When Love Of Profits Clashes With The Love Of The Prophet(1)

[astro3]

One regrets that Keith has just backed down on his vital point about the Leuchter report. Chemically speaking there seems to be a difference of about three orders of magnitude between the extremely-low ferrocyanide levels present in walls of the alleged 'gas chambers' (around one part per million) of Auschwitz etc and the rather high levels in walls of the small de-infestation huts (around one part per thousand). Any cyanide gas used (from the Zyklon-B insecticide) will bond permanently with iron in the wall, provided that traces of damp are around. That is a stubborn chemical fact and, like it or not, the Holocaust debate now has to revolve around it. Germar Rudolf was a profesional chemist at the Max Plank Institute and was just completing his doctorate, and he decided to check up on Leuchter's trailblazing Report. He got the same results. His career is now in ruins and he's in jail, and he could have avoided all that if he had just backed off from the simple chemical data which he had found - but he didn't. What this shows, is that the Zyklon-B insecticide was used in the labour-camps as the Germans said it was used, viz for de-lousing mattresses, whereas it was not in fact used in 'gas chambers' (aka wash-rooms). The link that seems to impress Keith has slimy ad-hominem attacks on the persons who have done this pioneer work - who have got no reward, except the ruin of their lives; let's be clear that no-one who has replicated these cyanide measurements has failed to find this big differential.

This fact does dovetail in with others, eg that not a single diagnosis of death by cyanide poisoning is on record amongst the hundreds of thousands of Jews who really did die in a ghastly manner in those labour camps (as a consequence of the Allies' terror-bombing). See eg the testimony of forensic pathologist Charles Larsen sent over to the camps by the US Army in 1945, who diagnosed deaths from famine and typus, from the dreadful epidemics that swept thought the camps. One can sense that he was under pressure to report deaths due to cyanide poisoning - but, he wouldn't.

Well happy Holocaust Day everyone (27th January) - as the UN has last year decreed that all the world should honour it. Try to understand, Keith, that the German 'endlosung' ('final solution') always has the meaning, in all the many tons of Third Reich literature that has been examined, of export: Jews were to be exported, to Israel or Madagascar. That meaning never changed to 'extermination' in any scrap of that literature.

[Keith Mothersson]

Astro,
Did you read the article I said seemed to outgun Rudolf before you posted?

If not you should have.
If you did you should have explained where that site went wrong. (admittedly I didn't summarise the holocaust-history article).

Just because that site indulges in ad hominem ttacks doesn't mean it is wrong, and just because Rudolf has been persecuted doesn't mean he is right.

[moeen yaseen]

FROM WHERE I STAND

This epic thread has taken a detour recently with posts from Rodin, Keith and Astro. I will attempt to correct this and ensure that it is steers itself towards the real target which is the need to understand and have an alternative to a world driven by 9/11, GWOT and the NWO elite.
Firstly the recent controversy was sparked by my first post from Andrew Winkler from Ziopedia. I think the post and it's last paragraph is visionary in terms of a deliberate global crisis planned by the NWO which will create misery, despair and serfdom for humanity. It is indeed ironic that this coincides with the celebration of the abolition of an earlier form of slavery in these isles.
In terms of addressing Keith's concerns about Andrew Winkler's use of the term "Jewish cancer" I have NOT deleted his usage of it as that is what the man believes in. However, I have now inserted in red ink with bold emphasis my previous disassociation fom the term. I think that is more than enough on that issue. It is precisely because of this sensitivity I prefer and have highlighted a discourse which refers to a, "DEMONIC CABAL" and a "GLOBAL SATANIC WEB OF DECEIT". The extent to which this is comprised of Jews or Zionists with ethnically Jewish origins is debatable and it is a matter of strategy as to whether one should focus on who is driving the NWO as opposed to focussing on creating new drivers who will take humanity on a journey to an ALTERNATIVE NWO free of these forces.
We should DESIST spending energy on a futile discourse when TRUTH activists and the TRUTH MOVEMENT should be at the forefront of establishing an ALTERNATIVE NEW WORLD ORDER based on Truth, Justice and Liberation for humanity. Having said that I think the debate between Keith and Rodin has been useful as it has clarified and brought into the open different perspectives on the role of Jews and Zionists in the NWO.
In this context I do NOT accept Justin's remarks that the Abrahamic faiths have been man made and imposed by the Illuminati. Certainly their spirit can be revived and they can have a renaissance based on the original values and ethics for a troubled world.
Rodin also wanted a clarification on me referring to Muslims requiring a "new injection of blood or removal". I thank him for his observation and question. In response I need to state that I was NOT advocating Muslim genocide as I am a Muslim myself! However, he needs to note that there is a belief in orthodox Islamic theology that Muslims have been blessed with Divine Revelation and have struck a MITHAQ i.e. the Abrahamic Covenant with God. At the centre and core of which is that the Ummah or the universal Islamic nation which is deemed to be the Middle Nation has a duty and responsibility to uphold and establish the Good and forbid the evil. If this is NOT carried out there is a need for the Ummah to revive the Islamic spirit otherwise it will be replaced by another nation which will do so. In the current global situation I interpret this responsibility having two main thrusts. Firstly there is a need for the Muslim masses to be free and become free from unelected dictatorial proWestern regimes subservient to the NWO . Secondly there is an immense responsibility to free Mankind inclusive of ALL religions and no religion from the shackles of a financially USURIOUS global capitalist system based on white is right and might is right. The new direction is being charted and developed on my website at www.gv2000.com. Those who wish to part of the solution should contact me.

[moeen yaseen]

"WIPED OFF THE MAP " - THE RUMOUR OF THE CENTURY

Arash Norouzi
Global Research, January 20, 2007
The Mossadegh Project


Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map". Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made, as the following article will prove.



BACKGROUND:



On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism". Large posters surrounding him displayed this title prominently in English, obviously for the benefit of the international press. Below the poster's title was a slick graphic depicting an hour glass containing planet Earth at its top. Two small round orbs representing the United States and Israel are shown falling through the hour glass' narrow neck and crashing to the bottom.



Before we get to the infamous remark, it's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote— they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.



THE ACTUAL QUOTE:



So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:



"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."



That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).



So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".





THE PROOF:



The full quote translated directly to English:



"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".



Word by word translation:



Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).





Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site



www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyoni zm.htm




THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:



While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.



In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.



Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:



(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch

(2) The Soviet Union

(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein



In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.





THE ORIGIN:



One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising.



The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.



Amid heated wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and months of continuous, unfounded accusations against Iran in an attempt to rally support for preemptive strikes against the country, the imperialists had just been handed the perfect raison d'être to invade. To the war hawks, it was a gift from the skies.



It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth". In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth", or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth". The inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language.



THE REACTION:



The mistranslated "wiped off the map" quote attributed to Iran's President has been spread worldwide, repeated thousands of times in international media, and prompted the denouncements of numerous world leaders. Virtually every major and minor media outlet has published or broadcast this false statement to the masses. Big news agencies such as The Associated Press and Reuters refer to the misquote, literally, on an almost daily basis.



Following news of Iran's remark, condemnation was swift. British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "revulsion" and implied that it might be necessary to attack Iran. U.N. chief Kofi Annan cancelled his scheduled trip to Iran due to the controversy. Ariel Sharon demanded that Iran be expelled from the United Nations for calling for Israel's destruction. Shimon Peres, more than once, threatened to wipe Iran off the map. More recently, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who has warned that Iran is "preparing another holocaust for the Jewish state" is calling for Ahmadinejad to be tried for war crimes for inciting genocide.



The artificial quote has also been subject to additional alterations. U.S. officials and media often take the liberty of dropping the "map" reference altogether, replacing it with the more acutely threatening phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully report Ahmadinejad has "called for the destruction of Israel", as do senior officials in the United States government.



President George W. Bush said the comments represented a "specific threat" to destroy Israel. In a March 2006 speech in Cleveland, Bush vowed he would resort to war to protect Israel from Iran, because, "..the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel." Former Presidential advisor Richard Clarke told Australian TV that Iran "talks openly about destroying Israel", and insists, "The President of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth". In an October 2006 interview with Amy Goodman, former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter referred to Ahmadinejad as "the idiot that comes out and says really stupid, vile things, such as, 'It is the goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the face of the earth' ". The consensus is clear.



Confusing matters further, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pontificates rather than give a direct answer when questioned about the statement, such as in Lally Weymouth's Washington Post interview in September 2006:



Are you really serious when you say that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth?



We need to look at the scene in the Middle East — 60 years of war, 60 years of displacement, 60 years of conflict, not even a day of peace. Look at the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza — what are the reasons for these conditions? We need to address and resolve the root problem.



Your suggestion is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth?



Our suggestion is very clear:... Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted.... The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.



You've been quoted as saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Is that your belief?



What I have said has made my position clear. If we look at a map of the Middle East from 70 years ago...



So, the answer is yes, you do believe that it should be wiped off the face of the Earth?



Are you asking me yes or no? Is this a test? Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people.



The exchange is typical of Ahmadinejad's interviews with the American media. Predictably, both Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes and CNN's Anderson Cooper asked if he wants to "wipe Israel off the map". As usual, the question is thrown back in the reporter's face with his standard "Don't the Palestinians have rights?, etc." retort (which is never directly answered either). Yet he never confirms the "map" comment to be true. This did not prevent Anderson Cooper from referring to earlier portions of his interview after a commercial break and lying, "as he said earlier, he wants Israel wiped off the map".



Even if every media outlet in the world were to retract the mistranslated quote tomorrow, the major damage has already been done, providing the groundwork for the next phase of disinformation: complete character demonization. Ahmadinejad, we are told, is the next Hitler, a grave threat to world peace who wants to bring about a new Holocaust. According to some detractors, he not only wants to destroy Israel, but after that, he will nuke America, and then Europe! An October 2006 memo titled Words of Hate: Iran's Escalating Threats released by the powerful Israeli lobby group AIPAC opens with the warning, "Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian leaders are issuing increasingly belligerent statements threatening to destroy the United States, Europe and Israel." These claims not only fabricate an unsubstantiated threat, but assume far more power than he actually possesses. Alarmists would be better off monitoring the statements of the ultra-conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who holds the most power in Iran.



As Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi, complained to The Washington Post in a June 2006 letter:



It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."



The Israeli government has milked every drop of the spurious quote to its supposed advantage. In her September 2006 address to the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni accused Iran of working to nuke Israel and bully the world. "They speak proudly and openly of their desire to 'wipe Israel off the map.' And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective to imperil the region and threaten the world." Addressing the threat in December, a fervent Prime Minister Ehud Olmert inadvertently disclosed that his country already possesses nuclear weapons: "We have never threatened any nation with annihilation. Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"



MEDIA IRRESPONSIBILITY:



On December 13, 2006, more than a year after The World Without Zionism conference, two leading Israeli newspapers, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz, published reports of a renewed threat from Ahmadinejad. The Jerusalem Post's headline was Ahmadinejad: Israel will be 'wiped out', while Haaretz posted the title Ahmadinejad at Holocaust conference: Israel will 'soon be wiped out'.



Where did they get their information? It turns out that both papers, like most American and western media, rely heavily on write ups by news wire services such as the Associated Press and Reuters as a source for their articles. Sure enough, their sources are in fact December 12th articles by Reuter's Paul Hughes [Iran president says Israel's days are numbered], and the AP's Ali Akbar Dareini [Iran President: Israel Will be wiped out].


The first five paragraphs of the Haaretz article, credited to "Haaretz Service and Agencies", are plagiarized almost 100% from the first five paragraphs of the Reuters piece. The only difference is that Haaretz changed "the Jewish state" to "Israel" in the second paragraph, otherwise they are identical.



The Jerusalem Post article by Herb Keinon pilfers from both the Reuters and AP stories. Like Haaretz, it uses the following Ahmadinejad quote without attribution: ["Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added]. Another passage apparently relies on an IRNA report:



"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom," Ahmadinejad said at Tuesday's meeting with the conference participants in his offices, according to Iran's official news agency, IRNA.



He said elections should be held among "Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner."



Once again, the first sentence above was wholly plagiarized from the AP article. The second sentence was also the same, except "He called for elections" became "He said elections should be held..".



It gets more interesting.



The quote used in the original AP article and copied in The Jerusalem Post article supposedly derives from the IRNA. If true, this can easily be checked. Care to find out? Go to:


www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0612134902101231.htm



There you will discover the actual IRNA quote was:



"As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated".



Compare this to the alleged IRNA quote reported by the Associated Press:



"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom".



In the IRNA's actual report, the Zionist regime will vanish just as the Soviet Union disappeared. Vanish. Disappear. In the dishonest AP version, the Zionist regime will be "wiped out". And how will it be wiped out? "The same way the Soviet Union was". Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements.



What has just been demonstrated is irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP deliberately alters an IRNA quote to sound more threatening. The Israeli media not only repeats the fake quote but also steals the original authors' words. The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self defense, based on the misinformation.



This scenario mirrors the kind of false claims that led to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, a war now widely viewed as a catastrophic mistake. And yet the Bush administration and the compliant corporate media continue to marinate in propaganda and speculation about attacking Iraq's much larger and more formidable neighbor, Iran. Most of this rests on the unproven assumption that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and the lie that Iran has vowed to physically destroy Israel. Given its scope and potentially disastrous outcome, all this amounts to what is arguably the rumor of the century.



Iran's President has written two rather philosophical letters to America. In his first letter, he pointed out that "History shows us that oppressive and cruel governments do not survive". With this statement, Ahmadinejad has also projected the outcome of his own backwards regime, which will likewise "vanish from the page of time".

[moeen yaseen]

9/11 AND AMERICAN EMPIRE : INTELLECTUALS SPEAK OUT



by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott
Reviewed by Carolyn Baker
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070121&a rticleId=4538
Global Research, January 21, 2007


Surely there can be no higher duty for academics and other intellectuals at this time than to expose the big lie of 9/11, thereby undermining the primary pretext for the global domination project. Morgan Reynolds, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Texas A& M University (P. 115 of 9/11 And American Empire)


Professors David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott have edited a masterpiece of critical thinking and scholarly analysis in this collection of articles by intellectuals who have broken silence on the atrocities of September 11, 2001. I have revered Peter Dale Scott for many years, having used his books and articles in my college history classes. This wise elder, professor emeritus of English, is one of few in academia who have addressed the United States government’s half-century role in drug trafficking and money laundering, and he has offered us the concept of deep politics, which “posits that in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so. Like all other observers, I too have involuntarily suppressed facts and even memories about the drug traffic that were too provocative to be retained with equanimity.”[1] Scott’s co-editing of this volume is particularly significant because if ever the issue of deep politics were germane, it is in relation to 9/11

David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus of religion, theology, and philosophy is the critical thinker’s thinker, having authored two previous masterpieces, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About The Bush Administration and 9/11 and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. If you have been privileged to watch Griffin on video or DVD, you must confess that his demeanor, as well as his research on 9/11, adds a human dimension to his analysis that conveys both compassion and objectivity.

As a member of academia myself, I am buoyed by the caliber of scholars included in the Griffin-Scott volume, particularly in the light of what I consider higher education’s abject paranoia regarding skepticism of the official story of 9/11. As I stated when recently interviewed by Jason Miller at Civil Libertarian Blogspot, [2]professors at the end of their academic preparation often emerge with rigid concepts of how they “should” think or how they “should” teach, to such an extent that they become almost terrified of being viewed as conspiracy theorists and develop what I call “conspiracy phobia” in which case, they become as intellectually stilted and irrelevant as the tormenters of Galileo during the Spanish Inquisition. At one time in history the notion that microscopic organisms called bacteria even exist, let alone foster and spread disease, was considered an outlandish violation of reason and logic, as was the theory that the earth was not flat or that human beings would someday travel around the globe in “flying machines.” Academics of those eras took enormous pride in their ability to think critically and not engage in fallacies of logic, but history has proven that for these individuals, things were anything but what they seemed.

Currently in so-called progressive discourse about 9/11, there appear to be two perspectives regarding the political, economic, geopolitical, Constitutional, and social significance of the event. The first group believes that 9/11 was used opportunistically by the Bush administration to extend its global domination project and that the administration knew the attacks were coming but allowed them to happen; the second group believes that more than having foreknowledge, the Bush administration, in fact, orchestrated the event. Within these two perspectives, there exist myriad theories regarding the evidence for either allowing the event or orchestrating it.

Some individuals believe that physical evidence is important to analyze, while others do not. Still others believe that some other object besides a plane hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, while other individuals are virulently opposed to that notion. I personally believe that a consideration of the physical evidence, although it has virtually all been destroyed and removed from any possibility of examination, is relevant, and I disagree with those who assert that debates regarding the physical evidence are a distraction from the analysis of motive, means, and opportunity. For me, it is not either/or but both/and. Critical thinking demands an inclusive examination of all facets of any crime.

Although I’ve used the term critical thinking, I have done so without defining it. Here is one comprehensive definition:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.[3]

In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of critical thinking is asking questions which is due, in part, to my preference for questions rather than answers written in stone. This is the paramount reason for my enthusiastic support for the 9/11 truth movement. As long as a community of thinkers, and indeed, the citizenry at large, continue to question the events of September 11, there is at least a spark of hope that at some point, with the proper conditions and at the right time, that spark might be fanned into a flame of revolution. And of course, as our Founding Fathers incessantly reminded us, there are many ways to make revolution besides the use of bombs and bullets, and if we are not willing to do so once a democratic republic has become antithetical to its principles, then we do not deserve to live in a democratic republic. Citizenry in a democratic republic, the Constitutional framers told us, is attended by momentous responsibilities, including the willingness to “alter and abolish” it should it cease to be a democratic republic.

Or as Professor and Ret. Lt.Colonel, Karen Kwiatkowski, states in her article in 9/11 American Empire, entitled “Assessing The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” :

To question the official 9/11 story is simply, and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.

Two chapters in the book are devoted to physical evidence, one by Physics Professor, Steven Jones of Brigham Young University and engineer, Kevin Ryan. For those who insist that physical evidence is not important in the discourse regarding 9/11, I would simply ask: Why have Jones and Ryan been so harassed by their superiors for their assertions? If discussion of physical evidence is irrelevant, why would there be any backlash against the “peripheral distraction” of analyzing it?

Swiss history professor, Daniele Ganser, in his article, “The ‘Strategy Of Tension’ In The Cold War Period” makes one of the most profound statements in the book when he says that “It is important to stress that all of the theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories,” adding that a conspiracy is merely a secret agreement between two or more persons to engage in a criminal act—nothing new or unusual in the field of historical research. Therefore, says Ganser, “Once we realize that none of the theories can be dismissed on the grounds that it is a ‘conspiracy theory’, the real question becomes: Which conspiracy theory correctly describes the 9/11 conspiracy?”(P. 80)

The “strategy of tension” is essentially psychological warfare which targets the emotions of humans and aims to spread maximum fear. Not only are political opponents discredited through incessant terrorist attacks, but most importantly the innocent are kept in a state of tension, which serves the purposes of those benefiting from the attacks.

Ganser takes on two very common arguments of those who insist that the U.S. government could not have been involved in orchestrating the attacks, namely, the assertion that our government would “never do such a thing” and the premise that if the U.S. government had helped carry out the attacks, the planning and execution of that could not have remained secret for long. Ganser emphasizes that both are a priori arguments—a priori simply meaning reasoning from a general law to a particular instance or a phenomenon that is valid independently of observation.(P.99)

Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of Law at Princeton University, in his article “Global Ambitions and Geopolitical Wars: The Domestic Challenge”, notes that many extraordinarily suspicious events have occurred in the United States in the last century—events which bear on the legitimacy of the process of governance, and these have been repeatedly shielded from mainstream inquiry by being re-inscribed as the wild fantasies of conspiracy theorists. Thus, “the issue never gets resolved and lingers in the domain of limbo, beclouded by suspicion, but unresolved so far as opinion-makers are concerned—and thus ignored.” (P.120) Certainly, individuals of my generation are all-too familiar with the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King as stellar examples of suspicious events that have never gotten resolved.

Canadian philosophy professor, John McMurtry in “9/11 And The 9/11 Wars: Understanding The Supreme Crimes” examines denial among U.S. citizenry, including the so-called progressive media, which has ignored the Project For The New American Century (PNAC) and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s infamous The Grand Chessboard book of 1997, both of which clearly elucidated the ruling elite’s agenda for global domination on behalf of acquiring resources such as petroleum, gold, and water. McMurtry reminds us of the “staggering payoffs” that accrued to a plethora of beneficiaries of 9/11, but concludes that “With or without 9/11 as a pretext for ‘war without end’, the post-1991 global capitalist experiment has failed as a form of economic organization that serves human life and conditions on our planet.” (P. 148)

The grand conclusion to 9/11 American Empire is its final chapter, “Parameters Of Power In The Global Dominance Group: 9/11 And Election Irregularities In Context”, by Peter Phillips, with Bridget Thornton, and Celeste Vogler, a frightening termination to a collection of exceedingly thoughtful articles about September 11 in which the authors analyze very succinctly and incisively the principal players in the global dominance project, individuals as well as organizations and financial systems, and raise disturbing questions about the role of these in the 2000 election fraud and 9/11. The scope and power of these entities is nothing less than jaw-dropping, thus preparing the reader for the article’s and the book’s final paragraph:

We are past the brink of totalitarian fascist-corporatism. Challenging the neocons and the GDG (Global Dominance Group) agenda is only the beginning of reversing the long-term conservative reactions to the gains of the 1960s. Re-addressing poverty, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and our own weapons of mass destruction is a long-term agenda for progressive scholars and citizen democrats. (P.188)

I strongly recommend 9/11 And American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out not just for members of academia, but for anyone interested in moving beyond the red herring of “conspiracy theory”. Even if one has already analyzed many of the unanswered questions of 9/11, one is certain to discover more in this book and experience further intellectual validation from these remarkable thinkers.

Carolyn Baker, Ph.D. is an adjunct professor of history and author of U.S. HISTORY UNCENSORED: What Your High School Textbook Didn’t Tell You. She also managers her website at www.carolynbaker.org where the book may be ordered and she may be contacted. Carolyn Baker is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

[moeen yaseen]

"SURGE " or "INVOLUNTARY " MILITARY CONSCRIPTION :
THE NEO-CONSERVATIVE ARCHITECTS OF MILITARY ESCALATION

Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 26, 2007
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO2007012 6&articleId=4599


Was it a coincidence? The Bill to restore the Draft (Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393)) was introduced in the House of Representatives on exactly the same day as President Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in which he confirmed, in a nationally televised address, that he was going to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.


The "surge" in US forces in Iraq has been presented by the Bush administration as a short term necessity to confront "the terrorists":


"So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq." (President Bush's TV address to the Nation, 10 January 2007)

Within days of Bush's announcement, Congress responded by formally rebuffing the White House's proposal to send more troops:

"The defiant White House stance comes as both the House and Senate, now controlled by Democrats, prepare to vote on resolutions that oppose additional U.S. troops in Iraq. Cheney said those nonbinding votes would not affect Bush's ability to carry out his policies" (AP, Jan 14, 2007)

While differences have emerged between the presidency and the US Congress regarding troop dewployments, real opposition to Bush's "surge" largely emanates from the broader American public, which is putting pressure on its (elected) members of Congress.

US troops in Iraq are facing fierce and organized armed resistance.

Occupation forces no longer exercise control over part of Iraqi territory.

The "Green Zone" is threatened. The more than 20,000 troops are to be deployed in Baghdad, with a view to securing the "Green Zone" enclave.

Despite these developments, the decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.

The Neo-Conservative Architects of Bush's "Surge"

The decision to substantially increase US forces in Iraq is not a makeshift initiative, which emerged in response to the evolving crisis in Iraq. It is part of a carefully formulated NeoCon agenda to increase the size of US forces and reinstate "involuntary" forms of military conscription.

Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute is credited as being on of the main architects of Bush 's "Surge". Fred Kagan together with General (ret) Jack Keane, argue that "any troop increase must be large and lasting", involving "a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so". (Quoted in the the Financial Times, 2 January 2007).

"Kagan was arguing that while "the high end of estimates" suggested the need for another 80,000 US troops to stage an effective counter-insurgency operation in Iraq, "it is very likely that a surge of 50,000 troops would be sufficient to stabilise the capital". In the event, it seems unlikely that Mr Bush will commit even half that number".(Ibid)

Frederick Kagan is the brother of Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who coincidentally is also on the board of Directors of the Project of the New American Century (PNAC). The latter is a Washington based think tank headed by William Kristol, with direct ties to the Bush Cabinet.

William Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the main founding figures of Neoconservatism. Irving Kristol sits on Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). He is also a Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

William Kristol is editor of the influential Washington based Weekly Standard. Robert Kagan is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard. All of these people are firmly committed to America's "long war", a war without borders, inspired by the teachings of the late Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago.

Surge and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

An overall expansion of US forces worldwide is an integral part of the NeoConservatives mission, as formulated in the Project of the New American Century's key document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses.

Bush's "Surge" is essentially derived from this document, which constitutes the PNAC's manifesto. The authors of Rebuilding American Defenses are Donald Kagan, (Professor of History at Yale University and father of Frederick Kagan and Robert Kagan)., Gary Schmitt (PNAC Project Coordinator together with Donald Kagan) and Thomas Donnelly (main author), Both Schmitt and Donnelly are resident fellows at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and colleagues of Frederick Kagan.

In Part IV of Rebuilding American Defenses, the PNAC recommends an overall expansion of "active-duty strength" from 475,000 (2000 figure) to 525,000. It also points to the reinforcement of the Army National Guard as:

"a hedge against the need for a larger-than-anticipated force in combat.... It should not be used primarily to provide combat service support to active Army units engaged in current operations"

The Army National Guard should according to the PNAC "play its essential role in fighting large scale wars", while minimizing its civilian functions.

PNAC Pressures US Congress

Two years ago (28 January 2005), the PNAC submitted a Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces, addressed to the Senate and House Majority and Minority leaders. The Letter asserts that "the United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume" and that steps must consequently be taken:

"to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."

The authors of the January 2005 PNAC Letter, who describe themselves as "a bipartisan group with diverse policy views" include (among others) the key Neo- Conservatives ideologues and protagonists of Bush's "surge", namely William Kristol, Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan, Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly. Other prominent members include former CIA director James Woolsley, John Hopkins Professor Eliot Cohen, who has acted as an adviser to Paul Wolfowitz and has participated in several PNAC activities, former CIA specialist Reul Gerecht who is a Senior PNAC fellow. and a resident scholar at the AEI, Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, etc. .

In this regard, there is a consistent Neo-Conservative thread characterized by a working relationship between Washington based think tanks (CFR, AEI, PNAC, Carnegie, etc) as well as a complex net of personal and family ties between the various NeoCon protagonists.

The "Surge" is De Facto

Bush's "Surge" has de facto already been put in place in the form of what Mahdi Nazemroaya describes as "a concealed military draft":

"[T]he U.S. Marines have started recalling or legally summoning thousands of ‘inactive servicemen’ to serve in Iraq and the Middle East, where the number of U.S. troops and contracted security personal are dropping towards hap-hazardous levels. ... The U.S. Army too, undermined by shortfalls in manpower, has ordered over a reported 14,000 ‘inactive servicemen’ back to fight" (Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, Global Research, August 2007)

Similarly, the Bush administration has taken measures to increase the recruitment of private mercenary-soldiers, who constitute a significant and growing force in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Ibid)

"Many young men from within the United States and around the world seeking American citizenships or green cards have also been lured into the circuits of the U.S. military and mercenary groups." (Ibid)

The Universal National Service Act

Barely noticed, in early 2006, Congressman Charles Rangel, a Democrat (NY), introduced a bill in the US Congress which requires:

"all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a [two year] period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

Ironically, Rangel's initiative to restore the draft was described as "an anti-war tactic" directed against the Bush adminstration:

"Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America. But whether or not one agrees with Rangel's rationale, many Americans would agree that universal service can be a great leveler and a unifying force in society."

The 2006 version of the bill (which followed earlier versions) was referred to the House Armed Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Military Personnel. There have been no actions taken at the committee or subcommittee levels since it was introduced in February of last year.( See Library of Congress)

Restoring the Draft?

However, following the victory of the Democrats in the November 2006 elections, Rep. Charles Rangel reaffirmed his commitment to "bringing back the draft" as part of the House of Representatives' Democratic agenda.

On January 10th 2007, Rep. Rangel reintroduced his bill, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2007 (HR.393) (For full text see Annex below).

Was this a coincidence? The Bill to restore the draft was introduced on exactly the same day as Bush's announcement regarding the "Surge", in a nationally televised address. In this address the President and Commander in Chief confirmed that he was going to "surge" more than 20,000 troops and that this decision would be implemented without seeking the authorization of the U.S. Congress. (See Francis Boyle, January 2007)

Meanwhile Rangel's bill HR 393 has been referred both to the Arms Services Committee and the Ways and Mean Committee. .

What are the implications of Rangel's timely January 10, 2007 proposed Universal National Service Act?

Although Rep Charles Rangel is opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, the reintroduction of the Draft is on the books of the US Congress. His proposed bill directly serves the interests of the Bush Administration, which can now blame the Democrats for attempting to reintroduce compulsory conscription. Bill HR 393 is opposed by ranking democrats. While it has little chance of being adopted, it could indeed be used, in an opportune fashion, to manufacture a shaky bipartisan legitimacy, which ultimately would support Bush's proposed "Surge" in troops. .

Given the dynamics and hidden agendas behind these various initiatives, a combination of the NeoCon Surge on the one hand and the "Universal Service Act" proposed by a leading Democrat on the other, might ultimately serve the interests of military escalation, as formulated by the NeoCons, leading to some form of bipartisan "consensus" on "involuntary" conscription.

The decision and discussions would be reached behind closed doors in the Armed Services committees of the House and the Senate. There are many formal mechanisms to recruit servicemen and women, which could be applied outside the outright reintroduction of the Draft.

This form of bipartisan dialogue would serve to deflect attention from the more fundamental issue of military escalation, not to mention the war on Iran, which are being implemented without Congressional approval.

If the Bush/Cheney White House refuses to seek authorization from Congress for an increase in troop deployments to Iraq, this could constitute a violation of the United States Constitution. (for further details see Francis Boyle, op. cit)


Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.




---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


ANNEX

Universal National Service Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 393 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 393
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 10, 2007
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------


A BILL
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2007'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. National service obligation.

Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.

Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.

Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 111. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 112. Relation of title to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.

