is filling out his status report.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
profiteer11: not as bizarre as one might think. Rats have short gestation periods and are rather clean animals, even though they’re the quintessential scavengers. If raised in a controlled environment, they’d probably produce a higher quality of meat for fewer expenses than the habitual meat animals. Look how many folks eat pig meat. Pigs compete with humans for the same core foodstuffs.
It comes down to associations. Something like 14% of all dogs raised in Korea is for human consumption. This is served mainly in restaurants and trails duck and chicken and pork and even beef for meat consumption percentage. I bring this up, since some folks are as fond of their pet rats as others are of their pet dogs.
There’s a lot to be said for an essential vegetarian diet for pure practicality.
FS4s: just for you girl:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=48869336
Snick! Snick!
The value that John Nano carefully planned is coming to fruition. I'm glad that I voted for him and his strategy.
BIOD has blasted onto my radar unlike anything in a while. This is a major reason:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/story/10719163/1/14-biotech-stocks-facing-fda-approval.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
I'm not presently in this entity. However, it hit high marks in my screeners. The only uneasy note is having topped the upper BB. This is not as crucial with the volume jump.
FJ: excellent article; do you even need a bird dog when you go hunting?
FS4s: see??? We're freaking rebels. Snick! Snick!
FS4s: actually, I liked this short survey better than most. I was almost off the chart, being a straight-up-top libertarian. Anarchocapitalist wasn't an option.
GEO928: watch it; I heartily agree with that post.
Some "political" humor:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=48798462
GEO928: the stupendous percentage of Viet Nam Era soldiers was drafted.
We are the unwilling,
Led by the unqualified,
Doing the unnecessary,
For the ungrateful.
In their minds, it wasn't their war. Still, Amerikkkan bluster often prevailed in interactions with the Vietnamese people. I pointed out to blacks that they were treating the Vietnamese in the same manner that they called discrimination, back home. Thankfully, most recognized it and changed.
Most of us were shocked at the initial reports of The Mai Lai Massacre. I can understand the frustration that many grunts went through that could have caused the company to snap. Still, it was people, at the top, who were really responsible. The bombings and the H & Is, etc. were conducted by boys who didn’t usually know the end result. The onus fell on the brass. As time progressed, the rank and file soldiers often rebelled at what they were being ordered to do. They knew that it was morally wrong.
Fast-forward to the all-volunteer military and we have a different genre of individuals. They aren’t that much different from Blackwater mercenaries. History and the availability of information should have told them that they were carrying on Amerikkkan imperialism, NOT fighting for Amerikkkan freedom, liberty, and safety. Thus we hold the soldiers, in The Middle East, to an accountability that wasn’t wholly directed at the ‘Nam soldiers. Yes, they are still naïve kids. However, it cannot attenuate the outcry for the collective actions. The no-conscience actions by some tingles the spine with flashes of Big Brother. Where is the line drawn? Just what is being justified? How could Iraq have been a threat to The U.S. when we funded them for ten years and supplied them with a laundry list of weaponry while they carried out State Department dirty work upon the sovereign nation of Iran? The history of Amerikkan manipulation into the internal affairs of Iran dates back decades. Those damn SOBs just won’t subscribe to a central bank, unlike the recent conformity of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ooops, I’ve said too much, but the skunk’s out of the bag.
GEO928: I was in Viet Nam and I was front-line combat. The Army violated its own claimed strategy that was taught to us during basic training/boot camp. The tactics that the military used and CIA involvement alienated so many folks quite favorable toward The U.S., even including Ho Chi Minh.
The whole Viet Nam thing was to protect and solidify the drug distribution operation that was bought from France. What was the result? Why the whole area turned to Marxist/Leninism. There are no coincidences: just the illusion of coincidence. The State Department was a Red Nest and its key positions were filled from operatives of The CFR. War may be hell, but traitorism is grievous torture. Monsanto and friends permanently harmed so many front-line U.S. military troops. A laundry list of Amerikkkan corporations sold weaponry and supplies to China and the Soviet Union. (A simple perusal of Current Export Bulletin Number 941, Supplemental to the Comprehensive Export Schedule, published by the U.S. department of Commerce, Bureau of International Commerce, office of Export control, dated October 12, 1966, verifies this.) These were used to kill or maim American boys.
55K innocent U.S. boys, aged 18-23 mainly, who were compelled and/or conned by the feral gumit to do the bidding of corporate profits, are dead, along with hundreds of thousands who have permanent disabilities. Then there are all the atrocities that were poured upon the Viet Nam populace. What is the result? Why U.S. corporations openly trade with Viet Nam.
What did the sheople learn? Why to accept greater lies than the ones that brought us into Viet Nam, including the admitted false-flag operation, commonly known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
This is why I am a patriotic warrior. My government and the corporations that it is married to are my enemies. They fear my pen.
Ex Blockman: good; you're smiling. Actually, I don't know it and I've taken many guesses throughout the years. It's a joke that supposedly no one has heard of. This is my best guess:
A priest tries to board a zeppelin cruise in Belgium, with a toaster under his arm. He is told, "Sorry, this is a non-smoking flight." He protests, "But it's not plugged in." The reply was, "I know; none of us are."
We can have a contest for the best guess.
Ex Blockman: please don't delete; I'm not offended. There are so many things way ahead to actually be offended about. I was offering my insight.
Did you hear the one about the priest, the toaster, and the zeppelin?
Ex Blockman: earmarks do not necessarily add to the total financial commitment of a spending bill. They do identify where a tiny percentage of the money is "earmarked" to go towards. Some earmarks are highly reasonable and definitely transparent. Silly earmarked projects give earmarks a bad name. It then becomes throwing out the baby with the bath water. Earmarks and pork are not translatable. The worst pork is hidden.
Destitute and desperate, Icelanders opt for exile
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100407/lf_afp/icelandeconomysocialimmigration_20100407153600
GEO928: Moi ... extreme ...??? You must have me confused with some moderate. Snick! Snick! The "law" that a corporation is "accountable" to is the Commercial Code. A similar disaster happened in Rome. What you may think of as the-law-of-the-land courts, list you as a corporate entity: your strawman identity.
