Myanmar Cyclone is Artificial?
Vngelis
Done by the Chinese or the Yanks?
http://opencubicle.net/content/2008/05/08/myanmar-cyclone-was-artificial/
Vngelis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122701248.html
As Scrutiny Grows, Burma Moves Its Capital
Country's Isolation Is Taken One Step, and Many Miles, Further
By Alan Sipress
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 28, 2005; Page A01
RANGOON, Burma -- Military trucks rumble up in front of Rangoon's
ministries several times a week and workers lug ancient desks, chairs
and filing cabinets to the waiting vehicles. The convoys depart at
daybreak on a 12-hour journey along roads badly rutted and pocked,
then return for another load.
Burma's military rulers are rapidly transferring the country's century-
old capital from Rangoon to the desolate, rocky terrain of Pyinmana
about 200 miles to the north, aiming to empty most offices by the end
of next month.
A woman prepares fish for sale in Rangoon, where markets teem despite
high inflation. The Burmese government asserts that it is moving the
capital away from the city to a more desolate area to develop outlying
regions.
A woman prepares fish for sale in Rangoon, where markets teem despite
high inflation. The Burmese government asserts that it is moving the
capital away from the city to a more desolate area to develop outlying
regions. (By Alan Sipress -- The Washington Post)
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
* washingtonpost.com - Today's Highlights' Journal
* The Horse's Mouth
* Croker Sack
Full List of Blogs (27 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Distraught civil servants, among the thousands scheduled to relocate,
have wept in front of foreign officials. Some government employees
have asked to quit, including many at the Irrigation Ministry who
tried to resign en masse, but have been told that is forbidden,
according to their family members.
"The government's crazy. Everybody hates this idea," said Soe, a
deliveryman whose cousin, a military officer, has been transferred.
"This Pyinmana, I wish I could blow the place up."
Few in Rangoon can fathom the motives for the abrupt move, which began
Nov. 6. Most observers and even some government officials say they
suspect it was solely the brainchild of Gen. Than Shwe, the secretive
head of Burma's ruling military junta. Some have speculated that
government fears of a U.S. invasion are to blame for the move, or
perhaps civil unrest or even the prophesies of a soothsayer.
Whatever the reason, the impact is clear. The move further isolates
the government at a time when demands are mounting at the United
Nations for the release of the imprisoned opposition leader Aung San
Suu Kyi. Burma's neighbors are expressing impatience with the
country's lack of democratic reform, and the Bush administration is
campaigning to bring the issue before the U.N. Security Council.
Burma's gradual retreat from contact with the outside world began in
October 2004, when Than Shwe fired his prime minister, Gen. Khin
Nyunt, and ordered his arrest, ostensibly for corruption. While Khin
Nyunt had been head of military intelligence, some Asian governments
regarded him as a moderating force on the issue of democratic change.
He was also the rulers' main interlocutor with foreign governments and
agencies. With his removal, the government purged several allied
cabinet ministers who had experience working with the United Nations.
Since then, Burma also has tightened travel restrictions on foreigners
and threatened to withdraw from the International Labor Organization
over its criticisms. The former British colony has been controlled
since 1988 by the military junta, which refused to accept the results
of 1990 legislative elections in which Suu Kyi and her party won in a
landslide.
Senior Burmese ministers were given just two days' notice of the
relocation from the port city of Rangoon to the heartland of the
majority Burman ethnic group. Witnesses recounted seeing the initial
convoy depart Rangoon at precisely 6:37 a.m., a time that many Burmese
attribute to the counsel of government astrologers. As the trucks
pulled away from the ministries, including several housed in red brick
Victorian buildings dating to the colonial era, army officers led a
ritual chant of "We're leaving! We're leaving!"
Only the next day did the Foreign Ministry of Burma, renamed Myanmar
by the junta, notify foreign diplomats that the capital had left town.
"You can communicate with the Myanmar government by letter. If you
have an urgent matter, you can send a letter by fax," said an Asian
diplomat, repeating the instructions he had been given by the Foreign
Ministry. "Can you believe that?"
Officials said foreigners would not be allowed to visit Pyinmana until
April at the earliest. Embassies will eventually be leased land in a
diplomatic compound and are expected by the government to begin
building new missions in late 2007.
nada
Hahahhahahahaha! Good one. The article says it was a Sino-attack on
Burma, not Yankee. Politics by junk-science. A new one, for sure. And
you wonder why I stick around apst?
David
Vngelis
Never been an earthquake of this magnitude in China.
Soon they will be branded inhuman for wanting to go ahead with the
Olympics.
New era underground weapons appear to be spreading.
Yanks after all are after Burmas natural resources...
vngelis
nada
There is Tibet...the only possible serious scenerio on not going to
the Olympics is the damn pollution in Beijing. Which is insane by
anyones standards. But, the PRC is simply shutting down the whole
economy around Biejing two weeks prior to the Olympics which should
clean up the air.
are you sure about that earthquake thing? More people have died in
earthquakes in China than in almost any other country in the world.
david
Vngelis
tsunami, in preference to "Cyclone Nargis", which hit the Union of
Myanmar, aka Burma, has now claimed 22,000 lives.
Last night's news stated 10,000 victims.
Today it is reported that 41,000 are still missing.
These must be estimates.
The "weather" hit Myanmar on Saturday3rd May 2008
It is now Monday 6th May 2008.
The figures can only be estimates.
I heard Bush on the radio tonight, demanding that the "Burmese junta
allow our disaster assessment teams into the country" and that "the US
is ready to use its navy to help find the missing, to help stabilise
the situation".
BBC
BBC wrote:
Mr Bush was speaking as he signed legislation awarding the top US
civilian honour, the Congressional Gold Medal, to the detained Burmese
pro-democracy leader and Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi.
How timely. . .
Reuters
Reuters wrote:
Bush to Myanmar: "Let the US come and help you"
Tue May 6, 2008 3:02pm EDT
Bush calls on Myanmar: accept aid
Play Video of the gibbon announcing his conditional aid (initially
$250,000) and thanking whoever is behind him for their "leadership"???
Laura Bush urges Myanmar to accept U.S. disaster team
05 May 2008
By Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON, May 6 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush made a rare
appeal to Myanmar's military rulers on Tuesday to accept U.S. relief
officials and added $3 million in aid to help victims of a cyclone
that devastated the Southeast Asian nation.
"Our message is to the military rulers. Let the United States come and
help you, help the people," Bush said, addressing a military
government he has long tried to isolate.
The death toll from Cyclone Nargis, the deadliest in Asia since 1991,
rose to nearly 22,500 with an additional 41,000 missing, even as
Myanmar's leaders continued to refuse entry to U.S. disaster response
teams.
Bush said the United States was ready to provide emergency assistance,
including U.S. Navy ships and aircraft carriers already in the region
capable of deploying Marines and helicopters on humanitarian missions.
The White House later announced the United States was committing $3
million through the U.S. Agency for International Development to meet
the most urgent needs, up from an initial emergency contribution of
$250,000.
"We want to do a lot more," Bush had told reporters in the Oval
Office.
But he risked further antagonizing the junta by coupling his aid offer
with a signing ceremony for legislation awarding its chief political
opponent, detained democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi, the
Congressional Gold Medal, the top U.S. civilian honor.