TITLE II--FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT

Sec. 201. Favorable treatment of combat pay under earned income tax credit made permanent.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) The term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.

(2) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.

(3) The term `national service' means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(4) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.

(5) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(6) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.

(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.

SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.

(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--

(1) a declaration of war is in effect;

(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or

(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--

(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services; and

(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels.

(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(d) Selection for Induction-

(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).

(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--

(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or

(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

SEC. 104. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

(b) Matter to Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

(c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 106. EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS.

(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

(b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.

SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.

SEC. 110. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.

(b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

SEC. 111. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.

SEC. 112. RELATION OF TITLE TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.

(b) Induction- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.

TITLE II--FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT

SEC. 201. FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

(a) In General- Clause (vi) of section 32(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining earned income) is amended to read as follows:

`(vi) a taxpayer may elect for any taxable year to treat amounts excluded from gross income by reason of section 112 as earned income.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2006.

[moeen yaseen]

BU$H's STATE OF UNION SPEECH HIGHLIGHTS CRISIS OF US RULING ELITE
by Bill Van Auken

Global Research, January 24, 2007


President George W. Bush’s sixth State of the Union address was delivered Wednesday in an atmosphere of crisis and demoralization gripping not only his own Republican administration, but the entire American political establishment.

The media made much of Bush having for the first time to address a Democratic-led Congress, but the prevailing mood was not so much political confrontation as general bewilderment and apprehension, with the two parties confronting a military and political debacle in Iraq in which they are both fully implicated.

A president who, as multiple polls released this week have underscored, is the most despised occupant of the White House since Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate crisis, was treated to repeated standing ovations led by the new “Madam Speaker” of the House of Representatives, Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

However, the applause, backslapping and bathos that have become the norm for this annual political ritual could not mask the fact that the US political establishment is torn by deep divisions and bitter recriminations, with some of the sharpest opposition to Bush’s policies coming not from the newly empowered Democrats, but from members of his own party.

There is a general recognition not only that the American colonial war in Iraq has failed, but that the six years of the Bush administration have produced a colossal decline in the world position of US imperialism.

The “new way forward” spelled out by Bush in his speech less than two weeks ago has provoked mounting fears that the military escalation in Iraq, combined with threats against Iran and Syria, will only deepen the disaster. Yet the reaction of Congress resembles the paralysis of passengers facing an impending train wreck: They know what is coming but can do nothing to avert it.

Fear of the consequences of Bush’s escalation is combined with even greater dread over the implications of US imperialism being dealt a decisive defeat in Iraq.

The general perplexity and desperation were reflected in the elements of unreality and absurdity in Bush’s speech. The “commander in chief” failed to even mention the war in Iraq—which everyone knew was the overriding issue facing the nation—until he was more than three-fifths through his remarks.

The most salient feature of the present “state of the union” is the unprecedented decision of a US president to escalate a war that was overwhelmingly rejected by the people in elections held just three months earlier. Yet this brazenly anti-democratic defiance of public opinion was never addressed.

Instead, Bush began his speech with a series of reactionary proposals on domestic issues. “Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity—and this is the business before us tonight,” he proclaimed.

In fact, the “business” that night, as throughout the year, was upholding the interests of the banks and corporations that control both major parties, and Bush’s proposals all reflected this focus. They amounted to a series of coded messages to the major profit-making sectors—the energy conglomerates, the healthcare monopolies, agribusiness and Wall Street—that Bush would push new initiatives to boost their profits.

Thus, the president vowed to “balance the federal budget... without raising taxes,” that is, to defend his massive tax breaks for the rich while continuing to slash what remains of social programs for working people. He demanded that the government “take on the challenge of entitlements,” i.e., that it get down to the business of gutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Bush promoted a thoroughly regressive plan ostensibly to aid the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance. His cure, however, was worse than the disease. It would turn health care benefits offered by employers into taxable income, meaning a further cut in income for some 30 million Americans. It would also introduce a universal tax deduction to encourage people to opt out of these plans, undermining health care coverage for some 160 million people.

Turning to the question of immigration, Bush vowed to advance legislation aimed at instituting a new version of the “bracero” program, guaranteeing agribusiness a reliable supply of oppressed, low-wage workers, while denying immigrants basic rights.

The president raised a series of proposals supposedly aimed at ending US dependence on foreign oil. All of these measures have been crafted to uphold the interests of energy conglomerates like Exxon Mobil and the Big Three automakers.

When he finally turned to Iraq, it was via the usual route of falsely casting the war of aggression long planned by Washington as a response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and as the key front in the “global war on terror.”

That millions of Americans have long since rejected the claim that the invasion of Iraq was a reaction to the 9/11 attacks found no reflection on the floor of the Congress.

Led by Pelosi, Democrats rose repeatedly in standing ovations for the so-called war on terror and those who are waging it. They stood and applauded for Bush when he declared that Washington’s mission was to “help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity.” This despite the fact that US policy has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and turned their country into a nightmare of death and destruction, while American imperialism continues to base its regional power on a Zionist regime that oppresses the Palestinians and on Arab despots who suppress their own people.

The perplexity of the Democrats found its consummate expression when they were brought to their feet with the following passage from Bush:

“We went into this largely united—in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq—and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field—and those on the way.”

Here Bush’s speechwriters earned their pay. The passage made clear that the Democrats in Congress were Bush’s partners in crime, voting the White House a blank check to wage a war of aggression against Iraq. It also spelled out that Democrats and Republicans alike reflected the consensus position within America’s ruling elite that military force must be used to assert the interests of US capitalism worldwide, most decisively by seizing control of world energy supplies.

Failure of this strategy has, from the standpoint of the political establishment, vast and catastrophic consequences for US imperialist interests worldwide. That is why, under the cynical slogan of “support our troops,” the Democrats will continue to fund the war.

The political bankruptcy of the ostensible Democratic opposition to Bush’s war policy was underscored in the party’s official response, delivered by freshman Democratic Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, himself a Vietnam veteran and former Republican secretary of the navy.

After describing the war as “mismanaged,” Webb stumbled over his prepared remarks in a revealing way. “The majority of the nation no longer supports this war,” he began, and then corrected himself to say, “no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the military.”

The reality is that the overwhelming majority does indeed oppose the war. According to a poll released by NBC and the Wall Street Journal on the eve of the speech, 65 percent want all US troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. But the Democrats are committed to its continuation.

As Webb continued, “We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos.”

All the Democratic talk of “redeploying” US troops is merely an alternative strategy for continuing the occupation and the war against the Iraqi people, relying less on US combat infantry units and more on Iraqi surrogates backed by American “advisors,” rapid deployment forces and air power.

The much vaunted nonbinding Senate resolution opposing Bush’s “surge” states in its first sentence, “...the United States strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress.” It continues by declaring, “...maximizing our chances of success in Iraq should be our goal, and the best chances of success requires a change in current strategy.”

Bush’s speech amounted to a pleading appeal for this “bipartisan” support—for the Democrats and wavering members of his own party to give his intensified assault on the Iraqi people a chance. While the Democrats, as well as much of the Republican Party, fear the potentially disastrous consequences of this new tactic, they counterpose only another means of continuing the war.

The State of the Union address and the Democratic response have underscored the impossibility of waging a genuine struggle to end the war in Iraq outside of the fight to mobilize working people independently of and in opposition to both the Democratic and Republican parties, and the corporate ruling elite whose interests they serve.

[Keith Mothersson]

Hi Moeen,
I have no wish to hijack this fine thread into a long detour.

I am really pleased you have red-painted the phrase I objected to. I think this is the way we should handle problematic material - steering a middle way between censorship and seeming collusion.

That is now two of us who have redpainted remarks liable to cause offense/distress. Let us hope that this becomes normal practice on the site, either done by the poster him/herself when persuaded to by private messages or overt requests, or if not by the Moderators themselves taking action to preserve this forum as a politically courteous (i.e. non-racist, non Islamophobic, non-sexist, etc ) space for all people of goodwill.

cheers, keith

[moeen yaseen]

BLIAR REVEALS NWO VISION FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS


We are grateful to receive a copy of the speech delivered by the British Prime Minister The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP, on the closing day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. More than 2,000 people have joined the World Economic Forum in Davos for an intensive five-day programme of workshops and interview-style panel discussions.


He states:

... It is a very great honour to be asked to speak to the Davos forum at this closing session. This will be my last Davos forum as Prime Minister so I look forward to coming back in future years and telling other leaders where they went wrong and how easy the job is ...

Despite the multiple challenges we face in the world today, I am optimistic. Mind you, in my job, you have to be. It is true that each of the three issues -- world trade, climate change, Africa -- that have dominated Davos, hangs in the balance. But on each, there is progress that would have been unimaginable even a short time back. Let me briefly state where I think we are on each issue and then give a broader context for my optimism; and end with an analysis of what we have to do.

On the WTO, within the past few days I have held discussions with President Bush, President Lula and Chancellor Merkel. We had a great discussion with trade Ministers under Pascal Lamy's expert eye yesterday. "Cautious optimism" was how it was described. I think it is now more likely than not, though by no means certain, that we will reach a deal within the next few months. Countries are moving closer together; there is a reignition of political energy and drive; and an increased recognition of the dire consequences of failure.

A trade deal would be a big boost to the notion of multilateralism; help the world's poorest escape their poverty; and achieve an impact on overall trade and
business, three times the amount of the last trade round. This is a critical priority for me in the coming period and that determination, I am pleased to say, is shared by the other major players in the negotiation.

Of course Africa would be a central beneficiary of such a deal. It is sometimes too easy to be pessimistic about Africa. But just think of what progress there has been. HIV/AIDs treatment now being given to 1.6 million. USD 100 billion of debt wiped out, enabling countries like Tanzania to transform primary education. Fifty democratic elections in Africa in the last five years. And six major wars have ended. We made commitments, not least on aid at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005. We must honour them. We will have the first meeting of the Africa Progress Panel which will monitor our commitments under Kofi Annan's leadership in Berlin later this year.

The other topic at the top of the Gleneagles agenda was climate change.

Kyoto was an extraordinary achievement, over 100 countries coming to an agreement with profound implications for their future economic growth. But in reality, even if implemented -- and Britain is one of the few nations that will hit, indeed exceed our Kyoto targets -- it would only stabilise emissions. In truth, we need them cut, probably by an order of 60 per cent by 2050 -- something we have now set as a UK domestic target.

Moreover, whatever we do -- Britain accounts for around 2 per cent of total emissions -- any agreement that does not have binding commitments from America, China and India is not one that can deliver. If Britain shut down our emissions entirely ie we closed down the country, the growth in China's emissions would make up the difference within just two years. Without the biggest economies being part of a framework to reduce carbon dependence, we have no earthly hope of success.

Fortunately I believe we are, potentially, on the verge of a breakthrough.

Chancellor Merkel is providing excellent G8 leadership. China and India are participating constructively in the G8 + 5 process Gleneagles established. They know that they will suffer if the environment degrades further. They have every imperative to be part of a deal, provided it is one that allows them to grow their economies so that they can spread the prosperity they are creating to the millions in those countries still in poverty.

And the mood in the US is in the process of a quantum shift. The President's State of the Union address built on his "addiction to oil" speech last year and set the first US targets for a reduction in petrol consumption.

Many individual American states -- notably California, with whose Governor I signed a bilateral agreement on this subject last year -- are setting targets for reducing emissions and taking far-reaching action to achieve them. American businesses -- including many of their major power companies -- have become advocates of a binding cap and trade system.

The German G8 Presidency gives us an opportunity to agree at least the principles of a new binding international agreement to come into effect when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012; but one which is more radical than Kyoto and more comprehensive, one which this time, includes all the major countries of the world. It is a prize of tantalising significance and I think it is possible.

So across all three issues, there are signs of hope. But this is part of a bigger shift in the politics of the global community. It is in this shift that the real possibilities of progress lie.

What is really happening is that nations -- even the most great -- are realising that they cannot pursue their narrow national interests without invoking broader global values. They are obliged to recognise that interdependence is the defining characteristic of the early 21st century world.

These three topics which have dominated Davos in 2007 are all global in their impact, their political relevance and in their prospective solutions. The Shifting Power Equation, the title of Davos this year, is in part, obviously, about emerging new powers; but it is equally about the fact that power over global issues can only be effectively wielded today by global alliances, based on global values.

There is also the curious mix of moral cause and strategic interest. We know we have a clear interest in combating climate change; but we feel it too, as a moral duty to successive generations as well as our own.

Business is here in Davos not simply to talk about commerce, industrial trends, competitive challenges, but also about its role in tackling the great issues of the day. It has moved way beyond traditional notions of corporate responsibility. Business believes that it, too, has a strategic interest in the moral cause.

The world today is in a kind of perpetual global conversation. Campaigns are begun and intensified almost instantly. Tragedy or injustice, like war, leaps into our living rooms, assaulting our senses, bringing us to a judgement on events that may be thousands of miles away but of which we feel a part.

This can happen in a malign way, as when an atavistic terrorist ideology uses the internet to recruit or proselytise; or in a benign way, as the magnificent Live Aid showed in awakening the conscience of the world over Africa.

Either way, it is a reality and it has a profound impact.

Individuals become part of mass movements for change and action. Political leaders find that the time quotient between foreign and domestic affairs alters dramatically. Business gets involved in politics, not as partisans of a political party, but as important actors in global debate.

Above all, nations find that they need to confront and deal with challenges that simply do not admit of resolution without powerful alliances of other nations. And every nation, even the most powerful, is obliged to find such alliances or find their own interests buffeted and diminished.

That is why we call it interdependence. It is the ultimate joining together of self-interest and community interest. Afghanistan was a failed state, its people living in misery and poverty but in days gone by it would have stayed that way without the world much noticing. September 11th brought it to our notice in the most unforeseen but catastrophic way. Look how the world has changed because of it.

We know Africa's plight is shameful in a world of plenty. But I have never shrunk from confessing another motive. I believe if we let Somalia or Sudan slip further into the abyss, the effect of their fall will not stay within their region never mind their nation. I will argue for the presence of peace in Palestine on its own terms; but there is no question that its absence has consequences on the streets of cities in Britain amongst people who have never been near Gaza or the West Bank.

And, of course, there is climate change. Assume even a possibility of its threat being real. It would be madness not to act to prevent its realisation -- just as a precaution. Its challenge is the supreme expression of interdependence. America and China, even if they had no other reason for a relationship and they have many, would need one simply for this alone.

To this add economic globalisation, which offers, in general, such immense opportunity but whose effects, in particular, can be random and savage.

So just take these three issues: climate change; Africa and world trade. Work out what is at stake: the future of the planet; the death or life of millions of people every year; the ability to spread the life chances of globalisation, the single greatest economic engine of our time, more evenly.

Consider what is at stake in these issues. Then consider how hard we have found it to put the right alliances in place; reach agreement; and take the appropriate measures to get the job done. This is my major reflection on 10 years of trying to meet these challenges, 10 years in which, as a deliberate policy, Britain has been at the forefront, for better or worse, of each of these major global issues.

Interdependence is an accepted fact. It is giving rise to a great yearning for a sense of global purpose, underpinned by global values, to overcome challenges, global in nature. But we are woefully short of the instruments to make multilateral action effective. We acknowledge the interdependent reality. We can sketch the purpose and describe the values. What we lack is capacity, capability, the concerted means to act.

We need a multilateralism that is muscular. Instead, too often, it is disjointed, imbued with the right ideas but the wrong or inadequate methods of achieving them. None of this should make us underestimate what has been done. But there is too often a yawning gap between our description of an issue's importance and the matching capability to determine it.

In this regard, there is often an easy and lazy critique that puts this down to an absence of political will. In my experience there is, usually, not a problem of political will. By and large its there. It is translating that will into action that is the problem. Why? Because it requires focus, time, energy and commitment and though individual leaders and nations can provide those qualities intermittently, sustaining them over time, with all the other pressures is just practically impossible.

Global purpose, underpinned by global values requires global instruments of effective multilateral action. A UNSC without Germany, Japan, Brazil or India, to say nothing of any African or Muslim nation, will, in time, not merely lose legitimacy in the eyes of the world, but seriously inhibit effective action. By all means let us have some form of bridging mechanism -- perhaps semi-permanent status without a veto -- to a reformed Council; but get it done. Likewise with reform within the UN -- greater power to the Secretary General, merging agencies, one UN organisation in-country. But reform now has to happen.

There is a powerful case for merging the IMF and World Bank and for increasing the influence of the developing countries within them.

The G8 is already well on its way to metamorphosis into G8 + 5. At G8 + 5, it can be a forum for agreement between the most powerful nations with a true modern global reach. But sooner or later, the metamorphosis should be complete.

We need to make the regional blocs more effective. I strongly believe in changing the rules of the EU to build efficacy in Europe's power. The EU at 27 cannot operate within the system used for an EU of 15 countries.

It would hugely help the cause of Africa if the AU became a strongly and cohesive voice and instrument of Africa's interests. However, this is not just about Governmental institutions.

Into the void between identifying an issue's importance and securing the means of acting on it, has increasingly stepped the non-governmental and non-state actors. The resource of the Gates Foundation is being put to the eradication of Malaria -- a preventable disease which kills one million a year. The Grameen Bank, founded by Mohammed Yunus has pioneered micro-credit projects which now have over 80 million recipients, the majority of them women. It is a partnership between Governments, private markets, NGOs and faith groups that is providing immunisation that will save five million children's lives and those of a further five million adults.

The agenda on climate change is increasingly being set by coalitions of business, most recently the group of US companies calling for tougher action but also setting out practical ways of doing it. All of this is great, ground-breaking work. But in a sense it is laying bare the paucity of the instruments to effect change, which we have at our disposal.

In 1999 in Chicago I called for a doctrine of international community, in which we accept that a modern foreign policy cannot work except on the basis of shared common values. These values gave us not just a right but a duty to act in order to protect people at risk. I meant it in the context of Kosovo and ethnic cleansing. But of course its application goes far wider.

The common theme that runs through such apparently disparate issues like the struggle against terrorism or poverty in Africa is that both require active measures of intervention. Indeed the very consequence of interdependence is the necessity to intervene, in coalition with others, in order to prevent danger or injustice that may originate outside our borders but ultimately will affect us within them.

So, today, we see the establishment of a proper democratic state of Palestine as benefiting not just the people of Palestine and Israel but the wider Middle East and the world. We know, too, that if Central Africa is given over to conflict it will at some stage be a global threat. Likewise if Iraq or Afghanistan falls back into failed states exporting violence, we will suffer the impact.

But we know also that none of these desirable objectives will occur without our active intervention.

We are familiar with military intervention; the path of aid and development is well trodden. But the concept of nation-building - by which I mean the construction of the capacity for effective self-government within a country - is still in its infancy. The proper infrastructure of government - functioning commercial and legal systems, health and education ministries that can actually administer, economic authorities that have real authority; police and military that perform the tasks they should under proper rules of governance: these things often seem less exciting and motivating than direct intervention to cure disease or alleviate poverty, but in reality they are the life blood of true progress for nations struggling to be nations.

Aid for trade is at least as important as any other part of the world trade deal. Why? Because it builds capacity.

There is a whole new dimension to international intervention that needs development. It is in building capacity that the fate of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or any of poorest or war-ravaged African nations will obtain their salvation. Everything else - worthy and essential though it is - fails unless the systems of self-government and therefore self-help are brought into being.

These are new skills the international community must develop.

There is a further element to it. We need proper, well-constructed means of conflict resolution and peace-keeping. What is happening in Darfur today is a scandal; not a problem, a scandal. Hundreds of thousands die or live lives of unbelievable risk and misery because we cannot assemble a proper peace agreement, properly enforced, with the full weight of the international community behind it. I know there are a host of political reasons that are colliding with our good intent. But the real problem, again, is the absence of a sustained international focus, with the capacity to keep at it, report back credibly and trigger action, if nothing happens.

Not all of this requires us to go back to traditional institutions of international governance like the United Nations. Non-state actors can play a role here too. But the point is very simple: if we are to intervene successfully, we have to have the capability to do so.

Therefore a key and new part of our international dialogue must now be strengthening the instruments and institutions, those between governments but also those within broader civic society, that can build capacity. We need new networks, new relationships between countries and between people which mobilise the practical means of bringing change into being.

There is an urgency here. What is remarkable about Davos this year - and this has been true for some years now - is the degree of consensus around a values-based international agenda. It is what makes me optimistic. There is a true sense of global responsibility.

But ours is not the only narrative competing for the world's attention. There is another. It may be - is - based on a total perversion of Islam; but it has shown itself capable of playing cleverly on the injustice, poverty and alienation felt by many whose lifestyles are a world away from ours. We believe we are doing our best to confront the world's problems and to lift the scourge from the backs of so many millions whose lives are blighted. But this counter-ideology mocks our efforts, disputes our motives, turns our good faith into bad.

And there is yet another narrative. In 20 years, or sooner, there will be new powers, new constellations of authority, with strong intentions and powerful means of advancing them. What values will govern that new world? Will they be global values, commonly shared or will the world revert to spheres of interest, to competing power-plays in which the lesser or struggling nations are the victims?

If the narrative we believe in - a world of tolerance, freedom, openness and justice for all - is to be credible, it has to be effective. The best answer to fear is always hope. But hope requires belief. And belief comes only from words turned into deeds. So take these issues: Africa, climate change, world trade.
Imagine over the coming months the world agrees and over the coming years, it acts. Think how attractive our story of the world's progress would be. Then think of failure and who will weep and who will rejoice. Think of all of this. Then let us agree. Then let us act.


Tony Blair

[ENDS]

[moeen yaseen]

THE LIVING REALITY OF MILITARY-ECONOMIC FASCISM

By Robert Higgs
http://www.mises.org/story/2450

"The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business — ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed." – Colonel James G. Burton (1993, 232)

In countries such as the United States, whose economies are commonly, though inaccurately, described as "capitalist" or "free-market," war and preparation for war systematically corrupt both parties to the state-private transactions by which the government obtains the bulk of its military goods and services.

On one side, business interests seek to bend the state's decisions in their favor by corrupting official decision-makers with outright and de facto bribes. The former include cash, gifts in kind, loans, entertainment, transportation, lodging, prostitutes' services, inside information about personal investment opportunities, overly generous speaking fees, and promises of future employment or "consulting" patronage for officials or their family members, whereas the latter include campaign contributions (sometimes legal, sometimes illegal), sponsorship of political fund-raising events, and donations to charities or other causes favored by the relevant government officials.

Reports of this sort of corruption appear from time to time in the press under the rubric of "military scandal" (see, for example, Biddle 1985, Wines 1989, Hinds 1992, "National Briefing" 2003, Pasztor and Karp 2004, Colarusso 2004, Calbreath and Kammer 2005, Wood 2005, Babcock 2006, Ross 2006, and "Defense Contractor Guilty in Bribe Case" 2006). On the other, much more important side, the state corrupts business people by effectively turning them into co-conspirators in and beneficiaries of its most fundamental activity — plundering the general public.

Participants in the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) are routinely blamed for "mismanagement," not infrequently they are accused of "waste, fraud, and abuse," and from time to time a few of them are indicted for criminal offenses (Higgs 1988, 1990, xx-xxiii, 2004; Fitzgerald 1989; Kovacic 1990a, 1990b).

All of these unsavory actions, however, are typically viewed as aberrations — misfeasances to be rectified or malfeasances to be punished while retaining the basic system of state-private cooperation in the production of military goods and services (for an explicit example of the "aberration" claim, see Fitzgerald 1989, 197–9. I maintain, in contrast, that these offenses and even more serious ones are not simply unfortunate blemishes on a basically sound arrangement, but superficial expressions of a thoroughgoing, intrinsic rottenness in the entire setup.

It is regrettable in any event for people to suffer under the weight of a state and its military apparatus, but the present arrangement — a system of military-economic fascism as instantiated in the United States by the MICC — is worse than full-fledged military-economic socialism. In the latter, the people are oppressed, because they are taxed, conscripted, and regimented, but they are not co-opted and corrupted by joining forces with their rapacious rulers; a clear line separates them from the predators on the "dark side."

With military-economic fascism, however, the line becomes blurred, and a substantial number of people actively hop back and forth across it: advisory committees, such as the Defense Science Board and the Defense Policy Board and university administrators meet regularly with Pentagon officials (see Borger 2003 for a report of an especially remarkable meeting), and the revolving door spins furiously — according to a September 2002 report, "[t]hirty-two major Bush appointees are former executives, consultants, or major shareholders of top weapons contractors" (Ciarrocca 2002, 2; see also Hamburger 2003, Doward 2003, Stubbing 1986, 90, 96, and Kotz 1988, 230), and a much greater number cross the line at lower levels.

Moreover, military-economic fascism, by empowering and enriching wealthy, intelligent, and influential members of the public, removes them from the ranks of potential opponents and resisters of the state and thereby helps to perpetuate the state's existence and its intrinsic class exploitation of people outside the state. Thus, military-economic fascism simultaneously strengthens the state and weakens civil society, even as it creates the illusion of a vibrant private sector patriotically engaged in supplying goods and services to the heroic military establishment (the Boeing Company's slickly produced television ads, among others, splendidly illustrate this propagandistically encouraged illusion).

Garden-variety Military-Economic Corruption of Government Officials

We need not dwell long on the logic of garden-variety military-economic corruption. As pots of honey attract flies, so pots of money attract thieves and con men. No organization has more money at its disposal than the US government, which attracts thieves and con men at least in full proportion to its control of wealth. Unscrupulous private parties who desire to gain a slice of the government's booty converge on the morally dismal swamp known as Washington, DC, and take whatever actions they expect will divert a portion of the loot into their own hands. Anyone who expects honor among thieves will be sorely disappointed by the details of these sordid activities.

Although headlines alone cannot convey the resplendently lurid details, they can suggest the varieties of putrid sloughs that drain into the swamp:

Audit Cites Pentagon Contractors [for widespread abuse of overhead charges]
Ex-Unisys Official Admits Paying Bribes to Get Pentagon Contracts
Top Republican on a House Panel Is Charged With Accepting Bribes
Ex-Pentagon Officials Sentenced [for taking monetary bribes and accepting prostitutes' services from contractors]
Northrop Papers Indicate Coverup: Documents from '80s Show Accounting Irregularities Were Hidden from Pentagon
Revolving Door Leads to Jail: Former Acquisition Official Convicted of Steering Business to Boeing for Personal Gain
Contractor "Knew How to Grease the Wheels": ADCS Founder Spent Years Cultivating Political Contacts
Graft Lurks within Pentagon's "Black Budget": Top-secret Items Escape Oversight
Contractor Pleads Guilty to Corruption: Probe Extends Beyond Bribes to Congressman
From Cash to Yachts: Congressman's Bribe Menu; Court Documents Show Randall "Duke" Cunningham Set Bribery Rates
Defense Contractor Guilty in Bribe Case
(Sources for these headlines appear, respectively, in the citations given in the third paragraph of this article.) Anyone who cares to accumulate all such news articles may look forward to full employment for the rest of his life.

"No organization has more money at its disposal than the US government, which attracts thieves and con men at least in full proportion to its control of wealth."
Yet, notwithstanding the many culprits who are caught in the act, one must realistically assume that a far greater number get away scot-free. As Ernest Fitzgerald, an extraordinarily knowledgeable authority with extensive personal experience, has observed, the entire system of military procurement is pervaded by dishonesty: "Government officials, from the majestic office of the president to the lowest, sleaziest procurement office, lie routinely and with impunity in defense of the system," and "the combination of loose procurement rules and government acquiescence in rip-offs leaves many a crook untouched" (1989, 312, 290).

Among the instructive cases now making their way through the justice system are several related to recently convicted congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham, a war hero and longtime titan of the MICC who currently resides in a federal penitentiary. Chief among the persons under continuing investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is Brent Wilkes, a DC high-flyer who is alleged to have been involved tangentially in events leading to the recent sacking of former congressman and Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss. According to a May 7, 2006, report in the New York Daily News, ongoing FBI and CIA investigations of Kyle (Dusty) Foggo, formerly the third-ranking official at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who resigned in May 2006 amid a swirl of allegations,

have focused on the Watergate poker parties thrown by defense contractor Brent Wilkes, a high-school buddy of Foggo's, that were attended by disgraced former Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham and other lawmakers.

Foggo has claimed he went to the parties "just for poker" amid allegations that Wilkes, a top GOP fund-raiser and a member of the $100,000 "Pioneers" of Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, provided prostitutes, limos and hotel suites to Cunningham.

Cunningham is serving an eight-year sentence after pleading to taking $2.4 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to cronies.

Wilkes hosted regular parties for 15 years at the Watergate and Westin Grand Hotels for lawmakers and lobbyists. Intelligence sources said Goss has denied attending the parties as CIA director, but that left open whether he may have attended as a Republican congressman from Florida who was head of the House Intelligence Committee. (Sisk 2006)

In your mind, multiply this squalid little scenario by one thousand, and you will begin to gain a vision of what goes on in the MICC's higher reaches. Evidently, the daily routine there is not all wailing and gnashing of teeth over how to defend the country against Osama bin Laden and his horde of murderous maniacs — our country's leaders require frequent periods of rest and recreation. If this sort of fun and games at taxpayer expense is your idea of responsible government, then you ought to answer "yes" when the pollster calls to ask whether you favor an increase in the defense budget. Our government is clearly at work — at work making chumps out of its loyal subjects and laughing at these rubes all the way to the bank.

Legal Corruption of Government Officials

The truly big bucks, of course, need not be compromised in the least by this sweaty species of fraud and workaday corruption (Kovacic 1990a,89–90, 103 n197; 1990b, 118, 130 n94–101). Just as someone who kills one person is a murderer, whereas someone who kills a million persons is a statesman, so the government officials who steer hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps without violating any law or regulation, to the Star Wars contractors and the producers of other big-ticket weapon systems account for the bulk of the swag laundered through the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. (Lest the latter organization be overlooked, see the enormously revealing account by Bennett 2006.)

I am not saying that this huge component of the MICC is squeaky clean — far from it — but only that the corruption in this area, in dollar terms, falls mainly under the heading of legal theft, or at least in the gray area (Stubbing 1986, 407). As a Lockheed employee once wrote to Fitzgerald, "the government doesn't really need this stuff. It's just the best way to get rich quick. If they really needed all these nuclear bombs and killer satellites, they wouldn't run this place the way they do" (qtd. in Fitzgerald 1989, 313; see also Meyer 2002). I personally recall Fitzgerald's saying to me twenty years ago at Lafayette College, "A defense contract is just a license to steal."

