Will 2010 Be The Year Of People Power?

Oops, you can tell how much I've been effected by the scenes on the TV - obviously I meant 2011. There are armoured vehicles driving into the crowds... while others are being overturned and set on fire. There are quite a few people injured and bleeding but there seems to be no sign of ambulances or doctors or even first aid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12303564 Live on BBC news now - "The interior ministry has deployed considerable force to chase the demonstrators off the streets. A BBC journalist was beaten bloody by police. The authorities have also moved in to stifle the flow of information to prevent protesters from co-ordinating their movements." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Live video from Cairo was briefly effected as a visit to the Al jazzera bureau by the police caused them to move their video camera off the balcony and into the office. The curfew is due to begin in 5 minutes at 6PM Egyptian time. They have moved the camera back onto the balcony showing people walking down the road as the Egyptian Army forces which have been called in by the President can be seen appearing on the streets.

Kropotkin : It is not that I don't see where you are coming from but can’t you see that things have to be done in stages? It may well be that many people agree with the destination you recommend but the question is how to get there! Getting rid of a tyrant and the regime he heads might not seem very important to you because you are not one of the people suffering it! To say that people who are seeking to overthrow a repressive regime and fight for their human rights are wasting their time unless they adopt your revolutionary ideas makes you sound as heartless as the tyrants who make such sacrifices necessary. Consider that ‘so many otherwise intelligent people continue to subscribe to the lie that is liberal democracy’ because it is better than the available alternatives… I have argued that John Lennon’s Imagine offered a ‘dream’ that very many people would like to see realised but it can‘t be done overnight… if it can be done at all. It’s about time that you realised that supporting ‘people power‘ - supporting those who en masse risks their lives, and often the safety of their families and loved ones, because they want a fairer society - is in fact supporting the very people who are the world’s only chance of bringing about the sort of society that you crave. Instead of constantly berating these people and telling them that they are achieving nothing you should be encouraging them and explaining how you believe they could be doing it better… the danger of change is that it is not always for the better and we have to pray that they don’t just go out of the frying pan and into the fire!

"…we have mined our way to growth and pawned our way to prosperity and now supplies are scarce and the scarcest resource is time." Ban Ki-moon. I find myself agreeing with you both, Blighters and Kropotkin, but hoping that it may be a year of miracles despite the bleak outlook. It’s always darkest before the dawn and it is starting to dawn on people that there will have to be very big changes. Certainly the biggest miracle would be if these changes are actually of benefit to the planet and its people rather than to the ruthless and the greedy who routinely exploit both - but God works in mysterious ways…

‘In the streets of Cairo, proof Bush was right’ is the headline of the article by a Bush advisor. It argues that Obama should have listened to Bush. Well, of course we all know how beloved Bush was by the people of the Middle East for his contribution to their fraternity and liberty. "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?" The questions that ‘W’ posed seem almost ironic considering the terrible consequences of his Middle East policy… If you actually follow the link to the speech you read : ‘…he (George W Bush) praised the governments of Egypt, which (he) said "should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East," and Saudi Arabia…’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7991-2003Nov6.html It’s no surprise that Bush praised Egypt and his Saudi pals and of course what wonderful examples of Democracy they are. To be fair to Bush, America has brought a form of corrupt democracy to both Iraq and Afghanistan at no small cost to the Iraqis and the Afghanis and, indeed, the Americans but surely only a Neocon would argue that these countries are better off now than they were before and that all the death and destruction was somehow worth it. Bush also said "the demand for democracy is strong and broad" in Iran - obviously forgetting that it was America that arranged to replace Iranian democracy with the Shah. Since Bush seemed to be claiming the moral high ground it was no surprise that : ‘Bush avoided issues such as pre-emptive attack, weapons of mass destruction and "gathering" dangers to the United States.’ Perhaps Bush’s advisor is suggesting that Bush wanted to bring Democracy to Egypt as he had to Iraq... or perhaps he has forgotten President Obama’s Cairo speech: "The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html In fact it makes you wonder, just exactly what Bush WAS right about... maybe weapons of mass destruction? Well certainly something destroyed the American ECONOMY.

