A TALE OF TWO JEREMYS

Let's Express Posted on by

I normally have little or no time for Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson is just an upper class twit. But this morning Jeremy Corbyn has called for the British government to abstain from escalating tensions with Iran without “credible evidence” that Tehran was responsible for attacks on two oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Interestingly, there hasn’t been as much as a grunt from Boris.

Grainy black & white footage
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/15/corbyn-no-credible-evidence-of-iran-role-in-tanker-attacks
from person or persons unknown in the States shows a boat pull up to what appears to be, (the side of), a ship and unidentifiable blobby persons on board the boat appear to touch at something on the side of the ship. That something, we are being told, was an unexploded mine and the personnel on the boat, we are being told, are either Iranians, friends/allies of Iran or just plain terrorists inspired by Iran.

To start with, the people on the boat could just as easily be American, Israeli, Saudis or British special forces because all four nationalities are aggressively seeking war with Iran but they need an excuse to convince their own electorate. In any crime situation, the first things looked at are motivation and evidence. If this few seconds of video is the only evidence they have then it would be thrown out of any court of law as laughable. So what of the motivation for these attacks? There is no doubt that the Iranians have said publicly that if they are blocked from exporting their oil through the Straits/Gulf Region, then nobody will be allowed export a drop of their own products either. Washington is now squeezing Iranian oil exports so right there, you could argue, is the perfect Iranian motivation.

However, while Iran is willing to fight if they have to, they certainly are not actively seeking war with America, (who in their right mind would?) Verbal sabre-rattling aside, it would make no sense for Tehran to provoke the White House. Contrast that with John Bolton & Mike Pompeo’s persistent threats against Iran. There can be no doubt that both of these war-mongers are pushing for conflict all over the Middle-East and Iran is seen as one of the last countries there to be dismantled and sent back to the stone age. Add to that America’s long and disgraceful history of false flag operations as the lying justification to make war against anyone they dislike.

The British foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, described Corbyn’s comments as “pathetic and predictable”. The FCO had said: “No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible,” and pointed to a “recent precedent for attacks by Iran against oil tankers”. Those recent attacks they refer to amounted to unproven accusations which were uttered so often that they must now be accepted as facts by the voting public even without a shred of any credible evidence. This is precisely how false flag operations are run, (see “Gulf of Tonkin and the justification for the Vietnam War”). As to his observation that no other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible, Israel would be the most obvious and capable culprit for just this sort of action. It would be hugely in Israel’s interests to see the Americans make war against Iran.

Jeremy Hunt further hit back at Corbyn over his comments, tweeting: “Pathetic and predictable. From Salisbury to the Middle East, why can he never bring himself to back British allies, British intelligence or British interests?” Hunt said Britain’s assessment “leads us to conclude that responsibility for the attacks almost certainly lies with Iran”. Might I suggest in response to Hunt that it could just be that Corbyn does not want the UK embroiled in yet another pointless war for the America’s sake. And on an aside, where is this so-called ‘assessment’ he refers to?

As a matter of interest, what is so pathetic and predictable about wanting peace? Does Hunt believe that it is the sole job of a foreign secretary to declare wars whenever possible. The modern day Western preoccupation with Iran began nearly seventy years ago when Mohammad Mosaddeq was democratically elected the 35th prime minister of Iran, holding office from 1951 until 1953. Mosaddeq looked at Iran’s assets and level of poverty and decided the western oil companies were ripping them off. So he nationalized the British ‘BP’. In response, London pleaded with Washington for help. The CIA were duly dispatched to overthrow Mosaddegh, which they quickly did and the “Shah of Iran” was imposed on the unruly Iranians. Decades of terror followed as the secret police of the Shah, (SAVAK) ran riot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
The imprisonments, routine torture and executions continued until the Iranian people rose up and chased the Shah out of the country, replacing him with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
https://www.biography.com/political-figure/ayatollah-ruhollah-khomeini
The American Embassy in Tehran was occupied and ransacked and hostages were taken and held for some time. President Carter ordered a rescue effort which failed miserably as two of the rescue helicopters crashed into each other over Iran. The Yanks have never forgiven the Iranians for wanting to democratically run their own country – odd that, isn’t it?