Absence of Proper Accounting Invites Theft

Indeed, Fitzgerald appeared as a witness at Senator Chuck Grassley's September 1998 hearings titled "License to Steal: Administrative Oversight of Financial Control Failures at the Department of Defense." At those hearings, Grassley released two new audit reports prepared by the General Accounting Office and another report prepared by his staff in cooperation with the Air Force Office of Financial Management. According to Grassley's September 21, 1998, press release, "These reports consistently show that sloppy accounting procedures and ineffective or nonexistent internal controls leave DoD's accounts vulnerable to theft and abuse. Failure by the DoD to exercise proper accounting procedures has resulted in fraud and mismanagement of the taxpayers' money."

Although this sort of complaint has become an annual ritual, dutifully reported in the press, the Pentagon has never managed to put its accounts into a form that can even be audited. Like Dick Cheney, who chose not to fight in the Vietnam War, the military brass seems to have had other priorities, even though for more than a decade the Defense Department has invariably stood in violation of the 1994 federal statute that requires every government department to make a financial audit (Higgs 2005, 55–61).

"If this sort of fun and games at taxpayer expense is your idea of responsible government, then you ought to answer yes when the pollster calls to ask whether you favor an increase in the defense budget."
Testifying before a congressional committee on August 3, 2006, Thomas F. Gimble, the department's acting inspector general, emphasized "financial management problems that are long standing, pervasive, and deeply rooted in virtually all operations."

Expanding on this general observation with specific reference to the fiscal year 2005 agency-wide principal financial statements, he stated: "We issued a disclaimer of opinion for the statements because numerous deficiencies continue to exist related to the quality of data, adequacy of reporting systems, and reliability of internal controls."

Of the nine organizational components "required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare and obtain an audit opinion on their FY 2005 financial statements," only one received an unqualified opinion and one a qualified opinion. "All the others, including the agency-wide financial statements, received a disclaimer of opinion, as they have every year in the past…. The weaknesses that affect the auditability of the financial statements also impact other DoD programs and operations and contribute to waste, mismanagement, and inefficient use of DoD resources. These weaknesses affect the safeguarding of assets and proper use of funds and impair the prevention and identification of fraud, waste, and abuse" (US Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General 2006, 1–2, emphasis added).

In Iraq since the US invasion in 2003, billions of dollars have simply disappeared without leaving a trace ("Audit: US Lost Track" 2005, Krane 2006). Surely they did not all evaporate in the hot desert sun. The accounts at Homeland Security are in equally horrible condition (Bennett 2006, 110–11).

No one knows how much money or specific property is missing from the military and homeland-security departments or where the missing assets have gone. If a public corporation kept its accounts this atrociously, the Securities and Exchange Commission would shut it down overnight. Government officials, however, need not worry about obedience to the laws they make to assure their credulous subjects that everything is hunky-dory inside the walls. When they are of a mind, they simply flout those laws with impunity.

PAC Contributions to Politicians and Their Parties Are Bribes

Political action committees (PACs) evolved and eventually obtained legal validation as vehicles for making lawful bribes to candidates for federal offices and to their political parties. Candidates now count on them for a large share of their campaign funds, and everyone over eleven years of age with an IQ above 70 understands that these contributions are made with an understanding that they will elicit a quid pro quo from the recipients who win the elections.

Military-economic interests have not been timid about forming PACs and transferring huge sums of money through them to the candidates. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, "defense" PACs transferred more than $70 million to candidates and parties in the election cycles from 1990 to 2006. Individuals and soft-money contributors (before soft-money contributions were outlawed after the 2002 elections) in the "defense" sector added more than $37 million, bringing the total to nearly $108 million (the figures are available here).

No one knows how much was added by illegal and hence unrecorded contributions made by military interests, but the addition might well have been substantial, if we may judge by the many accounts of individual instances of such contributions that have been brought to light over the years.

Figure 1 shows the amounts transferred during the past nine election cycles.


Figure 1. Contributions by "Defense" Interests in Federal Elections, 1990–2006

Source: Center for Responsive Politics
Note: Soft money contributions (defined as those that do not explicitly urge voters to cast their ballots for specific candidates) after the 2002 elections were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

Methodology: The numbers are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Although election cycles are shown in the chart as 1996, 1998, 2000, etc., they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2002.



One may deny, of course, that PAC contributions constitute a form of corruption, inasmuch as they are legal within the statutorily specified limits, but such a denial would elevate form over substance. Both the givers and the receivers understand these payments in exactly the same way that they understand illegal forms of bribery, even though they never admit this understanding in public — political decorum must be served, if only to protect the children.

How Government Corrupts Business

A brief review of the history of US military contracting helps to clarify my claim that military-economic transactions tend to corrupt business. The most important historical fact is that before 1940, except during wartime, such dealings amounted to very little. The United States had only a tiny standing army and no standing munitions industry worthy of the name. When wars occurred, the government supplemented the products of its own arsenals and navy yards with goods and services purchased from private contractors, but most such items were off-the-shelf civilian goods, such as boots, clothing, food, and transportation services.

To be sure, plenty of occasions arose for garden-variety corruption in these dealings — bribes, kickbacks, provision of shoddy goods, and so forth (Brandes 1997) – but such malfeasances were usually one-shot or fleeting transgressions, because the demobilizations that followed the conclusion of each war removed the opportunity for such corruption to become institutionalized to a significant degree in law, persistent organizations, or ongoing practice.

Like gaudy fireworks, these sporadic outbursts of corruption flared brightly and then turned to dead cinders. No substantial peacetime contracting existed to fuel enduring corruption of the military's private suppliers, and much of the contracting that did take place occurred within the constraints of rigid solicitations and sealed-bid offers, which made cozy deals between a military buyer and a private seller difficult to arrange. At late as fiscal year 1940, the War Department made 87 percent of its purchases through advertising and invitations to bid (Higgs 2006a, 39).

"The Pentagon has never managed to put its accounts into a form that can even be audited."
All this changed abruptly and forever in 1940, and the situation that existed during the so-called defense period of 1940–41, before the United States became a declared belligerent in World War II, and the manner in which it was resolved had an enduring effect in shaping the contours of the MICC and hence in establishing its characteristic corruption of business.

The Roosevelt administration, desperate to build up the nation's capacity for war after the breathtaking German triumphs in the spring of 1940, made an abrupt about-face, abandoning its relentless flagellation of businessmen and investors and instead courting their favor as prime movers in the buildup of the munitions industries. Most businessmen, however, having been anathematized and legislatively pummeled for the past six years, were reluctant to enter into such deals, for a variety of reasons, chief among them being their fear and distrust of the federal government (Higgs 2006a, 36–3.

To placate the leery businessmen by shifting the risks from them onto the taxpayers, the government adopted several important changes in its procurement laws and regulations. These included negotiated cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, instead of contracts arrived at within the solicitation-and-sealed-bid system; various forms of tax breaks; government loan guarantees; direct government funding of plants, equipment, and materials; and provision of advance and progress payments, sparing the contractors the need to obtain and pay interest on bank loans.

All of these arrangements, with greater or lesser variations in their details from time to time, became permanent features of the MICC (US Senate, Committee on Armed Services 1985, 35, 42, 553–67).

Even more important, as the new system operated on a vast scale during World War II, the dealings between the military purchasers and the private suppliers took on a fundamentally new style. As described by Wilberton Smith, the official historian of the Army's economic mobilization during the war:

The relationship between the government and its contractors was gradually transformed from an "arm's length" relationship between two more or less equal parties in a business transaction into an undefined but intimate relationship — partly business, partly fiduciary, and partly unilateral — in which the financial, contractual, statutory, and other instruments and assumptions of economic activity were reshaped to meet the ultimate requirements of victory in war. Under the new conditions, contracts ceased to be completely binding; fixed prices in contracts often became only tentative and provisional prices; excessive profits received by contractors were recoverable by the government; and potential losses resulting from many causes — including errors, poor judgments, and performance failures on the part of contractors — were averted by modification and amendment of contracts, with or without legal "consideration," whenever required by the exigencies of the war effort. (1959, 312, emphasis added)

Although Smith was describing the system as it came to operate during World War II, almost everything he said fits the postwar MICC as well (Higgs 2006a, 31–33), especially his depiction of the buyer-seller dealings as constituting "an undefined but intimate relationship" and his recognition that "contracts ceased to be completely binding."

Thus, the institutional changes made in 1940–41 and the wartime operation of the military-industrial complex in the context of these new rules put permanently in place the essential features of the modern procurement system, which has repeatedly demonstrated its imperviousness to reform for the past sixty years — it was too good a deal to give up even after the demise of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, and with breathtaking chutzpah, the system's kingpins parlayed the box-cutter attacks of 9/11 into an excuse to pour hundreds of billions of additional dollars into purchases of Cold War weaponry (Sapolsky and Gholz 2001, Isenberg and Eland 2002, Higgs 2004, Makinson 2004).

Under the old, pre-1940 system, a private business rarely had anything to gain by wining and dining military buyers or congressmen. Unless a firm made the lowest-priced sealed-bid offer to supply a carefully specified good, it would not get the contract. The military buyer knew what he needed, and he had a tightly limited budget with which to get it. After 1940, however, the newly established "intimate relationship" opened up a whole new world for wheeling and dealing on both sides of the deal — often it was difficult to say whether the government agent was shaking down the businessman or the businessman was bribing the government agent.

"In Iraq since the US invasion in 2003, billions of dollars have simply disappeared without leaving a trace."
In fact, until the military purchasing agency certified a company as qualified, the firm could not make a valid offer, even in the context of competitive bidding. In the post-1940 era, only a small fraction of all contracts emerged from formally advertised, sealed-bid competition, and most contracts were negotiated without any kind of price competition (Higgs 2006a, 39; Stubbing 1986, 226, 411).

Deals came to turn not on price, but on technical and scientific capabilities, size, experience, and established reputation as a military supplier — vaguer attributes that are easier to fudge for one's friends. From time to time, deals also turned on the perceived need to keep a big firm from going under. For example, Fen Hampson observes that in the early 1970s, "The bidding [for production of the C-4 (Trident I) missile] was not opened to other companies because Lockheed was encountering financial difficulties at the time and desperately needed the business" (1989, 92).

Indeed, scholars have identified an extensive pattern of rotating major contracts that has been dubbed a "follow-on imperative" or a "bailout imperative," a virtual guarantee against bankruptcy, regardless of mismanagement or other corporate ineptitude (Nieburg 1966, 201, 269; Kurth 1973, 142–44; Kaufman 1972, 289; Dumas 1977, 458; Gansler 1980, 49, 172, 227; Stubbing 1986, 185–89, 200–04).

Subcontracts could also be used to prop up failing firms, and in nearly every large-scale project they served as the principal means of spreading the political patronage across many congressional districts (Kotz 1988, 128–29; Mayer 1990, 218–31). In truth, deals — especially the many important changes introduced into them after their initial formulation ("contract nourishment"), permitting contractors to "buy in now, get well later" (Stubbing 1986, 179–84) — came to turn in substantial part on "who you know." In Richard Stubbing's words, "Often it is raw politics, not military considerations, which ultimately determines the winner" (1986, 165).

All the successful major prime contractors — such as Lockheed Martin (see Cummings 2007), General Dynamics (see Franklin 1986), Rockwell (see Kotz 1988), Bechtel (see McCartney 1988), and Halliburton (see Briody 2004), for example — demonstrated beyond any doubt that in the MICC, cultivating friends in high places yields a high rate of return. Indeed, without such friends, a firm may be hard pressed to survive in this sector at all.

The tight budget constraints of the pre-1940 peacetime periods became vastly looser as trillions of dollars poured out of the congressional appropriations process during the endless national emergency of the Cold War and its sequel, the so-called war on terror. As Nick Kotz observed, "Now that the stakes in profits and jobs were far higher than those of any government program in history, dividing the spoils ensured that the game of politics would be played on a grand scale" (1988, 50). (Of course, the game of politics in reality, as distinct from the high-school-civics idealization, is essentially the game of corruption.) In fiscal year 2007, for example, the Department of Defense anticipates outlays of approximately $90 billion for procurement, $162 billion for operations and maintenance, $72 billion for research, development, testing, and evaluation, and $8 billion for military construction — components that sum to $332 billion (US Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 2006, 15). Nearly all of this loot will end up in the pockets of private contractors; military personnel costs are separate from these accounts.

With plenty of money to go around, all that a would-be contractor needs is an old buddy in the upper reaches of a military bureaucracy or a friend on the House military appropriations subcommittee or in the Senate. (Nowadays, more than ever before, a single member of Congress can create magnificent gifts for his friends by making "earmarks," furtive amendments to an appropriations bill that everyone understands to be nothing but an individual legislator's pound of flesh taken out of the taxpayer's unfortunate corpus.)

"If a public corporation kept its accounts this atrociously, the SEC would shut it down overnight."
If one does not have such a friend in high places, one can acquire him (or her, as the infamous Darleen Druyun illustrates [see Colarusso 2004]) by ponying up the various forms of bribes to which many Pentagon officials and members of Congress have shown themselves to be highly receptive. After all, it's not as if the bureaucrat or the member of Congress is giving away his own money.

To keep this gravy train on the track, contractors and their trade associations, as well as the armed forces themselves, devote great efforts to increasing the amount of money Congress appropriates in total for "defense," and now also for "homeland security." Their campaign contributions and other favors go predominantly to the incumbent barons — congressional leaders and committee chairmen — and to the "hawks" who've never met a defense budget big enough to please them. As Fitzgerald notes, "In Washington you can get away with anything as long as you have the high moguls of Congress as accessories before and after the fact" (1989, 91).

Furthermore, as Kotz observes, "[t]here is a multiplier effect as the different military services, members of Congress, presidential administrations, and defense industries trade support for each other's projects" (1989, 235). In other words, the defense budget is not simply the biggest logroll in Congress (Stubbing 1986, 9, but the biggest logroll in Washington, DC. Fen Hampson remarks: "bureaucratic and political interests approach weapons acquisition and defense budget issues as non-zero-sum games; that is, as games where there are rewards and payoffs to all parties from cooperation or collusion" (1989, 282). Only the taxpayers lose, but their interests don't count: they are not "players" in this game, but victims.

To give the public a seeming interest in the whole wretched racket, the contractors also spend substantial amounts of money cultivating the public's yearning to have the military dish out death and destruction to designated human quarry around the world — commies, gooks, ragheads, Islamo-fascists, narco-terrorists, and so forth — who are said to threaten the precious "American way of life."

For example, Rockwell, a military contractor whose massive secret contributions helped to reelect Richard Nixon in 1972 (Kotz 1988, 103–04, Fitzgerald 1989, 84), once mounted "a secret grass-roots campaign code-named Operation Common Sense" that included "a massive letter-writing campaign … solicitation of support from national organizations … and production of films and advertisements as well as prepared articles, columns, and editorials that willing editors could print in newspapers and magazines" (Kotz 1988, 134–35) — all the news that's fit to print, so to speak.

Much money goes into producing glorification of the armed forces, and reports of those forces' stupidities and brutalities in exotic climes are dismissed as nothing but the fabrications of leftists and appeasers or, if they cannot plausibly be denied, alleged to be nothing more than the isolated misbehavior of a few "bad apples" (Higgs 2006b).

Lest the armed forces themselves prove insufficiently imaginative in conceiving of new and even more expensive projects for the lucky suppliers to carry out, the contractors hire battalions of mad geniuses to design the superweapons of the future and regiments of former generals and admirals to market these magnificent creations to their old friends and subordinates currently holding down desks at the Pentagon.

"With breathtaking chutzpah, the system's kingpins parlayed the box-cutter attacks of 9/11 into an excuse to pour hundreds of billions of additional dollars into purchases of Cold War weaponry."
Thus, as General James P. Mullins, former commander of the Air Force Logistics Command, has written, "the prime contractors are where the babies really come from." He explains: "[T]he contractor has already often determined what it wants to produce before the formal acquisition process begins…. The contractor validates the design through the process of marketing it to one of the services. If successful, the contractor gets a contract. Thus, to a substantial degree, the weapon capabilities devised by contractors create military requirements" (1986, 91; see also Stubbing 1986, 174).

In sum, the military-supply firms exemplify a fundamentally corrupt type of organization. Their income comes to them only after it has first been extorted from the taxpayers at gunpoint — hence their compensation amounts to receiving stolen property. They are hardly unwitting or unwilling recipients, however, because they are not drafted to do what they do. No wallflowers at this dance of death, they eagerly devote strenuous efforts to encouraging government officials to wring ever greater amounts from the taxpayers and to distribute the loot in ways that enrich the contractors, their suppliers, and their employees.

These efforts include both the licit and the illicit measures I have described, spanning the full range from making a legal campaign contribution to providing prostitutes to serve the congressman or the Pentagon bigwig after he has become bored with playing poker in the contractor's suite at a plush DC hotel.

(Note well: such "entertainment" expenses are likely to be accounted "allowable costs" by the defense contractor who bears them, and with only routine audacity he may add to them an "overhead" charge — the entire sum to be reimbursed ultimately by the taxpayers. [In general, "overhead proves to be a huge moneymaker for defense firms" (Stubbing 1986, 205).] Kotz [1988, 137], describes Rockwell's billing for entertainment, public relations, and lobbying in connection with its contract to build the B-1 bomber. Fitzgerald [1989, 197, 198–99] describes similar charges by General Dynamics, as well as boarding expenses for an executive's dog, and by Pratt and Whitney, including $7,085 for hors d'oeuvres at a Palm Beach golf resort and $2,735 for strolling musicians at another bash. Sometimes the contractors billed the government twice for the same outrageous expenses.)

Can Anything Be Done?

The short answer is "probably not." The MICC is deeply entrenched in the US political economy, which itself has been moving steadily closer to complete economic fascism for more than a century (Higgs 1987, 2007). Decades of studies, investigations, blue ribbon commission reports, congressional hearings and staff studies, and news media exposés detailing its workings from A to Z have scarcely dented it (Higgs 2004). For the most part, the official scrutiny is just for show, whereas the unofficial scrutiny is easily dismissed as the work of outsiders who don't know what they are talking about, not to mention that they are "America haters."

$13
"If people with the power to change an arrangement refrain from doing so for decades on end, the most reasonable conclusion is that they prefer things as they are."
Official evaluations, at their frankest, conclude that "[p]ast mistakes — whether in the procurement of a weapon system or in the employment of forces during a crisis — do not receive the critical review that would prevent them from recurring…. The lessons go unlearned, and the mistakes are repeated" (US Senate, Committee on Armed Services 1985, . Such evaluations, though seemingly forthright and penetrating, strike me as far-fetched. Of course, people sometimes makes mistakes, but if people with the power to change an arrangement refrain from doing so for decades on end, the most reasonable conclusion is that they prefer things as they are — that is, as a rule, there are no long-lasting "failed policies," properly speaking.

To apply here what I wrote twelve years ago in regard to several other kinds of policies: "Government policies succeed in doing exactly what they are supposed to do: channeling resources bilked from the general public to politically organized and influential interest groups" (Higgs 1995; see also Kotz 1989, 242–45).

Therefore, one must conclude that the MICC serves its intended purposes well, however much its chronic crimes and intrinsic corruption sully its self-proclaimed nobility. What you and I call corruption is, after all, precisely what the military-economic movers and shakers call the good life.

Ultimately, the most significant factor is that the post-World War II US foreign policy of global hegemony and recurrent military intervention places a strong floor beneath the MICC and serves as an all-purpose excuse for its many malfeasances (Eland 2004, Johnson 2004).

As Ludwig von Mises observed, "The root of the evil is not the construction of new, more dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of conquest…. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war" (1966, 832; see also Higgs and Close 2007). Until the scope of the US government's geopolitical ambitions and hence the scale of its military activities are drastically reduced, not much opportunity will exist for making its system of military-economic fascism less rapacious and corrupt.


Robert Higgs is editor of the Independent Review. See his book titles in the Mises Store and his archive in Mises Media. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

References

"Audit: US Lost Track of $9 Billion in Iraq Funds." 2005. CNN.com news report. January 30.

Babcock, Charles R. 2006. Contractor Pleads Guilty to Corruption: Probe Extends Beyond Bribes to Congressman. Washington Post, February 25, p. A01.

Bennett, James T. 2006. Homeland Security Scams. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.

Borger, Julian. 2003. "Dr Strangeloves" Meet to Plan New Nuclear Era. The Guardian, August 7.

Biddle, Wayne. 1985. Audit Cites Pentagon Contractors. New York Times, April 29, p. D01.

Brandes, Stuart D. 1997. Warhogs: A History of War Profits in America. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky.

Briody, Dan. 2004. The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley and Sons.

Burton, James G. 1993. The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press.

Calbreath, Dean, and Jerry Kammer. 2005. Contractor "Knew How to Grease the Wheels": ADCS Founder Spent Years Cultivating Political Contacts. San Diego Union-Tribune, December 4.

Ciarrocca, Michelle. 2002. Post-9/11 Economic Windfalls for Arms Manufacturers. Foreign Policy in Focus 7, no. 10 (September).

Colarusso, Laura M. 2004. Revolving Door Leads to Jail. Former Acquisition Official Convicted of Steering Business to Boeing for Personal Gain. Federal Times, October 11, pp. 1, 8.

Cummings, Richard. 2007. Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Playboy. February.

"Defense Contractor Guilty in Bribe Case." 2006. New Orleans Times-Picayune, Feb. 25, p. A10.

Doward, Jamie. 2003. "Ex-presidents Club" Gets Fat on Conflict: High-flying Venture Capital Firm Carlyle Group Cashes in When the Tanks Roll, Writes Jamie Doward. The Observer, March 23.

Dumas, Lloyd J. 1976. Payment Functions and the Productive Efficiency of the Military Industrial Firms. Journal of Economic Issues 10 (June): 458.

Eland, Ivan. 2004. The Empire Has No Clothes: US Foreign Policy Exposed. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

Fitzgerald, A. Ernest. 1989. The Pentagonists: An Insider's View of Waste, Mismanagement, and Fraud in Defense Spending. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Franklin, Roger. 1986. The Defender: The Story of General Dynamics. New York: Harper and Row.

Gansler, Jacques S. 1980. The Defense Industry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Grassley, Chuck. 1998. Press release: Grassley Seeks Expert Testimony from Government Accountants, Watchdogs; Hearing Set to Examine Financial Control Failures at Defense Department. September 21.

Hamburger, Tom. 2003. Perle's Conflict Issue Is Shared by Other Defense Panel Members. Wall Street Journal, March 27, p. A04.

Hampson, Fen Osler. 1989. Unguided Missiles: How America Buys Its Weapons. New York: W. W. Norton.


Higgs, Robert. 1987. Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 1988. Military Scandal, Again. Wall Street Journal, June 27, p. 12.

———. 1990. Introduction: Fifty Years of Arms, Politics, and the Economy. In Arms, Politics, and the Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Robert Higgs, xv-xxxii. New York: Holmes and Meier.

———. 1995. The Myth of "Failed" Policies. The Free Market 13, no. 6 (June): 1, 7–8.

———. 2004. The Cold War Is Over, but US Preparation for It Continues. In Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society, 247–68. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

———. 2005. Resurgence of the Warfare State: The Crisis since 9/11. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

———. 2006a. Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 2006b. No Moral Excuse for War Atrocities. Calgary Herald, June 15, p. A18.

———. 2007. Neither Liberty nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

Higgs, Robert, and Carl P. Close, eds. 2007. Opposing the Crusader State: Alternatives to Global Interventionism. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.

Hinds, Michael Decourcy. 1992. Top Republican on a House Panel Is Charged With Accepting Bribes. New York Times. May 6, p. A01.

Isenberg, David, and Ivan Eland. 2002. Empty Promises: Why the Bush Administration's Half-Hearted Attempts at Defense Reform Have Failed. Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 442, June 11.

Johnson, Chalmers. 2004. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Kaufman, Richard F. 1972. MIRVing the Boondoggle: Contracts, Subsidy, and Welfare in the Aerospace Industry. American Economic Review 62: 288–95.

Kotz, Nick. 1988. Wild Blue Yonder: Money, Politics, and the B-1 Bomber. New York: Pantheon Books.

Kovacic, William E. 1990a. Blue Ribbon Defense Commissions: The Acquisition of Major Weapon Systems. In Arms, Politics, and the Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Robert Higgs, 61–103. New York: Holmes and Meier.

———. 1990b. The Sorcerer's Apprentice: Public Regulation of the Weapons Acquisition Process. In Arms, Politics, and the Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Robert Higgs, 104–31. New York: Holmes and Meier.

Krane, Jim. 2006. Audit: US-Led Occupation Squandered Aid. Global Policy Forum, January 29.

Kurth, James R. 1973. Aerospace Production Lines and American Defense Spending. In Testing the Theory of the Military-Industrial Complex, edited by Steven Rosen. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

Makinson, Larry. 2004. Outsourcing the Pentagon: Who Benefits from the Politics and Economics of National Security? Center for Public Integrity. September 29.

Mayer, Kenneth R. 1990. Patterns of Congressional Influence in Defense Contracting. In Arms, Politics, and the Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Robert Higgs, 202–35. New York: Holmes and Meier.

McCartney, Laton. 1988. Friends in High Places: The Bechtel Story: The Most Secret Corporation and How It Engineered the World. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Meyer, Carlton. 2002. Editorial: The Submarine Mafia. G2mil: The Magazine of Future Warfare. August.

Mises, Ludwig von. 1966. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 3rd rev. ed. Chicago: Contemporary Books.

Mullins, James P. 1986. The Defense Matrix: National Preparedness and the Military-Industrial Complex. San Diego, Calif.: Avant Books.

"National Briefing. Washington: Ex-Pentagon Officials Sentenced." 2003. New York Times. December 13.

Nieburg, H. L. 1966. In the Name of Science. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.

Pasztor, Andy, and Jonathan Karp. 2004. Northrop Papers Indicate Coverup: Documents from '80s Show Accounting Irregularities Were Hidden from Pentagon. Wall Street Journal, April 19, p. A03.

Ross, Brian. 2006. From Cash to Yachts: Congressman's Bribe Menu; Court Documents Show Randall "Duke" Cunningham Set Bribery Rates. February 27. ABC News.

Sisk, Richard. 2006. Behind the Goss Toss. New York Daily News, May 7.

Sapolsky, Harvey M., and Eugene Gholz. 2001. The Defense Industry's New Cycle. Regulation (Winter): 44–49.

Smith, Elberton R. 1959. The Army and Economic Mobilization. Washington, DC: US Army.

Stubbing, Richard A. 1986. The Defense Game: An Insider Explores the Astonishing Realities of America's Defense Establishment. New York: Harper and Row.

US Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). 2006. National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2007.Washington, DC: US Department of Defense. March.

US Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General. 2006. Statement of Thomas F. Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense, before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, on "Financial Management at the Department of Defense." August 3. Available in PDF.

US Senate, Committee on Armed Services. 1985. Defense Organization: The Need for Change. Staff Report to the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, 99th cong., 1st sess., Committee Print, S. Prt. 99–86. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Wines, Michael. 1989. Ex-Unisys Official Admits Paying Bribes to Get Pentagon Contracts. New York Times, March 10, p. A01.

Wood, David. 2005. Graft Lurks within Pentagon's "Black Budget": Top-secret Items Escape Oversight. New Orleans Times-Picayune, November 30, p. A03.

[moeen yaseen]

IRAN, ISRAEL, THE BIG LIE AND THE REAL THREAT


30 January 2007
Frank Scott
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/206/52/

"Attempting to portray Iran as a nuclear menace to Israel and the world, in that order, even though it has no nuclear weapons and Israel has hundreds, is not merely a sign of dementia. It is indication of near idiocy in a society that can be repeatedly manipulated into believing such totally crackpot notions that have no foundation in the material world but exist only in a world of superstitious psycho-fantasy."

01/30/07 "ICHBlog" --- - The atrocity in Iraq continues, with greater opposition within the American ruling party, but no end in sight. It was made possible by reducing public consciousness to that of children in a day care center. But the latest assault on understanding material reality threatens even greater and more bloody injustice. If the continuing barrage of frenzied propaganda succeeds in casting Iran as global menace, and Ahmadinejad as global monster, there is no possible outcome but dreadful global failure.

Why this wild focus on Iran and its president? While many insist that only control of oil is at stake, the zealous core of opposition to the Islamic and Arab world remains the state of Israel, and its rabid supporters in the USA. It is hardly an either/or question, but even as oil’s importance is acknowledged, the enormous power of the Israeli lobby can continue to be denied only by those dense enough to deny global climate change.

Until recently, the existence and power of the lobby has gone unquestioned. This, in justified fear of its financial and political wrath, but also in guilty silence lest past tragedies befall the Jewish people again. How? The horrible experience of world war two has often distorted any sense of modern reality. In deference to memory of a terrible time for European Jews, we have allowed a longer lasting terrible time for those who had nothing to do with any part of that war.

Israel’s pristine status in American consciousness has meant near obliteration of the Palestinian people and most of the Arab and Islamic world as well. A great mass of humanity has been reduced to invisibility except as terrorists or religious fanatics, as they are depicted by Jewish organizations working to protect a colonial European State, and by the American political and media establishment.

The major rationale for Israel’s existence is the holocaust, the rabid persecution of European Jews by the Nazis in world war two. Perpetuation of the memory of this dreadful history has become the most powerful religious movement in the modern world, accorded the status of theocratic faith, not to be questioned by any, and to be ritually worshipped by all.

This has led to intellectual pogroms in Europe where those who dare to question any parts of the holocaust story are charged with heresy and imprisoned. Revenge is not only visited on the Palestinian people, who had nothing to do with any part of it, but on Europeans who audaciously use supposed democratic liberties in order to freely question history.

Treating a material event as a sanctified subject open to no investigation but that of true believers is a form of religious fanaticism. Where biblical mythology about virgin birth, the parting of the red sea, or immaterial spirits communicating with material beings are all subject to intellectual challenge, this historic event is placed above and beyond the human pale and any questioning of its substance treated as political blasphemy.

