Article 43

 

Revelations

Monday, October 23, 2006

Website - J R Moneyham

The Way Ahead

Future technological advances could allow humanity to finally realize its ultimate potential for good or evil.

If we do ultimately aspire (or fall) to such an end, which will we willingly choose?

Will the animalistic drives of our past-- predatory greed, aggression, and violence, automatic deference to the creed ‘might makes right’ (anarchy or ‘natural law’wink, and instinctive fear of change-- in the end overpower our best ideals garnered from thousands of years of valiant struggle against same?

THIS SITE is about that choice. A choice we’ll make as we traverse a gauntlet of challenges which may well have destroyed all those civilizations which preceded us on this path: all those who came before us in this galaxy.

Odds are we’ll follow the same course to extinction they did. Unless we change.

Change in ways many believe today to be impossible, even impractical. And maybe immoral to boot.

For too stringent adherence to the status quo regarding tradition, nationalism, religion, et al, is what likely killed off those before us.

In this tug of war between our worst and best natures, it’ll often be tough to know who or what to believe, or what course of action will best serve our long term interests as a society.

And yet nothing could be more important to our survival.

Among other things, we may have to decide whom we love best: Our families and friends? Some sort of deity and the various edicts attributed to it by mortals as fallible as anyone else among us? Or maybe a certain patch of dirt we walk on-- the country in which we were born, and its government, no matter what that government does in our name?

Many of our choices will come to this: Family versus nationalism/patriotism versus religion. Love versus hate. Prosperity for all versus riches for a few.

Below are my own contributions to the many debates we’ll hopefully have before deciding our course-- and our fate.

My own hope is that we reshape the world into a true meritocracy, where no one who’s willing to positively contribute to society goes hungry or uneducated or without medical treatment. Where everyone enjoys at least some opportunity to pursue their dreams (so long as such dreams pose negligible risks to others). And no one’s potential-- especially that of little children-- is squandered on the battlefields of political extremism, military overreaching, or economic injustice.

Yes, that’s some awfully idealistic goals. But it could be our only real alternative is extinction, judging from the silence of the skies circa mid-2005.

And it may be we already possess sufficient wealth and technology levels to achieve these things. But we can’t do it by allowing just a few hundred families around the world to command roughly half or more of humanity’s (and the Earth’s) total assets. That’s basically the same as us all ceding control of our personal fates to the population of some tiny rural town somewhere that we’ve never even visited or heard of! And yet that’s the state of world governance today. Does that make sense to anyone at all?

jmooneyham.com

Posted by Elvis on 10/23/06 •
Section Revelations
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Our Situation Is Dire

Our Situation Is Dire and There’s No Need For Pessimism
By Paul Levy
Awaken In The Dream
October 2006

Things in the world seem really grim right now. Many people feel like we are on the verge of World War III. These are clearly apocalyptic, end-times we are living in. Many people are hopelessly pessimistic about the state of human affairs, feeling like there is nothing we can do to make a difference. It feels to some like we are descending into hell. It feels to others like we are on the verge of global collapse. Something seems terribly wrong. It seems like we are creating a living nightmare for ourselves. It is as if our planet has fallen under a demons curse. It is crucial that we shed light on the nature of the darkness that has befallen our planet.

We need to understand the nature of the beast we are dealing with. One thing we can say for sure is that the darkness does not want us to become aware of it. To become conscious of how the darkness plays itself out in our world is the last thing the darkness wants, just like a vampire cant stand the light of day. For to see the darkness is to take away its power over us, as it can no longer act itself out through our unconscious. Just like sunlight flooding into a room instantaneously evacuates the darkness in the room, when we shed the light of consciousness on the darkness that is both in our world and within ourselves, the power of the darkness is immediately dis-spelled. 

The darkness that is appearing in the outer world is not separate from, but is co-related to, the darkness within ourselves. The darkness that is manifesting in the outside world is simultaneously triggering a resonant re-action deep inside of ourselves. To the extent we are unconscious of what the darkness is triggering inside of ourselves, it enlists us as one of its unwitting agents, as the darkness feeds on our unawareness of it. 

If we become entranced by the very convincing display of outer darkness that is materializing in the world and fall prey to pessimism, we have fallen under the darkness’s spell and are then feeding, supporting and helping to create the very darkness in the world which we are reacting to pessimistically. Bewitched by our own darkness, we relate to it as if it is independent and outside of ourselves, thinking our pessimistic reaction is justified by the dark goings-on that are objectively happening in the outside world. In choosing to see pessimistically, we dont realize that we are filtering our interpretation of events through a pessimistic lens which then provides us with overwhelming evidence to confirm our pessimism.