The United States and Myanmar have long been estranged. Bush last week
imposed a new round of sanctions on the country's military rulers to
pressure them on human rights and political reform.
REACHING OUT
With Washington joining other world powers trying to rush in aid after
the weekend cyclone, the State Department said on Monday its
government was refusing to admit U.S. disaster experts to assess
emergency needs. The White House said the teams were on standby in
Bangkok.
"We're prepared to move U.S. naval assets to help find those who lost
their lives, to help find the missing, to help stabilize the
situation," Bush said. "But in order to do so, the military junta must
allow our disaster assessment teams into the country."
The disaster's scale has drawn a rare acceptance of outside help from
Myanmar's generals, who spurned such approaches in the aftermath of
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
But it has been harder for Myanmar to open up to the United States
because of strained relations, especially since its violent crackdown
on protests led by Buddhist monks in September.
Bush had further criticism for Myanmar's rulers in awarding the Gold
Medal to Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
"This is a fitting tribute to a courageous woman who speaks for
freedom for all the people of Burma, and who speaks in such a way that
she's a powerful voice in contrast to the junta that currently rules
the country," he said.
Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy won elections in 1990 but the
junta refused to hand over power and has detained her for most of the
time since then.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said cyclone aid would not be
contingent on Myanmar accepting U.S. disaster teams, and that money
would not go directly to the military government but to non-
governmental organizations.
Asked whether further aid would be forthcoming, she told reporters: "I
think we just need to see ... This $3 million will go a long way. But
also if we could get our ships there to be able to help them, more and
more people could be helped." (Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky
and Andrew Gray; editing by Patricia Zengerle)
Reuters
Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush urged Myanmar's military
rulers on Monday to accept a U.S. disaster response team that so far
has been kept out, saying it would clear the way for broader relief
after a devastating cyclone.
Making an unusual foray into foreign policy, Mrs. Bush, an outspoken
critic of Myanmar's generals, also accused the junta of failing to
warn its citizens in time about the approaching cyclone that has been
blamed for at least 10,000 deaths.
Unusual?
You decide. . .
From USA Today, 9th October 2007.
USA Today quoting Laura Bush wrote:
Laura Bush: Burma has 'days' to act
By David Jackson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — First lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that her husband's
administration is prepared to slap additional sanctions on Burma's
military government if it does not start moving toward democracy
"within the next couple of days."
Bush said she also conferred with United Nations Secretary-General Ban
Ki Moon on the Burmese junta's plans for talks with imprisoned
democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
The first lady's outspoken activism on Burma, including calls for the
removal of Gen. Than Shwe and his regime, is a departure from her low-
key work on other human rights issues around the world.
Vngelis
Vngelis
This is obviously lost on most participants of apst, yet it is so apt.
nada
> " To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. "
>
> This is obviously lost on most participants of apst, yet it is so apt.
Again, this is just too cool not to notice...Dusty..you buying into
this 'method'??? Inquiring minds want to know...
David
Vngelis
Burma has been under both US and EU sanctions for some time now.
Taking into account there is a new war for oil involving almost all
the old British colonies and the Yanks require to gain a strategic
hold on them to aid their collapsing dollar does weather war
modification systems exist or not?
Here is evidence that they do in the previous articles I have posted
like the one from globalresearch com. Any serious student of any issue
would go and read into it. I have personally seen the weather change
by human intervention in Moscow when they cleared clouds for a parade.
Now I also believe having spoken to scientists I know that the
technology exists for they are depositing barium in the atmosphere
which can then at a later stage be electrromagnetically charged when a
storm has developed naturally to perpetuate the storm or create
localised flooding.
Now you believe the fires in Greece for instance and even the ones in
California were 'acts of God' and not acts of sabotage to the
overwhelming opposite opinion of everyone on the ground. Erveryone is
entitled to their beliefs. But like I said yours are what goes in the
media, mine are to seek answers to burning issues. There is a
difference in method there.
vngelis
Vngelis
Valerio Mezzanotti for The New York Times
Part of a detector to study results of proton collisions by a particle
accelerator that a federal lawsuit filed in Hawaii seeks to stop.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: March 29, 2008
CERN
None of this nor the rest of the grimness on the front page today will
matter a bit, though, if two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court
in Hawaii turn out to be right. They think a giant particle
accelerator that will begin smashing protons together outside Geneva
this summer might produce a black hole or something else that will
spell the end of the Earth — and maybe the universe.
Scientists say that is very unlikely — though they have done some
checking just to make sure.
The world’s physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the
Large Hadron Collider, in which the colliding protons will recreate
energies and conditions last seen a trillionth of a second after the
Big Bang. Researchers will sift the debris from these primordial
recreations for clues to the nature of mass and new forces and
symmetries of nature.
But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the
European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the
chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny
black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out
something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a
shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.” Their
suit also says CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact
statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Although it sounds bizarre, the case touches on a serious issue that
has bothered scholars and scientists in recent years — namely how to
estimate the risk of new groundbreaking experiments and who gets to
decide whether or not to go ahead.
The lawsuit, filed March 21 in Federal District Court, in Honolulu,
seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting CERN from proceeding
with the accelerator until it has produced a safety report and an
environmental assessment. It names the federal Department of Energy,
the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the National Science
Foundation and CERN as defendants.
According to a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is
representing the Department of Energy, a scheduling meeting has been
set for June 16.
Why should CERN, an organization of European nations based in
Switzerland, even show up in a Hawaiian courtroom?
In an interview, Mr. Wagner said, “I don’t know if they’re going to
show up.” CERN would have to voluntarily submit to the court’s
jurisdiction, he said, adding that he and Mr. Sancho could have sued
in France or Switzerland, but to save expenses they had added CERN to
the docket here. He claimed that a restraining order on Fermilab and
the Energy Department, which helps to supply and maintain the
accelerator’s massive superconducting magnets, would shut down the
project anyway.
James Gillies, head of communications at CERN, said the laboratory as
of yet had no comment on the suit. “It’s hard to see how a district
court in Hawaii has jurisdiction over an intergovernmental
organization in Europe,” Mr. Gillies said.
“There is nothing new to suggest that the L.H.C. is unsafe,” he said,
adding that its safety had been confirmed by two reports, with a third
on the way, and would be the subject of a discussion during an open
house at the lab on April 6.
“Scientifically, we’re not hiding away,” he said.
But Mr. Wagner is not mollified. “They’ve got a lot of propaganda
saying it’s safe,” he said in an interview, “but basically it’s
propaganda.”
In an e-mail message, Mr. Wagner called the CERN safety review
“fundamentally flawed” and said it had been initiated too late. The
review process violates the European Commission’s standards for
adhering to the “Precautionary Principle,” he wrote, “and has not been
done by ‘arms length’ scientists.”
Physicists in and out of CERN say a variety of studies, including an
official CERN report in 2003, have concluded there is no problem. But
just to be sure, last year the anonymous Safety Assessment Group was
set up to do the review again.
“The possibility that a black hole eats up the Earth is too serious a
threat to leave it as a matter of argument among crackpots,” said
Michelangelo Mangano, a CERN theorist who said he was part of the
group. The others prefer to remain anonymous, Mr. Mangano said, for
various reasons. Their report was due in January.