If this irrationalism were confined to a handful of individuals currently in prison, it would be serious enough. But when it becomes the root cause of moving toward potential nuclear war, it must be confronted before it leads to even more destruction than has already been created in its tsunami like waves of devastation.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein were deemed threats to Israel, and its supporters in the USA played a major role in bringing about the destruction of that nation and its leader. This was to protect a state still seen as a haven for a threatened people, even if the threats are almost entirely neuro-psychiatric and only become material as result of its pariah presence in the middle east. But present claims that Iran poses an even deadlier threat to Israel, and which induce a chorus of support from the American government, means this irrationalism in the service of collective neurosis needs to be confronted before it destroys not only collective sanity, but collective civilization as well.

Attempting to portray Iran as a nuclear menace to Israel and the world, in that order, even though it has no nuclear weapons and Israel has hundreds, is not merely a sign of dementia. It is indication of near idiocy in a society that can be repeatedly manipulated into believing such totally crackpot notions that have no foundation in the material world but exist only in a world of superstitious psycho-fantasy.

While many groups have been terrifying their members by depicting Ahmadinejad as bent on exterminating Jews, the Israeli lobby has been doing the same job on our government. This has led to congressional leaders and future presidential candidates lining up in support of this totally preposterous fiction. The purveyors of this notion are completely delusional, but rather than being sedated or institutionalized, they preside over and control some of our most powerful institutions. They wield frightening influence over an American public and could lead it to act in ignorant support of such hallucinatory fears.

Part of this dementia involves a very dangerous ethnocentric idea; that Jewish suffering was, is, and will always be a central aspect of human history, and must not only be acknowledged as such, endlessly, but also atoned for as such, endlessly. No criticism of this central point, especially as it involves the holocaust, can be treated with anything but contemptuous disregard for the rights of any who fail to toe this ethnocentric line. After Ahmadinejad dared to have Tehran host a conference on the holocaust, with revisionists who might be imprisoned in Europe allowed to speak their minds openly in Iran, he and his nation became a greater menace to that ethnocentric folly than Iraq and Saddam ever were.

When a supposedly enlightened civilization is threatening, once again, to attack another nation, in great part because of its alleged threat to the Jewish State and Jews, there can be no further denial on the part of the majority who will pay a terrible price. It is time to confine theological, biblical and metaphysical belief systems about the past to the imagination and the church, remove them from political economics, and face material reality before it is too late. Until rational, factual, scientifically provable conditions are confronted and dealt with, irrational and near stark raving insane fears could bring about even greater suffering for humanity than past ignorance has already caused. That rational analysis of our world leads to an unmistakable conclusion:

A Euro-Jewish and anti-democratic state in the middle east, and its extremist supporters in the USA, are a major threat to the global future. Israel, not Iran is the problem. Face it, and deal with it.







Sunday, 28 January 2007
SETTING UP THE NEXT US-ISRAELI TARGET (Iran) FOR ANOTHER "SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CRIME "

By Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/153/2/
Still digesting their recent and ongoing aggressions in the Middle East, the Bush and Israeli regimes now threaten to attack Iran. As these warrior states cast their long shadow across the region, they find themselves aided and abetted by the Security Council, the other major powers, parties of the opposition, and the media.

01/28/07 "ICHBlog" -- -The ease with which a supposedly independent media in a supposedly democratic society like the United States can demonize enemies and convert third- and fourth-rate official targets into major threats is almost beyond belief. And the collective amnesia of the establishment media enables them to do the same thing over and over again; they never learn, and most important never have to learn, because the collective amnesia they help instill in the society protects them against correction—an unending series of victories over memory in the exercise of "reality-control" (Orwell). This enables the media to serve as de facto propaganda agents of their state while still claiming to be independent watchdogs. Less than three years ago, in 2004, the New York Times and Washington Post were hardly alone in offering partial mea culpas for having swallowed and regurgitated Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell-Rice lies about Saddam Hussein’s menacing weapons of mass destruction (WMD),2 thereby making a major contribution to the criminal and costly quagmire they now bemoan (but, along with Bush, still declining to urge any quick exit or meaningful withdrawal.) And yet they had barely gotten out their apologies before they eagerly climbed aboard the Bush-Cheney-Rice-Olmert bandwagon on the Iran menace and urgent need to do something about that grave threat.

And what a threat it is! Admittedly, Iran doesn’t possess a single nuclear weapon, and won’t have one for some years even if it is trying to get one, which its religious leaders vigorously deny. If it got a nuclear weapon it couldn’t use it except in desperate self-defense as both Israel and the United States have many nuclear bombs and superior delivery systems, so that any offensive use of its nuclear weapon(s) would entail Iranian national suicide. It may be recalled that Saddam used his WMD only against Iran and his Kurds, but not even in self-defense during the 1991 Persian Gulf war attack on Iraq by the United States and its “coalition”—the former use was with U.S. approval, the latter case of non-use was because Saddam would have suffered disproportionate retaliation by the United States and his restraint followed. This point is not made in the establishment media, possibly because it would seem to qualify the Iran nuclear menace.

The media also do not draw the further inference that an Iranian nuclear weapon would therefore serve only as a means of self-defense and to give Iran a little more leverage in dealing with the nuclear power states—the United States and Israel—that openly threaten it. Instead, the media, following the official line, talk about an Iranian nuclear weapon as “destabilizing,” when what they really mean is that the Israeli-U.S. continuous war-making, ethnic cleansing, and deliberate and effective destabilization of the Middle East would be made more difficult.

Of course, in the demonization tradition, the media feature the special menace of the evil men who run the Iranian state. In the good old days the trick was to tie them to the Evil Empire (the Guatemalan leadership in 1954, the Sandinistas in the 1980s, and in fact any national liberation movement or uncooperative leader who might have sought arms from the Soviet Union), carefully avoiding any awkward earlier support the United States might have given the evil man when he was doing its bidding (Noriega, Saddam in the 1980s and earlier). The media play this game well and regularly perform in the manner that would fit comfortably into the world of Big Brother, where “any past or future agreement [with the demonized enemy] was impossible.…The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia so short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated.” In the case of the Iraq war the technique has been simply to play dumb and never mention the earlier alliance between “Oceania" (the United States) and “Eurasia”(Iraq).

In the Iran case, its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done yeoman service in facilitating the demonization process, although the media have distorted his remarks, misrepresented his power, and generally provided a misleading context to meet the demands of demonization. Ahmadinejad allegedly proclaimed that "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world," a threat proving how dangerous Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be for Israel; the former Israeli Prime Minister and Likud Party Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu currently leads a campaign calling for Ahmadinejad's indictment on the charge of inciting genocide against the Jewish state.3 But it has been shown that Ahmadinejad did not threaten Israel with violence in his October 26, 2005 address before the World Without Zionism conference. Rather, to commemorate International Quds Day, he quoted a number of passages from Ayatollah Khomeini, and in one of these quotes, Khomeini had predicted the passing or ending or vanishing of the Israeli occupation of Quds (i.e., Jerusalem) from the pages of time.4 Furthermore, Ahmadinejad does not rule Iran and does not have the power to go to war against Israel—that power lies with the Mullahs, as the New York Times and others deign to mention when the Mullahs are criticizing Ahmadinejad and thus points can be scored against him.5

On the other hand, both Israel and the United States have leaderships greatly influenced by religious groups whose principles encourage and welcome violent expansionism and even apocalyptic, “end-time” scenarios. The media do not mention U.S. and Israeli religious fanaticism as posing any kind of regional or global existential threat. Nor do they discuss or express great concern over the fact that whereas a few nuclear weapons would only help Iran to deter other states from attacking it, the United States and Israel could use nuclear weapons against Iran without committing national suicide. And both of these nuclear states threaten and reportedly have very active plans for such an attack.6 In the Kafka Era, while such credible plans and threats disappear, the mythical threat to wipe Israel "off the map" is placed front and center, helping make the real threat politically more feasible.

These media failures are closely related to the power of the pro-Israel Lobby in the United States, which has paralyzed the Democratic Party and made it into an ally of Bush administration hardliners pushing for an attack on Iran. Israeli leaders want a war with Iran, preferably with the United States doing the fighting, and this translates into Lobby pressures and hence Democratic leaders jumping on the war bandwagon, often trying to outdo the Republicans. U.S. Senator John Edwards told a recent conference on the "Balance of Israel's National Security" that the "rise of Islamic radicalism, use of terrorism, and the spread of nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel." He immediately added: "At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."7

Edwards is far from alone. Prior to winning election to the Senate in 2004, Illinois' Barack Obama told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune that "launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.” Last October, New York Senator Hillary Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations that "U.S. policy must be unequivocal. Iran must not build or acquire nuclear weapons….We have to keep all options on the table…." More recently, Indiana's Democratic Senator and one-time presidential hopeful Evan Bayh called Iran "everything we thought Iraq was but wasn’t. They are seeking nuclear weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy Israel, and they’ve threatened us, too."8

Coming from the "opposition" party, comments such as these and the assumptions and beliefs which they betray help to reinforce the establishment’s party-line about the "existential" threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to Israel and to the "stability" of the entire Middle East. Thus the rapidity with which Iran has assumed the role formerly occupied by Iraq within the reigning demonology helps to reinvigorate a war-supportive climate just when public disaffection with the Iraq war has sharpened. In the November 2006 elections, the American public voted against the continuation of the Iraq war, and most certainly would oppose their government's expansion of the war to Iran.9 But with the Democrats neutralized and in the absence of a truly mass opposition movement, the public remains irrelevant to this decision-making process: It can be ushered along belatedly, as the bombs begin falling and it is called upon to support "our troops." That worked for some years in the case of the Iraq invasion-occupation.

As With the Iraqi WMD Hoax, Iran's Alleged "Threat to the Peace" Serves To Cover Over the Real Threat Posed to Iran by the United States and Israel

In retrospect, it is crystal clear that the alleged threat of Iraq’s WMD was a cover, long in the making, for a U.S.-British plan to conquer and occupy Iraq, with WMD selected as the sexiest, most saleable marketing device around which this planned violation of the UN Charter was “fixed.” In that episode, the United States and Britain also clearly used the UN as a means of facilitating their attack. But this recent history, none of it more than five years old, had no effect in preventing a closely analogous rerun of that scenario in a run-up to a planned U.S.-Israeli attack and possible attempt at another “regime change” in violation of the UN Charter.

Consider some of the relevant facts:

1. Iran has never once moved beyond its borders in an act of aggression since the organization of the UN and widespread acceptance of the UN Charter as fundamental international law. This, of course, has not prevented Henry Kissinger from describing the "Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology" as a threat to the "region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend," a threat for which the counterweight of "American forces are indispensable."10 Nor has Iran's non-aggressive history prevented a wide array of commentators from repeating the views expressed by the Director of National Intelligence in testimony before the Senate on January 11, when he warned of the "shadow" that Iran now casts across the Middle East; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who warned of an "emboldened and strengthened Iran;" or by George Bush, who, in his two major speeches in January, warned of an Iran "emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons" (January 10), a new axis emerging "out of chaos in Iraq,…an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America" (January 23).11

On the other hand, while despite all this noisy rhetoric Iran has stayed at home, it has been attacked by Iraq in a war of aggression that was actively supported by the United States and Britain. The United States also organized a coup in Iran in 1953 that replaced a democratic with a dictatorial regime. The Security Council stood by and did nothing in the face of these U.S.-supported violations of the UN Charter.

2. The United States and Israel have both engaged in numerous cross-border invasions and occupations in violation of the UN Charter, most recently the United States (and Britain) attacking and occupying Iraq, and Israel bombing and invading Lebanon. The UN Security Council not only failed to do anything punitive in the face of these open violations of the UN Charter, it actually ratified the U.S. occupation—whereas it had quickly forced Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 as a matter of course, given Iraq’s violation of the UN Charter and the importance of adherence to the rule of law!12

3. Iran has not threatened to attack the United States—which it couldn’t do anyway, any more than Iraq could have attacked this country in 2003—and it has not threatened to attack Israel, although Iran has promised to retaliate for an attack against its territory, and President Ahmadinejad has made hostile remarks about Israel and expressed the wish that Israel would disappear as an apartheid state. As noted, his statement was misrepresented by the Western media as part of the demonization process, the media also failing across the board to note the limits of Ahmadinejad’s power in Iran, and the reasons why any offensive effort by Iran against Israel would be suicidal.

4. In contrast with Iran’s bluster but non-threats, both the United States and Israel have made quite open threats to attack Iran, with U.S. officials speaking regularly of their objective as “regime change” in Tehran. This is normalized in the media, which transform Iran’s bluster and non-threats into very worrisome concerns, while making the quite explicit and realistic U.S. and Israeli threats into reasonable reactions to the politically-constructed threat posed by Iran. In one of Condoleezza Rice's classic expressions, matching her claim that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon marked the “birth pangs of a new Middle East,” Rice treats the open Israeli threat against Iran as a regrettable but understandable consequence of Iran’s refusal to terminate nuclear activities--which have never been shown to be anything but peaceful and permitted under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT): “I think that even talk of such [military operations against Iran] just shows how very serious it would be to have Iran continue its program unabated.”13 That Iran’s nuclear program, on the unproven assumption that it has weapons in mind, might be an understandable response to the Israeli open threat to use nuclear weapons on Iran, is outside her—or the Western media’s—orbit of thought.

Although these U.S.-Israeli threats are splashed across headlines and television screens around the globe, and violate the UN Charter’s prohibition against states engaging in the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” and although these threats are made by two states that have committed the “supreme international crime” in Iraq and Lebanon in 2003 and 2006, respectively, the UN and international community take no cognizance of these Charter violations and the threat its authors pose for a further major war. Instead the new Secretary-General speaks of the UN and United States having a “shared objective of promoting human rights, democracy and freedom and peace and security,”14 and the Security Council continues to cooperate actively with the threatening global rogue state as it and its client prepare for a further war of aggression.

5. Beyond mere threats, the United States has already been carrying out provocations and a low-level war of aggression against Iran, on at least two occasions abducting Iranian diplomatic personnel inside Iraq in violation of international law, conducting surveillance flights over Iran's territory, and infiltrating military personnel on the ground.15 It has been transferring deep-earth-penetrating munitions to Israel, and has spoken openly about their possible use against targets within Iran. It has transferred anti-missile systems to neighboring states such as Kuwait and Qatar, and openly made clear their Iran-oriented mission. And it has undertaken the highly provocative placement of two naval aircraft carrier groups off Iran's coastal waters in the Persian Gulf, naming Admiral William J. Fallon the new head of U.S. Central Command, whose theater of operations include Afghanistan and Iraq in a move the New York Times called "classic gunboat diplomacy."16 Or in the words of the U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, "Iran needs to learn to respect us. And Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East."17 All the United States wants is a little respect!

6. Iran was among the original signatories to the NPT (1968); and though the Islamic Republic of Iran dates only from 1979, it has consistently denounced the nuclear-weapon option, instructing the IAEA that it "considers the acquiring, development and use of nuclear weapons inhuman, immoral, illegal and against its very basic principles."18 Iran has cooperated with the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to an impressive extent. For some years prior to 2003, it did hide aspects of its nuclear program, most notably its early research in the field of uranium enrichment, possibly recognizing that its enemies (the United States and Israel) would give it trouble for any work it did in this area even if it was legal. In order to satisfy the IAEA's ever-changing doubts, however, Iran adopted numerous and sometimes unprecedented "confidence building" measures over the course of 2003-2005, including the voluntary suspension of a uranium enrichment program in which it has every right to engage under the NPT, and the voluntary observance of the stricter Additional Protocol measures, even though Iran never adopted them formally. More important, no IAEA report on Iran's implementation of its non-proliferation commitments has ever determined that Iran diverted its nuclear program away from civilian toward military uses. Nor has the CIA found any evidence of a secret program to develop nuclear weapons.19

7. On the other hand, the United States (along with every other nuclear-weapon state) has violated its commitment under the same NPT “to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control," in the words of the unanimous opinion of the International Court of Justice (July 8, 1996).20 The United States not only refuses to move toward nuclear disarmament, it has recently declared nuclear weapons part of its regular war arsenal, has unilaterally abrogated its NPT promise never to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states, and it is busily modernizing its nuclear weapons to make them more practicable.21 Further, although the NPT requires nuclear states to help non-nuclear states develop civilian technology, the United States not only refuses to do this, it openly denies that right to Iran.

8. Israel remains outside the NPT, and has secretly built up a sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons, giving it unique status as the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear arms. This also has been normalized by the UN and international community, and Israel’s nuclear arms are unchallenged despite its numerous violations of Security Council and International Court rulings, the Geneva Conventions that relate to the behavior of an occupying power, and its recent major aggression against Lebanon. While Israel remains outside the IAEA’s jurisdiction, it threatens to attack Iran with its own nuclear arsenal, or those acquired from the Americans. Regardless, the Security Council has never adopted sanctions against Israel for building up a nuclear weapons arsenal that constitutes a grave threat to international peace and security. In September 2006, the United States, France, Germany and Britain (among others) blocked a vote at an IAEA meeting that would have declared Israel’s nuclear capabilities a threat. So the double standard is institutionalized and official: Only a U.S. target poses a threat in acquiring nuclear weapons; the United States and its clients pose no such threat, even when they warn of their possible use of nuclear weapons in a further “supreme international crime” of aggression.

In an act of remarkable chutzpah, the Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs, and noted racist, Avigdor Lieberman wrote to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to formally request that he "Revoke Iran's membership in the United Nations" for its failures in dealing with the charges against it under NPT rules, to which of course Israel has avoided subjecting itself.22 In the Kafka Era, Iran finds itself "surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf," as Robert Gates recently remarked, but it has no right to even embark on nuclear activities to which it is entitled under the NPT, because the United States says so.

9. Close U.S. allies India and Pakistan also remain outside the NPT, despite having built-up and tested nuclear weapons, India at least twice (1974 and 1998), and Pakistan once (1998). In December 2006, just days before the Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran, Bush signed legislation that allows the U.S. to sell nuclear fuel and technology to India for the first time since it exploded a nuclear device in 1974. Bush, the Washington Post reported, "reversing three decades of nonproliferation policy,…persuaded Congress to make an exception for India despite its not having signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." Within disarmament and non-proliferation circles, the India-exception is regarded as a nightmare scenario, as it permits India to designate "only 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors as civilian," and open to inspections; the other eight "are considered military and will remain shielded from international scrutiny." This "will allow India to import nuclear fuel for civilian use," while enabling it to "use its own facilities to produce enough fuel for 40 or 50 nuclear bombs per year." But as the Financial Times noted, "US officials hope the agreement will given US companies such as Westinghouse a 'leg up' in contracts for civilian nuclear plants in India…." One section of the law requires the White House to periodically certify that India is not transferring nuclear material or technology to Iran. Upon signing it, however, the White House issued a statement announcing that it will construe all such requirements as "advisory." As Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns explained, "We don't have any doubts that India also wishes to deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability."23 In the Kafka Era, nuclear-weapons proliferation to India and beyond is acceptable, so long as India (and anybody else) serves U.S. political interests.

10. Instead of trying to curb the aggressions and NPT violations of the United States and Israel, or their allies like India and Pakistan, the Security Council and international community have zeroed-in on the U.S. and Israeli target already under attack and threatened with a more massive aggression. Under U.S. pressure the IAEA has devoted at least 20 different reports to the assessment of Iran’s nuclear program since March 2003. Although Iran has NPT rights to peaceful nuclear activities, the United States has openly declared that it will refuse Iran those legal rights, and it has continuously pressed for a complete suspension of Iran’s enrichment and processing activities as a pre-condition for any negotiations with Iran on any issue. After more than three years of arm-twisting, the UN Security Council has finally gone along with this, twice adopting resolutions in 2006 under Chapter VII's "threat to the peace" articles that demanded, first, that Iran suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities (1696, July 31), and later that all states withhold assistance to specified aspects of Iran's program (1737, December 23).24 In short, a sanctions regime was imposed on the “defiant” state (i.e., U.S. target).

11. The Security Council adopted these resolutions despite reaffirming the right of all states "to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination" (here echoing Art. IV.1 of the NPT). Despite the fact that ever since the present round of harassment began in 2003, Iran has steadfastly renounced the nuclear-weapon option as anathema to Islamic principles. Despite the fact that no IAEA report on Iran's implementation of its non-proliferation commitments has ever found Iran guilty of diverting its nuclear program away from civilian toward military uses. Despite the fact that Iran advocates the establishment of a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East—as does every other state in the region, with one exception. Despite the fact that in order to satisfy the IAEA's ever-changing doubts, Iran adopted numerous and sometimes unprecedented "confidence building" measures over the course of 2003 - 2005. Despite the fact that there are as many as 442 nuclear power plants currently operating in more than 30 different countries around the world, with nearly one-quarter of the total located in the United States alone, and zero inside Iran. Despite the fact that Iran long ago declared its intention to develop its own nuclear energy sector to provide electricity to a rapidly growing population, and to free-up its oil sector for desperately needed export earnings—an argument supported by a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.25 And despite the fact that the United States once supported Iran in this objective—though only at a time when a so-called "special relationship" still existed between the two states, Iran then ruled by the U.S.-installed client regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, under whose "great leadership" Iran was regarded as an "island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world" (Jimmy Carter, New Year's Eve 1977).

12. The range of "nuclear"-related material and activities that the U.S. seeks to deny Iran is far more extensive than just those that clearly have a potential weapons or even "dual-use" applications, such as Iran's Heavy Water Reactor Program at Arak. "Iran gets IAEA technical aid for more than 15 projects and dozens more that also involve other countries," Associated Press reports. "Diplomats familiar with the American strategy for the next IAEA board meeting March 5 say Washington wants at least half of the aid projects permanently eliminated." Although 1737 makes exceptions for aid that does not contribute to "proliferation sensitive nuclear activities," specifically if it serves "food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes" (par. 9), the projects currently under review include those designed "to bolster the peaceful use of nuclear energy in medicine, agriculture [and] power generation"—clearly not military related. Perhaps most strikingly, AP mentions "cancer therapy programs and requests for help in international nuclear licensing procedures."26 Thus the U.S. seeks to exploit the IAEA review process to heighten tension with Iran and to penalize it in a flagrant fashion.27

It is ironic that while the U.S. struggles to prevent Iran from researching even medical projects that make use of nuclear technology, it is able to dispatch nuclear-powered warships to the same region, including two aircraft carrier strike groups and a nuclear-powered submarine that on January 8 rear-ended a Japanese supertanker in the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. In the Kafka Era, for Iran to develop even a peaceful nuclear program constitutes a threat to the peace, while for seven decades running, the U.S. has researched, developed, and manufactured nuclear-powered weapons and warships, and sent them to any theater on the planet it chooses, as a guardian of the peace.

13. Both 1696 and 1737 state that the "IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." Similarly, the IAEA's November 14 report noted that "While the Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, the Agency will remain unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues"—locutions repeated many times over the course of the IAEA's reporting on Iran.28 In plainer English, the IAEA can verify that there are no serious NPT-violations in Iran. Therefore it has been necessary to seize upon any area of Iran's nuclear program where there are ambiguities, and to use these "outstanding issues" that Iran can never fully satisfy to keep Iran under the gun. In analogous fashion, the regime of Saddam Hussein could never satisfy UNSCOM or UNMOVIC, even when it had no WMD. Although the IAEA and Security Council would never face a comparable "gap in knowledge" were they to examine the programs and stockpiles of the eight nuclear-weapons states (for the time being, we'd exclude North Korea from this category), it is the repetitive allegation that there are "outstanding issues" in Iran that has transformed Iran's nuclear program into an apparent problem, independently of what Iran's leadership does or does not do. In the Kafka Era, Iran is obliged to prove a negative. Its inability to do so is a threat to the peace.

14. In another triumph of U.S. war-making “diplomacy”—recall the Rambouillet Conference on Kosovo in February 1999, which cleared the ground for NATO bombing29—1696 and 1737 are on the books now, reinforcing the presumption of Iran's "threat to the peace." Both Russia's and China's UN ambassadors explained that a reason their states had voted in favor of sanctions was that 1737 "clearly affirms that, if Iran suspends all activities relating to the enrichment and chemical reprocessing of uranium, the measures spelled out…will be suspended" (Russia's Vitaly Churkin). "The sanctions measures adopted by the Security Council this time are limited and reversible," China's Wang Guangya added later. "There are also explicit provisions indicating that if Iran suspends its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, complies with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and meets with the requirements of the IAEA, the Security Council would suspend and even terminate the sanctions measures."30 But these testimonies are false and disingenuous. In accepting the 1737 sanctions, surely Russia and China recognize that they have handed the belligerent members of the Security Council a weapon that can be used to punish Iran economically and to facilitate another major war of aggression.

Recalling the history of the U.S. and British manipulation of the UN during the long march towards war with Iraq, common sense tells us that, once having secured the Council's approval of sanctions on Iran, Washington will never surrender them without achieving its ultimate goal. To lift the 1737 sanctions requires Security Council determination "that Iran has fully complied" with its demands. If Iran has not complied the Council will "adopt further appropriate measures…to persuade Iran to comply." Given the U.S. veto and other forms of leverage, this means that the sanctions will remain until U.S. objectives are met. One of those objectives is “regime change." And since Washington has declared that it will not accept Iran’s right even to civilian uses of nuclear power, "full compliance" may never be recognized by the United States without a military attack. The Iraq “sanctions of mass destruction” were only lifted after the U.S. invasion and occupation. The Iran sanctions are similarly structured to provide the United States with a casus belli—an incident for war. They very well may be lifted only in the ruins of another victim of aggression.

Conclusion

In a statement delivered to the IAEA more than three-and-one-half years ago, Iran still held out hope "that not all international organizations have yet come [to] the state of total domination."31 That hope has not been realized and the performance of the UN and UN Security Council in the Middle East crises has been shameful. To have allowed two global rogue states that have evaded or violated the NPT and committed a stream of major UN Charter and Geneva Convention violations to drag Iran before the Security Council, and to obtain Chapter VII sanctions against it, constitutes a most grave moral and political collapse of any genuine international community worthy of the name. The Iran case is a true throwback to Munich-style appeasement and poses a serious threat to world peace. This is because it bends multilateral institutions to fit the super-rogue state's will, and provides it with a semi-legal basis for attacking its next target, an amazing innovation in the annals of power and lawlessness, given its performance in brushing aside any UN constraints when attacking Iraq just four years ago.


NOTES

1. According to the Final Judgment at Nuremberg, a ruling that has provided all succeeding generations with the classic pronouncement on the illegality of aggressive war: "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." See Final Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals (September 30, 1946), specifically "The Common Plan or Conspiracy and Aggressive War," from which this passage derives.


2. "From the Editors: The Times and Iraq," Editorial, New York Times, May 26, 2004; Howard Kurtz, "The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story," Washington Post, August 12, 2004. Also see "Were We Wrong?" Editorial, The New Republic, June 28, 2004. In this last case, the editors expressed "regret…but no shame," adding: "if our strategic rationale for war has collapsed, our moral one has not."

3. Gil Hoffman, "Netanyahu to address Britain on Iran," Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2007. Also see the Remarks by Benjamin Netanyahu at the 2007 Herzliya Conference, Lecture Summaries, January 21, 2007.

4. See Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann, "Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off the Map?" (Trans. Erik Appleby), Information Clearinghouse, April 20, 2006; Juan Cole, "Hitchens the Hacker," Informed Comment, May 3, 2006; Jonathan Steele, "Lost in Translation," The Guardian, June 14, 2006; and Arash Norouzi, "'Wiped Off the Map' -- The Rumor of the Century," DemocracyRising.US, January 18, 2007.


5. Nazila Fathi and Michael Slackman, "Rebuke in Iran To Its President On Nuclear Role," New York Times, January 19, 2007; Dariush Zahedi and Omid Memarian, "The clock may be ticking on Iran's fiery president," Los Angeles Times, January 21, 2007; and Marie Colvin and Leila Asgharzadeh, "Iran's strongman loses grip as ayatollah offers nuclear deal," London Times, January 21, 2007.


6. See Seymour M. Hersh, "The Coming Wars: What the Pentagon can now do in secret," New Yorker, January 25, 2005; Sarah Baxter and Michael Smith, "Bush plans strike on Iran's nuclear sites," Sunday Times, April 9, 2006; Peter Baker et al., "U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran," Washington Post, April 9, 2006; Seymour M. Hersh, "The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?" New Yorker, April 17, 2006; Seymour M. Hersh, "The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?" New Yorker, November 27, 2006; and most recently Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, "Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran," Sunday Times, January 7, 2007 (as posted to Truthout).

7. Remarks by Senator John Edwards at the 2007 Herzliya Conference (via satellite), Lecture Summaries, January 22, 2007.


8. David Mendell, "Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran," Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004; Hillary Clinton, "Challenges Facing the United States in the Global Security Environment," Council on Foreign Relations, October 31, 2006; Jeffrey Goldberg, "The Starting Gate," The New Yorker, January 15, 2007.

9. According to a major poll of more than 26,000 people in 25 different countries, 61 percent of all respondents living outside the United States said they disapprove of the U.S. Government's handling of Iran's nuclear program, as does 50 percent of U.S. respondents. The disapproval rating for the U.S. Government's handling of the war in Iraq is even higher: 74 percent of those living outside the United States, and 57 percent inside the U.S. Were the U.S. Government to extend its Afghanistan and Iraq wars to neighboring Iran, surely these disapproval ratings could only increase—perhaps dramatically. See "World View of U.S. Role Goes from Bad To Worse," Program on International Policy Attitudes, January 22, 2007. Also see the accompanying Questionnaire, pp. 2-3.


10. Henry A. Kissinger, "Withdrawal is not an option," International Herald Tribune, January 18, 2007.


11. John D. Negroponte, "Annual Threat Assessment of the Director of National Intelligence," Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 11, 2007; "Statement of Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates," Senate Armed Services Committee, January 12, 2007; "President's Address to the Nation," January 10, 2007; "President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address," January 23, 2007.


12. In another illustration of hypocrisy, the U.S. joined with seven Middle Eastern states (Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and the U.A.E.) in January to issue a statement which affirmed, among other things, that "disputes among states should be settled peacefully and in accordance with international norms, and that relations among all countries should be based on mutual respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, and on the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of other nations." ("Gulf Cooperation Council - Plus Two's Ministerial Statement," U.S. Department of State, January 16, 2007). This accolade to the principles of sovereignty and noninterference was directed not against the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq or a possible U.S.-Israeli military attack on Iran, but rather against Iran and Syria, which have faced the U.S. charge that they are interfering in the internal affairs of the newly liberated Iraq.


13. Condoleezza Rice, "Interview With Chico Menashe of Israel's Channel 10," Jerusalem, U.S. Department of State, January 14, 2007.


14. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Remarks to the press following his meeting with President Bush at the White House, January 16, 2007.


15. See Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "The Fourth 'Supreme International Crime' in Seven Years Is Already Underway," ElectricPolitics.com, May 16, 2006.


16. John Kifner, "Gunboat Diplomacy: The Watch on the Gulf," New York Times, January 14, 2007.

17. Jay Solomon, "Spillover Feared as U.S. Confronts Iran," Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2007.


18. Statement by Iran before the IAEA, June 6, 2003, p. 4. —This statement continued: "[Nuclear weapons] have no place in Iran’s defence doctrine. They do not add to Iran’s security nor do they help rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, which is in Iran’s supreme interests."
19. On the lack of evidence for the charge that Iran possesses a covert nuclear weapons program, including the CIA's assessment that no evidence of such a covert program exists, see Seymour M. Hersh, "The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?" New Yorker, November 27, 2006; and Norman Dombey, "Iran and the Bomb," London Review of Books, January 25, 2007. Dombey notes that "until or unless Iran withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the facilities at Natanz and Arak are safeguarded by the IAEA. Cameras are installed at Natanz (they function continuously), and there are monthly inspections. Similar arrangements will be made for Arak. Any enriched uranium or plutonium made will be under IAEA seal and will not be available for casting into the core of a weapon. There is no pressing nuclear threat from Iran at the moment; nor does there appear to be a tipping point in sight, beyond which it would be impossible to prevent the country from acquiring weapons." —For a list of Iran's nuclear facilities under IAEA surveillance as of June 2003, including the uranium-enrichment project at Natanz and the heavy-water research reactor at Arak, see the Annex to the report by the IAEA's General Secretary to the Board of Governors, Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran (GOV/2003/40), June 6, 2003, p. 9.
20. See The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, International Court of Justice, July 8, 1996, pars. 98-103.
21. William J. Broad et al., "U.S. Selecting Hybrid Design For Warheads," New York Times, January 7, 2007.
22. "Israeli minister urges UN chief to revoke Iran membership," Agence France Presse, January 3, 2007.
23. Peter Baker, "Bush Signs India Nuclear Law," Washington Post, December 19, 2006; Caroline Daniel, "Bush signs India nuclear pact," Financial Times, December 19, 2006; and "President's Statement on H.R. 5682, the 'Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006'," White House Office of the Press Secretary, December 18, 2006.
24. For the actual texts, see Resolution 1696 (S/RES/1696), July 31, 2006; and Resolution 1737 (S/RES/1737), December 23, 2006.
25. Roger Stern, "The Iranian petroleum crisis and United States national security," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 104, No. 1, January 2, 2007.
26. Mark Heinrich, "Atom watchdog reviews Iran aid amidst UN sanctions," Reuters, January 3, 2007; Mark Heinrich, "Iran's caution under sanctions eases heat at IAEA," Reuters, January 12, 2007; Jean-Michel Stoullig, "IAEA suspends some technical aid to Iran," Agence France Presse, January 18, 2007; George Jahn, "U.N. nuclear agency puts some technical aid projects to Iran on hold, pending review," January 18, 2007.
27. To monitor the evolving lists of Technical Cooperation programs that the IAEA shares with Iran, go to the IAEA Department of Technical Cooperation's "Query Asia and the Pacific Projects" search engine, and use it to search for those the IAEA maintains with Iran.
28. Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran (GOV/2006/64), November 14, 2006, par. 21.
29. The Rambouillet Conference was held at the Chateau Rambouillet in France from February 6 - 20, 1999. Its ostensible purpose was to negotiate an interim political settlement to the conflict over the Serbian province of Kosovo. But the conference was held under extreme duress, as at no point were the Serb negotiators free from the threat of military attack by NATO, which six days prior to the conference had issued an Activation Order "authoriz[ing] air strikes against targets on [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] territory" (January 30, 1999). As the former State Department official George Kenney reported shortly after the war, a "senior State Department official had bragged that the United States 'deliberately set the bar higher that the Serbs could accept'. The Serbs needed, according to the official, a little bombing to see reason." See Marc Weller (Ed.), The Crisis in Kosovo 1989 - 1999 (Documents and Analysis Publishing Ltd., 1999), Ch. 15, "The Rambouillet Conference," pp. 392-474, which includes a copy of NATO's Activation Order (p. 416); and George Kenney, "Rolling Thunder: the Rerun," The Nation, June 14, 1999.
30. UN Security Council, "Non-proliferation—Iran" (S/PV.5612), December 23, 2006. 31. Statement by Iran before the IAEA, June 6, 2003, p. 2.

[moeen yaseen]

IMPEACHMENT BY THE PEOPLE

Tuesday, 30 January 2007
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/201/52/
Howard Zinn


Courage is in short supply in Washington, D.C. The realities of the Iraq War cry out for the overthrow of a government that is criminally responsible for death, mutilation, torture, humiliation, chaos. But all we hear in the nation’s capital, which is the source of those catastrophes, is a whimper from the Democratic Party, muttering and nattering about “unity” and “bipartisanship,” in a situation that calls for bold action to immediately reverse the present course.

01/30/07 "Progressive" -- -- These are the Democrats who were brought to power in November by an electorate fed up with the war, furious at the Bush Administration, and counting on the new majority in Congress to represent the voters. But if sanity is to be restored in our national policies, it can only come about by a great popular upheaval, pushing both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will.

The Declaration of Independence, revered as a document but ignored as a guide to action, needs to be read from pulpits and podiums, on street corners and community radio stations throughout the nation. Its words, forgotten for over two centuries, need to become a call to action for the first time since it was read aloud to crowds in the early excited days of the American Revolution: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government.”

The “ends” referred to in the Declaration are the equal right of all to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” True, no government in the history of the nation has been faithful to those ends. Favors for the rich, neglect of the poor, massive violence in the interest of continental and world expansion—that is the persistent record of our government.

Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the President to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.

The time is right, then, for a national campaign calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Representative John Conyers, who held extensive hearings and introduced an impeachment resolution when the Republicans controlled Congress, is now head of the House Judiciary Committee and in a position to fight for such a resolution. He has apparently been silenced by his Democratic colleagues who throw out as nuggets of wisdom the usual political palaver about “realism” (while ignoring the realities staring them in the face) and politics being “the art of the possible” (while setting limits on what is possible).

I know I’m not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable). There are at least a half-dozen books out on impeachment, and it’s been argued for eloquently by some of our finest journalists, John Nichols and Lewis Lapham among them. Indeed, an actual “indictment” has been drawn up by a former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, in a new book called United States v. George W. Bush et al, making a case, in devastating detail, to a fictional grand jury.

There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of “people’s impeachment hearings” all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.

These hearings would be the contemporary equivalents of the unofficial gatherings that marked the resistance to the British Crown in the years leading up to the American Revolution. The story of the American Revolution is usually built around Lexington and Concord, around the battles and the Founding Fathers. What is forgotten is that the American colonists, unable to count on redress of their grievances from the official bodies of government, took matters into their own hands, even before the first battles of the Revolutionary War.

In 1772, town meetings in Massachusetts began setting up Committees of Correspondence, and the following year, such a committee was set up in Virginia. The first Continental Congress, beginning to meet in 1774, was a recognition that an extralegal body was necessary to represent the interests of the people. In 1774 and 1775, all through the colonies, parallel institutions were set up outside the official governmental bodies.

Throughout the nation’s history, the failure of government to deliver justice has led to the establishment of grassroots organizations, often ad hoc, dissolving after their purpose was fulfilled. For instance, after passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, knowing that the national government could not be counted on to repeal the act, black and white anti-slavery groups organized to nullify the law by acts of civil disobedience. They held meetings, made plans, and set about rescuing escaped slaves who were in danger of being returned to their masters.

In the desperate economic conditions of 1933 and 1934, before the Roosevelt Administration was doing anything to help people in distress, local groups were formed all over the country to demand government action. Unemployed Councils came into being, tenants’ groups fought evictions, and hundreds of thousands of people in the country formed self-help organizations to exchange goods and services and enable people to survive.
More recently, we recall the peace groups of the 1980s, which sprang up in hundreds of communities all over the country, and provoked city councils and state legislatures to pass resolutions in favor of a freeze on nuclear weapons. And local organizations have succeeded in getting more than 400 city councils to take a stand against the Patriot Act.

Impeachment hearings all over the country could excite and energize the peace movement. They would make headlines, and could push reluctant members of Congress in both parties to do what the Constitution provides for and what the present circumstances demand: the impeachment and removal from office of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Simply raising the issue in hundreds of communities and Congressional districts would have a healthy effect, and would be a sign that democracy, despite all attempts to destroy it in this era of war, is still alive.

Howard Zinn is the author, most recently, of “ A Power Governments Cannot Suppress For information on how to get involved in the impeachment effort, go to www.afterdowningstreet.org [1].

[moeen yaseen]

Testimony, for the record of: Hearing on Trade and Globalization
by the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives
Jan. 30, 2007

Submitted by the E.I.R. News Service

GLOBALIZATION IS THE NEW IMPERIALISM--
DON'T TRY TO "IMPROVE" IT, BURY IT!
RESTORE NATIONAL-INTEREST POLICIES

Dear Chairman Charles B. Rangel, and other Honorable

Members of the Committee:


We fully support your opening of the work of the 110th Congress, by holding a series of hearings on the economic conditions of the United States; and in that spirit, we respond bluntly to your questions for this third hearing--on how to identify the "successes" of globalization and improve its "benefits"--by stressing this one central point: Globalization has been a raving success for those financial interests who imposed it over the past 40 years; and a disaster--as they intended--for the nations and peoples that are being looted. Therefore, it should be stopped--NOT improved or adjusted to. So-called free (rigged) trade must be stopped, and a set of monetary, foreign policy and economic measures initiated for the mutual benefit of building up nations again.

"Too late? Can't be done?" Not at all. The popular groundswell for "fair" trade, not free trade, and for curbing the "excesses" of globalization, is evident across the United States. Just look at the many articles and books by your fellow Congressmen on the topic. The Nov. 7 election results are a mandate to end the globalization disasters of the last three decades of GATT/NAFTA/WTO/"free trade democracy," and all the other variants. Internationally, a rush of support is awaiting any Congressional initiative in this direction, even for the most preliminary measures. It would signify that the United States is returning to sanity and its founding principles.

Secondly, we have no choice but to confront the real nature of the menace involved in globalization. We are at a blow-out stage of the world monetary and financial system. The unprecedented volumes of speculative activity--mostly denominated in U.S. dollars--are at the point of chain-reactions of non-payment. Look at the bursting of the home mortgage bubble, the commodities prices volatility, the frenzied hedge fund takeovers of economic activity, the privatization-grab for government infrastructure assets, not to mention gambling, otherwise known as derivatives.



"Globalization, The New Imperialism"
"Globalization, The New Imperialism," was the title of a policy document by Lyndon LaRouche in October 2005, which was a forewarning, to provide policymakers the means to understand what we're up against. (See www.larouchepac.com, "A Strategic View of European History Today; Globalization, The New Imperialism.") The United States and other republics would not exist today, if in the 1700s, the leaders of the American colonies, and their European allies, decided to lobby to merely "improve" the conduct of the British and Dutch East India Companies, rather than to break from their imperial control. (In historical fact, the British East India Co. itself backed fake "popular movements" to plead with the Company to not overcharge for goods, to go easy on slaves, and to provide chaplains on commercial missions, etc.).

Unfortunately, these networks were not trounced in the American Revolution, and have attempted to re-gain dominance at many times since. Today, the particulars may be different from the 18th century, but there is a continuity of both the nature of imperial control, and even of the pedigree of major financial interests involved, whose practices are called by economic historians, "Anglo-Dutch liberalism." LaRouche warned in 2005,

"The long-ranging drive of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier-oligarchical establishment, over the post-Franklin Roosevelt period of world history, has been to destroy the institution of the sovereign nation-state republic throughout the planet, an intention which has been turned loose, full force, with the collapse of the Soviet system. The name given to this global destruction of sovereignty of nations, including that of the U.S.A. itself, is 'globalization.'

"The systemic characteristic of this transformation, most clearly since the middle to late 1960s, has been the destruction of the so-called ``protectionist model'' of the U.S. economy. The intent has been, including from the government of the U.S.A. itself, to destroy the role of the U.S.A. as a sovereign nation-state, by destroying the so-called 'protectionist' system on which the superiority of the U.S. economy to that of other parts of the world had depended, prior to the 1971-1982 transformation of the U.S. into the presently bankrupt 'service economy' rubbish-bin it has become. The intent of globalization is to make the poverty of the so-called 'developing sector' permanent, by degrading the physical economies of the Americas and Europe to the notoriety of 'Third World' conditions, and by making 'Third World' conditions the standard for economy world-wide."

From this vantage point, we here provide summary documentation and references to back Congressional action to end the globalization era, under three main points:

* history of the imposition of globalization

* review of the damage from globalization

* emergency measures called for.

Globalization Was Imposed, Not "Evolved"
At the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, which set up the post-WW II financial system, a proposal to establish an ITO--International Trade Organization--was voted down. This reflected the prevailing principled view that trade between nations was a prerogative of sovereign governments to determine what was in their mutual best economic interest, and not that of either supra-national agencies, nor private multi-national financial interests. Over the subsequent 15-20 years, this principle continued, despite exceptions and assaults, as post-war reconstruction took place, new nations gained independence, and the prospects for a vast advance in economic conditions globally were indicated in the "Atoms for Peace" program, to harness nuclear power.

The original goal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for a post-war "International New Deal" for deliberate multi-nation collaboration on infrastructure and rapid economic development was thwarted, because of direct opposition through the Truman Administration. But there was still a vector of development underway until the mid-1960s.

However, by the 1970s, this dynamic had been seriously undermined by the opponents of national sovereignty and development. In brief: In 1971, the dollar was "floated," which ushered in the era of increasing uncertainty from fluctuating currency exchange rates, and speculative activity amounting to a World Casino. The graph here shows that over two decades, the volume of currency exchange associated with trade in goods collapsed, in contrast to exchange associated with speculation.

In the United States, deregulation was launched in all manner of vital functions--trucking and rail, health care (1973 was the first HMO act), and energy, culminating in Enronomics. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher's Britain became the world model for radical privatization and deregulation. In 1986, with the "Uruguay Round" of the U.N. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade," a Thatcher-type campaign was launched to "reform' the entire world farm and food systems by taking away "trade-distorting" practices such as tariffs and national food reserves.

The sophistry of the GATT globalist movement was shown in its slogan, "One World, One Market' to argue that citizens of every nation had the "right" to access their food and all other needs directly from world sources, not from the "confines" of their own nations. "Borderless" free trade was the goal across the board for banking, labor, industrial and agricultural goods and services, and especially access to minerals and natural resources.

In January 1988, the Canada-United States Free Trade Act was signed. In 1992, NAFTA was concluded. In 1995 the World Trade Organization was established. During this process, when Germany was re-unified in 1990, the "free trade" movement was imposed on it, including on Russia, and other parts of the former Soviet bloc.

In the course of all this, a "blob" of cartels and multi-national financial networks positioned themselves for near-total control and killer-profiteering. In 1968, this was described explicitly as a "world company" project, by George Ball, a former Undersecretary of State, and Chairman of Lehman Brothers, in a speech to a conference of the Bilderberg Society, on whose steering committee he then served. Ball gave an outline of how the archaic nation-state system should be replaced by globalized corporate cartels.

The "names" associated with this process indicate the networks involved. Lehman Brothers itself, along with Lazard, are foremost entities, and have been in the forefront of the sell-off of the U.S. auto/machine tool capacity and other industrial assets, as well as infrastructure rip-offs through what's now politely termed, "Public Private Partnerships." The poster boy for this process is Felix Rohatyn, long at Lazard, and now a top consultant for Lehman. Also in the line-up is George Shultz, direct collaborator of Rohatyn et al. One view of how the networks operate, is provided by John Perkins' book, "Economic Hit Man."

This gang is now under scrutiny for their global equity fund and hedge fund frenzy of LBO grabs of companies, whose operations are then indebted, downsized and ruined.


Below Economic Breakeven
The net effect on the physical economy, of the years of out-sourcing industry, "global-sourcing" food supply and all related hallmark practices of globalization, has been a net reduction of productive capacity and living conditions overall, so that the world economy as a whole is way below even a breakeven threshold of required activity. Specifically: shutting down manufacturing and farming in the United States, and relocating it abroad to cheap labor and low infrastructure sites, causes harm and a net reduction in productivity in all nations involved. Look at some of the features of this, sector by sector.

Industry. There has been an absolute loss of 5.5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 1979--including elimination of nearly half the employment in the aerospace and auto industries, the two major machine-tool reserves of the economy. The re-employment of contingents of these former manufacturing workers at less-skilled, lower-wage jobs has lowered the productivity of the American workforce. U.S. consumption of machine tools is now only 60% of the 1980 level, and 60-70% of that consumption is imported machine tools.

What remains of global industrial capacity is now being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, for example, the Mittal Steel empire, part of the Anglo-Dutch imperium. Steel and heavy industrial goods--measured on a per capita basis of consumption, are declining.

Agriculture. The United States is now food import dependent for 30 to 80 percent of various consumption items, from fruits and vegetables to seafood, even while its former farm counties are experiencing drastic population reductions. On the continent of Africa, food availability per capita is declining. Expected life span itself is dropping in Sub-Saharan Africa. A very few agro-cartels now exert vast control of global food supply lines, including such names as Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Louis Dreyfus, as well as Smithfield, Suiza and others. International retail food sales are now dominated by Wal-Mart, Carrefour and a few others.

Population Millions of people are being dislocated by the takedown of national economies. In the United States, there are 12 million Mexicans who would otherwise be in their homeland, but for the free-trade breakdown process. The nation of the Philippines is dependent on remittances from its citizens who are forced to seek work abroad. This is true for all of Central America. In Africa, the refugee population is in the millions. The population of Russia is declining in absolute numbers.

Biological Breakdown With the decline in infrastructure over the past years--water, power, transportation, health care--the rise of new and resurgent diseases now poses the threat of biological holocaust. This is typified, but not confined to avian flu, or to the new strain of "super"-tuberculosis, now spreading in southern Africa.

Food shocks are also in store, because of the absence of food reserves, and contingencies for botanical pests. A new wheat rust is making its way from eastern Africa, across the Arabian Peninsula, eastward toward the Indian sub-continent, on a spread-path potentially involving 25% of global wheat output. The reason for the danger is that in recent decades, resources were not put into having stand-by resistant wheat varieties, but instead, private agro-companies came to dominate seed development--including gaining sweeping patent rights--for their own purposes of control and furthering monoculture.

Emergency Measures/The FDR Paradigm
These then, are just a few elements of the "Big Picture" of how far gone we are under globalization. No fix-ups will work, of labor standards or environmental codes, or the like. Emergency action is required. In brief, there are two main areas for legislative initiative. First, to stabilize currency exchange, and put in place measures to prevent insolvencies causing out-of-control shutdown of vital goods and services activities. In particular, the Federal Reserve banking system--with trillions in unpayable claims of derivatives and other "assets"--is bankupt; and government action is required to place the Federal Reserve under bankruptcy protection and re-organization, in order that required levels of banking function are maintained and obligations honored, but claims equivalent to gambling are frozen at lowest priority.

Going along with this, is the need to initiate nation-to-nation agreements for mutually beneficial fair trade, and to call a halt to the harmful "free trade" commitments and flows. Roll-back the free trade agreements completely.

Secondly, for both domestic and state-to-state economic activity, initiatives are needed to further large-scale shifts away from the so-called "services economy" model, and shift into a capital-intensive production model, for all national economies. For the U.S. economy, draft legislation has been provided to your Committee, in testimony for your Jan. 23, 2007 hearing, called the "The Economic Recovery Act of 2006."

What is involved most simply, is to take a "capital budget approach," in which the Federal government initiates low-interest credit for priority national infrastructure projects, to be carried out by private contractors. The precedents are clear from the FDR period. And today, the range of infrastructure required is also crystal clear--as described, for example, by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Dams, bridges, new health facilities, ports, water treatment and conveyance, and as the centerpiece: high-tech railroads and advanced nuclear power.

Gearing up to fulfill these infrastructure projects generates the need for millions of new skilled jobs, and for re-tooling, restoring, and expanding the U.S. machine tool/manufacturing capacity.

A detailed policy document on this process is available: "What Congress Needs to Learn: The Lost Art of the Capital Budget," Dec. 22, 2006, by Lyndon LaRouche. (Available in EIR, Vol. 34, No. 2, Jan. 12, 2007, on www.larouchepub.com).

Science Driver
In summary, the program that is now required to bury globalization can be accomplished by a "return to the kind of thinking associated with a 'fair trade,' rather than 'free trade' economy." LaRouche describes this as, "thinking about physical and financial capital as we did under Franklin Roosevelt.

"The principle on which the success of such a program depends, is the principle of fostering the increase of physical productivity, per capita and per square kilometer, through science-driven technological progress in the improvement of the productive powers of labor. This means technological progress as expressed by emphasis on a science-driver economy of the type which brought the U.S. and its allies to victory over Hitler et al. in the preparation for, and conduct of World War II.

"Against the customary carping critics of such measures, consider the following.

"Had Franklin Roosevelt lived, the freeing of the world from the imperial legacy of colonialism and the like, would have created a vast capital market for the products of a converted U.S. war production buildup, the reinvestment of the war debt margins in new capital formation, here and abroad, although it would have been associated with the combination of a temporary austerity, but a healthy accumulation of real capital..."

Now, over 50 years later, we face the severe depletion of our capital stock after three decades of globalization. But the principles of "FDR thinking" still apply. If we take the right emergency measures during the transition, we can drive the economy ahead through resuming the science associated with nuclear power--the "fourth generation" (high temperature) reactors, the R&D to harness fusion power, and the entry into an "isotope economy" of man-made "natural" elements to overcome exhausted resources.

There can be life after globalization, better than ever.

General Atomics

This fourth generation nuclear power design couples a high-temperature helium reactor, the GT-MHR, to a

sulfur-iodine cycle hydrogen production plant. Nuclear power is vital for desalinating seawater; and for providing local generation of hydrogen-based fuels.

[rodin]

In response to the last bit of dialogue I was involved in.

The internet has, for me, been a tremedous force for drawing back veil after veil of deception. Probably there are yet more levels to penetrate.

I will try to summarise where I stand

1) I do not consider myself a racist. My emphasising the Zionist connection is because my researches have led to them. I would define them as the ultimate hypermafia, probably the most successful criminal enterprise in history. Certainly the most technologically affluent. They took over the banking system of the world. They created communism to further their agenda. It is they who have nuclear weapons yet they have the chutzpah to demand that Iran be nuked???

2) All religion is man-made. It is a control mechanism pure and simple. You know my motto - belief is the enemy of truth. I was raised Christian, so still have a kind of Pavlovian empathy with its moral teachings. Jews are deluded. Christians, Muslims, all are. The best religion can to is give a good moral guidance. If it fails in that it is worse than useless. It becomes divisive. Religions get hijacked by agents provocateur to cause harm, just as the Bolshevicks hijacked the trade unions post WW2.

3) Nothing other than science and human nature is required to explain the way the world works. Why make it more complicated with ET's, paranormal, supernatural? Not needed. It suits the Zionist cabal and their collaborators ,as it has always suited the elite, to keep the masses confused, out of touch with reality.

4) No world leaders are ever going to help us - perhaps Kennedy was shot because he tried, or perhaps it was just a turf war.

5) The Zionists, lead by Rothschild and possibly Rockefeller, bind their group with all sorts of weird rituals (as do masons - they seem to be connected) but I doubt the occult element is anything more than a psyop.

6) What I want people to do is to start using common analytical sense instead of believing stuff. So many pet theories, yet the truth is simple. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. With cloning, stem cells, 'Soulcatcher', nanotech, nukes, RFID, etc etc our masters by deception will have us by the short & curlies while they perfect their own genes & strive for immortality. They will cull most of us in the process of re-shaping the world. They will tell us it is for our own good, 'for the future' 'for the children'

7) If we ever get out of this we need a new way of running our planet. One that does NOT encourage or reward corruption. Power should be a shared responsibility, not delegated to some coterie of 'betters'. I would suggest the abolition of taxes, welfare, copyright and libel law for starters. I would ban advertising altogether. Goods and services would be listed on a data base with personal recommendations. I would see a world NOT predicated on growth. Perpetual growth is an impossibility.

Bono (U2) has been groomed by the elite.

9) Scots (I am one) are the Jews of Britain - they get everywhere. I mean - just look @ parliament. NuLabia - Bliar is of Scottish descent and studied in Scotland. Then you have Brown, Reid, and had Cook. All @ the top table. Tories have the Rothschild appointee Cameron, and the Libdumbs - well they have had four Jocks out of five according to Wikipedia! Nothing to do with Dunblane and the Scottish Rite? It's not what you know it's about who you now, what you did, and blood.

enough for now

[moeen yaseen]

PREDATORY CAPITALISM, CORRUPTION AND MILITARISM: WHAT LIES AHEAD IN AGE OF NEOCON RULE?


Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 2, 2007
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEN2007010 2&articleId=4293



Borrowing the opening line from Dickens' Tale of Two Cities - "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...." He referred to the French Revolution promising "Liberte, egalite and fraternite" that began in 1789, inspired by ours from 1775 - 1783. It ended a 1000 years of monarchal rule in France benefitting those of privilege and established the nation as a republic the way ours did for us here a few years earlier.

That was the good news. The bad was the wrong people came to power. They were the Jacobins who at first were revolutionary moderates and patriots until they lost control to extremists like Maximilien Robespierre who ushered in a "reign of terror" (The Great Terror sounding a lot like today's "war on terror") characterized by brutal repression against perceived enemies from within the Revolution who didn't get a chance to prove they weren't. In the name of defending it, individual rights were denied and civil liberties suspended. Laws were passed that allowed charging those designated counter-revolutionaries or enemies of the state with undefined crimes against liberty.

It resulted in justice being meted out to thousands for what Orwell called "thoughtcrimes" or for their freely expressed opinions and actions judged hostile to the state under a system of near-vigilante justice by the Paris Revolutionary (kangaroo) Tribunal with no right of appeal. It led to the public spectacle of an inglorious trip to and quick ending from the death penalty method of choice of the times - the guillotine that was barbaric but quick, and a much easier, less painful way to die for its victims than the use of state-inflicted torture-murder in the commonly drawn out lethal injection process used in 37 of the 38 death penalty states and by the federal government making the condemned endure a slow agonizing death unable to cry out while they're being made to suffer during their last moments of life. Instances of this barbarity aren't exceptions. They're the rule, the exception being this time a report or two of what really happens slipped out and made news.

Fast forward to the past year and the previous five under George Bush and ask: sound familiar? French Revolutionary laws during the "reign of terror," like the Law of Suspects, were earlier versions of our Patriot I and II and Military Commission Acts today. The Revolutionary Tribunal, with no chance for justice or right of appeal, was no different than our military courts today, and too many civil ones, in which any US citizen may now be tried anywhere in the world, with no habeas right of appeal or hope for due process and from which those sent there won't fare any better than the French did, doomed to meet their unjust fate - even though much in these laws today is unconstitutional and one day will be reversed by a High Court upholding the law instead of the extremist rogue one now empowered that scorns it.

What May Lie Ahead

At the end of the sixth horrific year under the reign of the Bush modern-day extremist Jacobin-neocons, we can now look ahead, but to what. We have an administration in charge for another two years one longtime analyst characterizes as "a bunch of crooks, incompetents and perverts" with the president's approval rating plunging as low as 28% in some independent polls and a growing number of people in the country demanding his impeachment and removal from office.

It's not likely from the new Democrat-led Congress arriving in January, as their DLC leadership took it off the table and so far only promises more of the same failed policy other than some minor tinkering around the edges to create an illusion of change no different than the deceptive kind of course correction proposed by the Baker "Gang of Ten" Iraq Study Group (ISG) that guarantees none at all. It doesn't leave members of the body politic with much hope for the new year that will likely just deliver more of the same rogue leadership and policy engendering growing public discontent and anger but not at a level so far to scare the those in power enough to want to address it.

The heart of the problem is the unpopular illegal war of aggression in Iraq, the cesspool of corruption and scorn for the law in Washington, and the assault on human rights and civil liberties in the country justified by the so-called "war on terror" now rebranded a "long war" against "Islamofascism" and "radicals and extremists" (who happen to be Muslims.) It's the same failed policy using the kind of deliberately provocative language intended to deceive the public to think a threat great enough exists to justify any state action in the name of national security including waging wars of aggression and all the horrors associated with them at home and abroad.

After the Baker "bob and weave,'' the now you see a change of course and now you don't, disingenuously suggesting a drawdown and exit strategy, the New York Times on December 16 reports "Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more."

The article goes on to say one option is to boost the force level by up to 50,000 even though any increase greater than 20 - 30,000 would be "prohibitive" - but it won't deter the Pentagon, on administration orders, from extending tours of duty even longer for forces now there and calling up thousands of reservists and greatly extended National Guard units to get into this quagmire even though it's recognized their presence will only make things worse as well as place an unfair burden on those called up, who've served before, and their families.

As of December 27, it's somewhat less clear what Iraq troop strength policy will emerge in January following comments by incoming Democrat chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, who just stated "I totally oppose this surging of additional American troops into Baghdad. It's contrary to the overwhelming body of informed opinion, both inside and outside the administration." Senator Biden will hold hearings on Iraq on January 9, and at that time things may heat up a bit at least in rhetoric if not in final policy.

Additional heat may be created in January after George Bush admitted for the first time on December 19 that the US isn't winning the war even though two weeks before the November mid-term elections he said emphatically "absolutely, we're winning in Iraq." He wouldn't acknowledge what most every honest observer knows including the Pentagon Joint Chiefs - that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are lost. They can't be won and won't be. No military solution is possible now or any time ahead.

The president is living in a state of denial, obsessed with his messianic mission fed him by the vice-president and hardest of his hard line neocon allies, and it shows in the outlandish solutions he proposes to an insoluble problem - send in more troops (that will only make things worse) and increase the overall size of the military (that guarantees a permanent state of war).