I vigorous deny that our laws are of "Judeo-Christian heritage." They are based on secret society code and of common law. The common law origins have been wiped out for all practicality.
One will not find an artificial person in The Bible. A corporation is a usurper of natural law. Therefore it can never be moral. It may have officers who decide to act in a moral manner, but the Frankensteinesque creation can never be moral.
The US was behind the Rwandan Genocide: Installing a US Protectorate in Central Africa
16 Years Ago. 7 April 1994
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, April 7, 2010
- 2003-05-08
Originally written in May 2000, the following text is Part II of Chapter 7 entitled "Economic Genocide in Rwanda", of the Second Edition of The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order , Global Outlook, Shanty Bay, Ont. 2003. This text updates the author's analysis on Rwanda written in 1995 , which was published in the first edition of Globalization of Poverty, TWN and Zed Books, Penang and London, 1997.
This text is in part based on the results of a study conducted by the author together with Belgian economist Pierre Galand on the use of Rwanda's 1990-94 external debt to finance the military and paramilitary.
The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.
From the outset of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, Washington's hidden agenda consisted in establishing an American sphere of influence in a region historically dominated by France and Belgium. America's design was to displace France by supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front and by arming and equipping its military arm, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)
From the mid-1980s, the Kampala government under President Yoweri Musaveni had become Washington's African showpiece of "democracy". Uganda had also become a launchpad for US sponsored guerilla movements into the Sudan, Rwanda and the Congo. Major General Paul Kagame had been head of military intelligence in the Ugandan Armed Forces; he had been trained at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College (CGSC) in Leavenworth, Kansas which focuses on warfighting and military strategy. Kagame returned from Leavenworth to lead the RPA, shortly after the 1990 invasion.
Prior to the outbreak of the Rwandan civil war, the RPA was part of the Ugandan Armed Forces. Shortly prior to the October 1990 invasion of Rwanda, military labels were switched. From one day to the next, large numbers of Ugandan soldiers joined the ranks of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). Throughout the civil war, the RPA was supplied from United People's Defense Forces (UPDF) military bases inside Uganda. The Tutsi commissioned officers in the Ugandan army took over positions in the RPA. The October 1990 invasion by Ugandan forces was presented to public opinion as a war of liberation by a Tutsi led guerilla army.
Militarization of Uganda
The militarization of Uganda was an integral part of US foreign policy. The build-up of the Ugandan UPDF Forces and of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) had been supported by the US and Britain. The British had provided military training at the Jinja military base:
"From 1989 onwards, America supported joint RPF [Rwandan Patriotic Front]-Ugandan attacks upon Rwanda... There were at least 56 'situation reports' in [US] State Department files in 1991… As American and British relations with Uganda and the RPF strengthened, so hostilities between Uganda and Rwanda escalated… By August 1990 the RPF had begun preparing an invasion with the full knowledge and approval of British intelligence.
Troops from Rwanda's RPA and Uganda's UPDF had also supported John Garang's People's Liberation Army in its secessionist war in southern Sudan. Washington was firmly behind these initiatives with covert support provided by the CIA.
Moreover, under the Africa Crisis Reaction Initiative (ACRI), Ugandan officers were also being trained by US Special Forces in collaboration with a mercenary outfit, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI) which was on contract with the US Department of State. MPRI had provided similar training to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and the Croatian Armed Forces during the Yugoslav civil war and more recently to the Colombian Military in the context of Plan Colombia.
Militarization and the Ugandan External Debt
The buildup of the Ugandan external debt under President Musaveni coincided chronologically with the Rwandan and Congolese civil wars. With the accession of Musaveni to the presidency in 1986, the Ugandan external debt stood at 1.3 billion dollars. With the gush of fresh money, the external debt spiraled overnight, increasing almost threefold to 3.7 billion by 1997. In fact, Uganda had no outstanding debt to the World Bank at the outset of its "economic recovery program". By 1997, it owed almost 2 billion dollars solely to the World Bank.
Where did the money go? The foreign loans to the Musaveni government had been tagged to support the country's economic and social reconstruction. In the wake of a protracted civil war, the IMF sponsored "economic stabilization program" required massive budget cuts of all civilian programs.
The World Bank was responsible for monitoring the Ugandan budget on behalf of the creditors. Under the "public expenditure review" (PER), the government was obliged to fully reveal the precise allocation of its budget. In other words, every single category of expenditure --including the budget of the Ministry of Defense-- was open to scrutiny by the World Bank. Despite the austerity measures (imposed solely on "civilian" expenditures), the donors had allowed defense spending to increase without impediment.
Part of the money tagged for civilian programs had been diverted into funding the United People's Defense Force (UPDF) which in turn was involved in military operations in Rwanda and the Congo. The Ugandan external debt was being used to finance these military operations on behalf of Washington with the country and its people ultimately footing the bill. In fact by curbing social expenditures, the austerity measures had facilitated the reallocation of State of revenue in favor of the Ugandan military.
Financing both Sides in the Civil War
A similar process of financing military expenditure from the external debt had occurred in Rwanda under the Habyarimana government. In a cruel irony, both sides in the civil war were financed by the same donors institutions with the World Bank acting as a Watchdog.
The Habyarimana regime had at its disposal an arsenal of military equipment, including 83mm missile launchers, French made Blindicide, Belgian and German made light weaponry, and automatic weapons such as kalachnikovs made in Egypt, China and South Africa [as well as ... armored AML-60 and M3 armored vehicles. While part of these purchases had been financed by direct military aid from France, the influx of development loans from the World Bank's soft lending affiliate the International Development Association (IDA), the African Development Fund (AFD), the European Development Fund (EDF) as well as from Germany, the United States, Belgium and Canada had been diverted into funding the military and Interhamwe militia.
