with their colonies, and always found a way to do it in the name of a moral duty.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
# (march 2007) The danger with national oil companies. We live in the age of nationalization of the oil companies. While most of the world is moving away from government-owned businesses, the governments of oil-rich countries have been moving towards nationalizing their oil industries. Mostly, this is due to the desire to maximize profits from the oil business and use them for the domestic economy.
Thus today the "seven sisters" are not Western multinations but national oil companies: Saudi Arabia's Aramco, Russia's Gazprom, Iran's NIOC, Venezuela's PDVSA, Malaysia's Petronas, etc.
Socialist-leaning ideologues might be happy to see that profits from a country's oil wells go directly to the people of that country (minus, of course, the money lost because of inefficiency and corruption). But there is a reason if capitalism has won its war against communism: over the long distance, capitalism works better. If i give one dollar to the 100,000 poorest people in the world, all of them will be one dollar richer for one day, but the following day we will all be penniless (not only them, but also myself). On the other hand, if i take from them the few pennies they have and put together enough money to invest wisely, tomorrow we will all be rich. Communism may sound more humanitarian, and capitalism more cruel, but capitalism tends to feed people while communism tends to starve people.
That is precisely the fear. The national oil companies do not invest in the future as much as the multinationals do. It sounds great that Chavez is spending oil money for the poor people of Venezuela, but this means that he is not investing much on the future of his oil industry, which means that tomorrow Venezuela may not be able to sell as much oil as it does today.
On top of the uncertainty about the growing demand for oil in the developing world, the world is now facing another uncertainty: the one about the decreasing will of oil producers to invest in producing oil.
Losing track of guns, losing track of Iraq?
This report is particularly embarrassing for the Pentagon, in part because the plan to train and equip new Iraqi security forces has been so central to its strategy in the country.
And, while it has been alleged before that weapons bound for the Iraqis have gone missing, the numbers in this report are striking.
The report comes from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which is an independent US government agency that is essentially the watchdog and investigative arm for the US Congress.
The GAO says that, of some 185,000 assault rifles and 170,000 pistols that the Pentagon says it supplied to the Iraqi security forces, it can account for less than half: there is a discrepancy of 110,000 in the case of AK-47s, and 80,000 pistols.
The gaps in the figures for body armour and helmets are even bigger - only 80,000 out of a total of 215,000 sets of body armour accounted for, and only 25,000 out of 140,000 helmets.
The report does not say it knows what has happened to the weapons - only that there are gaping holes in the records.
Wrong hands?
The focus of the report is on perceived Pentagon failures but, by implication, it also raises questions about the capabilities and reliability of the Iraqi security forces. There is the fear, again long suspected, that many of the missing weapons have found their way into the hands of insurgents.
PENTAGON'S MISSING HARDWARE
AK-47 rifles: 110,000
Pistols: 80,000
Body armour pieces: 135,000
Helmets: 115,000
There remain question marks over the reliability of elements of the Iraqi security forces, especially the police.
Of course, the Pentagon was under huge pressure from early on to try to achieve quick results in its programme to train and equip the Iraqi forces.
These faltered on more than one occasion and tracking what happened to the weaponry may not have been the top priority for limited resources.
In barely more than a month now, the top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, and the US ambassador, Ryan Crocker, are meant to give their assessment of how the latest US strategy for the country is working.
This latest report may well provide more ammunition for the sceptics.
Gen Petraeus arrived in Iraq earlier this year with a huge reputation, not least because he was credited with turning round the training programme on his previous assignment to the country.
But he was also in charge of it for much of the time covered by this investigation - and that could damage his credibility.
Money request
Whether the Iraqi security forces are up to the job, and whether they have enough of the right equipment, remain keys issues for the way ahead in Iraq.
And the Pentagon has, according to the GAO report, asked for another $2bn for new equipment for those forces.
The Pentagon says it accepts key recommendations in the report on improving records and accountability, and that steps have been taken.
But the report says that, as of last month, the Pentagon had not specified what the accounting procedures were.
And, while it has been alleged before that weapons bound for the Iraqis have gone missing, the numbers in this report are striking.
The report comes from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which is an independent US government agency that is essentially the watchdog and investigative arm for the US Congress.
The GAO says that, of some 185,000 assault rifles and 170,000 pistols that the Pentagon says it supplied to the Iraqi security forces, it can account for less than half: there is a discrepancy of 110,000 in the case of AK-47s, and 80,000 pistols.
The gaps in the figures for body armour and helmets are even bigger - only 80,000 out of a total of 215,000 sets of body armour accounted for, and only 25,000 out of 140,000 helmets.
The report does not say it knows what has happened to the weapons - only that there are gaping holes in the records.
Wrong hands?
The focus of the report is on perceived Pentagon failures but, by implication, it also raises questions about the capabilities and reliability of the Iraqi security forces. There is the fear, again long suspected, that many of the missing weapons have found their way into the hands of insurgents.
PENTAGON'S MISSING HARDWARE
AK-47 rifles: 110,000
Pistols: 80,000
Body armour pieces: 135,000
Helmets: 115,000
There remain question marks over the reliability of elements of the Iraqi security forces, especially the police.
Of course, the Pentagon was under huge pressure from early on to try to achieve quick results in its programme to train and equip the Iraqi forces.
These faltered on more than one occasion and tracking what happened to the weaponry may not have been the top priority for limited resources.
In barely more than a month now, the top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, and the US ambassador, Ryan Crocker, are meant to give their assessment of how the latest US strategy for the country is working.
This latest report may well provide more ammunition for the sceptics.
Gen Petraeus arrived in Iraq earlier this year with a huge reputation, not least because he was credited with turning round the training programme on his previous assignment to the country.
But he was also in charge of it for much of the time covered by this investigation - and that could damage his credibility.