This is not the first time around for Mr. Wagner. He filed similar
suits in 1999 and 2000 to prevent the Brookhaven National Laboratory
from operating the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That suit was
dismissed in 2001. The collider, which smashes together gold ions in
the hopes of creating what is called a “quark-gluon plasma,” has been
operating without incident since 2000.
nada
V, really, this is junk science at best. But in reverse order...
About half of all fires in the US of the type going on right now in
Florida are set by arsonists. I was the first one to note this. But,
in every case these are kids fooling around, sick people
or...developers who want to clear land so they can speculate. The
*entire* S. Bronx was burned down for this reason in the 1970s. There
is no conspiracy by secret gov't agencies, there is only simply,
capitalist economics.
The burning of the forrests, both times, in Greece is *in the majority
opinion* of Greeks caused by developers. NO ONE believes your fantasy
about Russian gas deals. The fact is that the Russians *hired* G.
Schroeder after he signed the nuclear phase-out bill as Gasproms
German representative to push for...natural gas...every deal of which
is welcomed by German capitalism, with huge construction projects that
are meeting no opposition except by some environmentalists. Big deal.
Secondly, cloud seeding has been around since the 1950s. In no way
were 'clouds' cleared. But what we are talking about in Burma is a
massive *low pressure system* something that is impossible to create
on even a small scale outside a laboratory.
I think this is fooling and your conspiracy nonsense is just that:
nonsense.
Vngelis
>
> I think this is fooling and your conspiracy nonsense is just that:
> nonsense.
Here David in one of your 'academic' journals which took me 5sec to
search for on the internet
Something the other buffon Holmes cant do and Einde only wants 'peer
reviewed' journals before he repeats parrot fashion what his
Professors in their ivory towers tell him about all and sundry...
Its even got pictures of the Chinese using these weapons and an
interview with the people involved in it.
If you want I can get a primary school kid to explain to you how they
do it.
Its quite basic I am sure you might understand it but then again you
might ...not.
PS there are hundreds of bits of information on the internet regarding
this technology and it has been around for 4 decades.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20463/?a=f
Weather Engineering in China
How the Chinese plan to modify the weather in Beijing during the
Olympics, using supercomputers and artillery.
By Mark Williams
Rainmakers: Inside the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, senior
officials of China's National Development and Reform Commission and
its State Environmental Protection Administration meet the press to
discuss issues of environment, resources, energy, and emission control
(top). Below, one member of China's army of part-time rainmakers mans
an anti-aircraft gun to show the international media how he will shoot
silver iodide into passing clouds.
Credit: Xinhua
To prevent rain over the roofless 91,000-seat Olympic stadium that
Beijing natives have nicknamed the Bird's Nest, the city's branch of
the national Weather Modification Office--itself a department of the
larger China Meteorological Administration--has prepared a three-stage
program for the 2008 Olympics this August.
First, Beijing's Weather Modification Office will track the region's
weather via satellites, planes, radar, and an IBM p575 supercomputer,
purchased from Big Blue last year, that executes 9.8 trillion floating
point operations per second. It models an area of 44,000 square
kilometers (17,000 square miles) accurately enough to generate hourly
forecasts for each kilometer.
Then, using their two aircraft and an array of twenty artillery and
rocket-launch sites around Beijing, the city's weather engineers will
shoot and spray silver iodide and dry ice into incoming clouds that
are still far enough away that their rain can be flushed out before
they reach the stadium.
Finally, any rain-heavy clouds that near the Bird's Nest will be
seeded with chemicals to shrink droplets so that rain won't fall until
those clouds have passed over. Zhang Qian, head of Beijing's Weather
Modification Office, explains, "We use a coolant made from liquid
nitrogen to increase the number of droplets while decreasing their
average size. As a result, the smaller droplets are less likely to
fall, and precipitation can be reduced." August is part of Northeast
Asia's rainy season; chances of precipitation over Beijing on any day
that month will approach 50 percent. Still, while tests with clouds
bearing heavy rain loads haven't always been successful, Qian claims
that "the results with light rain have been satisfactory."
Modifying the weather may seem a hubristic exercise. But arguably,
given what else the Chinese have already invested to make this year's
Olympics a showcase for China's emergence as a 21st-century
superpower, it's almost the least they could do. Following the
announcement in 2001 that the 2008 Games had been awarded to Beijing,
the government of the People's Republic initiated $40 billion of new
construction there, bringing 120,000 Chinese migrant workers into the
city (at about $130 each a month) and triggering a five-year steel
shortage worldwide. Today, Beijing boasts, alongside the vast Bird's
Nest, megastructures like a new airport terminal that on its own is
bigger than any airport elsewhere in the world. One measure of the
city's transformation is that today 300 or so new towers, some
designed by the most avant-garde architects on the planet, rise where
a few short years ago there were only siheyuans (traditional Chinese
courtyard residences) interspersed with bland 1950s-era boxes in the
Sino-Soviet style.
Equally, though, the Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and
Evictions estimates that 1.5 million of Beijing's natives will have
been displaced from their homes by government edict when the Olympics
finally begins. This preemptory modernization is of a piece with
China's scale, its 1.32 billion population, and the authoritarian
control exerted by its Communist central government, which nowadays is
dominated by technocrats and engineers who favor mega-projects like
the world's largest dam (the Three Gorges dam over the Yangtze River),
its highest railway (the Qinghai-Tibet line), and even its biggest
Ferris wheel (in Beijing, opening in 2009). Unsurprisingly, therefore,
China's national weather-engineering program is also the world's
largest, with approximately 1,500 weather modification professionals
directing 30 aircraft and their crews, as well as 37,000 part-time
workers--mostly peasant farmers--who are on call to blast away at
clouds with 7,113 anti-aircraft guns and 4,991 rocket launchers.
Einde O'Callaghan
> On May 14, 4:19 pm, nada <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this is fooling and your conspiracy nonsense is just that:
>> nonsense.
>
> Here David in one of your 'academic' journals which took me 5sec to
> search for on the internet
>
> Something the other buffon Holmes cant do and Einde only wants 'peer
> reviewed' journals before he repeats parrot fashion what his
> Professors in their ivory towers tell him about all and sundry...
>
like to have a source for your wilder claims that actually knows
something about what he's talking about - not just a crazy nut that has
access to the Internet and psots any old rubbish. The Internet is full
of the wildest theories - even the Creationists have wensites that claim
god created the whole universe in 6 days and rested on the seventh day -
and some of the people behind them even have university degrees.
> Its even got pictures of the Chinese using these weapons and an
> interview with the people involved in it.
> If you want I can get a primary school kid to explain to you how they
> do it.
> Its quite basic I am sure you might understand it but then again you
> might ...not.
>
> PS there are hundreds of bits of information on the internet regarding
> this technology and it has been around for 4 decades.
>
There's a huge difference between seeding rainclouds with silver iodide
to create or prevent rain in particular places and creating a tropical
storm with winds of over 200 kph. The former technology does exist and
was even used with mixed results by the Americans in the Vietnam War -
whether it will have better results for teh Chines in Peking remains to
be seen.
The energy input needed to create a tropical storm is far beyond
present-day technical capabilities - for a start it would require
precise targetting of the energy equivalent of a large number of H-bombs
to achieve even a small one - and then to steer it in the direction of
Burma once it had started when it actually formed near the east coast of
India is also way beyond human tecnical capabilities in the foreseeable
future.