A detailed investigation of government files, accounts and correspondence conducted in Rwanda in 1996-97 by the author --together with Belgian economist Pierre Galand-- confirmed that many of the arms purchases had been negotiated outside the framework of government to government military aid agreements through various intermediaries and private arms dealers. These transactions --recorded as bona fide government expenditures-- had nonetheless been included in the State budget which was under the supervision of the World Bank. Large quantities of machetes and other items used in the 1994 ethnic massacres --routinely classified as "civilian commodities" -- had been imported through regular trading channels.
According to the files of the National Bank of Rwanda (NBR), some of these imports had been financed in violation of agreements signed with the donors. According to NBR records of import invoices, approximately one million machetes had been imported through various channels including Radio Mille Collines, an organization linked to the Interhamwe militia and used to foment ethnic hatred.
The money had been earmarked by the donors to support Rwanda's economic and social development. It was clearly stipulated that funds could not be used to import: "military expenditures on arms, ammunition and other military material". In fact, the loan agreement with the World Bank's IDA was even more stringent. The money could not be used to import civilian commodities such as fuel, foodstuffs, medicine, clothing and footwear "destined for military or paramilitary use". The records of the NBR nonetheless confirm that the Habyarimana government used World Bank money to finance the import of machetes which had been routinely classified as imports of "civilian commodities."
An army of consultants and auditors had been sent in by World Bank to assess the Habyarimana government's "policy performance" under the loan agreement. The use of donor funds to import machetes and other material used in the massacres of civilians did not show up in the independent audit commissioned by the government and the World Bank. (under the IDA loan agreement. (IDA Credit Agreement. 2271-RW). In 1993, the World Bank decided to suspend the disbursement of the second installment of its IDA loan. There had been, according to the World Bank mission unfortunate "slip-ups" and "delays" in policy implementation. The free market reforms were no longer "on track", the conditionalities --including the privatization of state assets-- had not been met. The fact that the country was involved in a civil war was not even mentioned. How the money was spent was never an issue.
Whereas the World Bank had frozen the second installment (tranche) of the IDA loan, the money granted in 1991 had been deposited in a Special Account at the Banque Bruxelles Lambert in Brussels. This account remained open and accessible to the former regime (in exile), two months after the April 1994 ethnic massacres.
Postwar Cover-up
In the wake of the civil war, the World Bank sent a mission to Kigali with a view to drafting a so-called loan "Completion Report". This was a routine exercise, largely focussing on macro-economic rather than political issues. The report acknowledged that "the war effort prompted the [former] government to increase substantially spending, well beyond the fiscal targets agreed under the SAP. The misappropriation of World Bank money was not mentioned. Instead the Habyarimana government was praised for having "made genuine major efforts-- especially in 1991-- to reduce domestic and external financial imbalances, eliminate distortions hampering export growth and diversification and introduce market based mechanisms for resource allocation...", The massacres of civilians were not mentioned; from the point of view of the donors, "nothing had happened". In fact the World Bank completion report failed to even acknowledge the existence of a civil war prior to April 1994.
In the wake of the Civil War: Reinstating the IMF's Deadly Economic Reforms
In 1995, barely a year after the 1994 ethnic massacres. Rwanda's external creditors entered into discussions with the Tutsi led RPF government regarding the debts of the former regime which had been used to finance the massacres. The RPF decided to fully recognize the legitimacy of the "odious debts" of the 1990-94. RPF strongman Vice-President Paul Kagame [now President] instructed the Cabinet not to pursue the matter nor to approach the World Bank. Under pressure from Washington, the RPF was not to enter into any form of negotiations, let alone an informal dialogue with the donors.
The legitimacy of the wartime debts was never questioned. Instead, the creditors had carefully set up procedures to ensure their prompt reimbursement. In 1998 at a special donors' meeting in Stockholm, a Multilateral Trust Fund of 55.2 million dollars was set up under the banner of postwar reconstruction. In fact, none of this money was destined for Rwanda. It had been earmarked to service Rwanda's "odious debts" with the World Bank (--i.e. IDA debt), the African Development Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
In other words, "fresh money" --which Rwanda will eventually have to reimburse-- was lent to enable Rwanda to service the debts used to finance the massacres. Old loans had been swapped for new debts under the banner of post-war reconstruction. The "odious debts" had been whitewashed, they had disappeared from the books. The creditor's responsibility had been erased. Moreover, the scam was also conditional upon the acceptance of a new wave of IMF-World Bank reforms.
Post War "Reconstruction and Reconciliation"
Bitter economic medicine was imposed under the banner of "reconstruction and reconciliation". In fact the IMF post-conflict reform package was far stringent than that imposed at the outset of the civil war in 1990. While wages and employment had fallen to abysmally low levels, the IMF had demanded a freeze on civil service wages alongside a massive retrenchment of teachers and health workers. The objective was to "restore macro-economic stability". A downsizing of the civil service was launched. Civil service wages were not to exceed 4.5 percent of GDP, so-called "unqualified civil servants" (mainly teachers) were to be removed from the State payroll.
Meanwhile, the country's per capita income had collapsed from $360 (prior to the war) to $140 in 1995. State revenues had been tagged to service the external debt. Kigali's Paris Club debts were rescheduled in exchange for "free market" reforms. Remaining State assets were sold off to foreign capital at bargain prices.
The Tutsi led RPF government rather than demanding the cancellation of Rwanda's odious debts, had welcomed the Bretton Woods institutions with open arms. They needed the IMF "greenlight" to boost the development of the military.
Despite the austerity measures, defense expenditure continued to grow. The 1990-94 pattern had been reinstated. The development loans granted since 1995 were not used to finance the country's economic and social development. Outside money had again been diverted into financing a military buildup, this time of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). And this build-up of the RPA occurred in the period immediately preceding the outbreak of civil war in former Zaire.