It also clearly sounds a lot like the first official hint from the chief executive that a draft is needed and will come at some unspecified time ahead - likely following another "made in Washington" 9/11 calamity severe enough to get the public to go along with something now thought intolerable. The president's sentiment was echoed on December 21 by administration Veterans Affairs secretary Jim Nicholson who (incredibly) said that "society would benefit" if the US reinstated the military draft. He didn't say for whom. He did go further when asked in a press conference whether it should include women saying: "I think if we bring back the draft, there should be no loopholes for anybody who happens to be drafted." Maybe, to his thinking, it should include pregnant mothers as well and single ones with small children.

Such openness by the VA secretary apparently was too much, too soon, and too clear for the White House that quickly got the Department of Veterans Affairs to issue a separate follow-up statement from Nicholson saying: "Let me be clear, I strongly support the all-volunteer military and do not support returning to a draft." Let the reader choose which message to believe, but, with the nation in a permanent state of war, it looks like the trial balloon and hint of a draft now being floated is the opening round to instituting one at some designated time ahead. That likelihood looms even greater as the Selective Service System announced it's planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which it hasn't done since 1998 while, at the same time, saying the agency isn't gearing up for a draft. But what else would they say as they make plans to do this on orders from the administration.

It all amounts to an increasing level of insanity from a power-crazed administration as well as sounding much like Benjamin Franklin's wisdom who said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results." In the case of Iraq, doing it with more troops on the ground is even more insane as a greater occupying force there only guarantees a stronger resistance to it presenting more targets to aim at with virtually no chance for a peaceful resolution of the conflict short of a full unconditional withdrawal of all occupying forces, no strings attached, that won't happen. In the case of a future draft, now seeming more likely, it only guarantees this nation plans to stay in a permanent state of war against future enemies to be chosen with those in or to be included in the "axis of evil" heading the target list at some point ahead.

George Bush and others floating these lunatic schemes have no regard for the lives of those affected, and why should they. For now, their aim is to buy time, and as long as they can get away with it, they and their well-connected cronies and corporate friends stand to gain from the price everyone else has to pay - a huge one including the thousands of lives lost each week and the many more thousands of survivors whose lives will never be the same again.

Think what it means as the new year approaches. The nation is at war on two fronts, it's likely more ahead are contemplated by some in the administration, no substantive effort is being made to change course, and the condition at home is a relentless march toward becoming a full-blown national security police state we're already perilously close to. It's because the neocon-dominated Bush administration is reckless in ambition, out-of-control in policy, and the embodiment of a relentless and ruthless "weapon of mass destruction" unleashed on all humanity in its way.

It's underpinned by an extremist ideology based on rule by savage capitalism that's frighteningly close to and borders on the tipping edge of the classic definition of fascism combining corporatism with strong elements of patriotism and nationalism, a claimed messianic Almighty-directed and blessed mission, and characterized by authoritarian rule backed by the iron fist of militarism and 'homeland security" enforcers, illegally spying on everyone, and intolerant of dissent and opposition in an age where the law is what the chief executive says it is and all semblance of checks and balances no longer exist. In a word - despotism, but cloaked in the deceptive rhetoric of a modern democracy falsely claiming to serve the needs of all its people.

It's also an age of extreme greed and corruption infesting government and corporate boardrooms with the gap between rich and poor at levels greater than since the 19th century "Gilded Age" of the "robber barons." It's something economist Paul Krugman calls "entirely unprecedented" under George Bush that "For the first time in our history, so much (of the nation's economic growth has gone) to a small, wealthy minority" while the great majority can't stay even as inflation-adjusted wages fail to keep up with rising prices and poverty is growing in an age of affluence affecting tens of millions in the richest country ever in the world.

The grossness of this disparity was on the online business pages of the New York Times on Christmas Day in a story titled "Wall St. Bonuses" So Much Money, Too Few ($250,000) Ferraris. The article highlights that "The 2006 bonus gold rush has re-energized some luxury markets" like Manhattan real estate that had softened earlier in the year and echoed the lament of a real estate broker about a "dearth of listings for two clients trying to spend $20 million on Manhattan properties" while mentioning some of the Wall Street wealthy already in their luxury nests are buying $5 million apartments for their children and private resort vacation homes to boot.

The same ugly data is there overall worldwide in a newly released study by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the UN University that shows the richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of its wealth compared, on the other end, with the assets of about half the world's population accounting for barely 1% of global wealth - lumps of coal only for them and a "Ba Humbug" dismissal for their plight by those with everything wanting still more.

The Cost to a Society Based on Predatory Capitalism and Out-of-Control Greed, Corruption and Militarism

The societal breakdown in the US is a national disgrace and affects many millions. A sampling of some of it is listed below:

-- 47 million Americans can't afford basic health insurance.

-- Over 80 million in total have no health coverage during some portion of each year and most of them are employed.

-- The Bush administration just proposed sweeping cuts in payments to pharmacies to reduce the Medicaid benefits 50 million poor in the country rely on, can't afford to make up the difference for on their own, and may have to forego medications they vitally need if pharmacies won't fill prescriptions at lower prices.

-- The US ranks 41st in infant mortality, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ranks the country 37th in the world in "overall health performance" and 54th in the fairness of health care despite spending at a current level overall of around $2 trillion a year or about double the amount per capita of the OECD countries that deliver superior health care overall to their citizens as a national priority.

-- Well over 12 millions Americans struggle daily to feed themselves, and many thousands across the country can't afford housing and are forced to sleep on the streets including in winter cold.

-- A just released December 14 US Conference of Mayors report said these conditions continue to worsen based on a survey of 23 cities showing 7% more requests for food aid in 2006 following a 12% jump in 2005 during a period of economic growth.

-- The same report showed requests for shelter rose 9% in 2006 with requests from families with children rising 5%.

-- Public education is deliberately being eroded with illiteracy in basic reading, math and computer skills shamefully high and rising.

-- The US prison population is the highest in the world at 2.2 million and increasing by 1000 a week, half of those in it are black, and half of the total prison population is there for non-violent offenses half of which are drug-related. The US prison system is a shameful Gulag and an affront to humanity. The appalling conviction and sentencing of first-time drug offender Weldon Angelos is but one of countless examples. He was convicted of three sales of marijuana in 2004 while in possession of a gun unrelated to the sale. Under the insane federal mandatory sentencing laws, he was sentenced to five years for the first offense and 25 years each for the other two totaling 55 years in federal prison or a likely life sentence if he's forced to serve it all because he possessed and sold a few "joints" of a substance less harmful than legal cigarettes that kill millions yearly while it's not known marijuana ever killed anyone using it. Only in America.

-- The true state of things overall is suppressed by the dominant corporate-controlled media (including the NPR and PBS parts of it) functioning as a national thought-control police controlling all mass communication and depriving the public of any real information vital to a healthy democracy and their welfare.

-- Racial segregation is as great as in the 1960s, and the national sport almost is demonizing Muslims as "terrorists, radicals, extremists and Islamofascists" and impoverished "people the color of the earth" Mexicans and Latin Americans as "illegal immigrant invaders polluting" our white western European society and culture, mindless that they only come el norte in desperate search of work because of the devastating effects of NAFTA on their lives that destroyed their ability to support their families.

Data from the Oakland Institute think tank specializing in social, economic and environmental issues shows that heavily subsidized US corn exports to Mexico have tripled since NAFTA came into force forcing two million Mexican corn farmers out of business, something that was predicted in advance but allowed to happen anyway. It also led to suicides but at a rate nowhere near the level globalized trade US-style had on farmers in India where as many as 100,000 of them have taken their own lives because "New World Order" indebtedness caused them to lose their farms and then everything else.

-- Childhood poverty in the US ranks 22nd and next to last among developed nations when there should be virtually none tolerated in the richest country in the world or toleration of any of the other listed abuses.

-- An alarming number of high-paying and other jobs have been exported abroad in a process that's gone on for decades but picked up in momentum since the 1980s and especially in recent years. Mckinsey Global Institute estimates the volume will grow 30 - 40% a year for the next five years. Forrester Research estimates 3.3 million white-collar jobs will be lost by 2015 with most affected areas in financial services and information technology, and University of California researchers estimate that "up to 14 million American jobs are at risk to outsourcing."

It adds up to a nation in decline, losing its industrial base and becoming primarily a service-oriented economy mainly offering low-skill, low-pay jobs with the better, higher-paying ones growing scarcer, making a college degree in areas outside of critical skills almost worthless. Exporting jobs to low-wage countries is a boon for corporate bottom lines in an age of "globalized free trade" never characterized as fair for the harm it does to millions of wage earners at home or in the developing countries on the receiving end being exploited by capital that sucks out their wealth and impoverishes their people, many of whom work for near-slave-rate wages in a modern era of serfdom in countries around the world in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin and Central America.

-- Worker outrage around the world in protest is growing in response to these abuses (unreported in the US) because most governments are doing little or nothing to ameliorate them. It showed up on November 22 in South Korea when over 200,000 workers belonging to the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) staged a general strike protesting in 17 cities against the bilateral US-Korea Free Trade Agreement currently being negotiated that will do to their members and farmers what NAFTA did to Mexicans and India's agricultural trade policies did to their small farmers. It continued on the streets in the days following and spilled over to the Big Sky Ski Resort in Big Sky, Montana where negotiations are being held in seclusion but are still unable to escape the daily protests held against them there.

-- It happened as well in Cebu City, Philippines where President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (closely allied to the failed Bush agenda and elected through fraud) had to cancel two Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meetings in December attended by 19 countries including the US and Canada. It was an abrupt ending to the meeting held to ratify trade and security agreements because of the mass protests by workers, farmers and others against their harmful effects forcing thousands in the country to leave daily to go abroad for work paying enough to support their families at home.

-- Workers almost everywhere have been harmed, including in the US, as union clout and worker rights here have declined in an age where the social contract government once had with its working people has been dismantled with less than 13% of the work force (the lowest in the industrialized world) unionized today compared to one-third of it in 1958. In an age of modern-day "robber barons," the middle class bedrock of a democratic state is slowly disappearing as the nation moves closer to becoming a banana republic at a time when 51 of the world's largest economies are corporate giants, most of them US-based.

It all goes on with no redress or sign of change in an age of out-of-control militarism and outlandish budgets supporting it that began ratcheting up under Ronald Reagan, along with big budget deficits to pay for it, and have gone wild under George Bush. The White House just approved a fiscal year 2008 near $470 billion Pentagon budget on top of an additional $100+ billion off-the-books amount minimum more that will boost this year's war budget for Iraq and Afghanistan to a yearly record of about $170 billion. It also needs tens of billions annually for "Homeland Security" and tens of billions more for the "spy agencies" totaling numbers in the range of well over $700 billion a year and rising - while social spending continues to be slashed to pay for it all in a heartless society scorning its people and their essential needs as long as the interests of capital are served along with the militarists in it profiting from its blood money.

Since WW II, when the US emerged as the only dominant nation left standing, Washington, instead of disarming and fostering peace, embarked on a now long-running program of militarization to maintain the country's political, economic and military preeminence over all others. It takes a lot of military spending to do it, that could have been used far more productively investing in human capital (like health and education) and physical capital (like essential infrastructure) as well as promoting non-military related business and industry that over time pay back far greater dividends than the short-term gains from building weapons and having large standing armies, navies and air forces that only exist to kill and destroy.

Productive spending also pays off in creating a society free from a dominant military culture like now exists out-of-control and hard to contain in the Pentagon that scorns civil liberties and democratic principles and values that have nearly vanished. The course this nation chose 60 years ago led to today's corrupted society armed to the teeth for endless wars with the most destructive weapons in human history deployed on over 800 known military bases in about 155 of the 192 countries of the world. It cost an unimaginable amount creating this monster as documented by the Center for Defense Information. It reported this country spent an estimated $21 trillion in constant dollars since 1945 on defense, the numbers continue to rise sharply, and the mindset of most of the nation's leaders, especially George Bush, is when you've got the might, you have to throw it around to prove it as well as scare off potential challengers.

Shamefully the US stands as a modern-day Sparta glorifying war and those put in charge to wage it. Witness the retirement ceremony for Army Major General Geoffrey Miller last summer when Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard Cody awarded the man who supervised the infamous US Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib torture-prisons with the Distinguished Service Medal (DDSM). This award was established by Richard Nixon in 1970 so the Secretary of Defense could reward officers of the US Armed Forces "whose exceptional performance of duty and contributions to national security or defense have been at the highest levels."

Witness also the December 16 retirement ceremony at the Pentagon for unindicted war criminal and torture-authorizer Donald Rumsfeld complete with pomp and circumstance, George Bush and Dick Cheney in attendance for the spectacle, and a 19 round cannon salute that might have been better aimed. In open defiance of growing public anger over the war, speakers, including the president, shamelessly lauded Rumsfeld for the war of aggression he directed and his leadership in doing it. The galling scene showed Bush hugging Rumsfeld saying: "This man knows how to lead, and he did. And the country is better off for it." He failed to say for whom, but it got worse with Dick Cheney saying: "I believe the record speaks for itself - Don Rumsfeld is the finest Secretary of Defense this nation ever had."

Contrast those spectacles with the fate of extraordinary people like Lynne Stewart prosecuted for her crime of courage, honor and resisting tyranny. She was unjustly charged under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act with four counts of aiding and abetting a terrorist organization and violating Special Administration Measures (SAMS) imposed by the US Bureau of Prisons, which included a gag order on Sheik Abdel Rahman whom she represented as counsel for the defense in his 1995 trial because former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark asked her to take the case.

Lynne took it in the same spirit she spent her entire 30 year professional life as a courageous champion for the rights of the poor, underprivileged and those in society never afforded due process unless they're lucky enough to have an advocate like her. She broke no law, and her trial was a gross miscarriage of justice. Still, the Justice Department asked for a harsh 30 year sentence. It wasn't for any crime committed. It was to send a clear message to all in the legal community not to represent "unpopular clients" and not to afford them their legal right of due process with competent counsel when the government wants them put away.

Lynne for the present had the last word being vindicated in court on October 17 when Judge John G. Koeltl rejected the prosecution's case in the 28 month sentence he handed down allowing Lynne to remain free pending her appeal to a higher court, acknowledging it might overturn her conviction and effectively rebuking the Justice Department for their prosecution of a courageous woman who spent a lifetime fighting for justice.

The outcome was painfully different in an age of Muslim demonization and persecution shown in the prosecution of Dr. Rafil Dhafir, a Muslim American of Iraqi descent and practicing oncologist until his license was unjustly revoked as a prelude to the greater outrage committed against him. Dr. Dhafir was charged and tried in another US "kangaroo court" for what Katherine Hughes called and wrote his "crime of compassion." Katherine followed the trial daily in court for 17 weeks and remains his champion, continuing to work tirelessly for his vindication and release.

Dr. Dhafir was convicted and is now serving a 22 year sentence in federal prison for violating the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations (the IEEPA) having used his own funds and what he could raise from others to bring desperately needed humanitarian aid, including food and medical supplies, to Iraqi people unable to get them because of the punitive, harsh and unjust sanctions imposed prior to the 2003 war. He did it through his Help the Needy charity, and for it was convicted of violating the sanctions, tax fraud, money laundering, and mail and wire fraud - a total of 60 counts and found guilty on 59 of them.

The verdict sent another chill through the Muslim community, and as Katherine explained on her web site - dhafirtrial.net - "If we can get Rafil Dhafir, we can get anyone." Not quite, as Lynne Stewart's vindication proves. But it proves something else too. In the age of George Bush, the chance of prevailing against injustice as a white American is a lot better than for a "not-as-white" Arab Muslim, even an American one, especially one courageous enough to take on a mission of mercy in defiance of state policy unjustly prohibiting it.

Dr. Dhafir was confined at the federal prison in Fairton, NJ until December when he was transfered further away from his family, who weren't told. He's now at what's been described as the hellhole in Terre Haute, IN, in an area of right wing extremism and KKK influence, in a deliberate act of further barbaric vengeance to break his spirit, restrict his access to legal help and his family, and cause him undue pain and suffering in an age of US-sanctioned and authorized torture as a method of social control and inhumanity and because no dissenting authority has the courage to challenge Washington's willingness to go against the most basic principles of equity and justice.

A Look Back to Find Direction Ahead

A look back to an important anniversary just reached should have been duly noted and reflected on in the major media, but it passed nearly unnoticed. It was the December 15 anniversary of the Bill of Rights of 1791 to the Constitution framed in 1787. It gave us unimaginable freedoms up to that time written into the law of the land that overall was a great democratic experiment never tried before outside of ancient Athens for a few decades before it ended. It gave people the rights of free expression, religion and peaceable assembly; protection from illegal searches and seizure; the right of due process, against double jeopardy and to remain silent if accused; to a speedy trial by jury if charged with the right to counsel and to be able to call witnesses; protection from any cruel and unusual punishment and more.

Most of the credit for this historic achievement goes to James Madison who drafted the first 10 amendments and with his perseverance got the other Framers to go along. He then managed to get the needed two-thirds vote from both Houses of Congress and ratification by the required three-fourths of the states in 1791 to have them become the law of the land - a major landmark achievement today being defiled by those in power who have contempt for the freedoms the Founders gave us.

Madison is thought of by some to be the "Father of the Constitution," but it's more accurate to call him its Godfather as he had a lot of help from the other 54 Founders who met in the Philadelphia State House, where the Declaration of Independence was signed 11 years earlier, to frame this historic document for the new republic they hoped would last into "remote futurity" - if we could keep it as Ben Franklin warned at the time and would shudder now at how things turned out and condemn those in power responsible.

Two future presidents, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were serving abroad as envoys to France and Britain and weren't in Philadelphia for this historic gathering. When they were back later on, Jefferson and Madison wanted twelve initial amendments to the Constitution instead of the original 10 that were adopted. Federalists John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, however, opposed the Bill of Rights entirely and managed to exclude from them the other two that included "freedom from monopolies in commerce," or what are now giant corporate predators, and "freedom from a permanent military," or today's standing armies waging wars of illegal aggression.

Imagine what might have been, what was lost, and how the country might be governed today had Jefferson and Madison prevailed. Still they deserve our gratitude for what they accomplished, and it's disconcerting at the least to wonder how much worse off we'd be now if they hadn't gotten any of the Bill of Rights freedoms in our founding law that although lost under neocon rule may one day be restored if we can survive in the meantime.

A Look Ahead In An Age of State-Sponsored Terror Under Neocon Rule

It's time to pause at year's end to give thanks for our blessings but reflect that the spirit of the season demands that the madness of Bush neocon rule be stopped and ended before it's too late. Six years is more than enough to know the administration's agenda at home and abroad is roguish, corrupted by greed and contempt for the law, ruthless in its pursuit of world dominance through the barrel of a gun, and arrogant enough to think it can get away with it because who'll challenge those in charge.

Internally, there no longer are checks and balances as the three branches of government under Republicans and Democrats are united for a common purpose, and their agenda to carry it out is hostile to the public interest. It's the ultimate expression of Lord Acton's dictum that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Positively it does in the age of George Bush and a culture obsessed with power, the lust for more of it, and the worship of the wealth and privilege that comes with it. It wreaks of the Vince Lombardi philosophy that "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing," and the only rules are the ones those now in power make up as they go along justifying whatever they choose to do, regardless of its consequences always harmful to the great majority.

It's also based on might making right but not the way Abe Lincoln meant it when he said in his February, 1860 Cooper Union speech prior to his July presidential nomination that year: "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." He later expressed a spirit of reconciliation with the South and kind of humanity George Bush has contempt for in his second inaugural address in March, 1865 when he spoke of "malice toward none (and) charity for all" only weeks before his life was taken by an assassin's bullet. Imagining that language from George Bush, and meaning it, would be to imagine the unimaginable from a man who likely doesn't even understand it.

What is imaginable in the year ahead and thenceforth is a world without George Bush and his neocon extremist administration leading the nation on a path to hell. Those wanting justice demand the Congress act to impeach him and the vice-president and then remove them from office allowing for the chance charges will be brought against them both and others in their administration so they'll be held to account in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague or another judicial venue where officials may be prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. They committed them all and more against the people of Iraq, at least two of the three in Afghanistan, and a legion of others against the people of the United States and its Constitution.

It'll only happen if it comes from the bottom up, from enough public outrage bubbling to the surface vocally demanding justice be served and the rule of law restored and again respected. No one at any level in public or private life should ever be allowed to get away with the kind of reckless and gross criminality that's been rampant and out-of-control in Washington for the past six years under Republican neocon rule.

It's long past time to put an end to this criminal class of rogues in charge, running the country like their private fiefdom in a culture of galling corruption and scorn for the law that exceeds anything here ever preceding their tenure. Already there's a groundswell of growing outrage slowly building in size and intensity. As the new year approaches, it remains to be seen if a combination of those people of conscience can unite with enough others in the body politic to give us all what everyone should want and demand - an end to wars, a renewed respect for the law, accountability for those in government who violated it, and a commitment to serve the public interest with equity and equal justice for all in the true spirit of a real democracy restored from the grave and once again respected and cherished.

[moeen yaseen]

HOW TO END THE WAR

Friday, 02 February 2007
Russ Feingold
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/282/2/


Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the president got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.”

02/02/07 "TomPaine" -- -- Earlier this week, I chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to remind my colleagues in the Senate that, through the power of the purse, we have the constitutional power to end a war. At the hearing, a wide range of constitutional scholars agreed that Congress can use its power to end a military engagement.

The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power “[to] declare War,” “[t]o raise and support Armies,” “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” and “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” In addition, under Article I, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these powers were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define and, ultimately, to end a war.

If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers—defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a president whose policies are weakening our nation.

There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.

In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds for introducing United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or providing U.S. advisors to Cambodian military forces. In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in Southeast Asia.

More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed spending legislation that prevented U.S. troops from serving in Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the president made certain assurances.

Congress has the power to end military engagements, and there is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed to end U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation—during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy—the president has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: “Frankly, that’s not their responsibility.”

Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the president from escalating the war. He replied: “It’s not going to stop us.”

In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the president. It is Congress’ responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the nation opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the administration’s policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying “your policy is mistaken.” And we can’t stand idly by and tell ourselves that it’s the president’s job to fix the mess he made. It’s our job to fix the mess, too, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.

Yesterday, I introduced legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the president to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way.

This legislation will allow the president adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way—they will continue receiving their equipment, training, salaries, etc. It will simply prevent the president from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.

As the hearing I chaired in the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear, this legislation is fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Since the president is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its constitutional power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power. It’s because it doesn’t have the will.

[moeen yaseen]

THE NEOCONS HAVE LEARNED NOTHING FROM FIVE YEARS OF CATASTROPHE

31 January 2007
The Guardian
Francis Fukuyama

Their zealous advocacy of the invasion of Iraq may have been a disaster, but now they want to do it all over again - in Iran

The United States today spends approximately as much as the rest of the world combined on its military establishment. So it is worth pondering why it is that, after nearly four years of effort, the loss of thousands of American lives, and an outlay of perhaps half-a-trillion dollars, the US has not succeeded in pacifying a small country of some 24 million people, much less in leading it to anything that looks remotely like a successful democracy.

One answer is that the nature of global politics in the first decade of the 21st century has changed in important ways. Today's world, at least in that band of instability that runs from north Africa and through the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and central Asia, is characterised by numerous weak and sometimes failed states, and by transnational actors who are able to move fluidly across international borders, abetted by the same technological capabilities that produced globalisation. States such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, Palestine and a host of others are not able to exercise sovereign control over their territory, ceding power and influence to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, political parties-cum-militias such as Hizbullah in Lebanon, or various ethnic and sectarian factions elsewhere.

American military doctrine has emphasised the use of overwhelming force, applied suddenly and decisively, to defeat the enemy. But in a world where insurgents and militias deploy invisibly among civilian populations, overwhelming force is almost always counterproductive: it alienates precisely those people who have to make a break with the hardcore fighters and deny them the ability to operate freely. The kind of counterinsurgency campaign needed to defeat transnational militias and terrorists puts political goals ahead of military ones, and emphasises hearts and minds over shock and awe.

A second lesson that should have been drawn from the past five years is that preventive war cannot be the basis of a long-term US nonproliferation strategy. The Bush doctrine sought to use preventive war against Iraq as a means of raising the perceived cost to would-be proliferators of approaching the nuclear threshold. Unfortunately, the cost to the US itself was so high that it taught exactly the opposite lesson: the deterrent effect of American conventional power is low, and the likelihood of preventive war actually decreases if a country manages to cross that threshold.

A final lesson that should have been drawn from the Iraq war is that the current US government has demonstrated great incompetence in its day-to-day management of policy. One of the striking things about the performance of the Bush administration is how poorly it has followed through in accomplishing the ambitious objectives it set for itself. In Iraq, the administration has acted like a patient with attention-deficit disorder. The US succeeded in organising efficiently for key events such as the handover of sovereignty on June 30 2004, or the elections of January 30 2005. But it failed to train Iraqi forces, failed to appoint ambassadors, failed to perform due diligence on contractors and, above all, failed to hold accountable those officials most responsible for these and other multiple failures.

This lack of operational competence could in theory be fixed over time, but it has important short-term consequences for American grand strategy. Neoconservative theorists saw America exercising a benevolent hegemony over the world, using its enormous power wisely and decisively to fix problems such as terrorism, proliferation, rogue states, and human-rights abuses. But even if friends and allies were inclined to trust America's good intentions, it would be hard for them not to be dismayed at the actual execution of policy and the amount of broken china this particular bull left behind.

The failure to absorb Iraq's lessons has been evident in the neoconservative discussion of how to deal with Iran's growing regional power, and its nuclear programme. Iran today constitutes a huge challenge for the US, as well as for America's friends in the Middle East. Unlike al-Qaida, Iran is a state, deeply rooted historically (unlike Iraq) and flush with resources as a result of energy price rises. It is ruled by a radical Islamist regime that - particularly since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election in June 2005 - has turned in a disturbingly intolerant and aggressive direction.

The US unintentionally abetted Iran's regional rise by invading Iraq, eliminating the Ba'athist regime as a counterweight, and empowering Shia parties close to Tehran. It seems reasonably clear that Iran wants nuclear weapons, despite protestations that its nuclear programme is only for civilian purposes; nuclear energy makes little sense for a country sitting on some of the world's largest oil reserves, but it makes sense as the basis for a weapons programme. It is completely rational for the Iranians to conclude that they will be safer with a bomb than without one.

It is easy to outline the obstacles to a negotiated end to the Iranian programme, but much harder to come up with an alternative strategy. Use of force looks very unappealing. The US is hardly in a position to invade and occupy yet another country, especially one three times larger than Iraq. An attack would have to be conducted from the air, and it would not result in regime change, which is the only long-term means of stopping the WMD programme. It is hard to have much confidence that US intelligence on Iranian facilities is any better than it was in the case of Iraq. An air campaign is much more likely to build support for the regime than to topple it, and will stimulate terrorism and attacks on American facilities and friends around the globe. The US would be even more isolated in such a war than during the Iraqi campaign, with only Israel as a certain ally.

None of these considerations, nor the debacle in Iraq, has prevented certain neoconservatives from advocating military action against Iran. Some insist that Iran poses an even greater threat than Iraq, avoiding the fact that their zealous advocacy of the Iraq invasion is what has destroyed America's credibility and undercut its ability to take strong measures against Iran.

All of this could well be correct. Ahmadinejad may be the new Hitler; the current negotiations could be our Munich accords; Iran could be in the grip of undeterrable religious fanatics; and the west might be facing a "civilisational" danger. I believe that there are reasons for being less alarmist. Iran is, after all, a state, with equities to defend - it should be deterrable by other states possessing nuclear weapons; it is a regional and not a global power; it has in the past announced extreme ideological goals but has seldom acted on them when important national interests were at stake; and its decision-making process appears neither unified nor under the control of the most radical forces.

What I find remarkable about the neoconservative line of argument on Iran, however, is how little changed it is in its basic assumptions and tonalities from that taken on Iraq in 2002, despite the momentous events of the past five years and the manifest failure of policies that neoconservatives themselves advocated. What may change is the American public's willingness to listen to them.

This is an edited extract from After the Neocons by Francis Fukuyama, published in paperback by Profile books

[moeen yaseen]

A RESPONSE TO GORDON BROWN : THE WEST CANNOT WIN THE BATTLE OF IDEAS
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 872&Itemid=184

Gordon Brown the soon to be expected next British prime Minister has been staking his ground recently on broader matters than those relating to family tax credits and the balance of payments. In a number of statements most recently on his visit to India he outlined to the BBC his plans to pursue a more independent foreign policy than Tony Blair which would give more weight to international bodies like the United Nations. He also called for a "new diplomacy" to accompany military power in the battle to defeat terrorism, spread prosperity and "win the battle of hearts and minds".

Yet Brown like his soon to become predecessor assumes the superiority of western values and therefore incorrectly assumes that if western governments just engage a bit better then they are destined to win the hearts and minds in the Muslim world. However what western policymakers privately acknowledge but dare not say publicly is that western values are not being hotly debated in Damascus, Tehran or Cairo (they have largely been rejected) but only actually disputed in London, Washington and Paris. There is a growing chasm within western civilisation between those who believe enlightenment values have been hijacked by the proponents of the War on Terror and those who believe the War on Terror is the only strategy to protect enlightenment values. Proponents of the first idea believe the West has created an unjust neo-liberal world order characterised by imperialism through the use of debt, unfair trade, support for tyrannical rulers and illegal occupations abroad while simultaneously curtailing civil liberties at home through the promotion of fear. Proponents of the second view believe that the current secular and capitalist world order is inherently just and that all Islamists (not just the terrorists) need to be defeated even if this needs to be done through pre-emptive military interventions. Tony Blair clearly falls into the second category. Let us take three issues to illustrate this,

Issue 1: How can politicians like Gordon Brown claim that the west can win the battle of ideas when many would argue that what we are actually seeing is a roll back of democratic values since September 11 2001. A set of values that cannot even be fully adopted in the heartland of enlightenment is more an indication of ideological weakness.

It is an irony of post 9-11 political discourse that the ‘war on terror’ is billed as a battle to defend liberty. September 11 2001 did not just result in the killing of 3,000 people but was also responsible for the slaying of a western value system which has found it difficult to deal or adapt to the new challenges of the international environment. Western states have today lost their moral authority. In 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed, western states had not needed to fire a shot in anger and were considered shiny beacons on the top of a hill by the oppressed citizens of Eastern Europe. A value system that had been born out of a centuries-long struggle against an oppressive clergy, and which was able to defeat absolute monarchies, fascism and communism has now declared implicit defeat at the altar of its new foe. This is not defeat in a military sense, but in a political and ideological sense. Guantanamo Bay, Belmarsh, Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, anti-terrorism legislation of all guises, stop and search, internment, torture, sexual humiliation, executive ordered arrests, detention without trial, rendition of suspects to despotic regimes, brutal interrogations and illegal and imperialistic wars are the evidences of a civilisation that has entered permanent decline. The suspension of key safeguards like the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, are not mere footnotes of political life to be altered at will; they are rather supposed to be the bedrock of western political tradition. How else can one come to any other conclusion when fundamental values, principles and traditions - the political soul itself - are sold for the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver?