Money request
Whether the Iraqi security forces are up to the job, and whether they have enough of the right equipment, remain keys issues for the way ahead in Iraq.
And the Pentagon has, according to the GAO report, asked for another $2bn for new equipment for those forces.
The Pentagon says it accepts key recommendations in the report on improving records and accountability, and that steps have been taken.
But the report says that, as of last month, the Pentagon had not specified what the accounting procedures were.
Why are we so worried about terrorism when so many more people are dying on our highways?
uppose 245,000 americans had died in terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. The United States would be beside itself, utterly gripped by a sense of national emergency. Political leaders would speak of nothing else, the United States military would stand at maximum readiness, and the White House would vow not to rest until the danger to Americans had been utterly eradicated.
Yet 245,000 Americans have died because of one specific threat since 9/11, and no one seems to care. While the tragedy of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 has justified two wars, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, the tragedy of 245,000 lives lost in traffic accidents on the nation's roads during the same period has justified . . . pretty much no response at all. Terrorism is on the front page day in and day out, but the media rarely even mention road deaths. A few days ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that 42,642 Americans died in traffic in 2006. Did you hear this reported anywhere?
This phenomenon is not just American, it is global. Traffic deaths are the fastest-rising cause of death in the world. Yet you've heard far more about H5N1 avian influenza, which has killed 192 people worldwide since being detected five years ago, than about the 6 million people who have died in traffic accidents in the same period. Last year alone, 1.2 million people were killed on the world's roads, versus about 100,000 dead as a result of combat. The last decade is believed to be the first time in history that roads posed a greater danger to human beings than fighting (which is partly a reflection of the decline of war).
Global prosperity is rising fast, which means that global car ownership is rising fast, and both of those things are good -- but they also mean that global traffic deaths are rising as well. Worldwide, traffic deaths look exactly like a pandemic -- increasing in most nations, with local rapid spikes.
Two forces seem at play in skewed perceptions of these risks. The first is the fundamental difference between harm because of accidents and harm because of deliberate action; the second, society's strange assumption that traffic fatalities cannot be avoided.
The loss of life caused by terrorism on 9/11 -- or similar losses in other acts of terror or war -- has a wholly different moral standing than loss of life in accidents. Terrorists are criminals whose intent is homicide. Those who act illegally or immorally must be opposed even if that means engaging in complex, expensive, perilous undertakings, as the United States has since the darkness of 9/11. A life lost in a traffic accident is very sad, but it does not involve an offense against morality or human dignity. Most traffic accidents are just that -- accidents. In that sense, it may be reasonable that 3,000 deaths because of terrorism have a disproportionate effect on national policymaking.
Next, cars and trucks possess utility. They are vital to our economy and to our personal freedom. Having millions of cars and trucks roaring every which way is necessary for the American economy to be so productive. Environmental Protection Agency figures show that, in the last three decades, vehicle-miles traveled have risen 170% in the United States. Some of this may be unnecessary, but most vehicle-miles happen because they serve someone's interest. If the use of cars were restricted, accidents would certainly decline, but so would economic productivity and personal freedom.
Here's where the big faults in our thinking come into play. Do the media downplay road dangers in part because the auto industry is the No. 1 advertiser on TV and among the top advertisers for newspapers? Detroit would much rather Brian Williams or Katie Couric titter about Paris Hilton, or the L.A. Times feature articles on Waziristan, than hear about 42,642 dead on the roads last year.
Typical Americans are to blame as well. Because we don't want to contemplate dying in a car crash, we seem to assume that highway fatalities cannot be reduced, that they fall into the "stuff happens" category. This isn't so. Risks of driving or of crossing the street -- each year more pedestrians die in the United States than the death toll of 9/11 -- could be reduced significantly without any sacrifice of freedom by car owners.
Relative to passenger-miles traveled, traffic fatalities have declined in the United States owing to anti-lock brakes, air bags, impact engineering (a hidden safety feature of most new vehicles) and the big rise in shoulder-harness use (your seat belt is much more important to safety than air bags). Tougher laws and social awareness have reduced drunk driving. Yet fatalities per mile traveled have not fallen as much as might be expected given improved technology and less alcohol-impaired driving. There appear to be two key reasons: cellphones and horsepower.
Driving while yakking may seem harmless to you, but try telling that to the loved ones of the hundreds or even thousands who die each year in totally avoidable phone-related accidents. Holding a cellphone while driving will become illegal in California in 2008. But the odds of getting stopped are slight. Automated cameras now issue speeding tickets; why can't they issue tickets to owners of cars photographed with a driver using a phone?
Another idea is to pass laws under which, if a driver is on the phone at the moment of a crash, he or she is presumed to be at fault. It is well past time for legislatures to stop waffling on this issue and take action. People make phone calls while driving because they know they can get away with it. This is more important than human life?
The ever-rising horsepower of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks is another reason road fatalities stay high. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle had 119 horsepower and went from zero to 60 in 13 seconds; this year's averages are 220 horsepower and zero to 60 in 9.5 seconds. New cars, SUVs and pickup trucks of this model year are the "fastest and most powerful vehicles since the EPA began compiling data," the federal agency recently said. Even many new family sedans are ridiculously overpowered. Car & Driver magazine recently tested the new, 268-horsepower Toyota Camry: It did zero to 60 in 5.8 seconds, which was Corvette acceleration a generation ago.
Cars with high horsepower and rapid acceleration are easy to lose control of, especially for young drivers. Tap the accelerator in a tight curve for just an instant in that Camry -- to say nothing of socially irresponsible monstrosities such as the 520-horsepower Porsche Cayenne SUV -- and you can lose control. High-horsepower cars enable cutting off and other forms of aggressive driving; cutting off and sudden lane changes are leading causes of highway collisions. A generation ago, a small percentage of American drivers had high-horsepower vehicles. Now the majority do! Is it a coincidence that road rage and high horsepower have occurred simultaneously? High horsepower makes road rage possible, which in turn adds to the death count.