Civil War in the Congo
Following the installation of a US client regime in Rwanda in 1994, US trained Rwandan and Ugandan forces intervened in former Zaire --a stronghold of French and Belgian influence under President Mobutu Sese Seko. Amply documented, US special operations troops -- mainly Green Berets from the 3rd Special Forces Group based at Fort Bragg, N.C.-- had been actively training the RPA. This program was a continuation of the covert support and military aid provided to the RPA prior to 1994. In turn, the tragic outcome of the Rwandan civil war including the refugee crisis had set the stage for the participation of Ugandan and Rwandan RPA in the civil war in the Congo:
"Washington pumped military aid into Kagame's army, and U.S. Army Special Forces and other military personnel trained hundreds of Rwandan troops. But Kagame and his colleagues had designs of their own. While the Green Berets trained the Rwandan Patriotic Army, that army was itself secretly training Zairian rebels.… [In] Rwanda, U.S. officials publicly portrayed their engagement with the army as almost entirely devoted to human rights training. But the Special Forces exercises also covered other areas, including combat skills… Hundreds of soldiers and officers were enrolled in U.S. training programs, both in Rwanda and in the United States… [C]onducted by U.S. Special Forces, Rwandans studied camouflage techniques, small-unit movement, troop-leading procedures, soldier-team development, [etc]… And while the training went on, U.S. officials were meeting regularly with Kagame and other senior Rwandan leaders to discuss the continuing military threat faced by the [former Rwandan] government [in exile] from inside Zaire… Clearly, the focus of Rwandan-U.S. military discussion had shifted from how to build human rights to how to combat an insurgency… With [Ugandan President] Museveni's support, Kagame conceived a plan to back a rebel movement in eastern Zaire [headed by Laurent Desire Kabila] ... The operation was launched in October 1996, just a few weeks after Kagame's trip to Washington and the completion of the Special Forces training mission… Once the war [in the Congo] started, the United States provided "political assistance" to Rwanda,… An official of the U.S. Embassy in Kigali traveled to eastern Zaire numerous times to liaise with Kabila. Soon, the rebels had moved on. Brushing off the Zairian army with the help of the Rwandan forces, they marched through Africa's third-largest nation in seven months, with only a few significant military engagements. Mobutu fled the capital, Kinshasa, in May 1997, and Kabila took power, changing the name of the country to Congo…U.S. officials deny that there were any U.S. military personnel with Rwandan troops in Zaire during the war, although unconfirmed reports of a U.S. advisory presence have circulated in the region since the war's earliest days.
American Mining Interests
At stake in these military operations in the Congo were the extensive mining resources of Eastern and Southern Zaire including strategic reserves of cobalt -- of crucial importance for the US defense industry. During the civil war several months before the downfall of Mobutu, Laurent Desire Kabila basedin Goma, Eastern Zaire had renegotiated the mining contracts with several US and British mining companies including American Mineral Fields (AMF), a company headquartered in President Bill Clinton's hometown of Hope, Arkansas.
Meanwhile back in Washington, IMF officials were busy reviewing Zaire's macro-economic situation. No time was lost. The post-Mobutu economic agenda had already been decided upon. In a study released in April 1997 barely a month before President Mobutu Sese Seko fled the country, the IMF had recommended "halting currency issue completely and abruptly" as part of an economic recovery programme. And a few months later upon assuming power in Kinshasa, the new government of Laurent Kabila Desire was ordered by the IMF to freeze civil service wages with a view to "restoring macro-economic stability." Eroded by hyperinflation, the average public sector wage had fallen to 30,000 new Zaires (NZ) a month, the equivalent of one U.S. dollar.
The IMF's demands were tantamount to maintaining the entire population in abysmal poverty. They precluded from the outset a meaningful post-war economic reconstruction, thereby contributing to fuelling the continuation of the Congolese civil war in which close to 2 million people have died.
Concluding Remarks
The civil war in Rwanda was a brutal struggle for political power between the Hutu-led Habyarimana government supported by France and the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) backed financially and militarily by Washington. Ethnic rivalries were used deliberately in the pursuit of geopolitical objectives. Both the CIA and French intelligence were involved.
In the words of former Cooperation Minister Bernard Debré in the government of Prime Minister Henri Balladur:
"What one forgets to say is that, if France was on one side, the Americans were on the other, arming the Tutsis who armed the Ugandans. I don't want to portray a showdown between the French and the Anglo-Saxons, but the truth must be told."
In addition to military aid to the warring factions, the influx of development loans played an important role in "financing the conflict." In other words, both the Ugandan and Rwanda external debts were diverted into supporting the military and paramilitary. Uganda's external debt increased by more than 2 billion dollars, --i.e. at a significantly faster pace than that of Rwanda (an increase of approximately 250 million dollars from 1990 to 1994). In retrospect, the RPA -- financed by US military aid and Uganda's external debt-- was much better equipped and trained than the Forces Armées du Rwanda (FAR) loyal to President Habyarimana. From the outset, the RPA had a definite military advantage over the FAR.
According to the testimony of Paul Mugabe, a former member of the RPF High Command Unit, Major General Paul Kagame had personally ordered the shooting down of President Habyarimana's plane with a view to taking control of the country. He was fully aware that the assassination of Habyarimana would unleash "a genocide" against Tutsi civilians. RPA forces had been fully deployed in Kigali at the time the ethnic massacres took place and did not act to prevent it from happening:
The decision of Paul Kagame to shoot Pres. Habyarimana's aircraft was the catalyst of an unprecedented drama in Rwandan history, and Major-General Paul Kagame took that decision with all awareness. Kagame's ambition caused the extermination of all of our families: Tutsis, Hutus and Twas. We all lost. Kagame's take-over took away the lives of a large number of Tutsis and caused the unnecessary exodus of millions of Hutus, many of whom were innocent under the hands of the genocide ringleaders. Some naive Rwandans proclaimed Kagame as their savior, but time has demonstrated that it was he who caused our suffering and misfortunes… Can Kagame explain to the Rwandan people why he sent Claude Dusaidi and Charles Muligande to New York and Washington to stop the UN military intervention which was supposed to be sent and protect the Rwandan people from the genocide? The reason behind avoiding that military intervention was to allow the RPF leadership the takeover of the Kigali Government and to show the world that they - the RPF - were the ones who stopped the genocide. We will all remember that the genocide occurred during three months, even though Kagame has said that he was capable of stopping it the first week after the aircraft crash. Can Major-General Paul Kagame explain why he asked to MINUAR to leave Rwandan soil within hours while the UN was examining the possibility of increasing its troops in Rwanda in order to stop the genocide?