Secondly western politicians have been semi-absorbed into the politics of the corporate trough. When enlightenment thinkers such as Montesquieu and Locke were in its most creative phase, there was meant to be a distinction between the executive and the oligarchs. Politicians pursued policy ideas and were meant to be motivated by public service, while oligarchs and business elites pursued wealth and were motivated by avarice. However in the modern democracies of today, that distinction has become blurred. The corruption and bribery scandals which have affected 10 Downing Street, the US Congress and the Indian Parliament are examples of the incestuous relationship between politicians and big business

Issue 2: Elections and Opinion Polls in the Muslim world indicate a strong support for Islam not for Western secular values.

Recent election results in Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine and the Gulf indicate the strong support for Islamic based parties. In addition to this The Centre for Strategic Studies (CSS) at the University of Jordan in 2005 published a survey which cited that they believed their societies as compared to the west had stronger values of tradition, religion and family and were less fraught with social problems. They also cited that two thirds of respondents in Jordan, Egypt and Palestine believed that the Shari'ah should be the only source of legislation while one third believed it should be a source, while in Lebanon and Syria these figures were reversed. Very few people carried the view that the Shariah should have no role in governance.

In addition a recent Zogby/University of Maryland poll of citizens in six Middle Eastern states concluded, finding oil (76%), protecting Israel (68%), domination of the region (63%) and weakening the Muslim world (59%) were the main objectives of America in the Middle East, compared to only 6% who agreed with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair’s view that their objectives are to merely spread human rights and democracy.

Issue 3: The debate is not between liberty vs. tyranny but Secular democracy and a new mode of Islamic Governance

Most western leaders believe that secular democracy is the nirvana of modern political systems; Tony Blair even claims that secular democratic values are universal. However as Pat Buchanan a leading US conservative correctly observes, "democracy-worship suggests a childlike belief in the wisdom and goodness of the people." A majority of people today would bring back the death penalty (some even for the punishment of pedophilia and rape), most people believe that the influx of asylum seekers increases crime, a majority of Americans in the south in the nineteenth century supported slavery and a majority of the German people elected Hitler and supported the Nuremburg laws in the 1930s. America’s founding fathers and Bush’s predecessors no more trusted the people than they did absolute monarchs. Hence the need for multiple checks and balances, an electoral college, a Supreme Court, an elected Senate to watch over the House of Representatives and the veto power of a President. Democracy contrary to what most people think is not even mentioned in the US constitution and that was no oversight. Thomas Jefferson made it very clear what he thought about leaving it to the people when he said, “Hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the constitution.” How can democracy with its central tenet of popular sovereignty be seriously considered by the Muslim world when the very founding fathers of the US constitution were so dismissive of it?

The failure to acknowledge any kind of Islamic governance system such as the Caliphate as an alternative despite its resonance with tens of millions of Muslims is not surprising. Western political leaders are more at ease comparing their way of life with the low benchmark of brutal dictators of the Middle East (despite propping up these same leaders for years) than in actually arguing the substantive issues of which political system would be better for the Middle East. Some refuse to acknowledge the Caliphate as a reality dismissing it as some kind of historical dream on the part of a small minority However Pat Buchanan exposes this intellectual complacency when he says, “Fundamentalism is on the rise, even in Iraq. There is a deep sense that only by a return to the Islamic roots that once made their civilisation the greatest on earth can the greatness of Arab peoples be restored. And there is both a revulsion in this region against what is perceived as a decadent and toxic American culture and a will to be rid of US political and military domination.”

Gordon Brown says he wants to engage with the Muslim world, yet the west’s track record since 9-11 is so abysmal (even ignoring the last two centuries of history) that it brings to mind that famous aphorism “Be careful what you wish for.”

[moeen yaseen]

DPP’s REMARKS ECHO THOSE OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN EXPOSING THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE WAR ON TERROR


Support for Tony Blair’s anti-terror policies took another serious blow after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Sir Ken Macdonald said, “there is no such thing as a 'war on terror'.” Speaking to members of the Criminal Bar Association, Sir Ken rubbished the constant rhetoric adopted by Tony Blair and his cabinet surrounding the war on terror (WoT).

He said: “On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a 'war on terror', just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”

Undoubtedly, the Muslim community has borne the brunt of the government’s use of the WoT through draconian anti-terror legislation, heavy-handed policing and demonisation within the media. Thousands have been detained through Stop and Search techniques, hundreds arrested and then released without charge, dozens of homes have been raided and some have been detained based on the flimsiest of evidence, or no evidence in some cases. Only this week five Algerian terror suspects held without charge for over four years agreed to be deported back to certain torture in Algeria after they could no longer bear indefinite detention in Britain.

Government ministers have sought to deflect attention from their own brutal war against Iraq by verbal attacks on the Muslim dress, mosques have been accused of promoting extremism, legitimate youth and community activities have come under suspicion and calls made for the closure of Muslim schools all justified as part of the WoT on UK shores.

As Sir Ken said: "It is critical that we understand that this new form of terrorism carries another more subtle, perhaps equally pernicious, risk. Because it might encourage a fear-driven and inappropriate response. By that I mean it can tempt us to abandon our values. I think it important to understand that this is one of its primary purposes."

In pursuing this agenda the government has also come into dispute with the judiciary over what many in the legal establishment see as an abandonment of fundamental values and the rule of law.

The government’s raft of anti-terror legislation in particular has been the focus of fierce opposition. In December 2004 the High Court ruled against the government over its detention without trial of nine foreign terror suspects. One of the High Court judges Lord Hoffman said, “the real threat to the life of the nation comes not from terrorism, but laws such as these.”

After the 7/7 bombings and the heightened sate of fear many felt, the government introduced further legislation on the backdrop of the WoT and on the pretext of enhancing security. In doing so the Prime Minister set himself up for a showdown with the judiciary that he pre-empted with a warning to them not to oppose the new measures. He said,

“The independence of the judiciary is a principle of our democracy and we have to uphold it but ... it is important that we do protect ourselves.”

In response to Blair’s plans at overturning centuries of legal tradition in the name of the WoT, Lord Ackner, a former Law Lord, declared the judiciary will oppose attempts to undermine its independence. “These suggestions that we [politicians and judges] are all a team and should pull together is such rubbish that the judiciary will ignore it.” Lord Carlisle, a deputy High Court judge, warned, “if the Government undermines the judiciary then the judiciary might be tempted to undermine the Government.”

The WoT has not made the streets of Britain a safer place to live. The existing anti-terror legislation has already been misused many times against ordinary Britons whose only crime was to voice their criticism of the government’s foreign policy. John Catt, 81, was stopped under section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act for wearing an anti-war T-shirt in Brighton as he walked towards the seafront for an anti-war demonstration outside the Labour conference. His T-shirt accused Mr Blair and George Bush of war crimes.

Walter Wolfgang, 82, heckled Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, during his speech to the Labour Party conference by shouting “That's a lie” as Straw justified keeping British troops in Iraq. After being manhandled by stewards and ejected from the conference he was detained under Section 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act after trying to re-enter the conference.

John Falding whose girlfriend Anat Rosenberg died during the 7/7 bombings echoed the concerns of many in Britain over the government’s anti-terror laws.

He told BBC Radio: "Most of the (new) provisions are covered by existing legislation and my first thought was that this was just a bit of public relations by the government…suddenly we have this grand new anti-terrorism act. But then, when I look more closely at the provisions and see how widely they're drawn, I think there must be another agenda here. It's so catch-all. Ally this to other measures that the government have taken throughout the civil liberties field and I started to get concerned -- and I don't feel reassured that this is going to help us much in the fight against terrorism."

The criticism by senior figures like Sir Ken Macdonald comes at a time when the government has faced unprecedented criticism and has had its image severely tarnished abroad. The WoT is unravelling at an alarming rate such that the whole world can see its chief protagonists, the US and UK governments, futility in the continued occupation of Iraq as well as it’s flawed application on the domestic front.

[moeen yaseen]

BY ATTACKING SHARIAH, CAMERON PLAYS CHEAP POLITICS WITH COMMUNITY RELATIONS
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 889&Itemid=112


London, UK, January 29 2007 – In a speech today in the Lozells area of Birmingham, the Conservative leader David Cameron, said that "those who seek a Sharia state, or special treatment and a separate law for British Muslims are, in many ways, the mirror image of the BNP." In his speech, Cameron postulated that there were five barriers dividing society - uncontrolled immigration, extremism, multiculturalism, poverty and "educational apartheid".
His speech was made on the same day that the Policy Exchange thinktank suggested support for Shariah law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil was much stronger among younger Muslims in Britain, than amongst their parents. The Policy Exchange report also reported that there has been a "rapid rise in Islamic fundamentalism amongst the younger generation".

Commenting on this, Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, "David Cameron is guilty of scaremongering when he claims that there are Muslims advocating Shariah law in Britain or demanding 'special treatment'. Like Blair, he speaks at length of community cohesion without mentioning the damage caused to community relations by the colonialist interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan which he supports. It appears that both Blair and Cameron want to play cheap politics with community relations rather than accept the real grievances of millions opposed to Western colonialism in the Muslim world."

"The increased adherence to Islam by Muslims in Britain and their desire to see the Shariah implemented in the Muslim world through the return of the Caliphate are not evidence of a 'rapid rise of fundamentalism' but reflect the tide of global Islamic resurgence which rejects the imperialist era of Western backed dictators and brutal occupation in the Muslim world. Labelling this resurgence, which will reclaim the political destiny of the Muslim world, as a threat to community relations is consistent with the British Government's desire to equate the widely shared aspiration for the Shariah and the Caliphate in the Muslim world with 'radicalisation' or 'terrorism'."

[moeen yaseen]

BLIAR THE EMPEROR WITH NO CLOTHES RESORTS TO FFT AGAIN

Birmingham terror briefings are a diversion from Blair's woes


London, UK, February 3 2007 – A report in today's Guardian reveals that police have expressed anger at "a series of leaks and briefings" related to the arrests earlier this week of nine Muslims in Birmingham. It is reported that police sources in the West Midlands said that they "suspected the anonymous briefings may have been intended to deflect attention from the prisons crisis and the cash for honours inquiry". It is also alleged that Whitehall officials briefed journalists early on Wednesday before all the suspects had been arrested and that a tabloid newspaper received a tip off on Tuesday night before the arrests.

Paul Snape, vice chair of West Midlands Police Federation, said: "The police force is asking the question, where did it all come from? There may be political reasons for it, such as what was going on at the Home Office and at Downing Street." Tayab Ali, a solicitor representing one of the nine suspects, said, "People in government are quick to complain that those involved in the cash for honours inquiry may not receive a fair trial, but there appears to be no such regard for ordinary criminal suspects or suspected terrorists."

Since the arrests on Wednesday, there has been sensational coverage in the media, based on "intelligence briefings" and leaks. The media have reported that there was a hit list of 25 intended victims, that surveillance had been underway for 6 months and that a suspect had purchased a video camera. One tabloid alleged that the plot would have taken place in Tipton and that military spy planes were in the air above Birmingham.

Commenting on these revelations, Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, "It is alarming, but not surprising, that the Government plays politics with security. With the meltdown in the Home Office and the cash for honours scandal, it appears that these briefings are merely a diversion from Blair's woes."

"The pattern of arrests and fear inducing propaganda surrounding police operations can only lead to the conclusion that the police are not being exclusively used to maintain public safety, but are rather being used as a political tool in the propaganda used to justify foreign policy and to silence dissenting voices. The public should be sceptical about this political expediency, especially given the record of politicians manipulating intelligence to send young soldiers to war in Iraq."

"People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, however, the sensational reporting of these arrests amounts to a trial by media. Not only does this type of reporting smear the accused in a way that prejudices a fair trial, it also damages community relations."

[moeen yaseen]

MUSLIMS ARE NOW GETTING THE SAME TREATMENT JEWS HAD A CENTURY AGO

The Guardian
Maleiha Malik

Today's anti-Muslim racism uncannily echoes earlier anti-semitism - both minorities abused as an alien security threat .Migrants fleeing persecution and poverty settled with their children in the East End of London. As believers in one God they were devoted to their holy book, which contained strict religious laws, harsh penalties and gender inequality. Some of them established separate religious courts. The men wore dark clothes and had long beards; some women covered their hair. A royal commission warned of the grave dangers of self-segregation. Politicians said different religious dress was a sign of separation. Some migrants were members of extremist political groups. Others actively organised to overthrow the established western political order. Campaigners against the migrants carefully framed their arguments as objections to "alien extremists" and not to a race or religion. A British cabinet minister said we were facing a clash about civilisation: this was about values; a battle between progress and "arrested development".

All this happened a hundred years ago to Jewish migrants seeking asylum in Britain. The political movements with which they were closely associated were anarchism and later Bolshevism. As in the case of contemporary political violence, or even the radical Islamism supported by a minority of British Muslims, anarchism and Bolshevism only commanded minority support among the Jewish community. But shared countries of origin and a common ethnic and religious background were enough to create a racialised discourse whenever there were anarchist outrages in London in the early 20th century.
Most anarchists were peaceful, but a few resorted to violent attacks such as the bombing of Greenwich Observatory in 1894 - described at the time as an "international terrorist outrage". Anarchist violence was an international phenomenon. In Europe it claimed hundreds of lives, including those of several heads of government, and resulted in anti- terrorism laws. In the siege of Sidney Street in London in 1911, police and troops confronted east European Jewish anarchists. This violent confrontation in the heart of London created a racialised moral panic in which the whole Jewish community was stigmatised. It was claimed that London was "seething" with violent aliens, and the British establishment was said to be "in a state of denial". East End Jews were said to be "alienated", not "integrated", and a "threat to our security" a long time before anyone dreamed up the phrase "Londonistan".

Today the Middle East is the focus of a challenge to American political and economic hegemony, which is being presented as a "civilisational conflict with Islam". Nearly a century ago, the Russian revolution sent shockwaves through western states and financial markets. Anti-semites argued that Jewish involvement in revolutionary politics was part of a conspiracy by "the homeless wandering Jew" to replace European states with their "Hebrew nation". Winston Churchill, as secretary of state for war in 1920, wrote an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald claiming there were three categories of Jews - good, bad and indifferent - and arguing that they were part of a "worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development".

Jews were the first non-Christian, yet monotheistic, religious minority in Britain. They are also one of its earliest "racialised" people. Despite important differences, the treatment of British Jews provides an illuminating comparison with contemporary anti-Muslim racism. There are recurring patterns in British society that racialise Jews and Muslims, which we need to understand if we are to develop an effective strategy for national security.

Jews and now Muslims have been and are the targets of cultural racism: differences arising from their religious culture are pathologised and systematically excluded from definitions of "being British". Both anti-semitism and anti-Muslim racism focus on belief in religious law to construct Jews and Muslims as a threat to the nation. Pnina Werbner, professor of social anthropology at Keele University, argues that Jews are predominantly racialised as an assimilated threat to national interests emerging at moments of crisis. Muslims are now being represented as a different kind of "folk devil" - a social group that is openly and aggressively trying to impose its religion on national culture. This partially explains the recent concerns about multiculturalism. "Anti-fundamentalist images provide racists with a legitimising discourse against Muslims," as Werbner puts it, which is used by "intellectual elites as well as 'real' violent racists".

The Jewish-Muslim comparison reveals another recurring pattern in recent British history: the rapid collapse of security fears associated with a religious minority into a racialised discourse of "civilisation versus barbarism". The American philosopher William Connolly predicted after September 11 that "the terrorism of al-Qaida, in turn, generates new fears and hostilities. The McCarthyism of our day will connect internal state security to an exclusionary version of the Judeo-Christian tradition".

The ease with which security fears can generate "moral panics and folk devils" was recently highlighted at a conference organised by London mayor Ken Livingstone to debate the neoconservatives' insistence that we now face a new clash of civilisation versus barbarism. In London's past, the East End British Brothers' League carefully framed its objections using terms such as aliens, anarchists and Bolsheviks rather than Jews. At last month's conference, many cheered as if at a rally, as these new advocates of "civilisational conflict" worked hard to keep separate their categories of barbarian and civilised. They cited Ayaan Hirsi Ali as their exemplar of a "good Muslim", thus clarifying the "civilisation" they are encouraging Muslims to emulate. Hirsi Ali, whose research is funded by the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, argues that the west should launch a war against Iran - with the prospect of the deaths of thousands more innocents - as it earlier agitated for war on Iraq.

The neocons want us to treat domestic security like the war against fascism. This manipulation of Europe's memory of its struggle against nazism mirrors the propaganda of some Muslims - the July 7 bombers who, citing Iraq, insisted that they were martyrs in a holy war; and those who portray domestic anti-terrorism policy as a new western crusade against 1 billion Muslims. The London mayor's refusal to lapse into such "war talk" is one factor that has so far helped to prevent fear of domestic terrorism from collapsing into a racialised conflict of civilisations in the heart of diverse London. This is not just about foreign neocon wars, or politically correct anti-racism, or multiculturalism - or even the defence of the human rights of British citizens who are Muslims. It is about the security of all British citizens. As Ken Macdonald, director of public prosecutions, warned last week, if we want to safeguard our security we must abandon delusions that we are fighting wars, and deal with terrorism in the context of criminal justice. With more terror arrests inevitable, and the prospect of new anti-terrorism legislation any day, the need to grasp what is really going on could not be more urgent.

[moeen yaseen]

Search Member List Calendar Help

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

BUSH SPEECH: FULL STEAM AHEAD ON IRAN ATTACK

Kurt Nimmo
Another Day In The Empire
Friday, January 12, 2007

Speaking through the unitary decider—sort of like a ventriloquist speaking through a dummy—the neocons have once again issued threats against Iran and Syria.

“In his speech to the American nation yesterday, President George W. Bush issued a warning to Iran and Syria, accusing them of taking deliberate action against U.S. forces in Iraq and enabling aid transfers to insurgents,” reports Haaretz.

“Bush said the U.S. intends to take action against Iranian proxies in Iraq, and vowed to find and destroy the networks supplying these groups with weapons and training.” In addition, and ominously if not predictably, Bush “also promised that the U.S. would work ‘with others’ in order to block Iran from developing nuclear arms and dominating the region.”

As if to underscore the importance and urgency of Iran’s prominent position on the neocon hit list, “American forces stormed Iranian government offices in northern Iraq,” essentially an act of war. “The soldiers detained six people, including diplomats, according to the Iranians, and seized documents and computers in the pre-dawn raid which was condemned by Iran. A leading UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said the incident was an ‘extreme provocation’. Dr Ansari said that Mr. Bush’s speech on future Iraq strategy amounted to ‘a declaration of war’ on Iran,” reports the Independent.

“The United Nations adopted sanctions against Tehran on 23 December,” the Independent continues. “However, the economic measures adopted by the UN have failed to convince Iran to halt its uranium-enrichment programme which could lead to production of a nuclear weapon. The US is calling on allied states to adopt tougher unilateral sanctions.”

As Iran has a perfect right under the NPT to enrich uranium, and there is no evidence Iran is devolving nuclear weapons, as the IAEA and the CIA have concluded, these “economic measures,” in essence economic warfare leveraged against a sovereign state, amount to yet another act of war, this time with the complicity of the United Nations, basically a groomed lap dog for neocons. Indeed, like a trained show dog, the United Nations, in Pavlovian fashion, will once again jump through a flaming hoop on command, as it did the last time the neocons invaded a small country.

“President Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon to replace General John Abizaid as head of Central Command for Iraq and Afghanistan last week in a sign that change could be afoot. This week, Mr. Bush ordered a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf, along with its support ships, which could be used to contain Iran,” a fact glossed over with little meaningful comment by the corporate media in this country. Of course, it makes absolutely no sense for the unitary decider to appoint an admiral to command land forces in Iraq, thus the only logical conclusion is that the neocons are preparing for sea-based air strikes against Iran.

However, at least a few corporate media shills are waking up to the inevitability of an Iran attack. For instance, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who “aggressively questioned [at least for a moment] White House Press Secretary Tony Snow about whether President Bush’s rhetoric last night was a ‘precursor for a rationale for an attack’ on Iran.”

Matthews said he feared the neocons would use a skirmish with Iranian fighters in Iraq as a reason to “bomb the hell out of them and hit their nuclear installations without any without any action by Congress. That’s the scenario I fear, an extra-constitutional war is what I’m worried about.”

Snow dismissed Matthews, saying “you have been watching too many old movies,” for instance a movie on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or rather fabricated pretext.

Matthews, undeterred, interrupted. “No, I’ve been watching the war in Iraq, is what I’ve been watching.” Snow, however, admitted the dispatch of the latest carrier to the Gulf is related to actions against Iran:

MATTHEWS: …look at this. “I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.” Isn’t that about Iran?

SNOW: It, it—yeah, it is, in part, and what it is is it’s saying, look, we are going to make sure that anybody who tries to take aggressive action—but when Bill Clinton sent a carrier task force into the South China Sea after the North Koreans fired a missile over Japan, that was not as a prelude to war against North Korea. You know how it works.

Certainly, we know how it works, as we have endured seven long years of unitary decidership rule under the guidance of the murderous neocons, who are now taking an African side trip, killing Muslims, although few in the corporate media are outraged.

Matthews, to his credit, zaps Snow. However, in predictable fashion, Matthews backs down in short order, never mind the name of his television show:

MATTHEWS: No, I’m just concerned because, very much in the years, in the months building up to this war in Iraq, we heard a kind of a drumbeat of the dangers from Iraq and the nuclear weaponry and what we’re going to do about it, and then gradually we went to war. And I’m just wondering we’re looking here at the precursor for a rationale for an attack of some kind on—you say—I’ll take it at your word. If the president is not going to attack Iran, we’ll move on.

SNOW: Ok, but, let me just do a couple of things here. I think you understand and most Americans understand Iran is the foremost financier of global terror. It’s a problem. But you don’t deal with everything militarily, as you know. The United States exhausted all diplomatic options before going into Iraq, and I think what you’re doing if you’re trying to go down the road of speculation that is just way ahead of events. Right now, we’re working on making Iraq a success. One other thing about Iran, Chris. The Iranian public, most which of is young, is very pro-American.

In fact, the American people do not understand squat about Iran, unable to find the country on a map. Or do they realize Snow’s employer is the “foremost financier of global terror,” as is well enough documented.

It is a well known fact the neocons, before choosing Bush as their front man, planned to invade Iraq, a plan they presented to the Israelis back in the 90s, an idea that figures prominently in Zionist “strategic” literature.

It is entirely beside the point the “Iranian public, most which of is young, is very pro-American,” never mind the United States orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected and popular Iranian leader in 1953 and installed the Shah and his brutal Savak secret police. If not for the Shah and his crimes against the Iranian people, chances are good the revolution would have never occurred and the Ayatollah Khomeini would not have ruled Iran, ushering in the mullahs.

Naturally, the moment the neocons launch their inevitable shock and awe campaign, all the “pro-American” Iranians cited by Snow will metamorphosis into dedicated resistance fighters, taking on the Americans like their neighbors in Iraq now take them on.

One can only imagine the look of Snow’s face as oil tankers, hobbled by Iranian Sunburn missiles—and the more advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles—shut down the Strait of Hormuz, thus sending fantastically dire economic reverberations around the world. We can only hope Snow, his boss, and the neocons will subsequently be rounded up, charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity, and made to do the perp walk in orange jumpsuits.

Finally, even a few Democrats—months late and a few billion dollars short—are waking up to the inevitability of an attack against Iran, something we have talked out here for the last few years.

“President Bush appears to be setting the stage for a wider war in the region. He has blamed Iran for attacks on America. The President is vowing to disrupt Iran. He is going to add an aircraft carrier to the shores off the coast of Iran,” writes Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat. “It is imperative that Congress step up to its constitutional responsibility to restrain this abuse of executive authority by notifying the President that we will no longer agree to fund the war in Iraq. The supplemental budget request of up to $100 billion would enable the president not only to continue the war against Iraq through the end of his term. It would give him the resources to attack Iran, in the name of defending Iraq and the region.”

Congress, replete with warmongers, will of course do no such thing. It will sit on its hands and abuse its obligation to the American people and the Constitution.

Finally, even if you believe there is no way Iran will be attacked, thus precipitating World War Four, as the neocons fondly call it, consider Condi the Destroyer on the Today Show:

SECRETARY RICE: The President is saying that we are going to make certain that we disrupt activities that are endangering and killing our troops and that are destabilizing Iraq.

QUESTION: If that includes attacks inside Iran and Syria is that on the table?

SECRETARY RICE: Matt, obviously the President is not going to take options off the table and I’m not going to speculate, but I will tell you this. Around Christmastime we did find a group of Iranians who were engaged in activities that were detrimental to our forces. We went, we took them, we then told the Iraqi Government that they needed to be expelled from the country and they were. The Iranians need to know, and the Syrians need to know, that the United States is not finding it acceptable and is not going to simply tolerate their activities to try and harm our forces or to destabilize Iraq.

As William Arkin notes, Rice originally said “Iraqis” but the State Department went out of its way to issue a correction, stating Rice meant Iranians.

Arkin predictably came down on the side of caution: “I’m still not saying that war with Iran (or Syria) is imminent, but clearly the Vice President’s office and the hardliners scored a major victory in conveying the threat rather than following a kinder, gentler diplomatic route.”

On the other hand, I say a war with Iran is indeed imminent, as the USS John C. Stennis strike group was not sent to the Gulf earlier this month to simply send a message—it was sent, bristling with warplanes and munitions, to attack Iran, as long planned by the neocons.



DID THE PRESIDENT DECLARE "SECRET WAR " AGAINST SYRIA AND IRAN?Steve Clemons
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...e16149.htm


01/12/07 "Washington Note" -- -- Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.

The bare outlines of that order may have appeared in President Bush's Address to the Nation last night outlining his new course on Iraq:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.


Adding fuel to the speculation is that U.S. forces today raided an Iranian Consulate in Arbil, Iraq and detained five Iranian staff members. Given that Iran showed little deference to the political sanctity of the US Embassy in Tehran 29 years ago, it would be ironic for Iran to hyperventilate much about the raid.

But what is disconcerting is that some are speculating that Bush has decided to heat up military engagement with Iran and Syria -- taking possible action within their borders, not just within Iraq.

Some are suggesting that the Consulate raid may have been designed to try and prompt a military response from Iran -- to generate a casus belli for further American action.

If this is the case, the debate about adding four brigades to Iraq is pathetic. The situation will get even hotter than it now is, worsening the American position and exposing the fact that to fight Iran both within the borders of Iraq and into Iranian territory, there are not enough troops in the theatre.

Bush may really have pushed the escalation pedal more than any of us realize.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE: This exchange today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee between Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden and Senator Chuck Hagel with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is full of non-denial denials and evasive answers to Biden's query about the President's ability to authorize military operations against forces within Iran and Syria:

SEN. BIDEN: Last night, the president said, and I quote, "Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges, and that begins with addressing Iran and Syria." He went on to say, "We will interrupt the flow of support for Iran and Syria, and we will seek out and destroy networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Does that mean the president has plans to cross the Syrian and/or Iranian border to pursue those persons or individuals or governments providing that help?

SEC. RICE: Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was just asked this question, and I think he perhaps said it best. He talked about what we're really trying to do here which is to protect our forces and that we are doing that by seeking out these networks that we know are operating in Iraq. We are doing it through intelligence. We are then able, as we did on the 21st of December, to go after these groups where we find them. In that case, we then asked the Iraqi government to declare them persona non grata and expel them from the country because they were holding diplomatic passports.

But the -- what is really being contemplated here in terms of these networks is that we believe we can do what we need to do inside Iraq. Obviously, the president isn't going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq.

The broader point is that we do have and we have always had as a country very strong interests and allies in the Gulf Region, and we do need to work with our allies to make certain that they have the defense capacity that they need against growing Iranian military build-up, that they fell that we are going to be a presence in the Persian Gulf Region as we have been, and that we establish confidence with the states with which we have long alliances, that we will help defend their interests. And that's what the president had in mind.

SEN. BIDEN: Secretary Rice, do you believe the president has the constitutional authority to pursue across the border into Iraq (sic/Iran) or Syria, the networks in those countries?

SEC. RICE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I would not like to speculate on the president's constitutional authority or to try and say anything that certainly would abridge his constitutional authority, which is broad as commander in chief.

I do think that everyone will understand that -- the American people and I assume the Congress expect the president to do what is necessary to protect our forces.

SEN. BIDEN: Madame Secretary, I just want to make it clear, speaking for myself, that if the president concluded he had to invade Iran or Iraq in pursuit of these -- or Syria -- in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that. I just want to set that marker.

SEN. HAGEL: I want to comment briefly on the president's speech last night, as he presented to America and the world his new strategy for Iraq, and then I want to ask you a couple of questions.

I'm going to note one of the points that the president made last night at the conclusion of his speech. When he said, quote, "We mourn the loss of every fallen American, and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice" -- and I don't think there is a question that we all in this country agree with that -- but I would even begin with this evaluation; that we owe the military and their families a policy, a policy worthy of their sacrifices, and I don't believe, Dr. Rice, we have that policy today.

I think what the president said last night -- and I listened carefully and read through it again this morning -- is all about a broadened American involvement, escalation in Iraq and the Middle East. I do not agree with that escalation, and I would further note that when you say, as you have here this morning, that we need to address and help the Iraqis and pay attention to the fact that Iraqis are being killed, Madame Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control -- Iraqi on Iraqi. Worse, it is inter-sectarian violence -- Shi'a killing Shi'a.

To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong.

It's, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong. We will not win a war of attrition in the Middle East.

And I further note that you talk about skepticism and pessimism of the American people and some in Congress. That is not some kind of a subjective analysis, that is because, Madame Secretary, we've been there almost four years, and there's a reason for that skepticism and pessimism, and that is based on the facts on the ground, the reality of the dynamics.

