Tag Archives: minister

Mounties claim anti-oil activists are a threat to Canada

Mounties claim anti-oil activists are a threat to Canada

By on 18 Feb 2015commentsShare

If you consider yourself part of the “anti-petroleum movement,” you’ve joined ranks with violent individuals who pose a threat to Canadian security, and who warrant close scrutiny from the intelligence wing of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

That’s the main thrust of a “protected/Canadian eyes only” document from January 2014. It was obtained by the French-language Canadian newspaper La Presse. Shawn McCarthy reports, in English, for the Canadian Globe and Mail:

In highly charged language that reflects the government’s hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence.

“There is a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels,” concludes the report which … was obtained by Greenpeace.

“If violent environmental extremists engage in unlawful activity, it jeopardizes the health and safety of its participants, the general public and the natural environment.”

While painting environmental activists as a violent threat — referring specifically to Greenpeace, Tides Canada, and Sierra Club Canada — the report also casts doubt on their motivations. More from The Globe and Mail:

The report extolls the value of the oil and gas sector to the Canadian economy, and adds that many environmentalists “claim” that climate change is the most serious global environmental threat, and “claim” it is a direct consequence of human activity and is “reportedly” linked to the use of fossil fuels.

Never mind that the vast majority of scientists make the same wacky claims.

The report also suggests that the anti-petroleum crowd is doing the bidding of foreign funders, a claim also made recently by Canadian politicians. (Governments in countries with murkier records on freedom of speech than Canada sometimes use similar logic to stymie their own domestic environmental activists. See: Russia, India.)

Activists in the U.S. are under increased scrutiny too. As Grist’s Heather Smith wrote last week, the FBI has been contacting American anti–tar sands activists at home, at work, and at their parents’ houses. Many of the activists had blocked roads in the U.S. while trying to prevent the movement of oil-extraction equipment headed for the Canadian tar sands. Larry Hildes, a lawyer representing a number of these activists, told Smith that it was unclear what the agency was up to.

Conservatives in the Canadian parliament have, meanwhile, been pushing a bill that would expand the country’s intelligence agency’s ability to investigate “activity that undermines the security of Canada,” potentially through “interference with critical infrastructure.” Though the bill is ostensibly aimed at targeting Islamic fundamentalists, it could also allow the government to keep closer tabs on environmental groups. And now this leaked document may be an indication of an intelligence community that is gearing up to get more aggressive.

“What is genuinely alarming about the RCMP document is that, when combined with the proposed terrorism bill, it lays the groundwork for all kinds of state-sanctioned surveillance and ‘dirty tricks,’” Keith Stewart, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, wrote in a blog post. Considering that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a climate denier known for muzzling scientists in his own government, we wouldn’t put any dirty tricks past him.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

View this article: 

Mounties claim anti-oil activists are a threat to Canada

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, Mop, Nespresso, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mounties claim anti-oil activists are a threat to Canada

John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I could use a good laugh, and this afternoon I got one. For starters, as the White House hinted yesterday, Joe Biden won’t be attending Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech next month before a joint session of Congress. Apparently he’ll be out of the country that day:

The vice president’s office on Friday confirmed the plans to skip the March 3 speech. “We are not ready to announce details of his trip yet, and normally our office wouldn’t announce this early, but the planning process has been underway for a while,” a spokesperson for the office said.

So where exactly will Joe be? Well, um, somewhere. The planning process “has been underway for a while,” the White House insists with a straight face, but they don’t know yet what country they’ve been planning to send him to. But they’ll think of one. Maybe Latvia or something.

This is all part of the mounting fury from Democrats in Congress and the White House over the speech, and it’s become increasingly clear that the whole thing is a major blunder for Netanyahu. But who to blame? The invitation came from Speaker of the House John Boehner, so why not blame him? Today Netanyahu did exactly that, throwing him under the proverbial bus with barely a passing glance:

A senior Israeli official suggested on Friday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been misled into thinking an invitation to address the U.S. Congress on Iran next month was fully supported by the Democrats….“It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides,” Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told 102 FM Tel Aviv Radio on Friday.