Finally, whoever planted the explosives of those tankers, did so with a view to stop them dead in the water. Why then would they return in broad daylight, knowing they could easily be spotted? Even worse, why would they return to retrieve an unexploded mine? One presumes the mine was placed and perhaps remotely detonated. But it’s obvious that it failed to explode, which would make it unstable and dangerous to attempt retrieval. Of course, this presumes it was an actual mine and not a box of chocolates or something equally innocuous.

So if you have a vote in the forthcoming British election, which Jeremy would get your vote?

WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY?

Let's Express Posted on by

The term “International Community” is one used frequently in the US, the UK, France, in all western media outlets and to a lesser extent, in the EU. It is supposed to convey a gravitas and a sense of unity of purpose and belief. I first heard this expression from George Bush senior around the time he was amassing an invasion force to drive the Iraqi’s out of Kuwait. He also referred to it as “The coalition of the willing.”

But when I think about it, it’s an empty term. There is no real International Community. There are Nation States, commercial power blocks and individual countries vying for a position in the modern world. What they all strive to do is to act in their own and their people’s interests. But Russia & China has come together this week in an unprecedented way to combine their awesome powers to act in their own interests, contrary to US power play and bullying. This combination of two super powers is the culmination of years of work between them.

My memory of the coalition of the willing is that the US bore 90% of the load at the time with various western countries very reluctantly sending small detachments of troops on the condition they would not be front line deployed or ever be in any kind of danger, (in a war!!). The UK was the exception to this even though a million UK citizens marched in London against any involvement in the war/s.

Far from being willing or in any kind of community, western nations are, and were, cajoled, brow-beaten, threatened and bullied into compliance to support America’s imperial dreams by using its military force to achieve its objectives. George W. Bush is a great example of this when he ominously announced on TV, “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” This was in relation to the invasion of Iraq and the true irony of that situation was that America itself was the terrorist by breaking international laws designed to avoid this very thing and breaking America’s own laws regarding such an engagement. But according to Bush, any nation that didn’t do likewise was a supporter of terrorism. So were those acts of terrorism by the coalition of the willing the true definition of an International Community?” Is an International Community just a respectable name for nations combining to terrorise others?

In the last twelve months, acting in unison, Russia and China have been very busy in the background selling American debt which both countries had been suckered into buying over the years. The monies paid to both for these debt documents was used by them to buy gold. They have done this in anticipation of the collapse of the American dollar with the inevitable implosion of that country’s economy as a result. It is now believed also that Putin took the decision five years ago that America wanted war with Russia and the US believed they could be successful as well. So for the last five years in utter secrecy, Russian scientists have worked furiously on families of new weapons and technologies, the most lethal of which is their line of hypersonic nuclear weapons. Fired from the back of hundreds of trucks hidden all across the vast country of Russia, these warheads can hit targets on mainland USA in four minutes. They are practically undetectable and even if detected, there is no time to react to them. The hypersonic line of new weapons really does bring the world back to ‘mutually assured destruction,” and perhaps we will all be much safer for it too.

The Chinese belt and road initiative is being strongly supported by the Kremlin as it is seen as an alternative to any trade with the West. It precludes the need for the West by reaching out to a market of five billion people in Asia and Africa and joining those many threads into a mutually beneficial trading block. They are working together on a new currency for this project and are shoring up hundreds of tons of gold to back the new currency, a return to the gold standard for their new money. China and Russia are using diplomacy and sharing technology to make friends around the globe even as the USA threatens to invade Venezuela and Iran to add to their list of victims.

The view from Beijing and Moscow sees a nation of 350m Americans attempting to impose itself on the six billion other people worldwide in what they term a unipolar world with American as its centre. The Russians and Chinese vision is of a multi-polar world with no centre and no leader. They see a peaceful world where war as a tool is consigned to history in favour of diplomacy, trade and negotiation.

