T. Boone Pickens has a plan to reduce the need for oil in the U.S. by using wind for electricity instead of natural gas, thus allowing the U.S. to use natural gas instead of oil for energy needs, a total reduction in costs to be about 22% or $300 billion a year.

He doesn’t want to utilize nuclear energy because he claims it will take too long.

But to lower our costs for oil, can’t we just take over all the oil producing nations and lower the price? Iraq is taken care of…Iran next, then Venezuela. Don’t have to worry about time-frames then do we?

(oops, I just gave the plan away didn’t I?)

I mean…what’ wrong with being an imperialist nation as long as we U.S. citizens don’t have to pay more? Isn’t that what it’s all about?

Well, maybe to U.S. leaders it is.

The U.S. diplomat heading to Iran, William J. Burns, said this on July 9th about Iran’s noncooperation “we do not exclude engagement.”

Was his trip to Iran this past weekend just a good faith gesture on behalf of the U.S., only to find the conclusion being the same with Iraq “not cooperating” thus leaving only one choice for the U.S.; “engagement?”

I’d like to know specifically the results of the IAEA’s new way of testing Nuclear Reactors. Let U.S. citizens see the results for ourselves before you march off to another war.

Enquiring minds will soon find out what U.S. leaders are up to…..and yes, I was being sarcastic in my opening comments about the U.S. energy plan (although the pieces of the puzzle are coming together aren’t they?).

I’m sure Pickens has his reasoning ($$$) for wanting “everyone in the U.S.” to back his plan. Want to make your stock go higher? Come up with a plan! But I have to ask the question, if Pickens was heavily invested in Nuclear Technology, would he be “pushing” it as a solution? Of course! The rich know how to get richer. Just ask Al Gore!

Doug Eberhardt

Related posts:

1. The Enemy of My Enemy is NOT My Friend
2. We’re Winning The War On Terror!

I’m always asking myself…”What is the U.S. Government thinking when it comes to foreign policy, and then I set out to try and prove my speculations with hard facts.

After a brief potential conflict in Colombia ended without bloodshed in the U.S. governments quest to police the world, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that sending a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf could serve as a “reminder” to Iran, but he said it’s not an escalation of force.

We believe you Mr. Gates.  Wink, Wink…

There has been much written on the potential of a conflict with Iran.  It seems things are heating up of late.

It’s not a secret that the MSM has stepped up the rhetoric  just as they did during the run up to the Iraq war as exposed in the BBC Documentary, “Power of Nightmares.”

We’re constantly hearing the following mantra from the media: “U.S. officials continue to accuse Iran of increasing its efforts to supply weapons to militants in Iraq.” It’s no surprise this rhetoric started with a War Street Journal article. (The Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Corporation for those that didn’t know – hence the play on names).

Outside of the little speedboats allegedly buzzing U.S. Navy ships, this seems to be the only justification necessary to attack Iran as there has been no proof of any nuclear program found there, just as there wasn’t any found in Iraq prior to it being attacked by the U.S.

Iran and Iraq have been at war for centuries with the latest war just ending 20 years ago.  Saddam was even  threatening Iran as late as 1999.

U.S. leaders don’t agree with the Proverb…… “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” do they?  Well, they did at one time when they supported Iraq and Saddam’s regime against Iran in that 1980 war, but I want to stay current here.  It’s not like the U.S. relies on history before making important decisions like war anyway (Vietnam, Korea).  Sarc off.

Does the following “current” scenario sound familiar?

UN inspectors to return to Iran
Tehran, April 27, 2008

The IAEA inspectors want answers from Tehran regarding intelligence received from Western member states on alleged studies on uranium conversion, high explosives testing and work on a missile re-entry vehicle, which all have potential nuclear weapons applications.

Ex-U .N. inspector: Iran’s next

“Scott Ritter, former chief United Nations weapons inspector, speaks Sunday at the James A. Little Theater on how no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. He also predicted the U.S. will go to war with Iran.

The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.

“We just don’t know when, but it’s going to happen,” Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.

Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.

He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.”

“How do I know this? I’ve talked to Bolton’s speechwriter,” Ritter said.”

Even though Bolton has bolted, look who replaced him as the U.S. Representative to the UN in 2007:

On April 23, 2007 Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad began as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Who is Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad?

The following from Wiki:

“Khalilzad worked for Paul Wolfowitz.  He consulted for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which at the time was conducting a risk analysis for Unocal, now part of ConocoPhillips, for a proposed 1,400 km (890 mile), $2-billion, 622 m³/s (22,000 ft³/s) Trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan and further proceeding to Pakistan. He acted as a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban regime.

He is one of the original members of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was a signatory of the letter to President Bill Clinton sent on January 26, 1998, which called for him to accept the aim of “removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power” using “a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.”

A White House favorite whom Bush calls by his nickname, Zal, Khalilzad has worked in two other Republican administrations, those of President Ronald Reagan and Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush.

Khalilzad headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department in 2000 and served as a counselor to former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Connections run deep don’t they?

Lastly, Khalilzad is a Muslim.  More on this in a moment.

Khalilzad told the media, soon after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report on Iran, that the Iranian government is clearly going ahead with its nuclear program.”

And what did Khalilzad say over the weekend?

“Iran and Syria must stop the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq, and their malign interference in Iraq,” U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Monday in a report to the U.N. Security Council on behalf of the multinational force in Iraq.”

So if a Muslim says it’s ok to attack another Muslim country, it’s justified then right?  This way it can’t be called a Crusade right?

What did the U.S. top military official say last week?

“The U.S. ambassador’s report to the council echoed the assessment last week by Adm. Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military official, who said it is clear that recently made Iranian-made weapons are flowing into Iraq, including to insurgents leading the fight recently in Basra in southern Iraq.”

“But Mullen, who chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he has “no smoking gun” proof that the highest leadership in the Iranian government has approved the stepped up support for insurgents who are killing U.S. and Iraqi forces.”

Anyone care to guess where the “smoking gun” will come from?  My guess is their inside man, Khalilzad, but seriously….does it really matter what the smoking gun is?  Does it really matter what the majority of American people want?

Of the 68 million people living in Iran, 1.3 million are not Muslim.  Many of those 1.3 million people are Christians and Jews.  All 68 million are humans. I guess they’re all just collateral damage just like all those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and of course, Iraq, the “enemy of my enemy.”

Do we really want 68 million more people upset with the U.S. Government or does it make more sense to ”Love thy neighbor?”

A good start is to ask your neighbor, and give him this book at the same time.

Remember, the antonym to enemy is friend.  If our government doesn’t stop this nonsense, we may not have any friends left in the world.

Doug Eberhardt

Related posts:

1. The Pickens Energy Plan vs. the U.S. Imperialism Plan
2. The Left and Right Love and Need War