Poor John Boehner. You almost feel sorry for the guy sometimes. President Obama has been running rings around him for months now, infuriating the Republican caucus and causing Boehner endless headaches over Cuba, immigration, net neutrality, Homeland Security shutdowns, and dozens of other subjects. No matter how hard he tries, Boehner just hasn’t been able to get ahead of any of this. Instead he’s been forced over and over to respond to Obama’s agenda while desperately trying to keep the peace among the tea partiers who control his future.

Then, finally, it looked like he’d pulled something off. He announced the Netanyahu speech two weeks ago, catching the president off guard and garnering huzzahs from every corner of the the conservative movement. Finally, a victory!

But now it’s all turned to ashes. His big spectacle is in tatters, with Democrats in open revolt and pundits of all stripes agreeing that he overreached by going around the White House on a foreign policy matter. It’s been nothing but a headache, and even Netanyahu has joined the lynch mob now. What’s worse, there’s nothing he can do. The speech is still four weeks away, and Boehner has no choice but to let the whole dreary debacle play out. He already knows his show is a flop, but the curtain has to come up anyway and Boehner has to keep a stiff upper lip the whole time.

Poor guy.

Source:  

John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Boehner’s Big Triumph Is Now Just a Big Shit Sandwich

Greek Charm Offensive Is Charming No One So Far

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis is apparently on a “charm offensive” to persuade his European counterparts—i.e., the Germans—to allow Greece to end its brutal austerity program and spend more money. The Germans, so far, are not charmed:

After a meeting in Berlin on Thursday with his German counterpart, Wolfgang Schaeuble, the two sides could not even agree on whether they had “agreed to disagree.” Schaeuble said they did. Varoufakis said they didn’t get that far. “We did not reach an agreement; it was never on the cards,” he said. “We didn’t even agree to disagree from where I’m standing.”

That’s not very promising, is it? Overall, though, my takeaway from this story is that the new Greek government, after winning office based on a very hardnosed platform of vilifying its European creditors, has decided in practice to adopt a fairly conciliatory negotiating strategy. The Times says that Varoufakis has “backed away from the party’s pledges to negotiate a debt write-down” and is instead merely seeking “a compromise that would benefit Greece and its creditors.”

So it’s sort of a good-cop-bad-cop routine: prime minister Alexis Tsipras stays in Athens and continues to insist that Greece won’t buckle under to European threats, while Varoufakis makes the rounds of finance ministries and tries to make nice.

Still, keep in mind something I mentioned a few days ago: “backing down” from demands to reduce Greece’s enormous debt doesn’t mean much, because the issue of the debt write-down has always been a bit of a charade. It’s an easy thing to demagogue, but everyone understands privately that Greece will never pay it all back. At this point, then, Greek debt is less a measure of what Greece actually owes other people than it is a crude means of political control: whenever Greece needs to roll over its debt, it’s an opportunity for Germany to hold out until they approve of Greece’s spending plans. This effectively gives them control of Greece’s budget, and they’ve insisted on huge spending cuts and a future path toward big budget surpluses.

And that’s what Varoufakis really cares about. Not the debt, which is basically just a symbol at this point, but control over Greece’s budget. He wants to reverse the austerity and increase spending, which he thinks will boost Greece’s economy and allow it to get back into growth mode. What’s more, he’s arguing—none too subtly, as it happens—that this is something important to all of Europe, not just Greece. After all, Greek unemployment is currently at 26 percent, and youth unemployment is nearly 50 percent. This is dangerous territory for any country. Here’s Varoufakis:

“Germany must and can be proud that Nazism has been eradicated here, but it’s one of history’s most cruel ironies that Nazism is rearing its ugly head in Greece, a country which put up such a fine struggle against it,” Varoufakis said. He was referring to Greece’s far-right Golden Dawn party, which came third in January’s elections and has 17 seats in the Parliament sworn in Thursday.

Translation: the Greek public won’t put up with this stuff forever. You may think Syriza is a radical far-left party, but there are worse things than far left parties. If we don’t get relief soon, the far right will be up to bat next. And that’s something nobody wants to risk.