Paul Mugabe's testimony regarding the shooting down of Habyarimana's plane ordered by Kagame is corroborated by intelligence documents and information presented to the French parliamentary inquiry. Major General Paul Kagame was an instrument of Washington. The loss of African lives did not matter. The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.
Despite the good diplomatic relations between Paris and Washington and the apparent unity of the Western military alliance, it was an undeclared war between France and America. By supporting the build up of Ugandan and Rwandan forces and by directly intervening in the Congolese civil war, Washington also bears a direct responsibility for the ethnic massacres committed in the Eastern Congo including several hundred thousand people who died in refugee camps.
US policy-makers were fully aware that a catastrophe was imminent. In fact four months before the genocide, the CIA had warned the US State Department in a confidential brief that the Arusha Accords would fail and "that if hostilities resumed, then upward of half a million people would die". This information was withheld from the United Nations: "it was not until the genocide was over that information was passed to Maj.-Gen. Dallaire [who was in charge of UN forces in Rwanda]."
Washington's objective was to displace France, discredit the French government (which had supported the Habyarimana regime) and install an Anglo-American protectorate in Rwanda under Major General Paul Kagame. Washington deliberately did nothing to prevent the ethnic massacres.
When a UN force was put forth, Major General Paul Kagame sought to delay its implementation stating that he would only accept a peacekeeping force once the RPA was in control of Kigali. Kagame "feared [that] the proposed United Nations force of more than 5,000 troops… [might] intervene to deprive them [the RPA] of victory". Meanwhile the Security Council after deliberation and a report from Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali decided to postpone its intervention.
The 1994 Rwandan "genocide" served strictly strategic and geopolitical objectives. The ethnic massacres were a stumbling blow to France's credibility which enabled the US to establish a neocolonial foothold in Central Africa. From a distinctly Franco-Belgian colonial setting, the Rwandan capital Kigali has become --under the expatriate Tutsi led RPF government-- distinctly Anglo-American. English has become the dominant language in government and the private sector. Many private businesses owned by Hutus were taken over in 1994 by returning Tutsi expatriates. The latter had been exiled in Anglophone Africa, the US and Britain.
The Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) functions in English and Kinyarwanda, the University previously linked to France and Belgium functions in English. While English had become an official language alongside French and Kinyarwanda, French political and cultural influence will eventually be erased. Washington has become the new colonial master of a francophone country.
Several other francophone countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have entered into military cooperation agreements with the US. These countries are slated by Washington to follow suit on the pattern set in Rwanda. Meanwhile in francophone West Africa, the US dollar is rapidly displacing the CFA Franc -- which is linked in a currency board arrangement to the French Treasury.
Notes (Endnote numbering as in the original chapter)
19. Written in 1999, the following text is Part II of Chapter 5 on the Second Edition of The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. The first part of chapter published in the first edition was written in 1994. Part II is in part based on a study conducted by the author and Belgian economist Pierre Galand on the use of Rwanda's 1990-94 external debt to finance the military and paramilitary.
20. Africa Direct, Submission to the UN Tribunal on Rwanda, http://www.junius.co.uk/africa- direct/tribunal.html Ibid.
21. Africa's New Look, Jane's Foreign Report, August 14, 1997.
22. Jim Mugunga, Uganda foreign debt hits Shs 4 trillion, The Monitor, Kampala, 19 February 1997.
23. Michel Chossudovsky and Pierre Galand, L'usage de la dette exterieure du Rwanda, la responsabilité des créanciers, mission report, United Nations Development Program and Government of Rwanda, Ottawa and Brussels, 1997.
24. Ibid
25. Ibid
26. ibid, the imports recorded were of the order of kg. 500.000 of machetes or approximately one million machetes.
27. Ibid
28. Ibid. See also schedule 1.2 of the Development Credit Agreement with IDA, Washington, 27 June 1991, CREDIT IDA 2271 RW.
29. Chossudovsky and Galand, op cit
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. World Bank completion report, quoted in Chossudovsky and Galand, op cit.
33. Ibid
34. Ibid
35. See World Bank, Rwanda at http://www.worldbank.org/afr/rw2.htm.
36. Ibid, italics added
37. A ceiling on the number of public employees had been set at 38,000 for 1998 down from 40,600 in 1997. See Letter of Intent of the Government of Rwanda including cover letter addressed to IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus, IMF, Washington,http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/060498.htm , 1998.
38. Ibid.
39. Lynne Duke Africans Use US Military Training in Unexpected Ways, Washington Post. July 14, 1998; p.A01.
40. Musengwa Kayaya, U.S. Company To Invest in Zaire, Pan African News, 9 May 1997.
41. International Monetary Fund, Zaire Hyperinflation 1990-1996, Washington, April 1997.
42. Alain Shungu Ngongo, Zaire-Economy: How to Survive On a Dollar a Month, International Press Service, 6 June 1996.
43. Quoted in Therese LeClerc. "Who is responsible for the genocide in Rwanda?", World Socialist website athttp://www.wsws.org/index.shtml , 29 April 1998.
44. Paul Mugabe, The Shooting Down Of The Aircraft Carrying Rwandan President Habyarimama , testimony to the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), Alexandria, Virginia, 24 April 2000.
45. Linda Melvern, Betrayal of the Century, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, 8 April 2000.
46. Ibid
47. Scott Peterson, Peacekeepers will not halt carnage, say Rwanda, rebels, Daily Telegraph, London, May 12, 1994.
Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18540
shermann7: my opinion is that corporations should not be given a charter. The concept of creating an artificial person, that has virtually no responsibility to society and to jurisprudence, removes equal protection from those of the populace, especially those who are entrepreneurs, is abhorrent.