The proliferation of high horsepower cars is doubly wrong because it links to ever-rising petroleum use and greenhouse gases. Automakers have significantly increased powertrain efficiency in the last 20 years -- but the gains have gone into horsepower, not fuel efficiency. Other things being equal, if new-vehicle horsepower were reduced by one-third, miles per gallon would rise by one-third. One decade of sales of new vehicles with one-third higher horsepower accounts for the amount of oil the United States imports from the Persian Gulf region. Reduce horsepower by a third and end U.S. Persian Gulf oil dependence. Yes, it's that simple. If only we'd actually do it!
Because horsepower is an arms race -- if one automaker offers more, all must -- federal legislation to limit horsepower would offer a good-news trifecta: Higher mpg, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and lower road fatalities as average motorists stop acting like they're at a NASCAR track.
Why doesn't Congress act to end the horsepower wars? Please don't counter that "no one can tell me what I can drive." The Constitution says you've got a right to own a gun and to read a newspaper. Firearms and materials related to 1st Amendment expression are the only categories of possessions given protected status by the Constitution; courts consistently rule that vehicles on public roads can be regulated for public purposes such as safety.
Horsepower regulation and serious enforcement against cellphone use while driving might save thousands of lives a year. Such reforms might also prevent many billions of dollars in economic losses and make a big dent in the other road-danger figure no one talks about -- 2.6 million Americans injured in traffic crashes last year.
Other reforms, such as pedestrian-activated warning lights at crosswalks, could also reduce traffic deaths in the United States. Numerous reforms could reduce traffic deaths in developing countries. As a nation, we find common ground in agreeing that even one death from terrorism cannot be tolerated. Why are tens of thousands of annual road deaths OK?
Gregg Easterbrook is a fellow of the Brookings Institution and author of "The Progress Paradox." Lauren Hovel of Barnard College provided research assistance for this article
Yet 245,000 Americans have died because of one specific threat since 9/11, and no one seems to care. While the tragedy of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 has justified two wars, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, the tragedy of 245,000 lives lost in traffic accidents on the nation's roads during the same period has justified . . . pretty much no response at all. Terrorism is on the front page day in and day out, but the media rarely even mention road deaths. A few days ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that 42,642 Americans died in traffic in 2006. Did you hear this reported anywhere?
This phenomenon is not just American, it is global. Traffic deaths are the fastest-rising cause of death in the world. Yet you've heard far more about H5N1 avian influenza, which has killed 192 people worldwide since being detected five years ago, than about the 6 million people who have died in traffic accidents in the same period. Last year alone, 1.2 million people were killed on the world's roads, versus about 100,000 dead as a result of combat. The last decade is believed to be the first time in history that roads posed a greater danger to human beings than fighting (which is partly a reflection of the decline of war).
Global prosperity is rising fast, which means that global car ownership is rising fast, and both of those things are good -- but they also mean that global traffic deaths are rising as well. Worldwide, traffic deaths look exactly like a pandemic -- increasing in most nations, with local rapid spikes.
Two forces seem at play in skewed perceptions of these risks. The first is the fundamental difference between harm because of accidents and harm because of deliberate action; the second, society's strange assumption that traffic fatalities cannot be avoided.
The loss of life caused by terrorism on 9/11 -- or similar losses in other acts of terror or war -- has a wholly different moral standing than loss of life in accidents. Terrorists are criminals whose intent is homicide. Those who act illegally or immorally must be opposed even if that means engaging in complex, expensive, perilous undertakings, as the United States has since the darkness of 9/11. A life lost in a traffic accident is very sad, but it does not involve an offense against morality or human dignity. Most traffic accidents are just that -- accidents. In that sense, it may be reasonable that 3,000 deaths because of terrorism have a disproportionate effect on national policymaking.
Next, cars and trucks possess utility. They are vital to our economy and to our personal freedom. Having millions of cars and trucks roaring every which way is necessary for the American economy to be so productive. Environmental Protection Agency figures show that, in the last three decades, vehicle-miles traveled have risen 170% in the United States. Some of this may be unnecessary, but most vehicle-miles happen because they serve someone's interest. If the use of cars were restricted, accidents would certainly decline, but so would economic productivity and personal freedom.
Here's where the big faults in our thinking come into play. Do the media downplay road dangers in part because the auto industry is the No. 1 advertiser on TV and among the top advertisers for newspapers? Detroit would much rather Brian Williams or Katie Couric titter about Paris Hilton, or the L.A. Times feature articles on Waziristan, than hear about 42,642 dead on the roads last year.
Typical Americans are to blame as well. Because we don't want to contemplate dying in a car crash, we seem to assume that highway fatalities cannot be reduced, that they fall into the "stuff happens" category. This isn't so. Risks of driving or of crossing the street -- each year more pedestrians die in the United States than the death toll of 9/11 -- could be reduced significantly without any sacrifice of freedom by car owners.
Relative to passenger-miles traveled, traffic fatalities have declined in the United States owing to anti-lock brakes, air bags, impact engineering (a hidden safety feature of most new vehicles) and the big rise in shoulder-harness use (your seat belt is much more important to safety than air bags). Tougher laws and social awareness have reduced drunk driving. Yet fatalities per mile traveled have not fallen as much as might be expected given improved technology and less alcohol-impaired driving. There appear to be two key reasons: cellphones and horsepower.
Driving while yakking may seem harmless to you, but try telling that to the loved ones of the hundreds or even thousands who die each year in totally avoidable phone-related accidents. Holding a cellphone while driving will become illegal in California in 2008. But the odds of getting stopped are slight. Automated cameras now issue speeding tickets; why can't they issue tickets to owners of cars photographed with a driver using a phone?