Read this article:

Greek Charm Offensive Is Charming No One So Far

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Greek Charm Offensive Is Charming No One So Far

Breaking: Sydney on Lockdown As Dramatic Siege Unfolds

Mother Jones

The heart of Sydney, Australia, is currently in lockdown, as a siege unfolds at a downtown cafe. Reporting is still fuzzy and ongoing, but here’s what we know so far: Police are responding to a situation at the Lindt Cafe in Martin Place, a central plaza in the city surrounded by banks and law firms, and not far from the state parliament buildings and the Sydney Opera House.

The number of hostages taken have not been confirmed. Channel Seven, a TV station with studios and offices in Martin Place, is reporting police sources as saying there are 13 people being held. The number of hostage-takers has also not been confirmed.

Twitter users have posted images of people, apparently hostages, with their hands against the windows of the cafe and holding up a black flag with Arabic writing on it. Guardian Australia is reporting the flag reads, “There is no god but the God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.” It is not the Islamic State flag. Large parts of the area have been cordoned off.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which has unlocked its live stream for an international audience, is providing rolling coverage. Channel Seven is also providing live coverage here.

The Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has released a statement saying his government is convening an emergency session of the National Security Committee of Cabinet:

UPDATE: Sunday, December 14, 2014, 9 p.m. EST: The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has addressed reporters in Australia’s capital, Canberra. He didn’t provide any further factual detail about the unfolding saga in Sydney. Notably, he did not outline potential reasons for the attack. “We don’t yet know the motivation of the perpetrator,” he said, though he added that “obviously there are some indications” the attack could be political in nature. Abbott said the normal business of government would continue:

I can understand the concerns and anxieties of the Australian people at a time like this, but our thoughts and prayers must above all go out to the individuals who are caught up in this. I can think of almost nothing more distressing, more terrifying than to be caught up in such a situation and our hearts go out to these people.

UPDATE 2: Monday, December 15, 2014, 12:15 a.m. EST: It appears that at least three hostages have gotten free, though whether they escaped or were released is not yet clear.

As things unfold, we’ve compiled a list of sources on Twitter to follow. Find it here.

This article – 

Breaking: Sydney on Lockdown As Dramatic Siege Unfolds

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Breaking: Sydney on Lockdown As Dramatic Siege Unfolds

The World’s Biggest Climate Villain Just Agreed to Help Fight Global Warming

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Prime Minister of Australia is called Abbott. His deputy, Bishop. And together they head a group of ministers who are running an anti-climate campaign with an almost religious fervor.

In a report issued this week by Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch, Australia was ranked as the “worst industrial country in the world” on climate action—and second-worst among all countries, above only Saudi Arabia. Australia’s open hostility toward climate action began in earnest last year, when the right-wing Liberal Party led by Prime Minister Tony Abbott took power in a landslide victory. So far, Abbott’s team has repealed carbon pricing laws, scrapped or eroded funding for government agencies that deal with climate policy, and spoken out against the UN’s international Green Climate Fund, which is designed to help poorer countries fight the effects of global warming.

Now, at least one of those things has changed. This week, Deputy Prime Minister Julie Bishop—who is also the country’s minister for foreign affairs—finally caved to international pressure and announced a $200 million (AUD) commitment to the Green Climate Fund. That’s about $166 million (US). “Our pledge to the Green Climate Fund will facilitate private sector-led economic growth in our region,” she said this week at the UN climate talks in Lima, Peru. Bishop added that the plan would allow Australia to “focus on investment, infrastructure, energy, forestry and emissions reductions.” Australia joins 21 other nations, including the United States, which last month announced a contribution of $3 billion.

The fund has become an important focal point of international climate negotiations because poorer countries typically get the rough end of global warming: Not only are they more likely to feel the brunt of its impacts—such as rising sea levels and increased extreme weather—they also don’t have enough money to face the problem. Meanwhile, rich countries are largely to blame for the crisis. The fund tries to remedy that imbalance.

Australia’s announcement is a policy back-flip. Asked about the UN fund before a climate meeting in Warsaw last year, Abbott said, “We’re not going to be making any contributions to that.” He’s also called the fund a “Bob Brown bank.” Let me explain that one: It’s an attack on the former leader of Australia’s left-wing Greens Party, whom Abbott loves to caricature as the sort of bleeding-heart, tree-hugging socialist who only knows how to wreck an economy. To American ears, it’s basically like the Republican trope around Obama’s job-killing “war on coal.”