To become pessimistic about what is playing out on the world stage is to become an unwitting instrument through which the darkness further incarnates and extends itself into our world. To become caught in pessimism is to fall victim to an infinitely regressing feedback loop: we wouldn’t be so pessimistic if our world wasnt manifesting so darkly, and our world wouldn’t be manifesting so darkly if we werent so pessimistic. To become fixated in the point of view of seeing things pessimistically is to unwittingly become an ally of the very darkness that is inspiring our pessimism. This is to have fallen into a self-generating, samsaric feedback loop that is self-fulfilling in nature and will undoubtedly destroy us.

Becoming pessimistic is a symptom that the darkness has insinuated itself into our very consciousness, and is manipulating our perceptions of the world so as to further propagate itself. Becoming depressed and pessimistic is what the darkness wants, as it thirsts for us to become seduced by its convincing display of seemingly overwhelming power so that we give up our own power to it as well and believe all is lost. Imagining ourselves dis-empowered, we dis-associate from our True Self as well as from each other, disconnecting from our individual and collective brilliance (which, interestingly, connotes light). To give up and believe there is nothing we can do is to unknowingly join forces with the darker power, becoming its secret agents, our secret being secret even to ourselves.

To be pessimistic is to be arguing for our own impotence and limitation. If we win an argument about the truth of our pessimism, the prize we win is that we are screwed. There is something wrong with this picture. There is clearly something flawed and even perverse about our logic if it leads to such a self-defeating result. This flaw is like a red flag that can inspire us to self-reflect and look at what we are actually doing when we invest in a pessimistic world-view. Pessimism is a symptom that we are investing in our own decline and ultimately our own suicide.

I am not saying that we should just put on a SMILEY-FACE and become everything turns out for the best optimists. To only identify, like some so-called spiritual people do, with the celestial rainbow point of view, believing that everything is perfect and not problematic is overly one-sided, as it is dis-associated from the part of our experience that is seemingly damned, cursed, and deeply problematic. To identify with only one side of a two-sided polarity like this is to be actively in denial of and contracting against its opposite. To only identify with the light in actuality supports and feeds the dark. Over-identifying only with the light, we marginalize the darkness, which secretly empowers it, as the darkness then becomes something of which we are afraid. We are then unwittingly investing our energy into the darkness by our one-sided identification with the light. We need to shed the light of awareness on how the darkness plays itself out both outside in the world as well as inside of ourselves, as the darkness can potentially seduce us to be either overly optimistic or pessimistic. To fall into an extreme view like this is to ultimately be part of the problem, rather than embodying the solution.

I am not spouting some new age gibberish when I am urging us to not be pessimistic. I am simply pointing out that pessimism is not only unnecessary, but is actually dangerous, as it will help to actively create a self-fulfilling prophecy that will ultimately justify our pessimism. When I am saying not to be pessimistic, I am not marginalizing the darkness and saying that everything will turn out peaches and cream. I’m not talking about pretending the darkness isnt really dark, and trying to imagine it out of existence by mindlessly affirming that everything is really OK, that everyone will live happily ever after. From one point of view, things are genuinely fucked. It is important not to marginalize that.

Our situation is extremely dire, while at the same time there is nothing to become pessimistic about. Being able to hold this paradox is the crux of the matter. This involves being able to hold these seemingly contradictory opposites together as both being true simultaneously. Our apocalyptic situation is very dire, while at the same time it is (potentially) the highest blessing: If we recognize what the darkness is revealing to us, it can (potentially) wake us up. Interestingly, the inner meaning of the word apocalypse is something hidden being revealed.

Our universe is manifesting as a genuine coincidentia oppositorum, a co-incidence of opposites, an auspicious coming together of the opposites where the opposites paradoxically reveal themselves to be both opposite and united at the same time. This holistic vision makes no sense and seems like pure nonsense as long as we are rigidly clinging to only one point of view and marginalizing another part of our experience. And yet, this more inclusive vision is itself the very expansion of consciousness which transforms the nature of our situation and empowers us to become genuine agents of change in the world.