U.S. court rules against FCC on Net neutrality
Ruling is setback for agency's push for national broadband plan
By Joelle Tessler
updated 3:16 p.m. ET, Tues., April 6, 2010
WASHINGTON - A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations and U.S. broadband expansion plans into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.
The case centers on Comcast's actions in 2007 when it interfered with an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which allows users to swap big files such as movies over the Internet. But public interest groups stressed that the ramifications of Tuesday's ruling are much broader. That's because it undercuts the FCC's ability to prevent broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers for many kinds of online services, potentially including Internet phone programs and software that runs in a Web browser.
"Today's appeals court decision means there are no protections in the law for consumers' broadband services," Gigi Sohn, co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "Companies selling Internet access are free to play favorites with content on their networks, to throttle certain applications or simply to block others."
The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.
In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans" and "will rest these policies ... on a solid legal foundation."
Comcast welcomed the decision, saying "our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation."
At the heart of the court case is Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning it from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles adopted in 2005.
But Comcast argued that the FCC order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don't have the force of regulations or law. That's one reason that Genachowski is now trying to formalize those rules.
The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.
The FCC now defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. But the FCC maintains that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services, including net neutrality rules.
Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom" to regulate without explicit legal authority.
With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision.
But both of those steps could take too long because the agency "has too many important things they have to do right away," said Ben Scott, policy director for the public interest group Free Press. Free Press was among the groups that alerted the FCC to Comcast's behavior after The Associated Press ran tests and reported that the cable company was interfering with attempts by some subscribers to share files online.
The more likely scenario, Scott believes, is that the agency will simply reclassify broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service. That, ironically, could be the worst-case outcome from the perspective of the phone and cable companies.
"Comcast swung an ax at the FCC to protest the BitTorrent order," Scott said. "And they sliced right through the FCC's arm and plunged the ax into their own back."
The battle over the FCC's legal jurisdiction comes amid a larger policy dispute over the merits of net neutrality. Backed by Internet companies such as Google Inc. and the online calling service Skype, the FCC says rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from prioritizing some traffic or degrading or services that compete with their core businesses. Indeed, BitTorrent can be used to transfer large files such as online video, which could threaten Comcast's cable TV business.
But broadband providers such as Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. argue that after spending billions of dollars on their networks, they should be able to manage their systems to offer premium services and prevent high-bandwidth applications such as BitTorrent from hogging capacity.
For its part, the FCC offered no details on its next step, but stressed that it remains committed to the principle of net neutrality.
"Today's court decision invalidated the prior commission's approach to preserving an open Internet," the agency's statement said. "But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."
moxa1: Aaaarrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh! There's a bit of clarification in this article about the megawhore, Rosa DeLauro.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17370.cfm
Iran's International Nuclear Disarmament Summit Challenges US-NATO
Officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be in attendance
Global Research, April 4, 2010
Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast says Tehran's international conference on nuclear disarmament has been widely welcomed.
According to Mehmanparast, the conference dubbed "Nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none,” will be held in Tehran on April 17th and 18th.
"Officials from various countries, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations have been invited to attend the conference," the Iranian spokesperson added.
Iran's Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Asghar Soltanieh said that senior officials form the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) will also attend the disarmament summit.
"The conference has been widely welcomed by all countries," he went on to say.
Mehmanparast further pointed out that all the countries in the world have the right to use peaceful nuclear energy.
"We believe the world must be free from nuclear weapons," he asserted.
Earlier, Mehmanparast had urged the countries which possess nuclear weapons to destroy their atomic armaments.
"We insist that all countries must be committed to nuclear disarmament," he said early February.
wall: many factors go into individual human nature. Often the least component is the individual. Every society has varying affects as to how an individual thinks, acts, reacts, and participates in that micro- and even macro-society. You cite Nomad Native American tribes and I would expand on that to include the Bushmen/Aborigines (but not limited to). In those particular societies, skills were taught and example given for responsibility. Youngsters would thirst to contribute to those societies. Shards of that appear in most societies.
However, the successes of various civilizations often carried the seeds of their downfall. There were many similar occurrences within the latter stages of The Roman Empire that carried parallels with events that led to colonists leaving England to come to these shores. It's not all that different with a predator that suddenly has all of its food provided for it. It virtually ceases its survival mentality and instincts.
People who become accustomed to ease often lose self-preservation. It's quite like a drug addict or alcoholic.
The Indians/Bushmen/Aborigines viewed the whole land as theirs and that they were the sacred guardians. Europeans, with history feudalism and their slavery to power-laden, cash-register religious organizations as their psyche, had a baby step of personal property to channel a new societietal expectation of individual and group responsibility.
While the ownership of private property is important, it has a more minor consideration in the scope of personal responsibility. The true role of private property within the colonies was an overt portent toward the corporations and the puppetized British government that the tacit serfdom of the colonists had been cut. Since, in essence, these two occurrences were at the same time, it's often difficult to delineate the one from the other.
I hope this helps from what I have gleaned from the several histories and from human nature.
In poring over the 10K, filed March 15, 2010, there's a drop in revenue, gross profit, and net profit and an addition of overall strength. This not a wannabe or a might and hope company. They're doing it WITH the prospects of even greater possibilities and certainly greater needs for their technology.
HP Michelet is a member of the board of directors of Arvarius AS, a privately held Norwegian investment company, which sold three million shares on March 18, 2010. Things like that do unnerve me a bit.
Still, I'll be looking to take a position and not just for swing trading.
wall: the personal responsibility change came by different avenues. It was really the most important for them. In one sense, the dividing up of the charter property and it becoming personal property was one of the paths toward personal responsibility. Most of the colonists realized that they were truly on their own. They certainly became anti-trading company and anti-England, while, at times, throwing out the baby with the bath water. The most disturbing was their overall lack of proper and decent interaction with the natives. I lay a good percentage of that horrid attitude upon the head of John Calvin (That's yet a different topic and one we would probably agree on most, if not all points, so it wouldn't be any fun.)
wall: your transference is noted. Let me know how the crow tastes.