Another idea is to pass laws under which, if a driver is on the phone at the moment of a crash, he or she is presumed to be at fault. It is well past time for legislatures to stop waffling on this issue and take action. People make phone calls while driving because they know they can get away with it. This is more important than human life?
The ever-rising horsepower of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks is another reason road fatalities stay high. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle had 119 horsepower and went from zero to 60 in 13 seconds; this year's averages are 220 horsepower and zero to 60 in 9.5 seconds. New cars, SUVs and pickup trucks of this model year are the "fastest and most powerful vehicles since the EPA began compiling data," the federal agency recently said. Even many new family sedans are ridiculously overpowered. Car & Driver magazine recently tested the new, 268-horsepower Toyota Camry: It did zero to 60 in 5.8 seconds, which was Corvette acceleration a generation ago.
Cars with high horsepower and rapid acceleration are easy to lose control of, especially for young drivers. Tap the accelerator in a tight curve for just an instant in that Camry -- to say nothing of socially irresponsible monstrosities such as the 520-horsepower Porsche Cayenne SUV -- and you can lose control. High-horsepower cars enable cutting off and other forms of aggressive driving; cutting off and sudden lane changes are leading causes of highway collisions. A generation ago, a small percentage of American drivers had high-horsepower vehicles. Now the majority do! Is it a coincidence that road rage and high horsepower have occurred simultaneously? High horsepower makes road rage possible, which in turn adds to the death count.
The proliferation of high horsepower cars is doubly wrong because it links to ever-rising petroleum use and greenhouse gases. Automakers have significantly increased powertrain efficiency in the last 20 years -- but the gains have gone into horsepower, not fuel efficiency. Other things being equal, if new-vehicle horsepower were reduced by one-third, miles per gallon would rise by one-third. One decade of sales of new vehicles with one-third higher horsepower accounts for the amount of oil the United States imports from the Persian Gulf region. Reduce horsepower by a third and end U.S. Persian Gulf oil dependence. Yes, it's that simple. If only we'd actually do it!
Because horsepower is an arms race -- if one automaker offers more, all must -- federal legislation to limit horsepower would offer a good-news trifecta: Higher mpg, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and lower road fatalities as average motorists stop acting like they're at a NASCAR track.
Why doesn't Congress act to end the horsepower wars? Please don't counter that "no one can tell me what I can drive." The Constitution says you've got a right to own a gun and to read a newspaper. Firearms and materials related to 1st Amendment expression are the only categories of possessions given protected status by the Constitution; courts consistently rule that vehicles on public roads can be regulated for public purposes such as safety.
Horsepower regulation and serious enforcement against cellphone use while driving might save thousands of lives a year. Such reforms might also prevent many billions of dollars in economic losses and make a big dent in the other road-danger figure no one talks about -- 2.6 million Americans injured in traffic crashes last year.
Other reforms, such as pedestrian-activated warning lights at crosswalks, could also reduce traffic deaths in the United States. Numerous reforms could reduce traffic deaths in developing countries. As a nation, we find common ground in agreeing that even one death from terrorism cannot be tolerated. Why are tens of thousands of annual road deaths OK?
Gregg Easterbrook is a fellow of the Brookings Institution and author of "The Progress Paradox." Lauren Hovel of Barnard College provided research assistance for this article
US 'kills' key Iraq shrine bomber
S troops in Iraq say they have killed an al-Qaeda leader who masterminded the attacks on a Shia shrine that led to a major escalation in sectarian violence.
Officials say Haitham al-Badri was behind the 2006 and 2007 attacks on the al-Askari shrine in Samarra, which destroyed its golden dome and minarets.
Mr Badri's body has reportedly been identified by people close to him.
The US claim came as mortar attacks killed at least 11 people in the eastern part of the capital, Baghdad.
Mr Badri, said to be leader of al-Qaeda in Salahuddin Province, was killed on Thursday by US troops east of Samarra, US officials said.
"It looked like they were setting up an ambush and so they [the troops] brought in rotary-wing close air support and there was some strafing that occurred from helicopters," US military spokesman Mark Fox said.
He added that the dead man's body had been positively identified by "close associates and family members".
Turning point
The Iraqi government has always blamed Mr al-Badri for the February 2006 attack on the mosque, which is seen by many as a turning point in the sectarian violence, the BBC's Andy Gallacher reports from Baghdad.
map
The mosque is one of the most sacred Shia sites in Iraq, and the attacks set off a wave of sectarian violence which claimed the lives of thousands of civilians.
A second attack, in June 2007, saw its ancient minarets destroyed.
Violence claimed more lives in Iraq on Sunday.
In east Baghdad, a barrage of mortar rounds fell on a petrol station crowded with Iraqis queuing for fuel at dawn, killing at least 11 people, wounding 15 and destroying cars.
Mortar rounds also fell at another petrol station nearby, wounding six more people.
Shortages mean Iraqis often have to line up for hours for fuel, where they are frequently targeted.
Political crisis
News of Mr Badri's killing came amid a crisis within the ruling Iraqi coalition.
Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has refused to accept the resignation of six cabinet ministers from the largest Sunni party in parliament and urged them to come back.
The loss of the Iraqi Accordance Front ministers would leave the government with barely any Sunni ministers, undermining its claim to represent "national unity".
They accuse Mr Maliki of failing to rein in Shia militias and failing to give all parties a say on security issue
Officials say Haitham al-Badri was behind the 2006 and 2007 attacks on the al-Askari shrine in Samarra, which destroyed its golden dome and minarets.
Mr Badri's body has reportedly been identified by people close to him.
The US claim came as mortar attacks killed at least 11 people in the eastern part of the capital, Baghdad.
Mr Badri, said to be leader of al-Qaeda in Salahuddin Province, was killed on Thursday by US troops east of Samarra, US officials said.
"It looked like they were setting up an ambush and so they [the troops] brought in rotary-wing close air support and there was some strafing that occurred from helicopters," US military spokesman Mark Fox said.