Could this be the real International Community for the new age? After all of the empty rhetoric of the new century so far, is there finally a plan in place to create a true International Community for mankind?

As the Chinese proverb goes, “May you live in interesting times.”

HOT AIR & THE CLIMATE – Part 2

Let's Express Posted on by

I’ll kick off by reminding you that ‘Part 1’ is here

Naysayers in the Climate Change debate, (such as it is), are called deniers and sometimes skeptics. My own stance is that I am unconvinced. This suggests that I am open to being convinced, which is true, but not by lies, by contrived computer modeling, (that will give you any answer you require if you tweak it), or by factual inaccuracies. Also, the topic should be about real science not politics or the imposition of taxes. Politicians are obsessed by your money and they want even more of it all of the time. To get it, they invent things that you must pay for, like climate change for example. Politicians the world over love climate change. So, when I smell politics in any discussions about Global Warming I immediately assume it is yet another scam.

Anyway, this afternoon the Journal ran with a story that scientists in the United States have detected the highest levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere since records began. “It has sounded new alarm over the rise of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.” This would be alarming if true so I read on. “The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which has tracked atmospheric CO2 levels since the late 1950s, detected 415.26 parts per million on Saturday morning.

It was also the first time on record that the observatory measured a daily baseline above 415 ppm. The last time earth’s atmosphere contained this much CO2 was more than three million years ago, when global sea levels were several metres higher and parts of Antarctica were blanketed in forest.” The documentary I included in Part 1 will rubbish this three million year claim for you if you care to watch it.

Anyway, so far so good you might say but then I re-read the paragraphs above and something stood out. I’ve been to Hawaii and the islands are just huge lava piles of rocks with mountains and the Pacific all around them. Everywhere you look you see black lava rocks and stones from volcanic eruptions. I looked a little deeper to discover that The Mauna Loa Observatory is actually built on the side of a volcanic mountain FFS. Over there you can smell the lava in the air and on the side of such a mountain the smell would be very strong.

But I have no real in-depth knowledge of lava other than what it is and how it got there so I went exploring lava and its carbon dioxide connection, which is what the headline is about in reality, only to discover the following

A geologist has researched the links and this is his take on the matter. “Volcanic CO2 emission raises some serious doubts concerning the anthropogenic origins of the rising atmospheric CO2 trend. In fact, the location of key CO2 measuring stations (Keeling et al., 2005; Monroe, 2007) in the vicinity of volcanoes and other CO2 sources may well result in the measurement of magmatic CO2 rather than a representative sample of the Troposphere. For example, Cape Kumukahi is located in a volcanically active province in Eastern Hawaii, while Mauna Loa Observatory is on Mauna Loa, an active volcano – both observatories within 50km of the highly active Kilauea and its permanent 3.2 MtCO2pa plume. Samoa is within 50 km of the active volcanoes Savai’i and/or Upolo, while Kermandec Island observatory is located within 10 km of the active Raoul Island volcano.” He even mentions the Mauna Loa Observatory and its proximity to an active volcano.

The monitoring station argue that, “This natural-color satellite image of the summit of Mauna Loa overlaid with 100-meter (330-foot) contour lines helps illustrate why volcanic emissions from the summit rarely reach the observatory. The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 6 kilometers (4 miles) away from and 800 meters (2,600 feet) lower than the summit. Most of the time, the prevailing northeasterly trade winds prevent volcanically contaminated air from reaching the observatory. Only on a small percentage of nights do the winds become light and southerly, pushing volcanic emissions downhill to the observatory.” However, the very building itself is built on emitted black lava rock and the geologist has more to say about that.

“If we neglect to ask how the greenhouse effect of various gases is quantified in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties, the idea of anthropogenic global warming may well survive long enough for us to ask how the carbon budget establishes that observed increases in CO2 (Keeling et al., 2005) could not be caused by anything other than human activity. Plimer (2001), Wishart (2009), and Plimer (2009) point out that an enormous and unmeasured amount of CO2 degases from volcanoes.

