[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Oil&Gas: What does Burma have to do

dawn star wrote:
> Do  you really trust this President of the United States?
> The following post is to help elucidate some of the fundamentals
> concerning
> the current White House where we find in the President a willing partner
> to virtually any policy that will promote Big Business and the Oil
> Companies. Okay, so Unocal was peeved, but do you have the inside story
> on the negotiations with Unocal and the White HOuse?
> If you disagree, please lets know why? He has not gotten tough on TOTAL
> in Iran, and that he will not has already been made clear despite the
> blur of presidential missions to France. Its smoke, nothing more.
> Will someone please explain the US Presidential's current policy on
> Burma, as of today, six months since he imposed sanctions on new
> business with Slorc. Or are we heading to a pressuring stance on the
> part of government policy and newspapers which pick up the government
> lead, to say that the NLD can really deal with Slorc in a way
> that will preserve the NLD's credibility? Because Daw Aung San Suu Kyi
> can take a trip, or meet high-level visitors? Remember, if Slorc comes
> off saying that they made concessions but that the NLD wouldnt play
> ball, then what happens? Business as usual for Slorc, without American
> companies. Compared to investments elsewhere, Burma is not a
> presidential priority, and was not until the Free Burma Coalition
> made it a constant headliner.
> Am I wrong in saying that Slorc is the Army, and the Army is Slorc?
> Slorc created it, with direct Chinese aid.
> Thank you again, Mr. President of the United States of America. And now
> Iran is screaming devil because the President has pressured China to
> curtail aiding Iran's nuclear development program? Meanwhile, China
> continues to do business with Slorc.
> Why does not the US President openly condemn China for backing the Slorc
> aggressors? With all their billions of dollars in drug money, is it
> impossible to imagine Slorc one day getting hold of dangerous nuclear
> weapons from a bankrupt Russia and Europe's eastern bloc?
> Is China pulling the strings in Rangoon? From drugs to the army, China
> is a key player on the Slorc team. Is Burma  on or off the
> Presidential's agenda this week with China?
> dawn star
> euroburmanet
> http://www-uvi.eunet.fr/asia/euro-burma/total/

please note following nuclear updates today

> TEHRAN, Oct 21 1997 (AFP) - Iran cursed the US for
> pressuring China to end its nuclear cooperation, saying it
> interferes in their internal affairs. Foreign ministry
> spokesman Mahmud Mohammadi said the cooperation was for
> peaceful use and under control of the International Atomic
> Energy Agency (IAEA). The Chinese foreign ministry stated that
> China never have exported nuclear weapons or technology to
> Iran.
> WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 1997 (UPI) -- FBI Director Louis
> Freeh and the new chief of the bureau's laboratory, Dr. Donald
> Kerr, have admitted the lab's growing role in heading off the
> potential use of tactical nuclear weapons in terrorism. Kerr,
> former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, dealt
> with national security, basic research and energy programs.
>      For nuclear as well as other types of mass terrorism, the
> FBI director says the bureau must deal with an increase in
> these types of threats.

> WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 1997 (UPI) -- To win President
> Clinton's assent for civilian nuclear trade with the US, China
> has agreed to strenghten controls over its atomic programs.
> US officials say China may be willing to offer the US a formal
> pledge reflecting the new positions, fleshed out during
> intense negotiations in Beijing this week, at a presidential
> summit here Nov. 28.
>      Clinton has come under intense pressure from such
> American firms as Westinghouse and General Electric, which
> stand to gain lucrative contracts for the construction of
> atomic power plants in China, to announce the certification
> during the summit.