He added that the dead man's body had been positively identified by "close associates and family members".
Turning point
The Iraqi government has always blamed Mr al-Badri for the February 2006 attack on the mosque, which is seen by many as a turning point in the sectarian violence, the BBC's Andy Gallacher reports from Baghdad.
map
The mosque is one of the most sacred Shia sites in Iraq, and the attacks set off a wave of sectarian violence which claimed the lives of thousands of civilians.
A second attack, in June 2007, saw its ancient minarets destroyed.
Violence claimed more lives in Iraq on Sunday.
In east Baghdad, a barrage of mortar rounds fell on a petrol station crowded with Iraqis queuing for fuel at dawn, killing at least 11 people, wounding 15 and destroying cars.
Mortar rounds also fell at another petrol station nearby, wounding six more people.
Shortages mean Iraqis often have to line up for hours for fuel, where they are frequently targeted.
Political crisis
News of Mr Badri's killing came amid a crisis within the ruling Iraqi coalition.
Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has refused to accept the resignation of six cabinet ministers from the largest Sunni party in parliament and urged them to come back.
The loss of the Iraqi Accordance Front ministers would leave the government with barely any Sunni ministers, undermining its claim to represent "national unity".
They accuse Mr Maliki of failing to rein in Shia militias and failing to give all parties a say on security issue
Army ends support operation in Northere ireland
The British army's operation in Northern Ireland came to an end at midnight after 38 years.
Operation Banner - the Army's support role for the police - had been its longest continuous campaign, with more than 300,000 personnel taking part.
A garrison of 5,000 troops will remain but security will be entirely the responsibility of the police.
British troops were sent to Northern Ireland in 1969 after violent clashes between Catholics and Protestants.
When the first soldiers were deployed in August 1969, commanders believed they would be in Northern Ireland for just a few weeks.
But the Army quickly became involved in what came to be known as Operation Banner.
A total of 763 military personnel were killed during the campaign.
At the height of the Troubles, there were about 27,000 soldiers in Northern Ireland. From Wednesday, there will be no more than 5,000.
If they had not been here to hold the line against terrorism, I don't think we would have made the progress that we have made
Jeffrey Donaldson, DUP
The head of the Army in Northern Ireland, General Nick Parker, said the operation helped create the conditions for a political solution.
"What I believe the military have done here is make a significant contribution to the security in Northern Ireland that has allowed other people to make the difference through politics, social programmes and economics," he said.
Jeffrey Donaldson of the DUP, paid tribute to the Army.
"If they had not been here to hold the line against terrorism, I don't think we would have made the progress that we have made," he said.
"I think that we owe them a great debt of gratitude for a huge sacrifice that they have paid to help make this possible."
Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly said it was the government who made decisions concerning the Army.
"Was there a honeymoon period when people were relieved that they weren't the heavily armed RUC? Of course there was," he said.
"That was short lived. The reason why is because they are an Army, a blunt instrument, it was the British government who made the decision to use them against republicans, nationalists and Catholics."
In future, soldiers based in Northern Ireland will be involved in training and will be available for deployment in foreign trouble spots, not on local streets.
Operation Banner - the Army's support role for the police - had been its longest continuous campaign, with more than 300,000 personnel taking part.
A garrison of 5,000 troops will remain but security will be entirely the responsibility of the police.
British troops were sent to Northern Ireland in 1969 after violent clashes between Catholics and Protestants.
When the first soldiers were deployed in August 1969, commanders believed they would be in Northern Ireland for just a few weeks.
But the Army quickly became involved in what came to be known as Operation Banner.
A total of 763 military personnel were killed during the campaign.
At the height of the Troubles, there were about 27,000 soldiers in Northern Ireland. From Wednesday, there will be no more than 5,000.
If they had not been here to hold the line against terrorism, I don't think we would have made the progress that we have made
Jeffrey Donaldson, DUP
The head of the Army in Northern Ireland, General Nick Parker, said the operation helped create the conditions for a political solution.
"What I believe the military have done here is make a significant contribution to the security in Northern Ireland that has allowed other people to make the difference through politics, social programmes and economics," he said.
Jeffrey Donaldson of the DUP, paid tribute to the Army.
"If they had not been here to hold the line against terrorism, I don't think we would have made the progress that we have made," he said.
"I think that we owe them a great debt of gratitude for a huge sacrifice that they have paid to help make this possible."
Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly said it was the government who made decisions concerning the Army.
"Was there a honeymoon period when people were relieved that they weren't the heavily armed RUC? Of course there was," he said.
"That was short lived. The reason why is because they are an Army, a blunt instrument, it was the British government who made the decision to use them against republicans, nationalists and Catholics."
In future, soldiers based in Northern Ireland will be involved in training and will be available for deployment in foreign trouble spots, not on local streets.
NKorea opens fire on SKorean guard post - UPDATE
SEOUL (Thomson Finanacial) - North Korean soldiers opened fire Monday at a South Korean guard post on the border between the two countries, a spokesman for the South's defence ministry said.
'In response, South Korean soldiers fired 10 warning shots from a machine gun. There were no casualties from the shooting,' the spokesman said.
'After firing the counter-shots, our side issued an warning through a loudspeaker and demanded an apology. But there was no response from the North Korean soldiers,' a spokesman for the South's Joint Chiefs of Staff said separately.
'It was not known immediately whether North Korean troops opened fire by mistake or intentionally,' he said.
Cross-border shooting incidents have been rare since a landmark inter-Korean summit in 2000.
The last was on July 31 last year when North Korean soldiers fired towards a South Korean guard post. No one was hurt.
Monday's shooting took place near Inje, 165 kilometres (100 miles) northeast of Seoul.
The two Koreas have been separated by a 248-kilometre-long and four-kilometre-wide Demilitarised Zone since the end of the 1950-53 war.