Einde O'Callaghan
nada
Just on journals. Most journals are not peer-reviewed. This 'academic'
method is only important on final conclusions, on science that is
going to actually be relied on to make policy. I have no problem with
the 'Technology Review' vngelis posted, any more than I have from
Scientific American (also not peer-reviewed articles) but interesting
nevertheless. But an article, a point-of-view, should be reviewed on
it's own merits and based on a scientific method *of some sort*.
What we get from vngelis is the lack of any method. We get this: could-
seeding removes clouds from local area (maybe)-->US wants to invade
Burma-->US seeds clouds to cause a tsunami. This is called "junk
science" and is the opposite of Marxism. The same is true with the
phony fire reasons in Athens: US opposes gas/oil deal by Greece with
Gasprom-->Fires break out in forests in Greece-->therefore fires
caused by US. This is called "Junk Politics". It's fun, and, certainly
entertaining but is fraught with error.
D.
Vngelis
The Vietnam war happened almost 4 decades ago.
I presume science stood still in the development of weather
modification systems in that era.
Or is it your brains remained fozzilized in your hippy youth.
Either which way as your level of science is so great along with the
other clown Walters how come you refuse to debunk the globalresearch
com piece which has also more than 10 footnotes?
You believe the Yanks went to the moon but the Russians didn't, but
you also now must believe that nuclear bombs cant be made smaller or
underground testing does not occur as well?
All phenomena that occur from 9/11 to earthquakes, to 'tsunamis' as
well as forest fires are a byproduct of 'climate change' as stated by
the mass media of disinformation.
No wonder you are knows as the embedded left...
vngelis
Vngelis
So now the MIT journal isn't up to your 'high' academic standard but
promoting Zisek as a philosopher or praising Rorty and Fukuyama is!!!
Lest have a look at your 'superior' science.
Building can disintigrate without being hit by any missile and its
announced 20minutes before it falls.
Fires spread in the most unlikely areas on mountain sides where no one
lives and the government blames a granny here a smoker there and the
sun...
An underground earthquake is tracked in the ocean PRIOR to the Asian
'tsunami' but there is no correlation...
Burma used to be colony of Britain, it has deposits of oil and gas and
has been under sanctions by the USA and the EU, all of a sudden 300k
are dead and whole areas wiped out.
Coincidence, climate change or weather wars?
Your politics are media politics.
Taking into account of the revelations that the Yanks allowed New
Orleans to flood then anything is possible to forcefully justify
'climate justify' to give more powers to the transnationals...
vngelis
nada
> You believe the Yanks went to the moon but the Russians didn't, but
> you also now must believe that nuclear bombs cant be made smaller or
> underground testing does not occur as well?
This is stirling. You believe the Russians went to the moon? I didn't
even realize they claim to have gone to the moon. And or course, the
US didn't go to the moon? This is getting BETTER ALL THE TIME.
> All phenomena that occur from 9/11 to earthquakes, to 'tsunamis' as
> well as forest fires are a byproduct of 'climate change' as stated by
> the mass media of disinformation.
I live this. No a shred of evidence. You confuse silver idonine
seeding of clouds over a small area as the same as weather control
that creates sub-continent size weather depressions???? WHERE DO GET
THIS STUFF?
> No wonder you are knows as the embedded left...
I wonder..."embedded left" is better than the imbecile left...
David
Vngelis
Theres no way the Yanks went to the moon without the Russians going
there.
So if the Russians never went neither did the Americans.
It was big marketing ploy to showcase themselves as to how superior
they were when they were defeated in Vietnam by peasants. Now they
waffle on about going to Mars and they cant even defeat the resistance
in Iraq.
I like the way you missed out the skyscraper collapsing on 9/11 that
was hit by nothing, the earthquake noted in the Indian ocean prior to
the 'tsunami' and whole mountain sides burning where there is no
evidence of any life...and lets not forget Katrina.
Keep it up. Why would anyone want to join the 'embedded' left. The
media run your line... If you want something 2nd hand there is always
EBay.
vngelis
Vngelis
As we told you earlier, there had been very real fears that the
Zipingba Dam, 6 miles upstream from the devastated city of Dujiangyan,
was displaying "extremely dangerous" cracks. The People's Daily is now
reporting that the dam is "structurally stable and safe" following a
full inspection.
"The conclusion was reached after a panel of experts, led by Jiao
Yong, Vice Minister of Water Resources, rushed to the site and made a
thorough inspection of the 156-meter-high facility."
Nevertheless, despite official reassurances, fears persist over other
dam projects in the area with The Associated Press still reporting
that hundreds of structures could be at risk.
"The National Development Reform Commission, China's top economic
planning body, said the earthquake had damaged 391 dams. It said two
of the dams were large ones, 28 were medium-sized and the rest were
small ones."
Landslides have reportedly caused rivers to be blocked in Qingchuan
County, creating an enormous lake, with Xinhua quoting Li Hao, the
county's Communist Party chief, as saying: "The rising water could
cause the mountains to collapse. We desperately need geological
experts to carry out tests and fix a rescue plan". As the
International Herald Tribune points out, "much depends on efforts to
reduce the menacing pressure of water behind the dam walls", if
further disaster is to be averted.
In addition, The Guardian says that two hydropower stations in Maoxian
County have been affected, although the extent of the damage is not
yet clear. Meanwhile, Guangyuan and Mianyang, near the quake
epicentre, house plants that help process plutonium for nuclear arms,
although the China Nuclear Engineering & Construction Corporation
currently states that, despite some damage to buildings in the area,
there are no major concerns at this time regarding nuclear material.
Although the Three Gorges Dam has been declared safe, some
commentators are already raising questions over its ability to stand
up to future risks and the wisdom of building further dams in the
area. Some have even asked if the world's largest dam could have
induced or exacerbated the earthquake:
""Whether reservoir-induced seismicity is behind this week's
earthquake should be urgently investigated before the Three Gorges
reservoir is filled to its maximum height," says Patricia Adams,
executive director of Probe International, a Canadian group monitoring
the Three Gorges dam since the 1980s."
Concerns of this sort are far from new however. Indeed, this article,
written way back in 1999 for the Alaska Science Forum, talks about how
"the dam also may trigger earthquakes that could threaten millions of
people". While it is too early to say with any degree of certainty the
role the dam project may or may not have played in this week's
disaster, it is clear that the tragic events in Sichuan will reopen
the debate surrounding China's dam-building projects.
Einde O'Callaghan
> Sichuan earthquake: Update on dams and nuclear sites
>
>
> http://shanghaiist.com/2008/05/15/zipingba_dam_st.php
I must say that the satellite photo of the dam on that blogsite looks
really convincing. The dam looks as if it's at least 5 mile high.
Einde O'Callaghan
Vngelis
The same story was reported tonight on Newsnight.
16th May 2208
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/?q=newsnight&go=Find+Programmes
nada
> Theres no way the Yanks went to the moon without the Russians going
> there.
> So if the Russians never went neither did the Americans.
First, let my thank you. This has got to be one of the best jokes I've
been caught up in on the Internet in I don't know how long. Really.
It's really fun. OK, now, onto the show...