Australia faced strong criticism from European nations after its negotiators engaged in what one European official described as “trench warfare” in an attempt to prevent the fund’s inclusion in a G20 communiqué following a G20 summit in Brisbane last month. Australia also refused to join other world leaders at a conference in Berlin last month that was aimed at raising $10 billion for the fund.

And wow, did Abbott sound utterly miserable when he was asked about the government’s dramatic reversal in the face of international pressure. (He’s quite transparent when he doesn’t like something.) The video of Abbott reacting to the funding announcement is telling.

“Well…” Big, exasperated sigh. “Look, uh…” Sad face. Big Pause. “You know…” he went on.

Abbott now admits that he did make “various comments some time ago” criticizing the fund, but he says that “we’ve seen things develop over the last few months.” Indeed, a lot has happened over the last few months that might have helped change Abbott’s mind. The Canadians—with whom he’s enjoyed a kind of anti-climate bromance—recently agreed to cough up cash for the fund. Last month, Abbott was humiliated at his very own party—the G20 meeting in Brisbane—when world leaders ganged up on him in the dispute over the communiqué. And then there was the news that China, Australia’s massive trading partner, had inked a landmark emissions reduction deal with Australia’s most important ally, the United States.

Now, Abbott’s message has grudgingly changed: “I think it’s now fair and reasonable for the government to make a modest, prudent and proportionate commitment to this climate mitigation fund: I think that is something that a sensible government does,” he said. “That money will be strictly invested in practical projects in our region.”

The announcement was praised, hesitantly, by environmental groups. There was, after all, a catch. The money will be drawn from Australia’s existing international aid budget—a budget has already been cut by $7 billion over the next five years.

Climate success or otherwise, these developments appear to be a fascinating continuation of the “climate change as political kryptonite” narrative that has dominated Australian politics for years. As Lenore Taylor, political editor for the Guardian Australia, once told me, climate change is the “killing fields” of Aussie politics. And now it appears the guns are out and loaded once more—dividing the cabinet and leaving the leader out on a limb.

Bishop was, at first, reportedly blocked by the prime minister’s office from even traveling to Peru for the UN meeting—Australia has recently spurned climate meetings. But Bishop is perhaps the most popular minister in an increasingly unpopular government, and she took the disagreement to the nation’s cabinet, which overruled the boss. Then, Australia’s political press was laced with anonymous sources suggesting that Bishop was furious—”went bananas,” according to one—when she learned she would be not be traveling alone to represent Australia. Instead, Bishop would be accompanied by another minister (described in the Australian press as a “chaperone“), reportedly to make sure she didn’t get swept up in the momentum to get a global emissions deal done—something that Abbott has desperately tried to avoid. (Bishop has denied she was angry).

Discord! Strife! Media intrigue! It would all seem so petty if it weren’t part of a familiar pattern, one that’s deeply foreign to American politics: Climate policy has hung over Australia’s politicians like a dark storm cloud since at least 2006, and it has been instrumental in the downfall of multiple political leaders. Here’s a short summary:

2009: The conservative opposition party (called the Liberal Party) replaced its leader, Malcolm Turnbull, who supported a cap-and-trade scheme, with Tony Abbott, a man who is vehemently opposed to the idea.
In the meantime, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd—from the Labor party—failed to get the votes to pass his carbon legislation through parliament and subsequently was overthrown by a popular deputy prime minister, Julia Gillard, who promised not to introduce carbon legislation.
Gillard did in fact introduce carbon pricing in 2011. Cue vitriolic opposition from an invigorated conservative opposition led by Abbott. Gillard’s popularity plummeted as opponents attacked her credibility; she was then challenged and defeated by a resurgent Kevin Rudd, in 2013.
Abbott took office in a landslide and has proceeded to repeal the carbon legislation, which he called a “toxic tax.”

Signs that Bishop may be using climate change to outflank her leader must be worrying to Abbott. As one political commentator put it: “smaller slights than this have proved the defining moment in the descent into division of governments past. A bushfire can begin with just one match.”