Cross-border shooting incidents have been rare in recent years.
'In response, South Korean soldiers fired 10 warning shots from a machine gun. There were no casualties from the shooting,' the spokesman said.
'After firing the counter-shots, our side issued an warning through a loudspeaker and demanded an apology. But there was no response from the North Korean soldiers,' a spokesman for the South's Joint Chiefs of Staff said separately.
'It was not known immediately whether North Korean troops opened fire by mistake or intentionally,' he said.
Cross-border shooting incidents have been rare since a landmark inter-Korean summit in 2000.
The last was on July 31 last year when North Korean soldiers fired towards a South Korean guard post. No one was hurt.
Monday's shooting took place near Inje, 165 kilometres (100 miles) northeast of Seoul.
The two Koreas have been separated by a 248-kilometre-long and four-kilometre-wide Demilitarised Zone since the end of the 1950-53 war.
Cross-border shooting incidents have been rare in recent years.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Will US Bomb Iran? A compelling analysis
US aircraft carrier Nimitz
Map of Persian Gulf
Iranian Fajr-3 missile
Tense situation.
The situation in the Persian Gulf is now very tense. US has two naval strike groups there ready to attack Iran. Iran is now in a state of preparedness for war. This stand-off cannot keep up indefinitely. Either Iran backs down and allow UN inspectors free access to dismantle its uranium enrichment facilities or US backs down and allows Iran to continue enriching uranium eventually to produce nuclear bombs.
Iran is most unlikely to back down unless force is used. US is also unlikely to back down. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the middle east and weaken US influence. It could also encourage other middle eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own, further reducing US influence in this key region
Knowing the American public is in no mood for further foreign military adventures, Iran will call the bluff and continue to enrich uranium.
US climb-down?
The result of this would be viewed as a climb-down by US. This would encourage Iran to dominate the other Gulf states. Saudi Arabia is already making conciliatory moves toward Iran. US will eventually lose the confidence of the governments of the other Gulf states.
Iran has already categorically stated that all foreign powers should leave the Gulf. It would be a matter of time when the other Gulf states would ask US forces to leave. When US influence on the Gulf states is reduced, it would be highly probable that Iran would dictate a rise in the price of oil.
Even with the increased supply of alternative renewable source of energy like palm oil, most world economies still need to depend on fossil-derived fuel. A significant rise in the price of oil would hurt the economies of most nations except the Gulf states, Russia and Venezuela.
Meanwhile, Iran gets more wealthy enabling it to rapidly develop the nuclear bomb and the inter-continental ballistic missile.
Can Iran be a friend of US?
For US to accept Iran as a friend, Iran has to fulfill the following conditions.
1. Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment facilities and give a binding undertaking not to enrich uranium again.
2. Iran stop its production of heavy water and give a binding undertaking not to produce heavy water again.
3. Iran accept the legitimacy of Israel and stop all activities directly or indirectly harmful to Israel and the Jews.
4. Iran cease sponsoring international terrorism with funding, safe haven, training, and weapons.
5. Iran stop supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon and elsewhere.
6. Iran stop supporting Hamas.
7. Iran stop supporting Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP-GC
8. Iran stop supporting the anti-US insurgency in Iraq.
9. Iran stop supporting the anti-US insurgency in Afghanistan.
10. Iran stop supporting organizations which promote subversive activities among its neighboring states.
11. Iranian Government acknowledge its responsibility for its part in and make formal apology for its past misdeeds including the following:
11.1 The November 4, 1979 hostage taking of the American diplomatic mission in Tehran.
11.2 The April 18,1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon by Hizbullah which killed 17 Americans.
11.3 The October 23, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. peace keepers in Lebanon.
11.4 The June 25, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 US servicemen.
11.5 Violations of human rights in Iran.
It is inconceivable for Iran to fulfill these conditions. Ever since the Iran-Iraq war, the leadership of Iran has vowed to resist any foreign interference.
Can US be a friend of Iran?
For Iran to accept US as a friend, US has to fulfill the following conditions.
1. US accept the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution and give an undertaking that it would not interfere with its internal affairs.
2. US deal with the government of Iran on the basis of ‘respect and equality”.
3. US lift economic sanctions imposed on Iran.
4. US release the remaining Iranian assets frozen in the US.
5. US remove its navy from the Persian Gulf.
6. US end its one-sided support for Israel.
7. US government make formal apology for its past misdeeds including the following:
Operation Ajax which overthrew the democratically chosen Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and restored the exiled Shah.
Support for anti-Iranian terrorist organizations like the MKO.
Assistance of various US companies in helping Iraq to develop chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 with 290 civilians killed.
Damage to Iranian economy by US sanctions and political pressure.
Violating Iranian airspace by undertaking unmanned air vehicle UAV over-flights over Iran since 2003.
Its military presence in the neighboring countries of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Its human rights record.
Its use of weapons of mass destruction as a tool of war.
It is inconceivable for US to fulfill these conditions.
Iran, an existential threat to US.
Iran has missile manufacturing expertise. It has developed and manufactured medium range missiles (Shahab3D) capable of a range of 1,300 miles. It has developed a liquid fuel missile (Fajr-3) with greater range. It is a matter of time it will develop a satellite launching missile and an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). With ICBMs and nuclear bombs, Iran will rise to super power status and can threaten the very existence of US.
US cannot afford to let Iran produce the nuclear bomb. This is why President Bush is adamant in insisting that Iran dismantle its uranium enriching capacity.
Iran is determined to have the nuclear weapon. Up to now, Iran's strategy has been to stall for time. This has succeeded in allowing it achieve the capability of enriching uranium on an industrial scale. It will soon have the nuclear bomb.
All options are on the table.
President Bush has the unenviable task of choosing between two options.