It seems to me that this piece posted on the BBC news site dated Wednesday, 16 January 2008. sums up Bush’s real priorities regarding Egypt :- ‘Mr Bush said that Egypt had "taken steps towards... democratic reform and my hope is that the Egyptian government will build on these important steps and give the people of this proud nation a greater voice in your future". ‘ ‘Relations between the two allies have cooled, particularly over US calls for Egypt to do more to secure its border with the Gaza Strip. The BBC's Matthew Price, who is travelling with Mr Bush, says the US is pushing Cairo to do more to stop militants smuggling weapons from Egypt into the Palestinian territory, which has been under the control of Hamas since June.’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7191679.stm

“Whenever a weapons site was to be inspected there'd be delays and all means implicit and explicit employed so that the site will be long cleared before the arrival of Blix and his personnel. It made a mockery of the U.N“ Too much tea Dom? If it made a mockery of the UN what did it make of the US who invaded on the pretext that Iraq had the WMD? Are you seriously suggesting that Iraq successfully played ‘pass the parcel’ and the American forces were so incompetent that they never caught them or found any parcels? You may not have noticed DOM but just about everyone has since admitted that the reports of WMD were never more than speculation and that the speculations were elevated to the status of ‘intelligence’ for the sake of expediency as Bush and Blair wanted to invade Iraq using the excuse of a ‘pre-emptive attack’... Difficult if the place you want to invade has nothing to attack you with! Still, I’m pleased you mentioned it because the Neocons have been trying hard to convince everyone that Bush invaded Iraq because he wanted a ‘regime change’ and it’s nice to be reminded of the real reason!

No WMD stockpiles in Iraq. October 07, 2004 - CNN “Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.” http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-06/world/iraq.wmd.report_1_nuclear-weapo... Bush's Iraq WMDs joke backfires http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3570845.stm Or for a complete picture - http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/WMDlies.html With hindsight it is fairly obvious that the central attractor, the thing that draws everything together, is not oil or WMD, but Israel... The only threat that Sadam really posed was to Israel, the only threat that Iran really poses is to Israel, the main thing that has kept the Egyptian president in power is Israel. If you bothered following the link to the BBC Wednesday, 16 January 2008 article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7191679.stm then you might have noticed that the US was not making a fuss about President Hosni Mubarak’s poor record over human rights nor his government's treatment of the independent press. “Mr Bush said that he hoped Egypt would build on moves towards greater democracy. Standing with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, he stopped short of directly criticising Egypt's government.” So what WAS bothering Bush? "Relations between the two allies have cooled, particularly over US calls for Egypt to do more to secure its border with the Gaza Strip." “The BBC's Matthew Price, who is travelling with Mr Bush, says the US is pushing Cairo to do more to stop militants smuggling weapons from Egypt into the Palestinian territory, which has been under the control of Hamas since June. Last month, the US Congress suspended $100m (£51m) of its annual military aid to Egypt over the issue.” Meanwhile which British ex-PM (clue: he was awarded one million dollars by the Dan David Foundation and Tel Aviv University for his outstanding contribution in the field of social welfare) having facilitated the war in Iraq is now turning his attention to Iran? Can't guess eh? ;O) 'The west should use force against Iran if it "continues to develop nuclear weapons", Tony Blair said today, aligning himself with US hawks who have called for strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.' 'Blair elaborates on why it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, linking this to the 9/11 attacks on the US. The former prime minister wishes he had seen earlier that 9/11 had "far deeper roots" than he thought at the time. "The reason for that, let me explain it, is that in my view what was shocking about September 11 was that it was 3,000 people killed in one day but it would have been 300,000 if they could have done it," Blair said, appearing to equate al-Qaida with Iran. "That's the point ... I decided at that point that you cannot take a risk on this. This is why I am afraid, in relation to Iran, that I would not take a risk of them getting nuclear weapons capability. I wouldn't take it."' http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/01/tony-blair-west-use-force... Difficult to guess if Blair is hinting that he got it wrong before and that he and Bush should have bombed Iran instead of Iraq… easy to get confused I suppose - just the last letter different.

I have not managed to keep up with events in Egypt after the recent two million protestors in Tahrir square. I hear than Obama has dared the ire of Israel and put pressure on Mubarak to step down and so the Egyptian president has promised he will not stand in the elections in September. I also hear that promised constitutional changes are to be completed within a couple of months and that the British PM has said that Mubarak should go now. However the Egyptian army has asked the people to stop protesting and go back to work and I’m hoping that El Baradei, if he has been accepted by the people as a leader of the opposition, will recommend that the people listen and go home. I can understand why the protestors want to get rid of Mubarak immediately, and I think it would be best if he did go now, but I don’t think there is anything that the people can do to make him! Sometimes you have to know when to compromise and I think that the protestors have probably reached that time and should not push their luck with the army. It’s difficult to see how Mubarak can squirm out of his promise to step down and, although it will be worrying for the protestors to wonder what Mubarak might get up to between now and September, I don’t think it is worth pushing on and chancing the terrible consequences... not just of the steps that the army might take but also the economical and humanitarian consequences for the country if it remains at a standstill.