> WASHINGTON, Oct 23 1997 (AFP) - The Implementation of a
> US-China nuclear agreement is supported by of a group of 16 US
> senators, who said it would help the US economy and spur
> further cooperation on preventing chemical and nuclear
> proliferation. In a letter to President Bill Clinton, the
> senators spoke of the lucrative sales US companies could make
> in the civilian nuclear power area if such an agreement is
> implemented.
> TEHRAN October 22 1997 (Reuters) - Iran has stressed that its nuclear
> cooperation with China is for peaceful purposes and accused
> the US of trying to disrupt Sino-Iranian relations. The
> official Iranian news agency said Foreign Ministry spokesman
> Mahmoud Mohammadi stressed the peaceful nature of Sino-Iranian
> nuclear cooperation.
> re Clinton's recent comments on the enviroment...
> Jay Hanson wrote:
> >
> > At 09:43 AM 10/26/97 -0500, "Thomas Lunde" <tomlunde@xxxxxx>  wrote:
> >
> > >The question that occurs to me, is what piece of information has been put
> > >on President Clinton's desk that caused him to venture into the minefield
> > >of the Environment?  Sure, fringe groups and authors have been screaming
> > >for years and have tons of stats and they have not moved the government to
> > >act except to deny.  It was only a few years ago, that President Bush
> > >refused to commit the US to reducing emission targets in Rio. (I'm going on
> > >memory here)  Business is still against it claiming it will ruin the
> > >economy, the Republicans are against it and promise to hold it up in the
> > >Congress and the Senate.  What does Clinton know that would cause him to
> > >get involved in all the political flak?
> >
> > It is perceptive of you to see that apparent paradox in Clinton's
> > actions. Let's speculate a bit on what might be behind it.
> >
> > America's so-called political system is based on money.  Large
> > corporations now have the best government that money can buy.
> > Presidents ARE NOT elected because they give a damn about either
> > environment or posterity, they are elected because BIG MONEY wants
> > them elected so BIG MONEY can make even more BIG MONEY.
> >
> > So the obvious question is "Which BIG MONEY money interests want
> > President Clinton to curtail our present energy orgy?"
> >
> > If that's the right question, then aside from the insurance
> > companies, it seems unbelievable that ANY individual BIG MONEY
> > interests would want to end our present energy orgy. ( Remember,
> > this would terminate our shop-till-you-drop theory of life. )
> >
> > So the obvious question, is obviously not the correct one.  The
> > next place to look is an energy-something that ALL BIG MONEY
> > interests are deeply concerned about -- concerned enough to put
> > the whole enchilada on the table ...
> >
> > I think BIG MONEY sees an apparition so terrible that neither
> > governments nor oil companies are allowed to even breathe the
> > word: PEAK
> >
> > In his new book, the Coming Oil Crisis, C.J. Campbell makes two
> > points very convincingly:
> >
> > #1: That global conventional oil production is going to "peak"
> >     within a few years: "At the time of writing in late 1996,
> >     there are still three more years to go until the end of
> >     the transition." [p. 59]
> >
> > #2: That energy experts have known it for a long time:
> >     "Already by 1908, the world's largest petroleum system,
> >      the Middle East, with about forty percent of the world's
> >      ultimate endowment, had already been found". [p. 77]
> >
> > Americans will not be surprised, it's just another "gate" --
> >
> > FOSSILEGATE remains a secret because if it became widely known,
> > the stock market would hit the cellar.  BIG MONEY's BIG QUESTION
> > is "How do you convince people to accept drastic energy cuts --
> > and a drastic cut in our all-time favorite euphemism: standard of
> > living -- without scaring them out of the stock market and into
> > a depression?"
> >
> > [ I just noticed the stock market went down like a rock today.
> >   Perhaps the word IS getting around ... ]
> >
> > Don't get me wrong. I believe that global warming is actually
> > occurring, and that we should do something about it.  But I don't
> > believe for a second that BIG MONEY (the corporations) would
> > willingly cut profits because of global warming.  Corporations
> > routinely kill people for money:
> >
> > "Realistically, if our Company is to survive and  prosper, over
> >  the long term we must get our share of the youth market.  In my
> >  opinion, this will require new brands tailored to the youth
> >  market." [ RJ Reynolds ]
> >
> > Corporations can't CARE about global warming any more than my
> > automobile can CARE about global warming.  Corporations are
> > machines designed to convert the entire planet into industrial
> > garbage.  However, the corporate "survival instinct" demands
> > that they remain viable long enough to see it through to the
> > very end. In other words, they have to hold the economic system
> > together long enough to kill that last endangered species, dam
> > the last river, chop down the last tree, addict the last human
> > to booze and cigarettes, catch the last fish, pump the last drop
> > of oil out of the ground, and so on ...
> >
> > Clinton has already had an administration marked by scandal.
> > Ask yourself, would he rather be remembered as the man who led
> > the crusade against global warming?  Or the man who presided
> > over FOSSILGATE -- the biggest cover up in history?
> >
> > So I think that's what's really going on under the covers.
> > It's true, politics DOES make strange bedfellows. <G>
> >                              . . .
> >
> > I loved Campbell's new book.  The only thing wrong, is that
> > it's hard to get.  (Are we surprised?)
> >
> > Multi-Science Publishing Company & Petroconsultants, 1997
> > ISBN 0 906522 11 0
> > http://www.petroconsultants.com/book/book.htm
> >
> > I ordered my copy through Petroconsultants:
> >  "Robert.Harris" <Robert.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > If you are interested in this issue -- and you should be because
> > your very life depends on it -- visit my FOSSILGATE page at:
> >
> > http://dieoff.org/page122.htm
> >
> > Jay