The first is to continue to go through the United Nations to impose import sanctions against Iran. This is bound to fail because it has been proven unsuccessful in stopping North Korea from developing the nuclear bomb and testing it.
The other is to use force.
It appears that the attempts at persuading the UN to impose sanctions on Iran is to provide some semblance of legitimacy to the eventual use force. It also provides time for President Bush to persuade his NATO allies and the people of the US on the necessity of the use of force. It is likely that President Bush will commence a pre-emptive strike on Iran before the end of his term of office.
Ambitions of Iran.
Iran has been preparing for war ever since the last war with Iraq. Its policy is not to be caught unprepared again.
In taunting the US and Israel to attack, President Ahmadinejad actually wants US to bomb its nuclear facilities now. Precipitating US bombing now has various advantages for Iran.
It is probable that some of Iran's nuclear facilities are in secret locations elsewhere from the presently known locations. By bombing the known sites, US would not achieve its objective of ridding Iran of its uranium enriching capability.
Bombing gives Iran the legal and moral justification to retaliate against foreign aggression. In retaliating, it believes it has the opportunity of driving US forces from the Persian Gulf and the Jews from Israel.
During the hostilities, it can support internal revolution in the various states of the Gulf, eventually installing compliant governments.
If successful in these objectives, Iran would control most of the nations in the Middle East. This translates to control of 60% of the world's known oil reserves and control of pilgrimage by the world's population of Muslims to Mecca and Medina (Hajj).
Advantage of war to President Ahmadinejad.
Moreover, war would be advantageous for President Ahmadinejad because it would silence those people who criticize him for his poor handling of the economy. In the event of war, his opponents would have to support his leadership in the defense of Iran.
On the other hand, US and Israel are not about to give up the region without eventually using nuclear weapons. The question is whether Iran is adequately prepared for a nuclear attack by Israel or US.
Iran confident of its defensive capability.
Iran believes it has the ability of defending itself against attack from the air by missile, aircraft or bombs because in addition to its own extensive anti-missile defenses, it has recently acquired the advanced Tor-M1 surface to air anti-missile defense systems from Russia.
Recent developments.
On July 19, 2007, President Ahmadinejad made a brief visit to Damascus to meet President Bashar Assad of Syria to dissuade him from seeking peace with Israel in exchange for return of the Golan Heights. The Iranian leader also met Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah and Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas.
This meeting may be to co-ordinate efforts to confront Israel. President Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying “ We expect this summer’s temperature to rise with victories by the peoples of the region.” This is reminiscent of last year’s summer when Hizbullah denied Israel the victory it sought in invading southern Lebanon.
On July 28, 2007, a senior U S defense announced the preparation of a package of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that could be worth some $20 billion over the next 10 years. Moreover, with the passage of time, US will find ways of detecting Iran's stealth drones, stealth mini-submarines and stealth Fajr-3 missile This would reduce Iran's stealth advantage over the US fleet in the Gulf and make it more difficult for Iran to dominate the other Gulf states in the near future. Hence President Ahmadinejad's eagerness in wanting US or Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities now.
Iran is taunting Israel and is spoiling for a fight. US is also spoiling for a fight especially with the statement of Vice President Dick Cheney warning Iran that force may be used to persuade it to stop uranium enrichment.
Will US bomb Iran?
From the above, it is likely that US will bomb Iran.
What will happen if hostilities break out?
Will Iran retaliate?
Will US prevail?
What will the Middle East look like after the dust has settled?
Map of Persian Gulf
Iranian Fajr-3 missile
Tense situation.
The situation in the Persian Gulf is now very tense. US has two naval strike groups there ready to attack Iran. Iran is now in a state of preparedness for war. This stand-off cannot keep up indefinitely. Either Iran backs down and allow UN inspectors free access to dismantle its uranium enrichment facilities or US backs down and allows Iran to continue enriching uranium eventually to produce nuclear bombs.
Iran is most unlikely to back down unless force is used. US is also unlikely to back down. A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the middle east and weaken US influence. It could also encourage other middle eastern nations to develop nuclear weapons of their own, further reducing US influence in this key region
Knowing the American public is in no mood for further foreign military adventures, Iran will call the bluff and continue to enrich uranium.
US climb-down?
The result of this would be viewed as a climb-down by US. This would encourage Iran to dominate the other Gulf states. Saudi Arabia is already making conciliatory moves toward Iran. US will eventually lose the confidence of the governments of the other Gulf states.
Iran has already categorically stated that all foreign powers should leave the Gulf. It would be a matter of time when the other Gulf states would ask US forces to leave. When US influence on the Gulf states is reduced, it would be highly probable that Iran would dictate a rise in the price of oil.
Even with the increased supply of alternative renewable source of energy like palm oil, most world economies still need to depend on fossil-derived fuel. A significant rise in the price of oil would hurt the economies of most nations except the Gulf states, Russia and Venezuela.
Meanwhile, Iran gets more wealthy enabling it to rapidly develop the nuclear bomb and the inter-continental ballistic missile.
Can Iran be a friend of US?
For US to accept Iran as a friend, Iran has to fulfill the following conditions.
1. Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment facilities and give a binding undertaking not to enrich uranium again.
2. Iran stop its production of heavy water and give a binding undertaking not to produce heavy water again.
3. Iran accept the legitimacy of Israel and stop all activities directly or indirectly harmful to Israel and the Jews.
4. Iran cease sponsoring international terrorism with funding, safe haven, training, and weapons.
5. Iran stop supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon and elsewhere.
6. Iran stop supporting Hamas.
7. Iran stop supporting Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP-GC
8. Iran stop supporting the anti-US insurgency in Iraq.
9. Iran stop supporting the anti-US insurgency in Afghanistan.
10. Iran stop supporting organizations which promote subversive activities among its neighboring states.
11. Iranian Government acknowledge its responsibility for its part in and make formal apology for its past misdeeds including the following:
11.1 The November 4, 1979 hostage taking of the American diplomatic mission in Tehran.
11.2 The April 18,1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon by Hizbullah which killed 17 Americans.
11.3 The October 23, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. peace keepers in Lebanon.
11.4 The June 25, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 US servicemen.
11.5 Violations of human rights in Iran.
It is inconceivable for Iran to fulfill these conditions. Ever since the Iran-Iraq war, the leadership of Iran has vowed to resist any foreign interference.