The BBC have a live feed from Cairo - I think the fighting between the protestors and so called ‘pro-Mubarak’ supporters is over... Oh, no, it looks like it's getting worse. It's about 15:50 Egyptian local time. The broadcast has ended 15:54 Egyptian time! It has resumed now 15:57 ‘More from Mohamed ElBaradei: he tells the BBC he fears the clashes in Tahrir Square "will turn into a bloodbath" and calls the pro-Mubarak demonstrators a "bunch of thugs”. ‘ElBaradei adds that he has "no interest in holding any position" in any new government, saying: "What I am here for as an Egyptian is to make sure... that Egypt is turned from an oppressive, authoritarian regime into a democracy. That is my first priority. However, if people want me to do whatever I can, I will not let them down."‘ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Well, at least the shocking developments in and around Tahrir Square have demonstrated that Mubarak cannot effectively control Egypt any longer! In fact, the violence displayed by his ‘so called’ supporters, including the attacks on the press, surely emphasise that Mubarak should never be allowed back into a position where he could wreak vengeance or facilitate the destructive actions of those who claim to support him and wish to harm the anti Mubarak protestors. It seems that people are being shot now, or have been very recently, in Tahrir Square! The Mubarak thugs have finally realised that they cannot stop the media from reporting on what’s going on in Liberty (Tahrir) Square and have taken to wearing balaclavas to hide their faces while threatening the remaining protestors with a coming bloodbath! ‘Mubarak’s Allies and Foes Clash in Egypt. CAIRO — President Hosni Mubarak struck back at his opponents on Wednesday, unleashing waves of his supporters armed with clubs, rocks, knives and firebombs in a concerted assault on thousands of antigovernment protesters in Tahrir Square calling for an end to his authoritarian rule.‘ 'The Mubarak supporters emerged from buses. They carried the same flags and the same printed signs, and they all escalated their actions, from shouting to violence, at exactly the same moment: 2:15 p.m.' http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/world/middleeast/03egypt.html?_r=1&hp

Thanks for the kind offer Dom but I’m not interested and would not be even were we playing on the same sandbox or even sharing a soapbox. My main intention is simply to provide facts, opinion and comments, on what I consider to be important topical issues, that people might find interesting or informative. I can’t see any point in trying to publish any of it as it would be out of date before it was proof read :O) I have no special interest in Bush, Blair or Israel!

The BBC reports : '0838: Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmad Shafiq - has apologised for attacks on protesters on Wednesday: "This is a fatal error, and when investigations reveal who is behind this crime and who allowed it to happen, I promise they will be held accountable and will be punished for what they did," he says on Al-Hayat TV. "There is no excuse whatsoever to attack peaceful protesters, and that is why I am apologising." He urged the protesters "to go home to help end this crisis".' The BBC have quoted an email that maintains that a relative of the sender located in Alexandria was ordered to demonstrate for Mubarak today or he wouldn't receive his pay check! Also on BBC website: '0956: In a joint statement, the leaders of France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain have called for the political transition in Egypt to "start now", adding that they are watching the unrest in Egypt with the "utmost concern" and condemn "all those who use or encourage violence, which will only aggravate the political crisis in Egypt".' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Following last night’s violence the tide of public opinion seems to have swung back strongly behind the pro democracy demonstrators after wavering somewhat earlier. The army are taking a more active role and intervening in a limited effort to keep the violence to a minimum by separating the so called ‘pro Mubarak' supporters from the pro democracy protestors.

‘It seems President Hosni Mubarak isn't the only leader who has grown out of touch with ordinary people following an extended period in power. Tony Blair has praised the Egyptian dictator as a "force for good".’ http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=156027792 Hardly a surprise is it - Mubarak is good for Israel... Reminder : Meanwhile which British ex-PM (clue: he was awarded one million dollars by the Dan David Foundation and Tel Aviv University for his outstanding contribution in the field of social welfare) having facilitated the war in Iraq is now turning his attention to Iran? Can't guess eh? ;O) 'The west should use force against Iran if it "continues to develop nuclear weapons", Tony Blair said today, aligning himself with US hawks who have called for strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.' 'Blair elaborates on why it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, linking this to the 9/11 attacks on the US.' "The reason for that, let me explain it, is that in my view what was shocking about September 11 was that it was 3,000 people killed in one day but it would have been 300,000 if they could have done it," Blair said, appearing to equate al-Qaida with Iran. "That's the point ... I decided at that point that you cannot take a risk on this. This is why I am afraid, in relation to Iran, that I would not take a risk of them getting nuclear weapons capability. I wouldn't take it."' 'The US and Israel – an undeclared nuclear power outside the NPT – have both refused to rule out military action against Iran.' http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/01/tony-blair-west-use-force... NB. ”I would not take a risk of them getting nuclear weapons capability.” No doubt if Blair’s advice is followed and another half a million or so people are killed only to find that, again, there are no WMD… Blair will say “Well, it pays to be on the safe side doesn’t it!”