Instead of identifying with one of the opposites and projecting out the other (which is to split), if we recognize that both of the seemingly contradictory opposites are true simultaneously, we have re-joined ourselves and retrieved our soul. Healing our split with the outside world and within ourselves, we are an active and activating participant in the birth of consciousness into human form. Stepping into the open-ended, embodied form of our wholeness, we become an agent of healing for the universe.

Shadows are an expression that light is nearby. Shadows are never found without light, which is to say that light and shadows are inseparably united into a deeper, more all-embracing whole. Paradoxically, hidden, in-coded inside the darkness is a light which (potentially) awakens (and is inseparable from) consciousness. Not being separate from the light, the darkness itself is an unmediated expression of and indivisible from the ight of consciousness itself. This self-luminous light of awareness is a higher-order of light which embraces, unites and transcends the duality of light vs. darkness.

How our universe will unfold from this moment on depends upon whether or not we consciously re-cognize what the darkness is revealing to us as it acts itself out through us. The darkness itself is the revelation of the light, as it is the light revealing itself in the hidden form of darkness.

Shedding light on the darkness within us is a form of illumination. Once we become intimately related to and engaged with our own darkness, we become fluent in its language, coming to know how it behaves and operates within ourselves. We are then able to translate this familiarity with our own darkness in such a way so as to creatively illumine the darkness in the outer world. Once enough of us have made acquaintance with the darkness that exists within us, we are then able, like sunlight melting the morning dew, to collectively dis-spell the darkness that has seemingly enveloped our planet.

Paradoxically, it is only by coming to terms with the darkness within ourselves that we are able to step out of our trance-like addiction to pessimism and become full-bodied representatives of the all-embracing light of consciousness. Uniting in collective lucidity (which, etymologically, refers to light), we reciprocally co-inspire each other as we empower ourselves to create a more grace-filled universe to co-inhabit. A radical, evolutionary idea whose time has truly come! 

Paul Levy is a spiritually-informed political co-activist. A pioneer in the field of spiritual awakening, he is a healer in private practice, assisting others who are awakening to the dream-like nature of reality. He is the author of THE MADNESS OF GEORGE BUSH: A REFLECTION OF OUR COLLECTIVE PSYCHOSIS, which is available at his WEBSITE. Please feel free to pass this article along to a friend if you feel so inspired. If you resonate with the message of this article and want to help Paul spread this information, please contact him at , as he needs all the help he can get.

SOURCE

SOCIOPATHS IN GOVERNMENT
BUSH MADNESS I
BUSH MADNESS II
PUZZLING OUT BUSH
AMERICA THE PITIFUL
THE UNTHINKABLE WORLD OF TODAY

READ MORE...
Posted by Elvis on 10/23/06 •
Section Revelations
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

An Armageddon Possibility

C r o s s W a t c h
By Dorothy A Sees
The Flagship Logs
October 10, 2006

There was a commentary, a very old volume, that I came across some years back and it has long since been either given away or lost in my moving around until settling in a retirement community condominium in Arizona which has little space for books (or much else).  As I recall, the comments were written somewhere around the middle of the nineteenth century, and one portion of what I read has remained fixed in my mind as an ongoing question as to its possibility.

The word “Armageddon” is mentioned in the King James Version in Revelation 16:16, and the battle is described in Revelation 19:17 ff. in more detail.  It is far from any Hollywood version and quite far from what most people think of when “Armageddon” is mentioned.  Is it a war?  Yes.  Is it a battle?  Yes.  Is it nuclear?  We don’t know. What I found interesting is how this commentator viewed Armageddon, because it is a bit inconceivable to see nations gathered together in the Valley of Meggido to fight against God, a Spirit more powerful than man’s mind is able to conceive in thought or word.

This commentator expressed his meditations upon Armageddon and its “battle” as being the total political, religious, social, economic and moral breakdown of human society.  In summary, he saw the war as being essentially a spiritual war of total rebellion against God Almighty, and the leading by God of the combatants into total defeat, so that their frailties and follies were self-consuming.

Should this commentator be correct, this world is well on its way to Armageddon, if not standing on the precipice of the whole conflagration.

As insane as this world has become, it is as devoid of morality and responsibility as any heathen civilization of the past, and even more contemptuous toward God, His authority and even His existence, as any ever conceived of by man in his sordid travels on earth through recorded time.  Even so, it is rather ludicrous to contemplate the Armageddon scenarious put forth by those who believe in it, and those who ridicule it, as being a war in which the nations go about firing nuclear armaments into the sky at random.  Even the lunatics governing the nations of the world seem to have slightly better sense than to engage in that kind of conduct.