Excerpt from:

The World’s Biggest Climate Villain Just Agreed to Help Fight Global Warming

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The World’s Biggest Climate Villain Just Agreed to Help Fight Global Warming

Here Are the 10 Best Songs for Scotland’s Historic Vote for Independence

Mother Jones

Scotland is heading to the polls right now to decide on whether or not to become an independent country. A “Yes” vote would be the biggest constitutional change for the United Kingdom in over three centuries, splintering a long-held relationship that has seen the good times and the bad, and weathered plenty of mutual disagreements up until now. And like any pending break-up, we find that music helps soothe or heighten the experience, and connects us to the universal themes of love and loss. So, Scottish chums, whatever side you’re on, here’s a playlist for you, on this almighty day-of-days.

1. Queen: I Want to Break Free

Obviously. One for the “Yes” camp. (Worth it in my opinion just for Freddy with a mustache in drag vacuuming the carpet.) “I want to break free from your lies/You’re so self-satisfied I don’t need you/I’ve got to break free!” Sing it Freddy. Sing it Scotland.

2. Natalie Imbruglia: Torn

If Scotland votes “Yes” and leaves the union bereft and sobbing, this Aussie songtress might be blaring from a few stereos across the Isles tomorrow: “Nothing’s fine, I’m torn.” Sing it England! Sing it Wales!

3. â&#128;&#139;â&#128;&#139;Björk: Declare Independence

This is a song that famously landed the Icelandic singer in hot water with the Chinese authorities after a 2008 concert in Shanghai in which she called for Tibetan independence. Brave. She faced a ban from future performances on the mainland after that. It’s easy to see why China’s famously censorial authorities were not impressed: “Start your own currency!/Make your own stamp/Protect your language/Declare independence/Don’t let them do that to you!”

4. Oasis: Don’t Look Back In Anger

No matter what happens, some good advice for both sides. “My soul slides away, but don’t look back in anger.”

5. Alicia Keys: Try Sleeping with a Broken Heart

Here’s one for an emotional Prime Minister David Cameron, potentially presiding over a messy, painful divorce. “I’m going to find a way to make it without you/Tonight, I’m going to find a way to make it, without you.” Ouch. Let it out.

â&#128;&#139;

6. â&#128;&#139;Thelma Houston: Don’t Leave Me This Way

That beat speaks for itself.

7. Beyonce: Irreplaceable

“Don’t ever get to thinking you’re irreplaceable,” sings Queen Bey. This is the anthem for pretending everything will be fine post-breakup, that it’s not a big deal, that you can find another, just as easily, and that it wasn’t that good anyway, so don’t go thinking you meant anything to me… Get lost.

(I love you, come back).

8. Boyz II Men: End of the Road

“Although we’ve come to the end of the road/Still I can’t let you go/It’s unnatural, you belong to me, I belong to you.”

9. Mariah Carey: We Belong Together

Who could miss this song in any breakup playlist? It’s worth watching to the part of the video where Mariah is losing her shit in the apartment, writhing in the short tunic-shirt thing, near the end of this narratively nonsensical clip.

10. Alice Deejay: Better Off Alone

Mm. And lastly, any break-up is incomplete without some sweet late-90s Top 40.

Taken from:

Here Are the 10 Best Songs for Scotland’s Historic Vote for Independence

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here Are the 10 Best Songs for Scotland’s Historic Vote for Independence

Arming the Syrian Rebels Wouldn’t Have Stopped ISIS

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Did the United States make a huge mistake by not aggressively supporting and arming the Free Syrian Army back in 2011-12? Did this decision produce a power vacuum that prompted the rise of ISIS in Iraq? Marc Lynch says no to the first question:

The academic literature is not encouraging. In general, external support for rebels almost always make wars longer, bloodier and harder to resolve….Worse, as the University of Maryland’s David Cunningham has shown, Syria had most of the characteristics of the type of civil war in which external support for rebels is least effective.

….Syria’s combination of a weak, fragmented collage of rebel organizations with a divided, competitive array of external sponsors was therefore the worst profile possible for effective external support….An effective strategy of arming the Syrian rebels would never have been easy, but to have any chance at all it would have required a unified approach by the rebels’ external backers, and a unified rebel organization to receive the aid. That would have meant staunching financial flows from its Gulf partners, or at least directing them in a coordinated fashion. Otherwise, U.S. aid to the FSA would be just another bucket of water in an ocean of cash and guns pouring into the conflict.