"I find it hard to believe that there were no WMD developments going on in Iraq between 1991 and 2003. People who think because there is no concrete evidence there can't have been any danger are rather naive in my opinion." It's difficult to say who is naive and who has been brain washed... 'After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction. In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked. During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks. The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence. Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War, despite multiple dissenting opinions and questions of integrity about the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted. President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction “Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes." "In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War. The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long." October 07, 2004. http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-06/world/iraq.wmd.report_1_nuclear-weapo... Perhaps you can explain to me why the CIA was naive enough to produce such a report Kurt? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What amuses me is that so many people who think they are worldly-wise can’t bring themselves to even consider that Bush knew from the getgo that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction but with the help of Tony Blair fooled almost everyone into agreeing that the likelihood that Saddam did have WMD was worth invading Iraq. Blair and Bush wanted a regime change and they knew how to get it! I suppose it is just too humiliating to these clever people, who were so easily fooled, to believe that Bush’s little joke was at their expense and he was laughing at them... "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere…" ‘No, not under here… not over there… maybe between your ears? Haha.’ naïve indeed :O) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3570845.stm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I agree with a lot of what you say Kurt and the above wasn't aimed at you - I just couldn't resist it... Perhaps I'm wrong and Bush does like to laugh at himself - certainly I do.

It must be a bit hard for the Egyptians who have been through so much to get into a place where it looked like Democracy was finally in their grasp to hear so many of those who appeared to be cheering them on to suddenly start praising Mubarak! Okay, okay, if it will help… Mubarack is, all wise, compassionate, caring, a god amongst men - he has selflessly steered his people to a place where they are finally ready to be blessed with the ultimate prize - the gift of Democracy. Now then, off you go Mubarak, your job is done, no need for any more back seat driving, enjoy your retirement! Remember the words of the prophet : Your children are like arrows that fly from your bow. Once you have taken careful aim you must release them and let them fly! Once they have found their target it is their task to fly toward it. Let them go before you get so tired that you shoot yourself in the foot. I can’t help noticing the similarity to Star Wars as Queen Padme Amidala puts her life in danger to make her appeal to the senators of the Galactic Republic. The Supreme Chancellor, Velorum, promises to help but it soon becomes obvious that it is essentially an empty promise. Now the worrying part is that the Queen then, in desperation, turns to Senator Palpatine who turns out to be the Sith Lord Darth Sidius I doubt that many people really believe that Chancellor Velorum could not have done something, if he had really wanted to, but by playing it safe his weakness lost him support and paved the way for the Darth Lord to take over the Empire. http://www.reuters.com/news/video/story?videoId=184974899&videoChannel=2602

Several news sources are saying that it is probable that Mubarak will step down... BBC 4PM: 6PM Cairo - The head of the CIA says there is a strong likelihood that Mr Mubarak will stand down tonight, Reuters reports. Fox News has an Alert with a live stream from Tahrir Square which also reports that Egyptian Prime Minister says President Mubark may step down as soon as tonight.

It has been reported on Fox News that Mubarak has travelled to Sharm El Sheik and that the army has taken over from him... yet Fox is still running a heading that Mubarak is to step down shortly... However the BBC reports : 'Egyptian Information Minister Anas el-Fekky told Reuters news agency: "The president is still in power and he is not stepping down. The president is not stepping down and everything you heard in the media is a rumour."' It still isn’t clear whether the army has staged a coup or not but Egyptian State TV say that Mubarak will make a statement tonight around 10pm local time.

There looks to be millions of people in the Egyptian streets today hoping that it will be ‘Farewell Friday’ and Mubarak will be forced to go at last. There seems to be as big a turnout in Alexandria as there is in and around Cairo’s Liberty Square today and it seems that many more areas are demonstrating too in a concerted effort to make Mubarak realise just how great the number of people who want to see him to go really is. Good Luck Egypt! Let’s hope it’s ‘Goodbye Mubarak’ at last! It is looking very much like Mubarak has finally gone! I'm not sure who is in charge now! So Farewell Friday has lived up to its name!