It is just as naive and demented to envision a battle between “good people” and “bad people” as humans tend to categorize themselves, every one armed to the teeth and the “good” people eventually winning the battle. For one thing, that isn’t even close to what the Bible says about Armageddon.  In God’s sight there are no good people, only those who are justified by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, Savior and King.  That is the message of the Bible with respect to the mission and ministry of the Christ. And Armageddon is human warfare, presided over by Satan, against Christ and His host of heavenly beings.  So there is a spiritual war behind the earthly war, with spirit beings as well as human beings involved.  It is indeed the consummate battle between good and evil, far greater than what human minds, even the most devout of believers, are able to envision in the terms presented to us in the Bible (which is not a criticism of the Bible).

What, then, could these deluded kings of the earth be fighting against, and with what?  If there is a battle, then there must be combat of some sort ... or a condition that will lead to the destruction we associate with the name Armageddon.  How could the armies of the earth ruled by demon-led kings actually enter into a battle with God?

We need to travel back to Genesis momentarily and see that Satan never attempted to attack God personally. No, Satan chose man, God’s highest creation (a moral being in human flesh) as the pawn of his warfare against God, and his methods have never changed throughout human history. 

Satan has thus deceived both the kings of the earth and their subjects, mankind in general (except for God’s elect) into denying God and disobeying His every commandment and statute given for man’s benefit.  What this produces, of course, is the total breakdown of all political, religious, social, moral and economic structures that hold the world, such as it is, together with some form of order.  The result is the most ungodly chaos the world system has ever known or beheld.  After the great slaughter of Satan’s earthly followers, an angel invites the birds to a feast consisting of the carcasses of the slain.  (God is also the Master Ecologist.)

After Armageddon, the next judgment is upon the “great harlot” known as Mystery Babylon.  If we look at the history of Babylon, we will find quite easily that it was in Babylon (successor to Sumeria) that we find the beginnings of corrupt politics, false religion, social inequalities, immorality of every sort, and greedy commerce. Those, according to the commentary, are the elements of this world system that are devastated at Armageddon, never to be seen upon the new earth or in the new heavens, cleansed of all evil for eternity.

God, at whom no missile was ever fired, is pictured as seated on a great white horse (rulership) from which He, as the righteous King, both judges and makes war.  (Rev. 19:11) Now the war is over, all that is left is the final judgment of the wicked.

The war is one-sided in God’s favor.  That is not a Hollywood view with intricate special effects, it is God’s word as to the absolute rulership of God over His creation, that which He initiated when it is written “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1)

However, in the Bible’s story about Armageddon, there is no narrative as to the war itself.  None.  The rebels are gathered together to make war against God; there are voices, lightnings, thunders, and a great earthquake heretofore unknown to the earth.  Then it’s over.  Yet the wicked are dead, and the power of death is contained not in nuclear weapons but in the word of God.

Why is the battle omitted?  This writer cannot be certain. It is certain that God neither records in His word nor omits from it that which we are to know, or must not know.

Would you consider today’s earthwide breakdown of all its previous norms of human behavior as a war? Perhaps not. Or, if you believed that what is happening today is the commencement of Armageddon, would you be a fire-insurance seeker of God’s mercy?  We always have had bomb-shelter religionists who want God to come save them from disasters, then forget Him as soon as the emergency is over.  Speculation here is endless in its possibilities.

We can know from history that there have been many times when evil seemed to permeate the air and the water, the bones and the marrow of portions of the earth as a result of some egotist’s conquest. Never has the world been this populated or this joined together in world commerce and politics so that what affects one portion of the planet affects it all. 

With both Hollywood and the media jumping into the act and carelessly (and ignorantly) talking about “Armageddon” it would do us well to consider whether the commentator of long ago might have been accurate when he concluded that Armageddon would be a world breakdown and loss of the knowledge of God, hence setting itself up for any manner of self-destruct that is actually the war of God against evil.

With the increasing chaos in our world, those who are in Christ will take comfort whether today’s events are the beginning of Armageddon or not.  And the only valid question really isn’t whether this is Armageddon, but whether you are on God’s side?  When the answer is “yes” then the events that are to come will come and go, but we who are with Christ will endure forever.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 10/23/06 •
Section Revelations
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Globalization Defined

What is your personal definition of globalization? What do you feel is the greatest positive/negative aspect of globalization?