And he says almost certainly no to the second question as well:

The idea that more U.S. support for the FSA would have prevented the emergence of the Islamic State isn’t even remotely plausible. The open battlefield and nature of the struggle ensured that jihadists would find Syria’s war appealing. The Islamic State recovered steam inside of Iraq as part of a broad Sunni insurgency driven by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bloody, ham-fisted crackdowns in Hawija and Fallujah, and more broadly because of the disaffection of key Sunni actors over Maliki’s sectarian authoritarianism. It is difficult to see how this would have been affected in the slightest by a U.S.-backed FSA (or, for that matter, by a residual U.S. military presence in Iraq, but that’s another debate for another day). There is certainly no reason to believe that the Islamic State and other extremist groups would have stayed away from such an ideal zone for jihad simply because Western-backed groups had additional guns and money.

Had the plan to arm Syria’s rebels been adopted back in 2012, the most likely scenario is that the war would still be raging and look much as it does today, except that the United States would be far more intimately and deeply involved.

Supporters of more aggressive military action have an easy job: all they have to do is point out what a mess the Middle East is today. And they’re right: it’s a mess. The obvious—and all too human—conclusion to draw is that things would be better if only we’d done something different three years ago. And the obvious different thing is more military support for the Syrian rebels.

But this is a cognitive error. Most likely, if we had done something different three years ago, the entire region would still be a mess—possibly a much worse mess—and we’d be right in the middle of it, kicking ourselves for getting involved in yet another quagmire and wondering if things would have gone better if only we’d done something different three years ago. Except this time the “something different” would be going back in time and staying out of things.

It’s human nature to believe that intervention is always better than doing nothing. Liberals tend to believe this in domestic affairs and conservatives tend to believe it in foreign affairs. But it’s not always so. The Middle East suffers from fundamental, longstanding fractures that the United States simply can’t affect other than at the margins. Think about it this way: What are the odds that shipping arms and supplies to a poorly defined, poorly coordinated, and poorly understood rebel alliance in Syria would make a significant difference in the long-term outcome there when two decade-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq barely changed anything? Slim and none.

Read Lynch’s entire piece for more detail on why intervention would almost certainly have been doomed in Syria. And, once again, I recommend the five-minute primer above from Fareed Zakaria about what’s at the core of the Syrian civil war and why it’s highly unlikely that we should be involved. It’s well worth your time.

Read the article – 

Arming the Syrian Rebels Wouldn’t Have Stopped ISIS

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Arming the Syrian Rebels Wouldn’t Have Stopped ISIS

On Iraq, McCain Won’t Take McCain’s Advice

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) went ballistic. In response to the intensifying crisis in Iraq, an apoplectic McCain took to the Senate floor and demanded the resignation of President Barack Obama’s entire national security team. He huffed that Obama’s advisers have “been a total failure.” He suggested that Obama was somehow responsible for the present predicament in Iraq. And what was McCain’s big idea for addressing the crisis? What steps would he take had he not been prevented from becoming commander in chief by Obama? The senator proposed calling in former General David Petraeus, who led US forces in Iraq during the 2007 surge, and former General James Mattis, who succeeded Petraeus. That was it: Ask Petraeus what to do.

Well, it turns out, McCain wouldn’t abide by his own advice. Earlier this week, I contacted Petraeus’ office to ask what he thought the president should be doing in Iraq. Not surprisingly, Petraeus did not respond to the invitation (which was probably one of many from reporters). But on Wednesday, Petraeus, speaking at a conference in London, did share his current views. He accused Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of “undermining” national reconciliation—an obvious point made by most observers. He also declared that Iraq needed a more inclusive government—another obvious point that the president and others have pushed. And Petraeus dismissed the possibility of US airstrikes against the Sunni insurgents that have captured several cities in Iraq:

This cannot be the United States being the air force of Shia militias or a Shia-on-Sunni Arab fight. It has to be a fight of all of Iraq against extremists who do happen to be Sunni Arabs but extremists that are wreaking havoc on a country that really had an enormous opportunity back in 2011, has made progress in certain areas but has certainly not capitalized on that enormous opportunity in the way that we had all hoped.