This is not such a silly idea given that the source chemistry for lavas contains a surprising amount of carbon dioxide. Along with H2O, CO2 is one of the lightest volatiles (materials of relatively low melting point), found in the mantle (Wilson, 1989). The fluid nature of the aesthenosphere, or upper mantle of the earth, ensures that lighter volatiles are fractionated, buoyed towards the surface, and either extruded or outgassed into the atmosphere via volcanoes and faults.” Quoting published research, what our geologist is telling us is that CO2 emissions are very high around volcanos, it travels through the air and volcanic CO2 cannot be distinguished from man-made CO2.

So it is no surprise then that a monitoring station built on the side of a volcanic mountain would measure HUGE levels of CO2 in the air. You would achieve the same effect if your detection instruments were fixed to the wall of an active factory smokestack.

So for me, this article is political not scientific. It does raise another interesting question though. In the early years of the 20th century all the way up to the 50’s, monitoring stations were always sited in open country areas or on remote coastlines. Today however, for ‘convenience’, modern monitoring stations are situated in areas of dense populations such as cities.

It is well known that cities are a degree or two warmer than country areas because of the dense man made building materials trapping in heat. Also, the monitoring stations tend to be larger these days and this is achieved by simply closing the smaller remote stations and moving the staffs of these stations to a central metropolitan location. There are less monitoring stations today than there were fifty years ago. The real convenience here is, of course, cost. The problem though is that measurements are now taken in these city locations and then extrapolated out to the wider more remote world. In other words, readings taken in warm cities are presumed to be true of cooler rural areas as well, which they clearly are not.

So the CO2 figures collected from a volcanic mountain in Hawaii would not represent the CO2 levels of a remote hinterland in Donegal, Ireland. Yet again our climate story as presented here is composed of inaccurate scientific readings latched onto by a sensationalist press eager to sell copy through fear mongering and a waiting corrupt scientific community equally eager to use this to embarrass Governments into imposing unnecessary taxes on its citizens, (running to trillions of dollars), for the use of universities to produce more stilted science for an eager press to sell more copy etc etc. A well-worked and hackneyed formula to extract money for old rope. It is depressing that so many so called scientists and researchers are so keen to sell their souls for money.

And the climate will keep changing as it has done for millions of years without the help of mankind and mankind will lie and cheat to make their short lives more comfortable. We live in strange times.

A GREEN & TROUBLED LAND

Let's Express Posted on by

In 2016, in a full and free vote by the citizens of the UK, the majority, (slim as it was), voted to leave the EU and take back their sovereignty and assume total control of their own territories via their Parliament at Westminster.

It was an example of our cherished western democracy in action. As an Irishman, in the last several years I have democratically voted for the ‘other guy’ and been disappointed at how the majority voted instead. But I’m a democrat and as such, I must accept the will of the people and get on with it, whatever it brings.

That is why I am so fascinated by the UK today. Those who lost the election are now making every conceivable excuse as to why the will of the majority must be overturned. They appear to be agitating to move the UK away from democracy as a system of Government but they are hazy as to what wish to replace it. They seems to suggest that if they can overturn a democratic vote in favour of what the minority desires, then they are willing to carry on with the facade of democracy inside a wider EU.

More worrying still from an Irish perspective is the fact that the EU itself is backing the destroyers of democracy by making it nigh impossible for the UK to leave the club without fearsome retribution. I don’t support that as an Irish citizen but then I voted against this present Government’s election the last time out and now that same Government is at the forefront of making life hard for the UK majority. And of course, not one of the 550m Europeans voted for the Commissioners in Brussels.

I do find it strange in modern times that whenever an American Government decides to overthrow any elected Government anywhere else in the world, they position it as returning the target country to democracy and the EU bays its wild support in all of our names. For the American version of democracy, see Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine etc. None of that is democracy in action, it is pure fascism.

So what will they decide on in the UK? Will they choose to become a fascist nation or will they stick with their democratic decision and leave the EU? Time will tell but democracy is under threat and if the UK dumps it, what hope for Ireland?