Why couldn't the "Yanks" get to the Moon without the Russian's getting
there? Why at the height of the cold war would the Russians *deny*
going to moon (I know, I know, It's like discussing this with a 6 year
old...)....their line was "congratulations" to the US. In fact, the
Russians gave up the moon shot after shooting the first satellite
there. But truly, V, you are the first person to make this claim,
ever,as far as I know...not the moon landing being fake, that's been
done, but that the Russians did it first, without claiming credit.
> It was big marketing ploy to showcase themselves as to how superior
> they were when they were defeated in Vietnam by peasants. Now they
> waffle on about going to Mars and they cant even defeat the resistance
> in Iraq.
They were defeated by a modern, probably the best, light-infantry in
the world by using guile, stunning tactics and, support with advanced
Russian weaponry. Any war fought like a total war for liberation, with
fairly secure basis and a politically weakening imperialism at home
and abroad will win.
David
Einde O'Callaghan
16th May 2208 and even 16th May 2008 are both in the future - and the
above link doesn't take you to a particular Newsnight programme, just to
a general search page listing all the editions pof teh last week.
I wasn't casting any doubt on the general story, which is quite
believable (at least the fears of damage part), just raising the
question of how reliable the site was given that the picture
illustrating the article is not particularly credible.
Einde O'Callaghan
Daniele Futtorovic
Nostradamus-tactic. Guess widly and as much as you can, some of it might
turn out true.
Which is why you can't emphasize often enough that science isn't about
the results, but about the *method*.
> Although the Three Gorges Dam has been declared safe, some
> commentators are already raising questions over its ability to stand
> up to future risks and the wisdom of building further dams in the
> area. Some have even asked if the world's largest dam could have
> induced or exacerbated the earthquake:
>
> ""Whether reservoir-induced seismicity is behind this week's
> earthquake should be urgently investigated before the Three Gorges
> reservoir is filled to its maximum height," says Patricia Adams,
> executive director of Probe International, a Canadian group monitoring
> the Three Gorges dam since the 1980s."
>
> Concerns of this sort are far from new however. Indeed, this article,
> written way back in 1999 for the Alaska Science Forum, talks about how
> "the dam also may trigger earthquakes that could threaten millions of
> people". While it is too early to say with any degree of certainty the
> role the dam project may or may not have played in this week's
> disaster, it is clear that the tragic events in Sichuan will reopen
> the debate surrounding China's dam-building projects.
>
> http://shanghaiist.com/2008/05/15/zipingba_dam_st.php
Sic! Those lapdogs really hate it when competing countries have their
own sources of energy...
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
Vngelis
wrote:
>
> Sic! Those lapdogs really hate it when competing countries have their
> own sources of energy...
>
> --
> DF.
> in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
There is an economic war with China over the value of the Renmimbi and
Burma has been under sanctions.
These are the politics which lead to conflict.
Walters and the state caps all argue there is no conflict as
capitalism is triumphant everywhere hence they dismiss weather war
weaponry as ...conspiratorial
Much in the same manner as they alibi the 'war on terror' by
presenting Osama as being real...
vngelis
nada
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, no, not exactly. The fact that there are like maybe 2 workers
states anywhere in the world (Cuba and N.Korea...the last one being
questionable btw) is not the point. In fact, it goes more our British
globalist Vngelis's POV that an "economic war" exists between China
and the US goes to China's capitalist nature more than anything else.
Of course if it was a 'war' you'd see the US treating China like N.
Korea or Burma, clearly something it does not do. US investment in
China has about doubled every year for 10 years and the Chinese are
tied to the US economy to the tune of 30% of their GNP, so hardly a
'war'. Ah...'competition' is what it is, similiarly to two rival
capitalist states.
David
Daniele Futtorovic
> There is an economic war with China over the value of the Renmimbi and
> Burma has been under sanctions.
>
> These are the politics which lead to conflict.
>
> Walters and the state caps all argue there is no conflict as
> capitalism is triumphant everywhere hence they dismiss weather war
> weaponry as ...conspiratorial
I don't think they've got the technical means to create such a cyclone
artificially, either. I'd very much agree, however, that IF they had
them, they'd certainly use them.
But how important would such weapons be? Not all that, in my view. Mind,
they've killed millions of Iraqis with the very much conventional
weapons called "diplomacy" and "economic sanctions".
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
Daniele Futtorovic
>
> Well, no, not exactly. The fact that there are like maybe 2 workers
> states anywhere in the world (Cuba and N.Korea...the last one being
> questionable btw) is not the point. In fact, it goes more our British
> globalist Vngelis's POV that an "economic war" exists between China
> and the US goes to China's capitalist nature more than anything else.
> Of course if it was a 'war' you'd see the US treating China like N.
> Korea or Burma, clearly something it does not do. US investment in
> China has about doubled every year for 10 years and the Chinese are
> tied to the US economy to the tune of 30% of their GNP, so hardly a
> 'war'. Ah...'competition' is what it is, similiarly to two rival
> capitalist states.
IMO it /is/ competition between two capitalist states, or between one
capitalist state and one nigh-capitalist one. But how isn't that a war?
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
nada
wrote:
Because neither side is either accusing each other of something or not
competing within the realm of capitalist trade relations. There is
only manouvering to gain profit. That's not war. It could lead to war
but that would like a real war fought by other means: quotas, tarrifs,
cutting off trade, boycotts etc...like the US does with Burma now. The
US loves China because the ruling class is making too much money
barrowing from it, investing in it, trading with it, etc. Hardly looks
like a war to me.
David
dusty
wrote:
> IMO it /is/ competition between two capitalist states, or between one
> capitalist state and one nigh-capitalist one. But how isn't that a war?
> DF.
China is a chimera.
But for sure it is a former colonial country that is still “being
planned” – within the context and courtesy of – the agenda of
globalising imperialism. The Stalinist bureaucracy, deep degeneration
product of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution – but product nevertheless –
is still in the saddle – and has the task of defending its position.
This it must do by “modernisation” and by retaining its control of the
state apparatus, which it does do with considerable vigour. The rights
of minority nationalities and of the working class and peasantry are
collateral damage in this pincer-like situation.
The fundamental contradiction is that in the process it has/is
creating a massive middle class who threaten to be its nemesis.
It’s a giant that has much of the same dynamic as any vigorous
imperialism. Control of cheap raw materials, export of surplus capital
to ensure market returns – a central “task” of its “planners”.
In the meantime it moves ahead in leaps and bounds, and threatens to
be the third major bulwark to the expansionist plans of USA
imperialism – particularly against their next target, Iran. The other
two being the peoples of the Third and Other worlds and the new
Russia.
Daniele Futtorovic
> On May 18, 9:51 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@laposte.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> IMO it /is/ competition between two capitalist states, or between one
>> capitalist state and one nigh-capitalist one. But how isn't that a war?
>
>> DF.
>
> China is a chimera.
How so? To you mean simply their transition from a Maoist/Stalinist
state to a capitalist one?
> But for sure it is a former colonial country that is still “being
> planned” – within the context and courtesy of – the agenda of
> globalising imperialism.