Yes, Andrea, an extremely disappointing stance by Mubarak! I’ve been waiting to see how things develop since it was very confusing even after the speech as people were saying that it seemed like the army and the government were on a completely different page to Mubarak. It seems in the end that it was Mubarak’s page that was to be the text for the day. It made me wonder if he had decided to go and then changed his mind at the last moment… Perhaps a phone call from Tony Blair reminding Mubarak that as a ‘force for good’ it was his duty to God to stand firm. I noticed Mubarak started out as a father speaking to his children - “I am addressing the youth of Egypt today in Tahrir Square and across the country. I am addressing you all from the heart, a father's dialogue with his sons and daughters. I am proud of you as the new Egyptian generation calling for a change to the better, dreaming and making the future.“ Then as a family man to his ‘brothers’ - “My sons, the youth of Egypt, brother citizens, I have unequivocally declared that I will not run for president in the next elections, satisfied with what I've offered my country in over 60 years during war and peace.” He then suggests he is keeping his oath to God - “This is the oath I took before God and my country and one which I will keep until we take Egypt and its people to a safe harbour.” So what’s new? “I have submitted a request today asking for the amendment of six constitutional clauses.” Continuing as ‘brothers’ he emphasises ‘trust’ and protecting the movement “WE have started” - “Brother citizens, the priority now is to bring back trust between Egyptians, trust in our economy and our international reputation, and trust in protecting the change and movement that we have started from turning back or retreating.” Then ‘we’ is continued - “We, Egyptians, will prove our ability to achieve the demands of the people with civilised and mature dialogue.” Interesting that he finishes with “trust” again and that he says “I LIVED for the sake of this country” rather than “live” but this may be something introduced in translation. “I say again that I lived for the sake of this country, preserving its responsibility and trust. Egypt will remain above all and above everyone. It will remain so until I hand over this trust and pole. This is the goal, the objective, the responsibility and the duty. It is the beginning of life, its journey, and its end.” It makes you wonder if Mubarak is even on the same planet as his people! He's not only on a different page but in a completely different book... History is certainly unfolding but will the army help the people unfold it? Full text of Mubarak’s speech on BBC News site here : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12427091

BBC website says 16:24 - "Around Cairo, drivers are honking their horns in celebration and guns are being fired into the air. The huge crowds are rejoicing. However, the army takeover looks very much like a coup. The constitution has been breached. Officially, the speaker of parliament should be taking over. Instead it is the army leadership. Egypt moves into a very uncertain future."

Surprisingly I’d never heard of Gerald Celente, blighters, so many thanks for the link! From what I saw on the video he not only sees what’s coming he also tells it as it is. In my experience most people will say how great he is while completely ignoring what he says. It might sound quite pessimistic but if people are actually starting to listen to the director of The Trends Research Institute, on things like the American economy, and to belive he is right - then I think that it must mean that it is very probably already too late to do anything about it...

Recently, following the admittion by Curveball that he had lied about WMD in Iraq, Colin Powell has demanded answers as to why the CIA and its military arm, the DIA, never told him about Curveball’s (Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi) dubious veracity. Ironically, or perhaps paradoxically predictably, following his admittion that he lied, Curveball isn’t in prison this very minute awaiting trail for his lies and their terrible consequences, yet, meanwhile, the US is trying its very best to put Wikileaks in prison for telling the truth! Curveball’s claim that Iraq was building a substantial biological weapons capacity was viewed as dubious from the beginning by the German secret service who said so when they reluctantly passed the information on to the US... Defectors hated Saddam and frequently made wild claims about Iraqi weapons programmes and the foremost British biological weapons expert David Kelly warned that there was little, if any, evidence that could corroborate Curveball’s claims. This led to the claim by a UK journalist that Blair had ‘sexed up’ the evidence that Iraq had WMD which brought regime change at the BBC and the death of Dr Kelly. The fact that Blair could get away with this and with effectively keeping the facts from Parliament begs the question was Blair essentially acting as a dictator himself? “Janabi, an Iraqi defector, was used as the primary source by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. Doubts about his credibility circulated before the war and have been confirmed by his admittion this week that he lied.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/16/colin-powell-cia-curveball Now I’m not going to state the obvious because we all know why Powell wasn’t told!!! My reason for mentioning all this is the timing of the admittion close on the heels of the Egyptian president stepping down and, for me, the use of the despicable Bush/Blair/Cheney assertion that the ends justify the means and therefore Curveball’s claim that he is proud of his part in removing a dictator. *see note. I wonder if Curveball actually ever even considers returning to Iraq now. Could he explain to the millions of people who lost loved ones, or were forced to leave Iraq and live as refugees, how much better off they are thanks to him? I wonder if he would be willing to go to Basra and tell those protesting there how grateful they should be to him that the British are there to fix the power supply. *see below. I wonder if he could explain how there is any similarity between the way Egypt and Iraq arrived at regime change. I wonder if, like Blair, he has to keep constantly telling himself that he did the right thing because he couldn’t live with the truth! *NB: Powell said at the time : "The source was an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities," "He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died." “Alwan insists he is proud of the role he played in the toppling of Hussein. In the video of the interview posted online, he said that if he had it all to do over again, he would say the same thing "because I wouldn't want that regime to continue in our country." “Bob Drogin, author of a book about the episode said "He wanted to get his wife out and bring her to Germany, he wanted to get citizenship, and he wanted a Mercedes Benz. And he got all of those things." http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/17/powell.curveball.iraq/ **NB: Sat 19th 2011: “Troops in bid to halt Basra riots” “Electricity has already been restored to parts of Basra by British troops following the riots over fuel and power shortages.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-191925/Troops-bid-halt-Basra-rio... Iraq has announced that due to food shortages and a large budget deficit that 900 million dollars earmarked for American jet aircraft will instead be used to help the hungry. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gDXzgmrk9FWxHZ2_WgXzJ... So, where does all the oil money go? Iraq exported $52.2 billion worth of oil last year, compared to $41.3 billion in 2009. http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2011/01/27/iraq-oil-exports-2010-volume... It seems that the US has been insisting that Iraq should build an air force to defend themselves against, err, well, err, maybe in the future other nations to which the US has sold planes… However, the Iraqi government has decided that in the face of public protests over food and power it might be best to do something for the poor including the six million Iraqis dependent on food rations to survive! "protests have been growing across the country, with protesters hammering the religiously dominated government blocks for corruption and a total lack of basic services, in the face of a rising budget deficit." http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/14/iraq-shelves-us-arms-deal-to-buy-food/ Reuters reports Feb 03, 2011, that : "Nearly eight years after the U.S. led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, the national grid supplies only a few hours of power per day, driving up costs for businesses and compounding summer heat, when temperatures reach above 50 degrees Celsius." "Iraq has big plans to install turbines and capture gas at oilfields to ramp up electricity production, and needs to spend $77 billion to improve the power sector by 2030..." http://en.news.maktoob.com/20090000563388/Three_shot_as_Iraqis_protest_p...