Can US be a friend of Iran?
For Iran to accept US as a friend, US has to fulfill the following conditions.
1. US accept the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution and give an undertaking that it would not interfere with its internal affairs.
2. US deal with the government of Iran on the basis of ‘respect and equality”.
3. US lift economic sanctions imposed on Iran.
4. US release the remaining Iranian assets frozen in the US.
5. US remove its navy from the Persian Gulf.
6. US end its one-sided support for Israel.
7. US government make formal apology for its past misdeeds including the following:
Operation Ajax which overthrew the democratically chosen Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and restored the exiled Shah.
Support for anti-Iranian terrorist organizations like the MKO.
Assistance of various US companies in helping Iraq to develop chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
USS Vincennes shooting down Iran Air Flight 655 with 290 civilians killed.
Damage to Iranian economy by US sanctions and political pressure.
Violating Iranian airspace by undertaking unmanned air vehicle UAV over-flights over Iran since 2003.
Its military presence in the neighboring countries of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Its human rights record.
Its use of weapons of mass destruction as a tool of war.
It is inconceivable for US to fulfill these conditions.
Iran, an existential threat to US.
Iran has missile manufacturing expertise. It has developed and manufactured medium range missiles (Shahab3D) capable of a range of 1,300 miles. It has developed a liquid fuel missile (Fajr-3) with greater range. It is a matter of time it will develop a satellite launching missile and an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). With ICBMs and nuclear bombs, Iran will rise to super power status and can threaten the very existence of US.
US cannot afford to let Iran produce the nuclear bomb. This is why President Bush is adamant in insisting that Iran dismantle its uranium enriching capacity.
Iran is determined to have the nuclear weapon. Up to now, Iran's strategy has been to stall for time. This has succeeded in allowing it achieve the capability of enriching uranium on an industrial scale. It will soon have the nuclear bomb.
All options are on the table.
President Bush has the unenviable task of choosing between two options.
The first is to continue to go through the United Nations to impose import sanctions against Iran. This is bound to fail because it has been proven unsuccessful in stopping North Korea from developing the nuclear bomb and testing it.
The other is to use force.
It appears that the attempts at persuading the UN to impose sanctions on Iran is to provide some semblance of legitimacy to the eventual use force. It also provides time for President Bush to persuade his NATO allies and the people of the US on the necessity of the use of force. It is likely that President Bush will commence a pre-emptive strike on Iran before the end of his term of office.
Ambitions of Iran.
Iran has been preparing for war ever since the last war with Iraq. Its policy is not to be caught unprepared again.
In taunting the US and Israel to attack, President Ahmadinejad actually wants US to bomb its nuclear facilities now. Precipitating US bombing now has various advantages for Iran.
It is probable that some of Iran's nuclear facilities are in secret locations elsewhere from the presently known locations. By bombing the known sites, US would not achieve its objective of ridding Iran of its uranium enriching capability.
Bombing gives Iran the legal and moral justification to retaliate against foreign aggression. In retaliating, it believes it has the opportunity of driving US forces from the Persian Gulf and the Jews from Israel.
During the hostilities, it can support internal revolution in the various states of the Gulf, eventually installing compliant governments.
If successful in these objectives, Iran would control most of the nations in the Middle East. This translates to control of 60% of the world's known oil reserves and control of pilgrimage by the world's population of Muslims to Mecca and Medina (Hajj).
Advantage of war to President Ahmadinejad.
Moreover, war would be advantageous for President Ahmadinejad because it would silence those people who criticize him for his poor handling of the economy. In the event of war, his opponents would have to support his leadership in the defense of Iran.
On the other hand, US and Israel are not about to give up the region without eventually using nuclear weapons. The question is whether Iran is adequately prepared for a nuclear attack by Israel or US.
Iran confident of its defensive capability.
Iran believes it has the ability of defending itself against attack from the air by missile, aircraft or bombs because in addition to its own extensive anti-missile defenses, it has recently acquired the advanced Tor-M1 surface to air anti-missile defense systems from Russia.
Recent developments.
On July 19, 2007, President Ahmadinejad made a brief visit to Damascus to meet President Bashar Assad of Syria to dissuade him from seeking peace with Israel in exchange for return of the Golan Heights. The Iranian leader also met Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah and Khaled Mashaal, the leader of Hamas.
This meeting may be to co-ordinate efforts to confront Israel. President Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying “ We expect this summer’s temperature to rise with victories by the peoples of the region.” This is reminiscent of last year’s summer when Hizbullah denied Israel the victory it sought in invading southern Lebanon.
On July 28, 2007, a senior U S defense announced the preparation of a package of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that could be worth some $20 billion over the next 10 years. Moreover, with the passage of time, US will find ways of detecting Iran's stealth drones, stealth mini-submarines and stealth Fajr-3 missile This would reduce Iran's stealth advantage over the US fleet in the Gulf and make it more difficult for Iran to dominate the other Gulf states in the near future. Hence President Ahmadinejad's eagerness in wanting US or Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities now.
Iran is taunting Israel and is spoiling for a fight. US is also spoiling for a fight especially with the statement of Vice President Dick Cheney warning Iran that force may be used to persuade it to stop uranium enrichment.
Will US bomb Iran?
From the above, it is likely that US will bomb Iran.
What will happen if hostilities break out?
Will Iran retaliate?
Will US prevail?
What will the Middle East look like after the dust has settled?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)