I'd tend to disagree with the term "colony". Surely, it wasn't a colony
like f.i. India was. The Westeners never ruled China themselves. Or did
they? Didn't they rely on compradores, exploiting the weakness of
Chinese central power -- but never being able to dispose of that central
power? If I'm correct, that would rather qualify it as a vassal, rather
than a colony.
> The Stalinist bureaucracy, deep degeneration
> product of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution – but product nevertheless –
> is still in the saddle – and has the task of defending its position.
"Task" in which sense?
> This it must do by “modernisation” and by retaining its control of the
> state apparatus, which it does do with considerable vigour. The rights
> of minority nationalities and of the working class and peasantry are
> collateral damage in this pincer-like situation.
>
> The fundamental contradiction is that in the process it has/is
> creating a massive middle class who threaten to be its nemesis.
Nemesis with respects to it as a workers' state, but not as a state per
se, isn't it?
> It’s a giant that has much of the same dynamic as any vigorous
> imperialism. Control of cheap raw materials, export of surplus capital
> to ensure market returns – a central “task” of its “planners”.
I should argue against the term "imperialism" here. Surely, it's not the
same imperialism as e.g. the English (or generally: European) or
Japanese one. The one thing about China is that it's HUGE. Neither does
it need "Lebensraum", nor, I'd venture, many foreign raw materials, nor
foreign markets for its survival. I would be akin to the US in those
respects. I think such a type of "imperialism" would need to be given a
different name, because it's not the same thing. The US didn't need to
destroy and then invade Iraq to get its oil (unless they gambled on the
global market, on capitalism itself to be destroyed). Classical
imperialism had to occupy, rule or colonize areas mainly because no
capitalist structures existed in those areas (and partly due to
competition with other imperialist powers).
> In the meantime it moves ahead in leaps and bounds, and threatens to
> be the third major bulwark to the expansionist plans of USA
> imperialism – particularly against their next target, Iran. The other
> two being the peoples of the Third and Other worlds and the new
> Russia.
Well, I'm afraid the people of the "Third and Other worlds" weigh very
little, even when compared to Russia, and will continue to weigh as
little until they have sovereign nations to leverage their power.
As for Russia -- as I said in my reply to David, it seems to me that the
tone the US ideologues use when speaking of it is slightly different
than that used when it comes to China. Could be due to my attention, of
course, but I've never heard a US ideologue speak of Russia as an
/economic/ threat.
Daniele Futtorovic
> On May 18, 4:51 am, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@laposte.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-18 00:44 +0100, nada allegedly wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Well, no, not exactly. The fact that there are like maybe 2 workers
>>> states anywhere in the world (Cuba and N.Korea...the last one being
>>> questionable btw) is not the point. In fact, it goes more our British
>>> globalist Vngelis's POV that an "economic war" exists between China
>>> and the US goes to China's capitalist nature more than anything else.
>>> Of course if it was a 'war' you'd see the US treating China like N.
>>> Korea or Burma, clearly something it does not do. US investment in
>>> China has about doubled every year for 10 years and the Chinese are
>>> tied to the US economy to the tune of 30% of their GNP, so hardly a
>>> 'war'. Ah...'competition' is what it is, similiarly to two rival
>>> capitalist states.
>> IMO it /is/ competition between two capitalist states, or between one
>> capitalist state and one nigh-capitalist one. But how isn't that a war?
>>
>
> competing within the realm of capitalist trade relations. There is
> only manouvering to gain profit. That's not war. It could lead to war
> but that would like a real war fought by other means: quotas, tarrifs,
> cutting off trade, boycotts etc...like the US does with Burma now. The
> US loves China because the ruling class is making too much money
> barrowing from it, investing in it, trading with it, etc. Hardly looks
> like a war to me.
Oh come on, that's a very thin distinction, especially if the experience
from WWI is anything to shout about.
At least a part of the US ideologues seem very wary of China to me.
They're complaining about how much US-assets they hold et caetera.
They're treating it as a rival -- and you won't hear the same tone about
Russia. According to what I hear, the Chinese gov't could crash the
dollar. All right, one could argue they won't. I'd grant that's
unlikely. But if they did, it would deal the US greater a blow than it'd
deal China. China's producing. The US are consuming on debt. A
confrontation seems inevitable -- unless the US manages to get a hold of
Chinese political power.
Vngelis
wrote:
I think you may have misunderstood what I said.
They may be able to artificially excarcabate a situation.
It is noted already that the Chinese are able to create rain clouds.
If a cyclone is developing and with the use of weaponry they can
excarcabate it artificially they aren't necessarily 'creating' weather
but making it worse.
Do you belive Katrina as it evolved was a man made disaster or as
Spike Lee has commented the city was flooded by blowing up the defence
walls surrounding it?
For I have noticed the Americans try and test their weapon
manipulation equipment on themselves first then they globalise it.
Katrina inaugurated weather wars, climate change in our faces and
climate change refugees. We are now going into new realms.
Environmental intervention as an evolution of humanitarian
intervention. Imperiliasm rebranding itself...
vngelis
nada
You know, when you sound rational like this and make a logical
argument as you do above, you are absolutely no fun at all...
> Do you belive Katrina as it evolved was a man made disaster or as
> Spike Lee has commented the city was flooded by blowing up the defence
> walls surrounding it?
A very natural disaster *predicted* for decades...Lee, a great film
maker, has no evidence of this which is why no Katrina refugee
organization makes this claim anymore. It's also a destraction,
politically, from the real politcial tasks of addressing the needs of
the refugees and how the capitalists want to rebuild NOLA.
> For I have noticed the Americans try and test their weapon
> manipulation equipment on themselves first then they globalise it.
Ah...he's baackkk! Good. So, you 'notice' this when you haven't even
offered any evidence they've ever done it? They've tried all sorts of
things agains the Cuban workers state for decades...including cloud
seeding. All to no avail. Again, read what the Cubans themselves say.
> Katrina inaugurated weather wars, climate change in our faces and
> climate change refugees. We are now going into new realms.
> Environmental intervention as an evolution of humanitarian
> intervention. Imperiliasm rebranding itself...
Sure it does. You know, the weather system develops east of the
Carribean. It's movement is determined by low and high pressure
systems on either side of the storm, with the storm following the
relatively lower weather system that precedes it (relative to the
higher pressure system behind it, pushing it). So, therefore, it would
take a huge amount of energy and a method of delivering it (as opposed
to the puny little HAARP system of 3 MWs) in a sustained way to a
specific area of atmosphere with natural receptors to absorb the
energy to lower the barametric pressure...well you get the point. The
fact that Kratrina was NOT the biggest hurricane says something. That
it followed historcial paths of a hurricane to the west then north,
that this was disaster waiting to happen by capitalist indifference
makes you move away from socialism toward conspiratalism, a petty-
bourgois deviation akin to space bats and faked moon landings (I do
admit you never said the moon landings were faked, rather that the
Russians got there first, even though they failed to make a big deal
about it, or note it, or even wink a few times...).
David
Daniele Futtorovic
> On May 18, 12:48 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@laposte.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-17 20:27 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
>>
>>> There is an economic war with China over the value of the Renmimbi and
>>> Burma has been under sanctions.
>>> These are the politics which lead to conflict.
>>> Walters and the state caps all argue there is no conflict as
>>> capitalism is triumphant everywhere hence they dismiss weather war
>>> weaponry as ...conspiratorial
>> I don't think they've got the technical means to create such a cyclone
>> artificially, either. I'd very much agree, however, that IF they had
>> them, they'd certainly use them.