“When our people were fed out of the common storehouse and labored jointly together, glad was he who could slip away from his labor or slumber over his task. He cared not, presuming that however the harvest prospered, the general storehouse must maintain him. Even the MOST HONEST among them would hardly so much true pains in a week under public ownership and common storehouse system, as now for themselves they will do in a day. So that, we reaped not so much corn from the labor of thirty as now three or four will provide for themselves.” (Captain John Smith – from his personal diary at Jamestown)
wall: Being the consummate student, that I am, hardly backs up your claim; neither does strawman arguments.
Monksdream: yeppers, remember this post?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=40249809
wall: this article demonstrates the principle of how often the truth lies between two extremes; the author being on one extreme of the spectrum.
The Plymouth and Jamestown colonies were founded under the auspices of multi-national corporations: the trading companies. The Puritans were raging madmen who believed that they were the fulfillment of Israel and that The Land of the Plumed Winged Serpent was New Canaan. They believed the Indians to be Canaanites and were to be slaughtered just as easily as proselytized. The colonists were essentially serfs of the trading companies and the rules and the provisions of the colonies were, in fact, purely socialistic, far before Marx penned The Communist Manifesto, because these concepts arose out of secret societies.
Why was there a lack of food in the colonies at first? We are supposed to believe that it was a harsh winter. Hello? Crops are grown in the spring and summer and gathered in the fall. When there is a provision to have an equal storehouse, then major motivation for personal responsibility waned and the colonists nearly died of terminal laziness. The whole system was changed, by first, Captain John Smith and later by William Bradford. The colonists were to have personal property and personal responsibility. They had neither under the socialism arranged by the trading companies. The result was the shift from scarcity to abundance. They traded even with Spain, which brought outrage of the stockholders who hated the rebellion and competition and immediately compelled the British legislature to pass The Navigation Acts; et al. Socialism has long been the ideology of choice to quickly bring about monopoly for what is more correctly fascism. The battle over dueling ideologies keeps the masses from examining the truth. BTW, the truth is easily documented in the diaries of both Bradford and Smith. Within a few years, the Jamestown Colony, in defiance over a principle of England against slavery, did import slaves. A number of the founding fathers came from slave-owning families.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=44652790
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47902811
The founding fathers did NOT separate church and state. What they did was to distance the fledgling government as far from The Roman Catholic Church and The Church of England as they could. They laid the groundwork for a secret society government. Good resources on this subject are Ralph Epperson and also The Secret Destiny of America.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/secret_destinyamerica/secret_destinyamerica.htm
If that seems quickly far-fetched to some, then a mere viewing of the lay-out design of Washington, D.C. should, at least, cause those to pause on passing judgment, until they have studied it out.
Teddy Roosevelt was a mixed bag. Howard Taft somehow broke from the elite group that he had been part of and was the bitter adversary of John D. Rockefeller. It was Taft who was largely (no pun intended, just recognized) responsible for trust busting which was especially aimed at Standard Oil. Rockefeller vowed revenge and Teddy ran against Taft and ushered in Woodrow Wilson/Colonel House and The Federal Reserve Act, The IRS, and direct election of U.S. Senators. Teddy has to go down as a traitor.
The Great Depression was caused by the manipulations by elements closely associated with the owners of The Federal Reserve and the owners themselves. They even bragged about it. FDR was of the Delano drug family (partnered with the Russell family). He was a tyrant and a disaster. He prolonged the Depression with his policies. That’s a fact, Jack.
McCarthy started off on the right track (again no pun intended), but went counter-productive with the advent of Roy Cohn.
A bit over the top, but this article contains things to be aware of and consider.
The purpose in the Health care bill is listed as "routine public health and emergency response missions."
Obama will now have his private army
By Dr. Laurie Roth Thursday, April 1, 2010
Of course, SEC. 430, Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps. lists in detail
the commissioned Regular Corps and Ready Reserve Corps that will be trained
up, fired up, lined up and controlled by Obama himself. Naturally the
purpose for this army is to stand by in case they are needed at short notice
for a national health emergency or emergency response missions.
The health bill talks specifically about their routine training,
appointment by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and
other details of service.
The bottom line after reading the details of this section, is that Obama
now will have his private army he always wanted. As Saul Alinsky or Hitler
would teach, hide behind an expected issue. Shine a bright light over here
so you can walk forward with your agenda over there.
It is about a Health emergency....isn't that ok?
In the history of our country, have we ever had such a massive, national
health emergency that we needed a militia/military reserve ready to pepper
the country and control things? No!!!
Katrina.....there was the blue cross, FEMA, the National Guard, local
police, charities, congress and other leadership responding to this
disaster. Mayor Ray Nagin and FEMA got much criticism about their
organization and response time, but that seems to be typical with any
disaster, be it tornado, attack or hurricane. Organization and pace can
always improve. New Orleans needed a ton of things, not, a military force
trumping and smothering the naturally, already in force health and
enforcement channels.
The last flu season......I followed the H1N1 Swine flu drama from beginning
to end. I was amazed as to how a normal flu season, even milder at times
than most other flu seasons, (according to CDCs own tracking data on their
web site) was described as practically a nuclear bomb on America's people
and children. There was ridiculous talk of forced inoculations, yet real
science pointing out (I talked with a few of the research scientists on my
show) the danger and lack of real study with the vaccines. Many later and
serious health problems were linked to some of the dirty ingredients in the
vaccine. This was at the very least a horribly manipulated event.
With the messiah now with a 'health' militia, will the next flu season be an
even larger crises causing FORCED vaccinations for the good of the
community, family and country? Wouldn't it be special, a Stepford wives,
ACORN type Obamaton showing up at your door with a forced injection or else.
What a wonderful opportunity to manipulate a flu season for a premiere,
national emergency, thus declaring Martial law......oh yeah, being directed
by Obama's civilian militia.
The purpose in the Health care bill is listed as 'routine public health and
emergency response missions.'