I haven’t posted anything about the continued pressure by People Power on various regimes in the Middle East because it is too difficult for me to try and decide what I could say that might possibly help and couldn’t possibly hurt. However, in an oblique way, I think that my thoughts from a different thread might actually throw some light on the foolishness of trying to hold onto the present, by attempting to prevent change, because it will only guarantee that tomorrow will be all the worse, in your eyes, when it inevitably dawns. I wrote the following in response to my thoughts on randomness and the very real possibility that out concept of randomness is simply a way of hiding from the fact that we simply don’t know enough about the Universe. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you consider a computer it seems miraculous that such a complex device can produce such reliable results. Yet, if you knew nothing of computers and were restricted to only being able to see a few pixels of a monitor screen you would probably conclude that these few pixels produced random intensities and colours. Only when you see can see enough of the screen to realise that it was forming patterns, characters, or even showing a film, could you hope to realise it was part of a hugely complex system. It is clear to me that the Universe is not just an accident that resulted from an explosion and random chance but rather, like a computer, a carefully created system with complex laws and subtle rules. However, modern science does not seem to see that and so we tend to believe that many things from simple to complex that we cannot fully understand, but that seem completely unpredictable, must be ruled by random chance simply because we fail to see the big picture. Now, it is my assertion that the changes which are happening now are not random but part of an inevitable process and we should seriously rethink many of the things which, in practice, we consider to be just, inevitable or axiomatic. Perhaps in a random world it makes little difference what you do but in an orderly Universe whose creator might well be keeping an extra close eye on us in this time of trial I think it is finally time to consider major changes! The biblical explanation of why we lost Paradise was that we ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and because of this we were expelled from Eden. It seems to me that we were thrown out because after eating the fruit we could no longer be able to accept things as they were. Having now developed a sense of ‘better’ and ‘worse’ it would only be a matter of time before we would start tinkering with Paradise in a effort to randomly improve it... and so start down the long and winding road to hell. We have haphazardly, almost randomly, defined our NeoParadise and in so doing we have steadily threatened or destroyed many of the things which are essential for a true Paradise. Because we have no common concept of what constitutes a true Paradise then our criteria for progress varies and hence one man’s Paradise is another man’s hell. So the result is various ‘strong men’ around the world who try to hold on to their perceived pockets of Paradise but simply succeed in creating enough opposition to eventually wash away the very things they were trying to preserve. If Marx hadn’t come along and stolen Hegel’s thunder with his emphasis on ‘class’ then perhaps we would have better realised the importance of deflecting or absorbing elements of change rather than opposing them since opposition inevitably makes them stronger. In the end it is obvious to me that we must be far less random in our attitude as to how we interface with each other and the planet. It is a time for wisdom rather than intelligence, for love rather than force and for the many rather than the few! As a race, we must stop crawling and remember how to walk tall, we must raise our eyes from the pit of self interest and find a universal vision. We must realise that there are far too many people on the planet to allow individuals or groups to do as they please environmentally because there are not enough resources to allow that luxury any more. We must make fundamental changes based on a holistic paradigm and we must be quick or we will go the way of the dodo and all our random changes will be slowly swallowed by the sands of time!