1. Corporate operatives have made the word “globalization” a potent weapon in their campaigns to consolidate power, authority and wealth; to frame and control public debate; and to DIVIDE AND CONQUER opponents.

When corporate operatives—including writers in the corporate-owned PRESS, corporate-drenched politicians and intellectuals-for-hire—use this word, THEY MEAN ONE THING for public consumption, and quite another thing for their INTERNAL PLOTTING.

Public consumption: they work hard to have people believe globalization refers to a world characterized by greater and friendlier interactions among peoples and nations, where folks are happily trading with one another, exchanging ideas, sharing quaint customs, traveling to and fro, equally enjoying the boundless prosperity which comes from “lifting barriers” to free and full expression of human wants, human aspirations and money flow. They want people to link “globalization” with some vague ideas of constant progress, eradication of poverty, planetary justice.

Within corporate boardrooms and thinktanks, inside USA government sanctums: globalization describes a privatization of the world. It is about the global corporatization of practically everything: from goods and services to water, air, health care and education; from ideas and histories to art, genes and body parts. It is about the “rule of law”—and therefore the military power of the United States of America (and its so-called “allies” in assorted multi-nation alliances like NATO, WTO, etc.) - doing the bidding of the propertied few and their giant corporations.

Globalization also is about the homogenization of everything from biology to law and jurisprudential principles; from food to films to language to sales and consumption.

Globalization, therefore, is about the corporatization of all life. It is about crushing people’s dreams of communities, regions and nations across the world of one day governing themselves. Globalization is about the end to the idea of human rights...the end to the idea of species rights, place rights-accompanied by the commodification of everything under the sun (from water to soil to space, to, of course, the sun itself).

As lawyers and propagandists well know, those who do the defining and the naming control discussion, control ideas, control rules and laws. They therefore dictate when and where police, courts and the armed forces bring their coercive power to bear. In the United States, the rule of law has enabled men of property to govern through their giant corporations. It has directed legal violence against women and men holding ideas different from what corporate operatives had in mind.

There’s nothing unique here: segregation and Jim Crow laws in the United States, along with apartheid laws in the Union of South Africa, arrayed the rule of law - and hence the armed force of government—against people of color.

2. It is regrettable that people and civic organizations around the world opposing corporate+government efforts to control and homogenize the Cosmos use the word “globalization” and words like “free trade.”

A new abomination in this part of the world is what corporate+government advocates are calling a ”FREE TRADE Agreement of the Americas.” But this is not an agreement about “free trade.” It is a CORPORATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AGREEMENT...a corporate governance agreement. And so every time an opponent publishes a book or pamphlet denouncing this agreement and calls it a “free trade” issue, corporate operatives win a great victory.

Every time opponents say that the appropriate response to “free trade” is “fair trade,” they reinforce the corporate idea that this controversy is about “trade,” and not about dictatorship by the few who run global corporations.

Let us reject all corporate language—which is, after all, the language of deception and sales. We can speak clearly and simply about how laws advantaging corporate interests over human rights are fundamentally illegitimate, unjust, anti-democratic. This would make it easier for people everywhere to see that each time agglomerations of property organized as corporations increase their authority under law, they exterminate people’s rights.

If we frame issues in the context of democracy and legitimacy, people will be better able to put corporate operatives and pimping politicians on the defensive. People would be helping one another see that communities and nations have many choices when fashioning the rules for living in harmony with one another, with other species, and with the Earth.

3. As for me and my work with the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD): I do not use the word “globalization” except to define it as I did above. I do not define myself as “anti-globalization.” I do talk about the “global corporatization” being imposed by a very small minority, and encourage activist efforts which nurture democracy, self-governance, biological and cultural diversity.

I favor greater contact and interaction among people of the world. I favor democracy and self-governance, public ownership of the commons and clear public authority over necessities like energy, water, education, health care, food, etc. I believe that people in different communities and nations should be able to trade with one another. But I do not believe that any community or nation or corporation should have the authority under law to dictate rules to other communities and other nations.

People around the world are increasingly being instructed that public decisionmaking is less “efficient” than corporations’ private decrees (gussied up as “market decisions"). But surely there is ample evidence that public decisionmaking invariably leads to wiser and fairer results than fiats by self-appointed big shots of commerce, finance, industry and bellicosity.