McCain, apparently, wasn’t listening. On Thursday, McCain went full McCain. He called for ousting Maliki. (Obama and his aides are trying to nudge Maliki aside, but it’s not a snap-of-the-fingers task to get rid of a Washington-endorsed guy who was elected.) And McCain demanded, yes, airstrikes:

Of course Maliki has to be transitioned out. But the only way that’s going to happen is for us to assure Iraqis that we will be there to assist. And let me make it clear: No one that I know wants to send combat troops on the ground, but airstrikes are an important factor, psychologically and many other ways, and that may require some forward air controllers and some special forces.

Several other GOPers joined McCain on the Senate floor to denounce Obama. On the other side of the Capitol, House Speaker John Boehner has been blasting Obama on Iraq, accusing the president of “napping” but not proposing any specific actions. On Wednesday, Boehner refused to comment on whether Obama should order airstrikes. The crisis is confounding Obama’s GOP critics. And they’re not even listening to Petraeus.

View original: 

On Iraq, McCain Won’t Take McCain’s Advice

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on On Iraq, McCain Won’t Take McCain’s Advice

Canada orders dangerous oil cars off its railways

Canada orders dangerous oil cars off its railways

Shutterstock

Oil industry train tickets are about to expire in Canada.

Canada’s transportation department on Wednesday announced a suite of new safety rules, motivated by the horrific oil-train explosion last summer in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people. The rules heavily target DOT-111 rail cars, which are widespread across the continent but are vulnerable to puncture and explode. (The U.S., meanwhile, is being outrageously slow in updating its oil-train safety rules.)

The Ottawa Citizen reports:

About 5,000 DOT-111 tanker cars are to be removed from Canadian railways within 30 days. Another 65,000 DOT-111 cars must be removed or retrofitted within three years, a timeframe rail industry experts are calling “ambitious.”

The measures didn’t fully satisfy [New Democratic Party] leader Tom Muclair. “What happens in the meantime in all those communities where this very dangerous material is being transported today?” he asked. “You can’t tell us you know that they’re dangerous and yet you’re going to continue to allow them to roll through these communities.”

[Transport Minister Lisa] Raitt said, however, that the DOT-111 cars are just one of several risk factors contributing to rail crashes. “There’s not just one aspect in mitigating risks, there’s many.”…

Effective immediately, Transport Canada will conduct risk assessments of routes where dangerous goods are transported, and establish speed limits of 50 miles per hour or less in areas that are built up or near drinking water.

Good for Canada. But what will happen with all those dangerous rail cars that are retired in Canada? Some fear that they could end up over the border, hauling explosive crude through American communities.


Source
Transport Canada orders 5,000 tanker cars off the rail system, Ottawa Citizen
Canada to phase out old railway oil tankers; won’t wait for U.S., Reuters

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Link: 

Canada orders dangerous oil cars off its railways

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Anker, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, organic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Canada orders dangerous oil cars off its railways

Russia Demands Lease Refund After Invading Crimea

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Russia is threatening to nearly double the price of natural gas that it sells to Ukraine:

Russia’s natural gas monopoly Gazprom’s Chief Executive Alexei Miller said Saturday in a televised interview the company has raised the cost of gas to Ukraine to $485.50 from $268.50 for 1,000 cubic meters from April 1. Moscow says the price change is due to Kiev’s failure to pay its bills.

….Mr. Miller said Ukraine owes Gazprom $2.2 billion for March deliveries, and another $11.4 billion the country saved as part of a discount agreement that Moscow recently scrapped….Mr. Miller the discount was a prepayment for the Russian Navy’s use of Ukraine’s Black Sea port of Sevastopol through 2017, but as that port had been annexed by Moscow, along with the rest of Crimea, Ukraine should repay $11.4 billion it saved, Mr. Miller said, following similar statements by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

So Russia gave Ukraine $11.4 billion as a payment for its lease of naval facilities in Crimea through 2017. But now that they’ve invaded and conquered Crimea, they figure they deserve a refund. The mind boggles.

See original article here:

Russia Demands Lease Refund After Invading Crimea

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Russia Demands Lease Refund After Invading Crimea