I can see the point of the sanctions set on Libya. I’m sure that the freezing of the bank accounts and ban on international travel for Gaddafi, his children and some of his cronies, will have a very sobering effect on those who are only in it for the money. However, while the US and NATO have ruled out direct military action against Gaddafi, I do wonder if the Republican proposal of introducing a no-fly zone over Libya to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people might actually be more useful that the UN’s threat of International Criminal Court trials for those found to be behind Human Right’s violations such as the wounding and killing of unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators. Still, in some ways, it is a fairly big step and it will be interesting to see how much difference it makes… “The 15-nation Security council has referred only one other case to the ICC - the conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region. The court has indicted Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir for genocide and other crimes against humanity in Darfur.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/27/3150042.htm Certainly, I think that the threat, of being taken to court and forced to explain their part in the wounding and death of unarmed demonstrators, might make some of those in important positions who are assessing which side to take more inclined to back the anti-Gaddafi protestors. It is bound to weigh on your mind if you think that in the near future you might end up, spotlighted in front of the world’s eye, either giving evidence against those who you supported in such crimes, or worse, being found guilty of complicity in committing them. However, is it about time that the ICC became a true world court? It seems that there are still quite a few countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute that created the ICC and therefore do not fall within their jurisdiction. Does this really matter? Well… A case in point: The Thai PM (Mark Abhisit Vejjajiva) has dual nationality but has been saying everything he possibly could, over the last few weeks, without actually positively denying it, to make the Thai people believe that he in not a UK citizen. I believe he has finally said that he might be a UK citizen but that he doesn’t want to be one. http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/223459/pm-dual-na... So why the bid deal? It is being argued that because the Thai PM is a UK citizen that he falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC (of which Thailand is not a member). Apparently the Thai PM has recently been threatened with being called to give evidence before the International Criminal Court regarding the 91 deaths and about one thousand eight hundred wounded in clashes between the army and anti-government protestors almost a year ago. Now, even if he actually did not have a hand in the violence, despite several threats that he would allow the troops to use live fire to clear the protestors, there are documents allegedly leaked from a government source that maintain that the army was involved in many, if not most, of the cases of killing and wounding of unarmed protestors and journalists. I’ve just discovered today that after an alleged visit by the army chief of staff that the Thai DSI (department of special investigations) has reversed its opinion that the army was to blame for the death of Japanese cameraman Hiroyuki Muramoto during the rally at Khok Wua intersection on April 10 last year. It appears that since the Japanese recently made a big fuss about not getting any details of the death of Mr Muramoto that it has now been discovered that the bullet wound patterns were consistent with those produced by an AK-47 which is a different weapon to the type carried by troops… So the Thai army don’t have any AK-47’s? ‘Army spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd told the Post that the soldiers "did not use AK-47 rifles that day".' http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110227/wl_asia_afp/thailandjapanpoliticspr... ‘An army source said the army had imported about 20,000 AK-47 rifles into the country two decades ago. About 19,000 of them had been distributed for use at military camps nationwide, while the rest were kept at the army's weapon storage site.’ http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/223658/dsi-changes-ruling-on-camer... If the Thai PM does appear before the ICC and these allegations prove to be correct then even if Mr Mark (Abhisit Vejjajiva) is found not to be directly involved in these crimes against Humanity he will no doubt be pressured into revealing who was... which will undoubtably earn him some very powerful enemies! Now, if Thailand had been within the jurisdiction of the ICC would that have made any difference to the outcome of the anti-government demonstration? I’m not sure that it would because the ICC have not really had chance to show its teeth yet… but, if it does become a true world court (it is deemed to apply to all countries irrespective of their ratification) and proves to have sharp teeth - then it could make the world of difference in the future!

There are many similarities ‘Highhat’ but essentially the Hague Tribunal or ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) was a UN body set up to prosecute serious crimes committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia and it is expected to wrap up its work in the next 12 months or so with the trial of Karadzic - although there are two remaining fugitives that could delay the closure. The ICC is not a part of the United Nations system but an independent international organisation, which also has its seat at The Hague in the Netherlands. “In the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda were the result of consensus that impunity is unacceptable. However, because they were established to try crimes committed only within a specific time-frame and during a specific conflict, there was general agreement that an independent, permanent criminal court was needed.” “The international community has long aspired to the creation of a permanent international court, and, in the 20th century, it reached consensus on definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.” “The ICC (International Criminal Court) governed by the Rome Statute, is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.“ http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/