In the United States, corporations wield greater rights under law than people do. Corporations successfully claim constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. They use the protection of government to deny these rights to their employees.

Corporations also successfully claim constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law. But these rights were written into our constitution by radical activists seeking to enable all human beings to be part of the “self-governing people” so that they could use elections, lawmaking, jurisprudence and education to prevent tyrants from running the country.

To grant constitutional rights to property organized as corporations is to establish a rule of law which makes it easy for the few to tyrannize the many.

[It is my understanding that the constitution of the Union of South Africa—probably one of the most freedom-inspiring and human liberty - protecting constitution in the world—explicitly grants citizenship rights—and therefore constitutional powers --- to corporations. Is this true?] 1

Today my country, your country and the Earth face a corporate holocaust against human and Earthly rights. I call their efforts a holocaust because when giant corporations wield human rights backed by constitutions and the law (and therefore enforced by police, the courts, and armed forces)—and sanctioned by cultural norms, the rights of people, other species and the Earth are annihilated.

4. In sum: globalization as conceived and implemented by leaders of giant corporations and their politicians is about domination over the many by the few, protected (and camouflaged) by the rule of law. Such domination has been the reality in my country since its founding in 1787, despite all the propaganda you may have heard to the contrary.

People across the world are struggling to substitute their own visions of democracy and self-governance and enough for the relentless destructions that will be guaranteed by corporate dominion over the Earth. Such struggles cannot be won using the language, values, tools, and methods of our corporate oppressors.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 10/04/06 •
Section Revelations
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home

Sunday, September 24, 2006

A Nuclear Dawn in the Gulf

While IRAN continues play a game of cat-and-mouse over its nuclear ambitions, its Arab neighbors have discussed the possibility of a joint atomic energy program.

Egypt’s nuclear research center in Inshas north of Cairo is the only working reactor in the Arab world.

As Iran tries to buy time in its dispute with the international community over its nuclear program, the Arab world’s interest in atomic energy is apparently growing.

The secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Abdul Rahman al Attiyah, recently called on the “Arab nation” to work “together on a nuclear program,” to prevent being left behind as others in the region—namely Iran, which is Persian and sometimes at odds with its neighbors -pushed ahead with atomic research.

Attiyah’s call points to a shift in policy. Arab governments in the past have criticized both Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s (officially nonexistent) atomic program, while arguing for a nuclear-free Middle East and swearing off plans to pursue the bomb.

Of course, Attiyah and other Arab leaders say they want nuclear power only for civilian purposes—but so does Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The mere suggestion of “nuclear cooperation at an Arab level” therefore raises fears in the West of an arms race.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have all signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as an agreement that bans them from all forms of uranium enrichment. Western countries would naturally like to keep those agreements intact. But Nicole Stracke, from the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, warns that “If the Gulf Cooperation Council decides to pursue a nuclear initiative it could mean Saudi Arabia might rethink its participation in those agreements.”

There have been several attempts to develop an “Arab bomb” since the 1960s. Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program in Iraq was effectively ended by an Israeli air strike on a reactor in 1981. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nuclear program in December 2003 in negotiations with the United States to rehabilitate his international status. Since the Middle East is awash in oil, the demand for new technologies has been low, and the only Arab nation with a working research reactor at the moment is Egypt.

SOURCE

Posted by Elvis on 09/24/06 •
Section Revelations
View (0) comment(s) or add a new one
Printable viewLink to this article
Home
Page 50 of 53 pages « First  <  48 49 50 51 52 >  Last »

Statistics

Total page hits 8813752
Page rendered in 1.0876 seconds
41 queries executed
Debug mode is off
Total Entries: 3139
Total Comments: 337
Most Recent Entry: 10/19/2018 10:34 am
Most Recent Comment on: 01/02/2016 09:13 pm
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 9
Total anonymous users: 0
The most visitors ever was 114 on 10/26/2017 04:23 am


Email Us

Home

Members:
Login | Register
Resumes | Members

In memory of the layed off workers of AT&T

Today's Diversion

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein

Search


Advanced Search

Sections

Calendar

October 2018
S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Must Read

Most recent entries

RSS Feeds

Today's News

ARS Technica

External Links

Elvis Picks

BLS Pages

Favorites

All Posts

Archives

RSS


Creative Commons License


Support Bloggers' Rights