[Gasification] DOE's demonstration gasification project history

[Greg and April]

Interspaced between the **********.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Redler" <redlerm at yahoo.com>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification" <gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 17:32
Subject: Re: [Gasification] DOE's demonstration gasification project history


> Greg wrote: "Iraq is not and never has been a significant source of oil 
> for the U.S.,"
> 
> Even if this were on topic, I can't believe that there is still debate 
> on this issue. How painfully obvious does this have to become?! The U.S 
> consumes 25% of the Worlds oil production. If, for the sake of 
> conversation, the U.S. didn't consume a drop of oil, world demand makes 
> it a commodity which affords the owner almost unimaginable wealth and 
> power. I suggest you look at the bigger picture Greg.
> 
> 1.) Motive:
> 
> "This new world order will be characterized by fierce international 
> competition for dwindling stocks of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium, 
> as well as by a tidal shift in power and wealth from energy-deficit 
> states like China, Japan, and the United States to energy-surplus states 
> like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela."
> http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/15/8316/

*******************

Ah yes, ' Professor ' Michael T. Klare.    Now there is a person, with no particular political leaning and objectivity.    Every single one of his books reads like an newspaper editorial, I wonder why?

As it is, Common Dreams is continuiously spins it's articals in a way to present an anti-war immage - you had better believe that they are going to muddy the waters all they can.    

*******************

> 
> 2.) Action: Military Invasion - Acknowledgment of a (not so well 
> concealed) crime
> 
> "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what 
> everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
> - Alan Greenspan, Former chairman of the Federal Reserve
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

********************

If everyone knows it, where is the documentation.    Up untill a few days ago, quite a few people just knew that " Iraq supplied alot of our oil ", and that just wasn't true. 

The fact is, all anyone has to do, to undermine the effort and cause problems is say "It's about the oil" even if it isn't true.
 
********************

> 
> "Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq"
> - Paul Wolfowitz, Former US deputy defense secretary
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060503A.shtml

********************

Ever wonder why Mr. Wolfowitz would apparently reverse himself on the Iraq issue - especially in light of him being a firm believer and advocate of preemptive strikes, and just 2 months earlier was telling congress that Iraq can pay for it's own reconstruction?

********************

> 
> "Oil and War in Iraq have been inextricably intertwined, it seems, in 
> the war plans of both the Pentagon and the oil industry--otherwise known 
> as "Big Oil"--long before the recent war in Iraq."
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oil_and_War_in_Iraq
> 

**********************

I have a real problem with reports based on " insiders " and secretly obtained information, as you never ever know if it's accurate or not.    Look what happened with the Killian documents, and the mess they caused.

Going over the program "The Constatution: That delicate balance" confirms that many if not most "News agencies" will do anything to get their point across, and the truth is not always the reason why they write what they did.

**********************


> 3.) Securing the spoils of an illegal invasion:
> 
> "Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are 
> about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil 
> companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before 
> the Iraqi parliament within days."
> http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=11810&sectionID=15
> 

**********************

I get article not found.

**********************

> And by illegal invasion (i.e. "crime"), I mean a violation of the 
> constitution, where the powers of congress were overridden and later, 
> congress was deceived into supporting the decision to enter into the war.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8, clause 11: The Congress shall have Power To 
> declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules 
> concerning Captures on Land and Water;
> 
> Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of 
> Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time 
> of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or 
> with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in 
> such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> http://ivaw.org/member/thomas-j-buonomo
> http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
> 

******************************

Every single president ( both Democrat and Republican ) has always declared that Artical 2 Section 2 is sufficent constatutional authority, Congress has supported this intrepratation of the law with various resolutions after the shooting started ( and the U.S. Supreme Court ) has not ruled against them, and congress has even retro activly declared war, after hostilities have commenced, just by recognising that a State or War does exist ( Mexican-American War ).    

Further every single war since WW2 has been formaly authorized by Congress ( including Iraq - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution  ).    


Greg H.