As usual, the description is vague and blurry enough that one wonders just
what 'routine public health' issues are. Remember Obama's passion for
abortion. Some of his czars are abortion heroes. John Holdren (Science
Czar) even wrote about it being appropriate having 'forced abortions' and
aborting a child up to age 2. How do you do that since they have been alive
for 2 years? Do you push them in front of a train or mercifully inject them
with poison?
Could this President some day declare a national population growth emergency
and certain/controlled criteria for having children, thus forcing abortions
with some or worse? He already has a sea of radical, abortion and control
loving Stepford wives as his czars! I pray and hope that something this
absurd will never happen in America but with Obama's actions and
associations thus far.....watch very closely.
Another national emergency, needing Obama's 'health' militia could be his
troops coming to get our guns if we didn't turn them in one day. Of course,
this again would be required of the people due to a contrived crises such as
extreme growth of crime, terrorism, or hiding behind a treaty of 'gun
control' with the UN, thus having to enforce it.
Some of you think I'm a loon and a tin helmet hussy.....but consider this;
Hitler did the very same thing. First he got elected in through seduction,
lies and false promises. The Nazis had blown up the German Government
headquarters already to blame the communists so they could have the
desperate people give up their guns when they demanded them.
Hitler created a huge fan base and distracted public. Once Hitler's
Enabling act was voted in, he quickly got total control over health care
and the records. Mentally ill and physically challenged kids and adults
disappeared to 'job and skill training camps' where they were murdered.
Hitler trashed and took out all religious symbols from the schools and work
places, instituting Hitler's photos everywhere and a required national
greeting 'Heil Hitler' (Hail my leader). It was the instituted control of a
nation and worship of Hitler. Obama also wants our worship and now he has a
civilian military.............for crises of course.
We must hold our Government accountable and not allow ourselves to be taken
over. We can't support violence in anyway but we must not be seduced when
dictator type behavior is everywhere. Focus behind the conservative,
freedom loving candidate in your city and state! Do more than talk over
coffee. You need to organize, call, fax, march if need be, and campaign.
We know that there will be voter fraud and manipulation like never before in
November. All conservatives and concerned citizens MUST vote this time.
Don't fall into the self talk of 'my vote won't count anyway.' If you don't
vote with your attitude and all, the dead person and illegal alien down the
street will. Others will vote 20 times. If we ALL vote we will win and
correct this nightmare.
The way for us to secure our country is not to forget what has happened to
the American people already with this unconstitutional Health care bill,
the destructive Cap and Trade bill being backed by fraudulent science, and
the push for amnesty for illegal aliens and their coveted votes. It is not
imagined. It is not extreme right wing talk. It is real. We have voted in
a tyrannical socialist control freak who will continue to take control if we
let him.
We must not play into Obama's hands. No violence.....obey the law and no
threatening except to impeach, repeal, sue, march and vote him and this
liberal congress out of office as soon as possible. We then start the
business of neutering, correcting and fixing our abused country, freedom and
law!
FJ: LOL, well here's some homework for Monday, etc:
http://www.thenewsroom.org/yale/20090918/electricity-osmosis.html
FJ: did you study this yet?
http://www.osmoticpower.com/opportunities-osmotic-power.html
FuturesJackal: LOL, it looks like you and I are studying this as fast as we can. Already, I can see me, on Monday, placing a buy order.
sumisu: that is fantastic; it's almost like you have been reading my thoughts, lately. Snick! Snick!
March 16, 2010
Pump Engineering Nominated for Water Technology Company of the Year for 2010 GWI Awards
Dear fellow Industry Members:
Pump Engineering Inc (PEI), an Energy Recovery Inc company, is delighted to be nominated for the 2010 GWI Water Technology Company of the Year Award. We have spent years focusing our efforts on developing and delivering the highest quality pump and turbine energy recovery technology in the RO industry. In 2009, we achieved tremendous growth for our company. Some of the highlights include the opening of a larger facility, increasing production capacity, winning the Magtaa Project and joining forces with Energy Recovery Inc (ERI). We also continue to strive to support our local community by being a premier employer and to support the global water treatment community by providing affordable, energy recovery and pump solutions that help supply clean drinking water to people around the world.
Pump Engineering is honored to be considered for the Water Technology Company of the Year Award to take place in Paris this year and extend our appreciation to all of you for the recognition of our growing company.
This year, we are doubly proud. For the first time, all of the candidates for Desalination Plant of the Year (Barcelona – Spain, Hadera – Israel, Al Shuaibah – Saudi Arabia, and Tianjin Dagang – China), employ ERI PX™ Pressure Exchanger technology. Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of an impressive technical achievement in the industry.
We would appreciate your support for Pump Engineering for the Water Technology Company of the Year Award and kindly encourage you to vote for PEI for this honor. For more information on the awards, please visit: http://www.globalwaterawards.com.
Thank you!
The Energy Recovery Inc and Pump Engineering Teams
ERI’s PX devices have only one moving part. The heart of the PX device is a high purity aluminum oxide rotor, turning at up to 1,000 rpm in an almost frictionless hydrodynamic bearing. This ceramic material is unaffected by chemicals or aqueous corrosion, is three times harder than steel, and provides unmatched durability in the PX application.
ERI has developed manufacturing capabilities and expertise, that range from working with high alloy stainless steels, and exotic metals such as super-austenitic and super duplex stainless steel, and titanium, to the synthesis and precision machining of ceramics.
Creating advanced ceramics components requires specialized equipment, a fully equipped materials lab, and optimized processes. Custom formulated spray-dried powders are compacted at extreme pressures to create the machineable blocks that become rotors. The lengthy sintering process occurs at temperatures greater than 1600°C and eventually achieves a hardness of Mohs 9.0 in a material chemically identical to sapphire. Once the ceramics have been properly formed, they are cooled slowly and evenly to avoid cracking. This overall process is critical to achieve a smooth hard surface, which will sustain many years of operation in harsh seawater environment.
BTW, here's their website:
http://www.energyrecovery.com/index.cfm/0/0/20-Desalination-Industry-Leadership.html