<Lord Oxburgh Warns Oil Demand To Outstrip Supply The Oil Drum Talking Energy in Corcaigh (or "Cork" as you probably know it)>

247 comments on Greenspan Claims Iraq War Was Really for Oil

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

SacredCowTipper on September 15, 2007 - 11:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

So lets see ... a bank run in Britain ... the former chairman of the Fed speaks up about the Bush administration ... and how much was the gigantic put on the European market?

Something wicked this way comes ... we heard the tremors in advance, but someone knew.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
rlaws on September 16, 2007 - 3:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Care to expand on this comment? What exactly were the first and last events?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
marcosdumay on September 16, 2007 - 1:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

1) Northen Rock bank, at UK had problems (yesterday's top news here).

2) The current top news.

3) The EU Central Bank have just trow a few bilion euros to save Northen Rock (again, you can find that at yesterday's DrumBeat).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mbkennel on September 16, 2007 - 4:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

One more:

B-52's "accidentally" loaded with nuclear weapons inserted in their delivery system.

Against signed US treaties; airborne alert of nuclear weapons was canceled in 1968.

In other words, pilots in combat aircraft have not carried live nuclear weapons for decades. Merely putting them on a B-52 as opposed to a secured cargo container would be an extraordinary event, and furthermore the pilots of the bomber would have been instantly alerted by their display as to the status and kind of every munition.

People who have experience dealing with USAF procedures previously have written on blogs and forums at their utter incredulity at the official "accidental" explanation; that there is no possible way this was an accident, and that the safety and procedural checks are immense and stupendously redundant, requring multiple authorizations and serial number checks

And yes, apparently six warheads left. Five were found.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will on September 16, 2007 - 4:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Given all of the supposed safeguards (and I believe they are numerous), and given the incident was entirely within established military operations...

How did this event become public? (who leaked it)

Or perhaps:

Why did this event become public? (why the leak)

I'm not looking for a conspiracy rant, but some educated opinions would be appreciated.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
new account on September 16, 2007 - 6:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top



According to the initial news report the source was one or more military officers:

Commander disciplined for nuclear mistake

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Sep 7, 2007 19:02:15 EDT

The Air Force continued handing out disciplinary actions in response to the six nuclear warheads mistakenly flown on a B-52 Stratofortress bomber from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30. The squadron commander in charge of Minot’s munitions crews was relieved of all duties pending the investigation.

It was originally reported that five nuclear warheads were transported, but officers who tipped Military Times to the incident who have asked to remain anonymous since they are not authorized to discuss the incident, have since updated that number to six.


http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_nuclear_warhead_070905/



Other comments on the web suggest that they reported it because of thier concern over: 1) unauthorized movement of nuclear weapons; 2) concern with personnel outside the regular chain of command seeking to bypass normal checks on weapon movements for purposes unknown.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dissident on September 16, 2007 - 7:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Incredible. This is the "Office of Special Plans" racket all over again. Americans need to wake up that the current administration is composed of dangerous kooks.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alanisthename on September 16, 2007 - 5:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What we have in Northern Rock is an absolutely classic bank run. The first, old, story is about how people don't believe a word they are told: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6996653.stm

The second, new twist, is about how internet access can be turned off. Depositors who have a internet only account can be ignored: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6997197.stm

Payouts are being slowed - a classic technique to buy time in a bank run. People who get to the front of the queue are being given checks but how good are they?

What matters now is the quality of the loan book (mostly mortgages). If it's ok, and IF someone actually wants to increase their exposure to the UK mortgage market, then Northern Rock will be taken over Monday. If not, then we have a full blown secondary banking crisis which will spread to other building societies.

Remember. Panic early because the exit isn't big enough for all.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
musashi on September 16, 2007 - 2:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually the quality of the loan book may be irrelevant even if decent, the problem is that they need to fund it with short term loans in a saturated or falling market.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

^^
Sunday entry

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

247 comments on Greenspan Claims Iraq War Was Really for Oil

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version