It isn't politics my friend, its "business" as usual.

"Why dont the EU and the USA stop buying oil from Iran until the hostages are returned? Hit them where it hurts."

The most ignorant statement I have ever heard.

Sure it will hurt if Iran's oil is not sold. But whom does it hurt? It will hurt the EU and USA, badly. Iran will be happy to see such a self-imposed economic sanction. They will be happy to take a shot if their enemies are willing to take 5 shots in return.

Here's a piece of advise: Educate yourself about "1973 Oil Crisis" and "Arab oil embargo". Then come here and blog about Oil related issues.

Indeed Deepak, it would be very entertaining to see us boycott Iranian oil; sheesh, we will definitely start another war before that happens . . .

Peace

Very provocative post indeed Mr. Singh, little you knew I bet that yours could be an example of the futility of world peace. :-)

I don't think not buying oil from Iran is the answer because I think Iran and Chavez will make oil prices skyrocket and charge the USA so much we can't handle it.

Why don't we in the US stop using so much oil?

Is our oil usage making you rich?

Me neither. In fact it's breaking my pocketbook and killing my friends' kids and relatives.

And polluting my enviroment.

Where's the payoff? What's the logic in continuing to be dependent on oil?

Does it make America great somehow?

Does it make your life any better? Put money in your pocket? Cut down your work hours?

By the way, I watched that whole 9-11 video that Richard posted the link to in the Wed open thread. I never believed it for years until I saw that video. I can't wait for part II to come out where the same investigative team digs up the truth on the hijacked planes. Eye-opening stuff.

I also watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" which I got on netflicks.

That was REAL informative. It shows precisely hopw politics, the automobile industry, and the oil companies have interests that dovetail. It's not a conspiracy, but they have common interests, so they collaborate to defeat new technologies that threaten their existence.

And make no mistake about it: a fully electric car that gets 300 miles per charge and goes 0-60 in under 5 seconds (which already exist, have already been road tested, and produced for affordable, mid-range car prices) scares the beJesus out of both the oil industry and the auto industry.

It reminds me of the way the Personal Computer scared the hell out of Xerox in the 1980s.

Another good read is "Dealers in Lightning" that shows how Xerox basically financed the R&D that led to today's PC, then squashed it when they realized it could compete with their copy machines, and even do more.

Exactly the same thing happened with General Motors. They financed the development of a perfectly viable electric car, which all their test customers LOVED (there's a great scene where a guy is offering over a million dollars to GM to save the last 50 of them from being shredded).

When they realized they had built something that would change the way they do business, they recalled every single one them and sent them to the junkyard.

Just goes to show you that nothing scares people like revolutionary change.

Well we have a solution let us execute it, enough idle chatter and the energy wasted on blame.

It is time to put the consumer in the driver’s seat of our collective reality.

Here is the solution.

All I need is a commitment from 1 million people give or take few ten thousands to purchase an electric car.

Once I get the commitment from this number of people we will negotiate with those that can deliver it, to do so, empowered and enabled by our commitment

We are going to do the same with communications and other industries.

When we the consumer work together collectively we can dictate to the vendors how and what we want including the margin. I am suggesting a 35% mark up of labor and material costs. This 35% is then used for R & D, overhead and profit sharing for those that manage the delivery supply chain.

We The Consumer will create a new auto industry in the United States and we the consumer will eliminate the dependency on oil for most of our energy needs.
Steps.

#1 would be to create a web site and a database for registration of those that wish to participate and get a good price on a quality product.

#2 Create the specifications for the car and the various options.

#3 Negotiate with manufactures and intellectual property holders to deliver the product according to specification.

#4 The consumers purchase the cars and the vendors deliver.

#5 The consumer will work with the vendors providing detail feedback on performance and improvements which will be applied to the supply chain product in an iterative fashion benefiting all with a constantly evolving product.

Perhaps we will call it the consumer purchasing union, an entity that acts on behalf of millions of individuals as a purchasing agent.

So do you guys want to make it happen?

I am also proposing a new method of paying for the nation’s road and bridge infrastructure that will naturally stipulate efficiency and reduced costs.

We won’t stop there we will we will proceed to communications, energy, monetary systems, food supply, household maintenance products, health and even insurance.

This is now made possible thanks to technology.

What do you think and will you participate?

Who would promote the fictions that lead to a disproportionate allocation of wealth? The answer is those that would benefit by getting the larger portion. Therefore we should turn our attention away from these sources for information, so that we might not entertain their fictions that create such disparity.

We should look to independent subscriber based networks for intelligence, or those with at most anonymous advertisers where there is no direct communication and influence on the content by the advertisers. Should we look to those that profit from disease for knowledge regarding health? What incentive is there for them to end disease and provide the information to do so.

Why is it that livestock are pumped with vitamins yet humans are are told not to do so? Could it be it is relative to where the profit lies?

Does anyone else think that religion is used to trick people into living in lack and to foment conflict so that a few can enjoy a disproportionate amount of wealth?

Should we not seek to help those fine people of the Middle East to see that they are being used as puppets by a few families or groups that live richly while the rest suffer of lack?

The same applies to the west which has the refineries and the markets where wealth is generated from foreknowledge and the creation of events and a control of the supply? What fictions do they support to maintain there position?

Is it these same people that create the fictions and hurdles to switching to a different source of the majority of our energy?

There is only two ways to change. Change yourself, or wait for change to be thrust upon you. The second option usually not too pretty, but change will happen.

What is cancer, but a cell that refuses to change?

What have you changed today?

Me? None of your buisness! Save yourself!

Dear Deepak

I agree with most who've responded, that Iran essentially has the US and the EU where they want them, and a boycott would hurt the US and EU more than it would hurt Iran, and thus be ineffective.

love, Heath

Oil and Islam anyways is a deadly cocktail. You tinker with anyone of them, results are explosive. The fact remains the most important energy resource available to mankind is controlled by the most unreasonable community. Iran anyways does not care if EU or US stop buying oil from him. After all the dependence of the developed economies on the middle east oil is very clear to every one.

Rather than war what is required probably is an alternate to oil. This will take away the power from, oil resource rich, rouge states and force them into reason.

regards

amit

Richard,

Don't even think about political education of people living in ISlamic countries.

Yes sometimes religion is used mainly as a management tool by a few, or i should say has always been used as a management tool.

With muslims the problem is that they are even forbidden to debate. So most people who try to reason with them end up banging their heads against a wall.

regards

Amit

Deja vu - fake borders, fake dossier:

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_maritime_b.html

Building NO7 is the smoking gun.

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.
And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!

What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.

And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".

What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.

As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.

· Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python

For people like Terry Jones one can only say that ignorance is a bliss.
The Iranians whom he is holding in such high humanitarian esteem are the very propagators and hardcore supporter of a number of terrorist organizations who have blown to bits women and children.
One can clearly see the hypocracy in his criticism,anyways this is what sells and he sure is a good salesman.

regards

Amit