>> But how important would such weapons be? Not all that, in my view. Mind,
>> they've killed millions of Iraqis with the very much conventional
>> weapons called "diplomacy" and "economic sanctions".
>>
>
> They may be able to artificially excarcabate a situation.
> It is noted already that the Chinese are able to create rain clouds.
> If a cyclone is developing and with the use of weaponry they can
> excarcabate it artificially they aren't necessarily 'creating' weather
> but making it worse.
>
> Do you belive Katrina as it evolved was a man made disaster or as
> Spike Lee has commented the city was flooded by blowing up the defence
> walls surrounding it?
>
> For I have noticed the Americans try and test their weapon
> manipulation equipment on themselves first then they globalise it.
> Katrina inaugurated weather wars, climate change in our faces and
> climate change refugees. We are now going into new realms.
> Environmental intervention as an evolution of humanitarian
> intervention. Imperiliasm rebranding itself...
Yes, it looks like I misunderstood what you said, then. At the same
time, that bit about the Russians and the moon wasn't the cleverest
thing you ever said, and it kind of set the background...
Look, I'm not really going to argue about specific points or theories. I
don't know, and I do think that even those with much better scientific
understanding than me can't really know, because they won't have access
to all data.
My take on "conspiracy theories" (I really do hate that term, but what
better alternative is there?) is rather of a general nature. I am firmly
persuaded that the WTC towers were blown up (I even don't think that's
disputable), and according to what I hear that's a "conspiracy theory".
So, logically, from my point of view, all of them can't be wrong. I
suspect that many more of them are probably right than it would seem at
first glance. Some are most definitely bullshit.
But my axis of judgement is not based on the truth/falsehood matter. My
central point is that we cannot know (and I mean *KNOW*) whether ANY of
those theories are right or wrong, as long as those who might have an
interest in keeping them secret are in power (there might be exceptions
to that, but they'd only prove the rule). My base of judgement is social
revolution, and "conspiracy theories" are subordinate to that goal. If
some of them are prone to serve the revolution, promote them; if not,
keep them back until after it.
So for instance, I am very supportive to exposing the "9/11" lies and
discrepancies and falsehoods. For two reasons: firstly, because exposing
them comes at relatively low cost, as the amount of data available is
simply staggering, and easily understood. Secondly, because it is
directly useful in undermining the public's loyalty towards their rulers.
On the other hand, I wouldn't spend time or effort in trying to push
this HAARP/weather modification stuff you're currently on to. For I
consider it a waste of time, based on the same lines as the reasons
given above for "9/11": it is very tedious to make a point about it; the
data is vague, inconclusive, highly technical and very easily refuted by
any quack "expert" on the telly; it's a separate navy/air force project;
etc.. You get the idea. My criterion is agitational value.
I must add that even in the case of "9/11", where I would encourage
effort, it is still a very tricky path to tread. The propaganda must be
very carefully aimed and packed. It must be aimed specifically towards
undermining to loyalty of the people towards the system *itself*, and
not towards individuals or some of the more obscure secret agencies. You
need the cut the ruler's paths of retreat. For else, what would be
easier than a simple change of party, revealing some parts of it, and
claiming it was the work of some rogue parts of the system, and on you
go with the same shit and the whole opportunity is defused?
Likewise, I would very much recommend caution and defensiveness when
going on about "conspiracy theories" (something you do not display). In
my opinion the biggest threat or the biggest detriment to the cause is
when the label "loonie" becomes reasonably justified. Mind, I said
"reasonably". I think it would be wiser to hush some of the more...
eccentric theories, lest promoting them were bound to call in that epithet.
For you see, the bulk of the people are loyal to their rulers, whether
it be their parents, their bosses or their government. Irrationally so,
but loyal nevertheless. If you target that loyalty, you have to expect
resistance. It's called "justification of effort": they've spent their
lives being loyal, they've devoted much effort to it (intellectual or
emotional), and if you tell them to break up that loyalty, then you're
basically telling them to admit to themselves that they've lived a LIE
for whatever time span they've lived. You need to give them pretty good
incentive to do that. Especially, you need to be aware that they will
use whatever psychological path of retreat they can find. And doing away
with those who provoke their thinking as "loonies" is one of the easiest
lines of defence there is, and obviously one that's had much success.
Of course "truthers" these days will always be called loonies, and my
argument isn't meant to prohibit any propaganda because of that fact.
It's more like tailoring it to the average mindset, giving the average,
hopefully reasonably sensible mindset the biggest incentive possible to
question their loyalty. You can't win them all; the aim should be to win
the greatest lot possible.
So my point: push the big issues in a careful, serious and convincing
way, and keep the more obscure issues in the closet until we have the
means to give those sons of dogs the treatment they deserve.
Vngelis
" The USS Essex ESG is in the Gulf of Thailand for Operation Gold
Cobra exercises scheduled to commence May 8. Due to its proximity to
the region devastated by Cyclone Nargis, USS Essex ESG and the USS
Blue Ridge reportedly will receive orders to administer aid to the
affected region. "
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/u_s...map_may_7_2008
VMGR-152 supports real world mission during Exercise Cobra Gold 08
KORAT, Thailand (May 13, 2008) – Marines with Marine Aerial Refueler
and Transport Squadron 152, Marine Aircraft Group 36, 1st Marine
Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa, Japan,
arrived in Korat, Thailand to participate in Exercise Cobra Gold 08
May 6, but when disaster struck in Burma, they were called to lend a
helping hand in relief efforts there.
The Marines loaded up in the squadron’s KC-130J aircrafts and departed
from Korat May 14 en route to Utaphao Air Field to prepare for flights
into Burma as part of the continuing U.S. relief effort, which has
been titled Joint Task Force Caring Response.
The reclusive Asian country northeast of Thailand was devastated May 3
when a tropical cyclone claimed the lives of more than 32,000 people
there.
“As things develop [in Burma], our role is shifting,” explained Maj.
Derek E. Gillette, the executive officer of VMGR-152.
Daniele Futtorovic
> Just happened to have been there....
Obviously not, since that "Cobra Gold" exercise certainly has been
planned and decided quite a while ago. The exercise itself may have had
something to do with the referendum in Myanmar, since the US have made a
habit out of parading their armed forces ostensibly whenever nations
dare deciding anything for themselves, remembering everyone "who's the
boss".
But you imply their presence was linked to the cyclone? Would mean the
Yank's would have made it. However:
a) as repeatedly noted, you cannot explain /how/ it could have been
made, technically. The reports about HAARP etc. speak of "weather
modification", not about "creating a storm out of calm air", least so in
a place of one own's choosing;
b) there's nothing improbable enough about a tropical storm in such an
area to make the "man-made" hypothesis minimal enough, that is more
probable than "chance";
c) the piece you originally linked to claimed the Chinese dood it. But
now you're talking about the US Navy. So who is it?
Waiving possibilities is no substitute for weighing their probability.
Don't waste your time. If your brain cells hunger for strain, read
Hegel's "Logic".
Einde O'Callaghan
> Just happened to have been there....
>
of where a disaster happens the US Navy just happens to have ships in
the vicinity.
