http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0614/discovery-afghan-riches-prowar-pr-scam/‘Discovery’ of Afghan riches a pro-war PR scam?
An article in Sunday's New York Times announces that "previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."The article cites an "internal Pentagon memo" as saying Afghanistan could become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium" -- the mineral used in the production of rechargeable batteries, such as those found in cell phones and laptops. It cites "a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists" as having made the discovery.
While the dollar estimate -- $1 trillion -- may be new
, it's hardly news that Afghanistan sits on rich mineral deposits. In a 2007 press release, the US Geological Survey announced that Afghanistan possesses "significant amounts of undiscovered non-fuel mineral resources." And,
...
“The ‘discovery’ of Afghanistan’s minerals will sound pretty silly to old timers,�
a "retired former senior US official" tells Politico's Laura Rosen. “When I was living in Kabul in the early 1970’s the [US government], the Russians, the World Bank, the UN and others were all highly focused on the wide range of Afghan mineral deposits. Cheap ways of moving the ore to ocean ports has always been the limiting factor.�
...
So why is this news now? To many, the story's timing suggests a Pentagon public relations campaign designed to extend public support for the war with the hope that, in time, Afghanistan
...
come,"
writes Paul Jay at the Huffington Post.
"Things are not going very
well on the ground and the promise of vast mineral riches would sound enticing."
...
Indeed,
the US military's need to shore up support for the war effort may be becoming critical. Recent news reports indicate that
Afghan President Hamid Karzai may have lost his faith in the US military's ability to carry out the war. And
Gareth Porter at IPS reports that US forces are
...
That context leads
blogger Steve Hynd to declare that
the Times piece is "a conveniently timed zombie story" that was "resurrected yet again for political purposes."
...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0626/g20-protesters-clash-police/TORONTO -- Parts of Toronto's downtown core were in chaos Saturday evening as a G20 protest turned violent, with police shutting down public transit into the city and protesters setting fire to police cars.
Police told media that a small group of "Black bloc" demonstrators broke off from a protest of 10,000 people and began smashing storefront windows along the city's trendy Queen Street. Some scuffles between protesters and police were reported, but there were no reports of mass arrests as of Saturday evening.
The CBC News Network reported that protesters smashed in the windows of an American Apparel outlet, pulled out the mannequins and spread feces on the floor. The storefronts of McDonald's and Starbucks locations were also damaged, as were numerous bank branches.
At least two police cars were set on fire in the city's financial district, and police shut down public transit in the city core, as well as a large downtown shopping complex.
...
REPORTERS FROM NON-MAINSTREAM MEDIA 'BARRED FROM CANADA'
Numerous reports suggest that Canada's border guards have been refusing entry to reporters covering the G8 and G20 summits for non-mainstream news sources.
Two reporters from Chicago Indymedia were reportedly accused of being protesters and denied entry. Reporters from WeAreChange were detained for at least four hours by border officials before being denied entry. A reporter from the InfoWars news site was also denied entry. Two activists from CodePink were also barred from entering Canada.
Activists have accused Canadian officials of using heavy-handed tactics in preparation for protests at the G8 and G20 summits. On Friday, it emerged that the government of the province of Ontario had secretly changed a law to allow police to arrest anyone near the G20 meeting who doesn't identify themselves.
----------------------------------------------------
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/can-corporations-bear-arms Since the Roberts Court has now ruled that corporations have the same rights as people and overturned decades of laws regulating their speech, I'm wondering: Do they now have the right to arm themselves by employing Blackwater-type mercenaries and post them all over their office buildings?
Will Wal-Mart post armed guards in their parking lots?
Seems like a natural consequence. If corporations can enjoy full First Amendment protections, wouldn't they likewise get Second Amendment rights?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/opinion/10BYRD.html?pagewanted=print&position=topOctober 10, 2002
Congress Must Resist the Rush to War
By ROBERT C. BYRD
WASHINGTON — A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order to give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will — a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term "self-defense"? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.
I have listened closely to the president. I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.
Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels "is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes — detailed in a recent publication, "National Security Strategy of the United States" — against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.
We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.
We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.
Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.
http://www.AmericanWisdom.org