Not quite sure what you mean Highhat... Since Libya is not a member of the ICC it is obvious that the court can operate within countries which have not ratified the Rome statute and, according to today’s Guardian, even foreigners involved in the conflict can be prosecuted for crimes against humanity! “The resolution does not prevent an investigation into non-Libyans.” “The ICC can investigate and determine the exact involvement of foreigners in Libya in any crimes against humanity, and prosecute those responsible.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/mar/01/libya-rulers-international-cri... So far as I can see the importance of whether or not a country is within the ICC’s jurisdiction lies mostly with how a case can be brought before the court. In the case of Libya the UN Security Council has referred the case to the ICC but had Libya been a member then Libya’s UN representative could probably have referred the case to the ICC himself rather than having to beg the UN to do it. The Thai anti-government protestors did voice their opposition and, as I said earlier, it eventually resulted in 91 deaths and 1,800 injured, many of their leaders being branded as ‘terrorists’ with many of them still in jail, without trial, some 11 months later. To my mind the key to Egypt's and Libya's 'success' seems to be the huge public support worldwide which the media has helped to inspire under the banner of the fight for Democracy. The Thai protestors were actually protesting for Democracy too but since the Thai PM was a UK citizen who headed the Democrat party the protest was a lot less black and white and hence never really got enough media coverage to bring the eyes of the world to Bangkok. Thailand’s ‘Democracy’ is somewhat better than neighbouring Myanmar’s (Burma) but the Thai army generals have the ‘power of the gun’ and this biases Thai politics on every level... Not just with the threat of yet another coup but also because of the army’s influence within the ‘system’ which some say stems from the army's appointments made to the judiciary etc. while the military was in power after the coup that removed Thaksin Shinawatra.

I’m too lazy to read all the info about the ICC at the moment Highhat... What I have read suggests that the hope is that the ICC will be incorporated into the legal systems of member countries making it easier to get evidence, to make arrests and to jail the guilty. Meanwhile… “ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said his preliminary examination into the violent repression of peaceful protestors in Libya had led him to conclude that an investigation was warranted.” “Speaking earlier today (Thursday), the prosecutor told journalists in The Hague: "We have identified some individuals with de facto or formal authority, who have authority over the security forces. They are Muammar Gaddafi, his inner circle, including some of his sons." “Mr Moreno-Ocampo will investigate events in Libya since February 15th and judges will then decide whether or not to issue arrest warrants.” http://www.uknetguide.co.uk/Latest-News/International-court-to-investiga...

Like Highhat I decided that I supported the principle of a ‘No Fly Zone’ in Libya because I felt that it would send a message to all those countries that are essentially ruled by ‘the power of the gun’ that ‘the times they are a changing‘. Admittedly some of them might be too big to start worrying yet but I feel it is a step in the right direction and it may also put pressure on countries like the US to ratify the ICC and so take the world closer to having a true World Court. On February 27, 2011 - 19:20 on this thread I posted - “I can see the point of the sanctions set on Libya. I’m sure that the freezing of the bank accounts and ban on international travel for Gaddafi, his children and some of his cronies, will have a very sobering effect on those who are only in it for the money. However, while the US and NATO have ruled out direct military action against Gaddafi, I do wonder if the Republican proposal of introducing a no-fly zone over Libya to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people might actually be more useful that the UN’s threat of International Criminal Court trials for those found to be behind Human Right’s violations such as the wounding and killing of unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators.” You will notice that a No Fly Zone was already being proposed but at the time it was hoped that the above measures would cause Gaddafi to realise that he was getting into a fight that he could not win and military action would not be necessary. I’d guess that it was also hoped that saner heads would see that supporting Gaddafi was likely to bring a lot of headaches in the near future and any short term gain would almost certainly be followed by fairly severe penalties. I think that it worked to some extent and probably helped bring about some of the ‘defections’ from the Gaddafi camp but it seems that Gaddafi and a fair portion of his military decided that the threat of the ICC was not an immediate one and that the UN, as usual, would prove to be a toothless dragon. However, the Gaddafi camp made a big mistake as I believe the UNSC resolution 1973 will eventually force them to realise... It builds on UNSC resolution 1970 by requiring all UN member countries to freeze Libyan assets and applies to all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities. The funds to be made available as soon as possible for the benefit of the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. It extends the asset freeze and travel restrictions to individuals and entities to be determined to have violated the provisions of UNSC resolution 1970 or to have assisted others in doing so. It also imposes an arms embargo and of course it establish a ban on all unauthorised flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians. The UN security council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya – full text is on… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution

Yes, it could well be a very tough time for the spiders, Skunk… All alone in their dusty, empty, webs forced to deplete their small stock of remaining preserves! It just shows how thoughtless that bunch of UN do-gooders are; only concerned with their fellow humans never giving a passing thought to the humble arachnids. Yet, where would all these humans be without the world wide web? Err, Skunks don't eat spiders do they?