Einde O'Callaghan
dusty
wrote:
> On 2008-05-18 14:44 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 9:51 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@laposte.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> >> IMO it /is/ competition between two capitalist states, or between one
> >> capitalist state and one nigh-capitalist one. But how isn't that a war?
>
> >> DF.
>
> > China is a chimera.
>
> How so? To you mean simply their transition from a Maoist/Stalinist
> state to a capitalist one?
I mean the historically unpredented mix of workers state with a
leadership having continuity back to the Russian Revolution (albeit
with distortions) but pretty deeply integrated with the latest phase
of imperialism. Such a formation is a deformed workers' state sui
generis!
> > But for sure it is a former colonial country that is still “being
> > planned” – within the context and courtesy of – the agenda of
> > globalising imperialism.
>
> I'd tend to disagree with the term "colony". Surely, it wasn't a colony
> like f.i. India was. The Westeners never ruled China themselves. Or did
> they? Didn't they rely on compradores, exploiting the weakness of
> Chinese central power -- but never being able to dispose of that central
> power? If I'm correct, that would rather qualify it as a vassal, rather
> than a colony.
The colonial powers demanded and got monopolies of trading rights and
other "privileges" in the coastal cities. They violently enforced
this. That’s colonialism.
> > The Stalinist bureaucracy, deep degeneration
> > product of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution – but product nevertheless –
> > is still in the saddle – and has the task of defending its position.
>
> "Task" in which sense?
In the sense "against the social forces set in train be the
development of a huge market economy with deep international links".
> > This it must do by “modernisation” and by retaining its control of the
> > state apparatus, which it does do with considerable vigour. The rights
> > of minority nationalities and of the working class and peasantry are
> > collateral damage in this pincer-like situation.
>
> > The fundamental contradiction is that in the process it has/is
> > creating a massive middle class who threaten to be its nemesis.
>
> Nemesis with respects to it as a workers' state, but not as a state per
> se, isn't it?
Yes.
> > It’s a giant that has much of the same dynamic as any vigorous
> > imperialism. Control of cheap raw materials, export of surplus capital
> > to ensure market returns – a central “task” of its “planners”.
> I should argue against the term "imperialism" here. Surely, it's not the
> same imperialism as e.g. the English (or generally: European) or
> Japanese one. The one thing about China is that it's HUGE. Neither does
> it need "Lebensraum", nor, I'd venture, many foreign raw materials, nor
> foreign markets for its survival. I would be akin to the US in those
> respects. I think such a type of "imperialism" would need to be given a
> different name, because it's not the same thing. The US didn't need to
> destroy and then invade Iraq to get its oil (unless they gambled on the
> global market, on capitalism itself to be destroyed). Classical
> imperialism had to occupy, rule or colonize areas mainly because no
> capitalist structures existed in those areas (and partly due to
> competition with other imperialist powers).
I don't seek a "payback" but the nearest term to describe this new
phenomenon would be "social imperialism": workers state fundamentally
but generating huge and increasing surpluses of capital and requiring
continuity and increasing volume of markets cheap raw materials,
labour and so on.
> > In the meantime it moves ahead in leaps and bounds, and threatens to
> > be the third major bulwark to the expansionist plans of USA
> > imperialism – particularly against their next target, Iran. The other
> > two being the peoples of the Third and Other worlds and the new
> > Russia.
> Well, I'm afraid the people of the "Third and Other worlds" weigh very
> little, even when compared to Russia, and will continue to weigh as
> little until they have sovereign nations to leverage their power.
> As for Russia -- as I said in my reply to David, it seems to me that the
> tone the US ideologues use when speaking of it is slightly different
> than that used when it comes to China. Could be due to my attention, of
> course, but I've never heard a US ideologue speak of Russia as an
> /economic/ threat.
> DF.
And the Iraqi masses, etc etc etc?
Vngelis
Funny how Project 2025 is a US Navy document regarding weather
modification circulated in 1996...
But then again alibing the USA is your stock in trade, after your
joint publications with US universities and the Bomb Belgrade neo-con
crowd you support.
Daniele Futtorovic
> On May 19, 4:17 am, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@laposte.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-18 14:44 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
>>
>>> On May 18, 9:51 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@laposte.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> IMO it /is/ competition between two capitalist states, or between one
>>>> capitalist state and one nigh-capitalist one. But how isn't that a war?
>>>> DF.
>>> China is a chimera.
>> How so? To you mean simply their transition from a Maoist/Stalinist
>> state to a capitalist one?
>
> I mean the historically unpredented mix of workers state with a
> leadership having continuity back to the Russian Revolution (albeit
> with distortions) but pretty deeply integrated with the latest phase
> of imperialism. Such a formation is a deformed workers' state sui
> generis!
I really don't want to get into an argument about the class nature of
China here, so I'll just mention our views on that matter differ (mostly
in their respective firmness).
>>> The Stalinist bureaucracy, deep degeneration
>>> product of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution – but product nevertheless –
>>> is still in the saddle – and has the task of defending its position.
>> "Task" in which sense?
>
> In the sense "against the social forces set in train be the
> development of a huge market economy with deep international links".
>
>>> This it must do by “modernisation” and by retaining its control of the
>>> state apparatus, which it does do with considerable vigour. The rights
>>> of minority nationalities and of the working class and peasantry are
>>> collateral damage in this pincer-like situation.
>>> The fundamental contradiction is that in the process it has/is
>>> creating a massive middle class who threaten to be its nemesis.
>> Nemesis with respects to it as a workers' state, but not as a state per
>> se, isn't it?
>
> Yes.
Ah, but the Nemesis of China as a workers' state could well turn out to
be its salvation as a state per se.
Remember, "socialism in one country" is NOT an option. Unless you want
to argue that a global socialist revolution is imminent.
Pursuing that line of thought (I'll spare the details for the sake of
conciseness), one comes to the following, IMHO interesting question: did
the SU under Stalin and the post-Stalinist SU further or inhibit the
advance of socialism around the globe?
>>> In the meantime it moves ahead in leaps and bounds, and threatens to
>>> be the third major bulwark to the expansionist plans of USA
>>> imperialism – particularly against their next target, Iran. The other
>>> two being the peoples of the Third and Other worlds and the new
>>> Russia.
>
>> Well, I'm afraid the people of the "Third and Other worlds" weigh very
>> little, even when compared to Russia, and will continue to weigh as
>> little until they have sovereign nations to leverage their power.
>> As for Russia -- as I said in my reply to David, it seems to me that the
>> tone the US ideologues use when speaking of it is slightly different
>> than that used when it comes to China. Could be due to my attention, of
>> course, but I've never heard a US ideologue speak of Russia as an
>> /economic/ threat.
>> DF.
>
> And the Iraqi masses, etc etc etc?
As for the "etc etc etc": we'll see. As for the Iraqi masses, the role
they have played in recent History was purely a negative (in the
philosophical, not the moral sense), a passive one: their activities
were determined as a negative of the US's actions. IF they manage to
kick the Yank butchers and rapers of nations out, AND IF they manage to
break loose from the entanglement of Saudi, Iranian and Turk (Syrian?)
interests, THEN... well, then they would have achieved a feat of truly
Herculean proportions. Yet it would only be the beginning of their
existence as a distinct "player".