And so I have been one, as you know, who have believed that the appropriate focus is not to escalate, but to try to find a broader incorporation of a framework. And it will have to be, certainly, regional, as many of us have been saying for a long time. That should not be new to anyone. But it has to be more than regional, it is going to have to be internally sponsored, and that's going to include Iran and Syria.

When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue, on the specific question -- will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night -- you cannot sit here today -- not because you're dishonest or you don't understand, but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.

Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didn't cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous. Matter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out. I will resist it -- (interrupted by applause.)

PLANNED ATTACK ON IRAN : BUSH WILL EXPAND WAR BEFORE BLAIR RESIGNS

Michael Carmichael
Global Research, January 16, 2007
The Planetary Movement and Global Research

The Editor-in-Chief of the Arab Times reports that a “reliable source” in Washington has provided detailed information about the forthcoming US hard-power attack on Iran’s nuclear and oil industries.

According to the un-named sources cited in the Arab Times, the US timetable is being driven by the retirement of George Bush’s major ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The British Prime Minister sacrificed his own popularity to back Bush’s wars in the Middle East. Politically weakened by his loyalty to Bush, Blair is publicly committed to step down from his office at Number Ten Downing Street from this May.



Applying the political calculus, sources informed the Arab Times that the month of April will be the most likely for the attack in order to allow Tony Blair to play a leading role in the western rationale for the escalation of the deeply unpopular war.

Analysts working for the Bush-Cheney White House predict that a concerted military attack against Iranian targets will weaken the regime and lead to the toppling of the government of Syria, as well.

According to statements attributed to Vice President Dick Cheney in the Arab Times, the nation of Saudi Arabia is threatened territorially by the Iranian regime. Many Shias live inside Saudi Arabia with their heaviest population clusters in the oil producing regions. Last month, Cheney went to Riyadh for an extraordinary face-to-face meeting with King Abdullah. It is now obvious that the US plans to broaden the war by the “surge” and the forthcoming attack on Iran would have been a major topic of these private discussions.



Col. Sam Gardiner, USAF retired.

In a separate statement, the highly respected US security expert, Col. Sam Gardiner (USAF retired) presents the sequence of tactical maneuvers that will unfold and precede the launch of the US military assault against targets in Iran - a project that Col. Gardiner deems to be an escalation by stealth leading to a broadening war in the Middle East.

An expert tactician, Col. Gardiner predicts,

As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike"




In 2003, Bush and Cheney ordered the launch of the war in Iraq on the 18th and 19th of March. These dates now appear to fall within the window of opportunity for operational relevance with a heightened period of intensity running from mid-March through mid-April.

In the interim, we can expect to see an escalation of what Col. Gardiner and others have termed, perception management - the deliberate manufacture of propaganda by the Bush-Cheney government - a task that was briefly conducted by the Office of Strategic Influence that was established shortly after 9/11.

Ex-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, closed the Office of Strategic Influence when the exposure of its blatant disinformation operations precipitated an international outrage.



According to SourceWatch, Rumsfeld stealthily resurrected OSI in a variety of new guises: the Office of Global Communications; the Information Awareness Office (IAO) and the CounterInformation Team.

The next military moves will be tactical as outlined by Gardiner, and they will be timed in syncopation with a blizzard of anti-Iranian propaganda emanating from the perception management agencies under the control of the Pentagon.

Following the defeat of President Ahmadinejad’s preferred candidates in local Iranian elections last week, it is now perfectly clear that a US attack would strengthen his increasingly unpopular government.



Voices from every part of the political spectrum in Iran are now haranguing President Ahmadinejad who has conveniently left Tehran for an extended tour of Latin America. With Ahmadinejad’s popularity dropping sharply, he will welcome the Bush-Cheney plans for war, because they will allow him to wrap himself in the flag and play the role of defender of the faith.

According to ING Wholesale Banking, the economic consequences of a US attack on Iran will be dire. Financial experts predict sharp reactions in the markets, and they are already recommending selling Israeli stocks. The impact on Brent Crude will be dramatic with predictions of price surging to $80 per barrel paralleled by steep plunges in stock prices. Expert analysts predict dramatic drops in: the US dollar; government bond yields; stock markets and industrial raw materials with spikes in oil and gold prices.

According to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American people support negotiations with Iran and oppose a US military attack against Iran that would broaden an already deeply unpopular war.

Last week, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) warned Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, that any broadening of the war against Iraq by an attack across the border into Iran would trigger a constitutional crisis in America.

The stage is now set for a historic political confrontation in America that will rival the Watergate crisis of the 1970s.



Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware)




Michael Carmichael is Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, The Planetary Movement, Oxford, UK and a frequent contributor to Global Research.

References

US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites

Colonel Sam Gardiner

Office of Strategic Information - SourceWatch

Study Finds Bipartisan Public Consensus on Wide Range of Foreign Policy Issues - Majorities of Both Parties Agree on How to Deal with Iraq, Iran, Nuclear Proliferation, Climate Change and Other Issues

US military strike on Iran seen by April ‘07 - Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times

Pieces in Place for Escalation Against Iran

Attacking Iran - ING Wholesale Banking

With thanks to Peter Webster

THE PLAN FOR ECONOMIC STRANGULATION OF IRAN
Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
01/12/07 "Information Clearing House"

It is said that there is more than one way to skin a cat. It seems that United States is trying to skin this cat –Iran- in anyway that it can, including economic strangulation. While people are concerned with Iraq and the gathering armada in the Persian Gulf, United States has been quietly carrying out a not so covert economic war against Iran.

Since the 1979 revolution in Iran, the country has been under constant US unilateral sanctions. “The first U.S. sanctions against Iran were formalized in November of 1979, and during the hostage crisis, many sanctions were leveled against the Iranian government. By 1987 the import of Iranian goods into the United States had been banned. In 1995, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12957, banning U.S. investment in Iran's energy sector, followed a few weeks later by Executive Order 12959 of May 6, 2000, eliminating all trade and investment and virtually all interaction between the United States and Iran.” [[1]]

Despite the sanctions Iran continued to attract foreign investment and technical cooperation for its energy sector. Countries such as France, Italy and others took advantage of absence of the American competition and tried to fill the gap. However, the threat of American retaliation kept the investment way bellow the desired levels. It only allowed Iran to continue to keep its oil export at its OPEC determined quota level.

The Economic Chokepoint: Oil & Gas

“According to the Oil and Gas Journal, as of January 1, 2006, Iran held 132.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. This figure, which includes recent discoveries in the Kushk and Hosseineih fields of Khuzestan province, means Iran holds roughly 10 percent of the world's total proven reserves. The vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the south-western Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border. Overall, Iran has 40 producing fields – 27 onshore and 13 offshore. Iran's crude oil is generally medium in sulfur and in the 28°-35° API range.”[[2]]

There is no doubt that Iranian economy is driven by oil. Oil revenues constitute over 70 percent of its total export earnings and 50 percent of its GDP. Iran’s oil revenues were $32 billion in 2004, $45.6 billion in 2005, and according to Iran's National Oil Company international affairs director, Hojjatollah Ghanimifard, will reach $52 billion by the end of the Iranian calendar year (21 March 2007).

Iran currently produces about 4 million barrels of oil per day, of which only 2.5 million barrels are exported with the remaining 1.5 million barrel being consumed internally. According to the latest report (26 Dec 2007) by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (NAS), if the current increase in local Iranian oil consumption continues and the current decline in oil production is not stopped, then by 2015 Iran’s oil export will decline to zero.[[3]] According to this and other reports Iran needs to invest about $2.5 billion a year just to stand still. Iran is not running out of oil, but needs money to maintain old fields and bring in the new fields online.

The existing major oil fields in Iran are: Ahwaz (1958), Aghajari (1936), Gacchsaran (1937) and Marun (1963). These four fields together, during their highest output, produced almost 4.5 million barrel of oil per day. All four reached their peak in late 60s to mid 70s. According to Mathew R. Simmons by 2003, these 4 oilfields’ combined production were reduced to 1.7 million barrel per day. [[4]]

The current US strategy is to starve the Iranian oil and gas industries of new investments, thereby reducing the Iranian government’s revenues which are hoped will in turn reduce Iran’s ability to maintain not only its armed forces, but also the government’s social obligations to its people (subsidies, salaries, etc.). It is hoped that this combined with international isolation and (with the help of Saudi Arabia) a reduction in oil prices (OPEC crude basket price: $51.25 per barrel on 8/1/07) will not only cripple the Iranian economy, but also (possibly) lead to a regime change. All attacks on the economy was being presented under the guise of stopping Iran from developing WMDs, and in particular Nuclear weapons.

The attack on Iranian economy started in earnest in early 2006. United States began putting considerable pressure on international banks and financial institutions to cut their ties with Iran. Countries also were pressured to reduce their economic contact with Iran. For example beside the usual behind the scene warnings and threats, in September 2006, the US treasury secretary M. Paulson Jr, used his first meeting of world finance chiefs as a venue for the Bush administration's mission to isolate Iran.

“Emerging from a meeting of finance ministers representing the Group of Seven industrialized nations, Paulson said he urged his counterparts to intensify efforts to prevent banks and private companies in their countries from being used as unwitting conduits for financing and materials aiding Iran's ambitions.”[[5]]

Later under pressure from the US some three top Japanese banks: Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho Corporate Bank and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp announced that, in line with US financial sanctions, they will refrain from working with Iran's state-run Bank Saderat of Iran (with 3400 branches in Iran). Recently another major Iranian Bank with some foreign branches is being targeted for freeze of assets and sanctions. “Bank Sepah International Plc (BSIP), incorporated in the United Kingdom, specializes in providing finance and services for international trade worldwide with a particular focus on Iran and the Persian Gulf region, according to its Web site. The bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank Sepah, Iran, which was established in 1925 and is the oldest of the Iranian banks. Bank Sepah has a large network of branches in Iran as well as offices in Paris, Frankfurt and Rome”.[[6]]

The pressure was also felt by Indian and Swiss banks as well. In mid 2006 the State Bank of India (SBI), the only Indian bank operating in Iran (with a token presence) came under intense pressure to quit Iran [[7]].

Other banks that succumbed to the pressure were USB AG (took over Banco Pactual S.A. in 2006) and Credit Suisse Group of Switzerland (controlling group of other banks such as: Bank Leu, Schweizerische Volksbank, Neue Aargauer Bank, Winterthur, and Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Inc.). UBS AG, Europe's largest bank by assets, also cut all business ties with Iran in January 2006 and met with U.S. legislators in April 2006 about its transfers of U.S. banknotes to the Islamic Republic. Credit Suisse Group, Switzerland's second-biggest bank, also quit Iran in January. Other Banks to quit or restrict their activities in Iran were: ABN AMRO of Holland and London-based HSBC.

These were just a few example of United States’ indirect financial pressure on Iran. Governments, companies and financial institutions are under intense pressure to terminate all dealings with Iran. But so far Iran has managed to sustain, albeit with great difficulty, its oil industry and financial institutions functioning.

Iran’s Strategy

Iran facing the American financial attack on its oil facilities has been quick to seek other venues for both investment in its oil facilities and financial transactions. Iran facing a increasingly hostile US and Europeans has turned to Russia and China for investment and technical know-how for its oil and gas industries. China has the needed financial muscle and enough thirst for energy to disregard American pressures. China is already investing heavily in Iranian oil fields, securing for itself a portion of the oil and gas reserves. China with 1.3 billion people and fast growing economy is already the second largest oil consumer in the world. If China’s economic growth continues, it is estimated that by 2020 China’s energy needs will increase by 150 percent.

“China's expectation of growing future dependence on oil imports has brought it to acquire interests in exploration and production in places like Kazakhstan, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, West Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Canada. But despite its efforts to diversify its sources, China has become increasingly dependent on Middle East oil. Today, 58% of China's oil imports come from the region. By 2015, the share of Middle East oil will stand on 70%. Though historically China has had no long-standing strategic interests in the Middle East, its relationship with the region from where most of its oil comes is becoming increasingly important.”[[8]]

Last year China signed oil and gas contracts worth over $100 billion with Iran. China is heavily involved in developing the huge Yadavaran oil field. “If completed, the deal will allow China to buy 150,000 barrels of Iranian crude a day at market rates for 25 years as well as 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas. Under an initial agreement signed by the Sinopec Group in October 2004, China could pay Iran as much as $100 billion for the stake and the purchases of oil and gas over 25 years.” [[9]] Interestingly Royal Dutch Shell Plc works as technical consultant for Sinopec on Yadavaran field.

On 25 December 2006, National Offshore Oil Corp of China announced the signing of a $16 billion memorendom of understanding to develop Iran’s North Pars gas field and build liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants in Iran. The project is expected to take 8 years to complete.

Russia is also interested to enter the lucrative Iranian oil and gas market. According to Moscow Times, the Russian oil company LUKoil is about to sign a contract for producing oil from Iran’s Azadegan field [[10]]. There are also Russian companies vying for entry into the Iranian market. “Mashna Uqua Company has offered National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC) to apply the new technology to improve ROR at one of Iranian oil reserves, the source who wanted not to be identified told the Mehr News Agency. The technology includes the injection of a gel into oil reserve, which prevents rush of water into the reserve and thereby improving the ROR, the source elaborated.”[[11]]

Russia is also very interested to create a gas cartel, similar to OPEC. Recently a senior Russian parliamentarian called for creation of a producers’ cartel to “stand-up” to the consumers’ cartel.

"It is necessary to form a gas alliance, which could be joined by Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus," the head of the Russian parliament's energy committee Valery Yazev said Monday, RIA-Novosti reported. "Tomorrow, with the removal of the problem of Iran's nuclear program, I would also see Iran in this alliance," Mr Yazev said, speaking at a meeting of the Russian Gas Union industry group, which he also heads.[[12]]

It is no secret that Russia is using its energy resources to gain maximum commercial and political advantage in its dealing with the EU and others. Gazprom is already a mighty oil giant and is moving fast to become the world’s leading supplier of Gas as well. Russia is trying to monopolise the gas market. The only potential competitor to Gazprom would be Iran. If Russia manages to create a gas cartel with Iran, Europe will become a captive market with few options for its gas supplies.

Local Energy Consumption

As was mentioned above, of the 4 million barrel per day oil production about 1.5 million barrel is consumed locally in Iran. Iran has a burgeoning car industry with majority of the cars produced for local market. There are over 3 million cars in Tehran alone; with nearly half of them being dilapidated old gas guzzlers. Each year the country has to import billions of dollars of fuel. Iran’s refineries can only supply 42 million litres of petrol a day, while the demand is for 70 million litres. This means that Iran imports over 30 million litres of petrol a day; something that is costing the country huge amounts of hard currency.

Petrol is heavily subsidised and a gallon of petrol costs only 35 cents. These subsidies have resulted not only in smuggling of petrol to the neighbouring countries but also a major financial drain on the government’s finances. Iran needs to reduce both its consumption and increase its refining capacity.

To increase refining capacity, Iran has begun building new refineries both inside and outside the countries. Iran has planned joint ventures for building refineries in Syria [[13]], Venezuela [[14]] and Indonesia [[15]]. In addition Iran has planned several refineries inside Iran, with the latest being a possible joint venture with Essar of India [[16]].

To reduce consumption, the government has planned a new petrol rationing system. However, rationing by itself will not address Iranians’ addiction to cheap petrol. The only solution is the normalisation of the prices, which because of the political situation is highly unlikely.

Another major drain on the economy of Iran is its gas consumption. Iran “has one of the most extensive residential heating infrastructures in the world, with homes in the most remote villages warmed toastily with inexpensive natural gas. Total domestic energy subsidies cost $20 billion to $30 billion a year”[[17]]. Recently, Iran had to stop delivery of gas to Turkey because of a sudden rise in local demand. The government, it seems, has not decided yet if it wants the gas for export, heating homes, creating energy intensive industries or for injecting into the oil wells. But regardless of the choices it makes, the government knows that it can not continue indefinitely with the current level of subsidies.

What now?

The current American financial attacks on Iran are being felt in Tehran. These attacks although a recurring theme, has never been as intense as it is now. These attacks will cause some pain in Tehran but will not dissuade the government to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Iran in all likelihood will address (short term) its production problems and will reduce its local consumption by increasing the prices (adding to an already high inflation) and rationing. These attacks do and will hurt Iran, but not to a degree that United States desires. These attacks although sever, can be seen by some in Iran as a blessing in disguise, for it now force the Iranians to address some unpleasant questions with regard to their economy in general and energy consumption and subsidies in particular.

Iran suffers from many economic problems most of which is related to over-involvement of the government in the economy. Some of the financial problems can be attributed to the sanctions, but the majority of the existing economic problems are self-made. Weak management, inefficient use of resources, corruption, red-tapes and myriad of regulations are just a few among many problems that are facing the Iranian economy. These problems were not created by Ahmadinejad, nor can they all be solved by him; however people expect him to address many of these problems. This is what I call Ahmadinejad’s Achilles’ heel, which I shall address in my next article. Ahmadinejad was elected mainly for his promise of putting more bread on the Iranian tables. With the enormous problems facing him, it is difficult to see how he is going to fulfil his promises to the electorates.

Meanwhile Bush administration is bent on regime change in Iran, reducing all chances of a peaceful resolution to the existing US-Iran problems. One would have expected that the recent election defeat would have sent a clear signal to the Whitehouse that the American people want less and not more conflict in the region. But apparently Bush administration is going in the opposite direction. US is continuing to increase its naval presence in the Persian Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis strike group will is soon to join the USS Dwight Eisenhower aircraft carrier group and USS Boxer strike force in the Persian Gulf “as a warning to Syria and Iran”. Pushing for more stringent UN sanctions, use of unilateral sanctions, increasing pressure on foreign governments to stop dealing with Iran, putting sanctions on Iranian Banks and increasing the size of US navy presence in Persian Gulf are all signs of hostile intentions by Bush administration towards Iran.

It is difficult to see how United States expects Iran to cooperate on Iraq and Afghanistan while being threatened militarily and suffocated economically. It may also all be a negotiating tactics. First show the guns and then negotiate. But in my opinion this is neither a bluff nor a negotiating tactic. Bush administration is behaving like a gambler that has lost everything except his house. Now in one last desperate attempt it is raising the bet to all or nothing. Let us hope that the Democrats will stop Bush before he accidentally or by design start another war in an already volatile region.

Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway. He is a management consultant and a contributing writer for many online journals. He's a former associate professor of Nordland University, Norway. Bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no

[1] Ali Mostashari, “The Impacts of U.S. Sanctions on the Iranian Civil Society: Consequences for Democratization” Iranian Studies Group @MIT,, June 2004

http://isg-mit.org/projects-storage/Sanc...ctions.pdf

[2] Energy Information Administration, “Iran:Oil”. Country Analysis Brief, 2006

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/Oil.html

[3] Roger Stern, “The Iranian petroleum crisis and United States national security”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States”, Dec 26, 2006.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/1/377

[4] Mathew R. Simmons, “Twilight in the Desert: the coming Saudi oil shock and the world economy”, Wiley, 2005. pp. 299

[5] Washington Post, “Finance chiefs are pressed on Iran”, September 17, 2006

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middlee...d_on_iran/

[6] Haaretz, “U.S. expected to announce sanctions on major Iranian bank”, January 9, 2007 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/811345.html

[7] India Times, “US wants SBI to quit Iran”, JUNE 05, 2006

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/arti...cms?epaper

[8] Institute for Analysis of Global Security, “Fuelling the dragon: China's race into the oil market”

http://www.iags.org/china.htm

[9] Bloomberg, “Iran Invites Sinopec Head to Sign $100 Billion Oil, Gas Deals”, 25 November 2006

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...refer=asia

[10] The Moscow Times, “LUKoil Signs Iranian Oil Field Contract”, December 12, 2006. Issue 3559

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/20...2/046.html

[11] Mehr News, “Russia offers Iran new tech to improve oil ROR”, 11 December 2006

http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=419767

[12] News.com, “Russia calls for gas alliance with Iran”, October 31, 2006

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/st...37,00.html

[13] Lebanies Lobby.org, “Iran expands links with Syrians”, December 30, 2006

http://www.lebaneselobby.org/News__index...rians.html

[14] Fars News, “Venezuela to Supply Irans Petrol Needs”, May 31, 2006

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8503100488

[15] Houston Chronicle, “Iran to Invest $600M in Indonesian Fuels”, April 28, 2006

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/b...26344.html

[16] Earth Times.org, “Essar to build refinery in Iran”, January 8, 2007

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/18484.html

[17] Los Angeles Times, “U.S. targets Iran’s vulnerable oil”, January 8, 2007

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/205986/3/


THE UNTHINKABLE: THE US-ISRAELI NUCLEAR WAR ON IRAN
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?conte...cleId=4536

Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 21, 2007

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration in liaison with Israel and NATO is planning the launching of a nuclear war against Iran, ironically, in retaliation for its nonexistent nuclear weapons program. The US-Israeli military operation is said to be in "an advanced state of readiness".

If such a plan were to be launched, the war would escalate and eventually engulf the entire Middle-East Central Asian region.

The war could extend beyond the region, as some analysts have suggested, ultimately leading us into a World War III scenario.

In this regard, the structure of military alliances is crucial. China and Russia have entered into farreaching military cooperation agreements with Iran. The latter have a direct bearing on the conflict. Iran possesses an advanced air defense system as well as capabilities to target US and allied positions in Iraq and the Gulf States, as demonstrated in recent military exercises.

The US-led naval deployment (involving a massive deployment of military hardware) is taking place in two distinct theaters:the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission. In this context, the war on Lebanon last Summer must be viewed as a stage of the broader US sponsored military road-map.

The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.

The naval buildup is coordinated with the air attacks. The planning of aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remain classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the stockpiling and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

Despite Pentagon statements which describe tactical nuclear weapons as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", the use of nukes in a conventional war theater would trigger a nuclear holocaust.The resulting radioactive contamination, which threatens future generations, would by no means be limited to the Middle East.

In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". The presumption was that if such a 9/11 type event were to take place, Iran would, according to Cheney, be behind it, thereby providing a pretext for punitive bombings, much in the same way as the US sponsored attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists

More recently, several analysts have focussed on the creation of a "Gulf of Tonkin incident", which would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to wage war on Iran.

We bring to the attention of our readers a selection of Global Research articles, which document various aspects of US-Israeli war preparations.

It is essential that this information reaches the broader public. We invite our subscribers and readers to distribute and forward these articles far and wide.

To reverse the tide of war requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.

There seems to be a reluctance by members of Congress to exercise their powers under the US Constitution, with a view to preventing the unthinkable: the onslaught of a US sponsored nuclear war. The consequences of this inaction could be devastating. Once the decision is taken at the political level, it will be very difficult to turn the clock backwards.

Moreover, the antiwar movement has not addressed the US sponsored nuclear threat on Iran in a consistent way, in part due to divisions within its ranks, in part due to lack of information. Moreover, a significant sector of the antiwar movement considers that the "threat of Islamic terrorism" is real. "We are against the war, but we support the war on terrorism." This ambivalent stance ultimately serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the US national security doctrine which is predicated on waging the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).

At this juncture, with the popularity of the Bush-Cheney regime at an all time low, a real opportunity exists to initiate an impeachment process, which could contribute to temporarily stalling the military agenda.



The corporate media also bear a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. Until recently these war preparations involving the use of nuclear weapons have been scarcely covered by the corporate media. The latter must also be forcefully challenged for their biased coverage of the Middle East war.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.

It is essential to bring the US-Israeli war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America, Western Europe and Israel. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

Selected Articles on the Proposed US-Israeli Nuclear War on Iran


Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?.
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-01-07
The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts & realities upside down. It states that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use will ensure "minimal collateral damage".

US military strike on Iran seen by April '07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites
-by Ahmed Al-Jarallah - 2007-01-15


Nuclear War against Iran
Detailed review first published in January 2006
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-01-07

«Babylon-2»: On US-Israeli Plans For a Nuclear War
- by Dmitriy Baklin - 2007-01-20


Bush administration provokes open war on Iran
Irbil raid, and other operations, authorized "several months ago"
- by Larry Chin - 2007-01-15

Planned US-Israeli Nuclear Attack on Iran
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-01-07

Immediate Impeachments: Preventing "The Guns of August" in Eurasia
- by Prof. Francis Boyle - 2007-01-20
If Bush and Cheney are not stopped immediately by means of impeachment, they could readily set off World War III in the volatile Middle East and Central Asia.

Israel’s plans to Wage Nuclear War on Iran: History of Israel's Nuclear Arsenal
Hundreds of nuclear warheads under the control of Israel's defense establishment
- by Michael Carmichael - 2007-01-15


Iran: Pieces in Place for Escalation
- by Colonel Sam Gardiner - 2007-01-16
The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The media will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff.





The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-01-04
Muslim countries possess three quarters of the World's oil reserves. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves.



"Cold War Shivers": War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2006-10-06
The Russian, Chinese and Iran war exercises conducted since August are part of a carefully coordinated endeavor, in response to the US-NATO military build-up

Iran's President Did Not Say "Israel must be wiped off the map"
- by Arash Norouzi - 2007-01-20
Across the world, through media disinformation, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2006-10-01
A powerful naval armada has been sent to the Persian Gulf.


The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2006-09-21
An attack on Iran would engulf the entire Middle East and Central Asian region into an extensive confrontation.

The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2006-02-17
The Pentagon has blurred the distinction between conventional battlefield weapons & nuclear bombs. The nuclear bunker buster bomb is presented as an instrument of peace-making & regime change, which will enhance global security.

Looking for a Gulf of Tonkin-like Incident
- by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay - 2007-01-21

How Congress Can Stop the Iran Attack or be Complicit in Nuclear War Crimes
- by Prof. Jorge Hirsch - 2007-01-20


Planned Attack on Iran: Bush Will Expand War Before Blair Resigns
US timetable driven by retirement of Bush’s major ally, PM Tony Blair
- by Michael Carmichael - 2007-01-16


Secret "agreement of principles" between Israel and Syria
What implications for US-Israeli war on Iran?


Media Distortions: Preparing us for War with Iran
The difference between "a" and "the" can be the difference between no war and nuclear war
- by Floyd Rudmin - 2007-01-19


IRAN MUST GET READY TO REPEL A NUCLEAR ATTACK
General Leonid Ivashov
Global Research, January 24, 2007
Strategic Cultural Foundation (Russia)


In the overall flow of information coming from the Middle East, there are increasingly frequent reports indicating that within several months from now the US will deliver nuclear strikes on Iran. For example, citing well-informed but undisclosed sources, the Kuwaiti Arab Times wrote that the US plans to launch a missile and bomb attack on the territory of Iran before the end of April, 2007. The campaign will start from the sea and will be supported by the Patriot missile defense systems in order to let the US forces avoid a ground operation and to reduce the efficiency of the return strike by “any Persian Gulf country”.
“Any country” mostly refers to Iran. The source which supplied the information to the Kuwaiti paper believes that the US forces in Iraq and other countries of the region will be defended from any Iranian missile strikes by the frontier Patriots.

So, the preparations for a new US aggression entered the completion phase. The executions of S. Hussein and his closest associates were a part of these preparations. Their purpose was to serve as a “disguise operation” for the efforts of the US strategists to deliberately escalate the situation both around Iran and in the entire Middle East.

Analyzing the consequences of the move, the US did order to hang the former Iraqi leader and his associates. This shows that the US has adopted irreversibly the plan of partitioning Iraq into three warring pseudo-states – the Shiite, the Sunnite, and the Kurdish ones. Washington reckons that the situation of a controlled chaos will help it to dominate the Persian Gulf oil supplies and other strategically important oil transportation routes.

The most important aspect of the matter is that a zone of an endless bloody conflict will be created at the core of the Middle East, and that the countries neighboring Iraq – Iran, Syria, Turkey (Kurdistan) – will inevitably be getting drawn into it. This will solve the problem of completely destabilizing the region, a task of major importance for the US and especially for Israel. The war in Iraq was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in the process of getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries, which the US declared or will declare rouge.

However it is not easy for the US to get involved in yet another military campaign while Iraq and Afghanistan are not “pacified” (the US lacks the resources necessary for the operation). Besides, protests against the politics of the Washington neocons intensify all over the world. Due to all of the above, the US will use nuclear weapon against Iran. This will be the second case of the use of nuclear weapons in combat after the 1945 US attack on Japan.

The Israeli military and political circles had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was immediately supported by G. Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a “necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to “stop” Iran.

How will other nuclear powers react? As for Russia, at best it will limit itself to condemning the strikes, and at worst – as in the case of the aggression against Yugoslavia – its response will be something like “though by this the US makes a mistake, the victim itself provoked the attack”.

Europe will react in essentially the same way. Possibly, the negative reaction of China and several other countries to the nuclear aggression will be stronger. In any case, there will be no retaliation nuclear strike on the US forces (the US is absolutely sure of this).

The UN means nothing in this context. Having failed to condemn the aggression against Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council effectively shared the responsibility for it. This institution is only capable to adopt resolutions which the Russian and also the French diplomacy understands as banning the use of force, but the US and British ones interpret in exactly the opposite sense – as authorizing their aggression.

Speaking of Israel, it is sure to come under the Iranian missile strikes. Possibly, the Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance will become more active. Posing as victims, the Israelis will resort to provocations to justify their aggression, suffer some tolerable damage, and then the outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution.

Some people tend to believe that concerns over the world’s protests can stop the US. I do not think so. The importance of this factor should not be overstated. In the past, I have spent hours talking to Milosevic, trying to convince him that NATO was preparing to attack Yugoslavia. For a long time, he could not believe this and kept telling me: “Just read the UN Charter. What grounds will they have to do it?”

But they did it. They ignored the international law outrageously and did it. What do we have now? Yes, there was a shock, there was indignation. But the result is exactly what the aggressors wanted – Milosevic is dead, Yugoslavia is partitioned, and Serbia is colonized – NATO officers have set up their headquarters in the country’s ministry of defense.

The same things happened to Iraq. There were a shock and indignation. But what matters to the Americans is not how big the shock is, but how high are the revenues of their military-industrial complex.

The information that a second US aircraft-carrier is due to arrive at the Persian Gulf till the end of January makes it possible to analyze the possible evolution of the war situation. Attacking Iran, the US will mostly use air delivery of the nuclear munitions. Cruise missiles (carried by the US aircrafts as well as ships and submarines) and, possibly, ballistic missiles will be used. Probably, nuclear strikes will be followed by air raids from aircraft carriers and by other means of attack.

The US command is trying to exclude a ground operation: Iran has a strong army and the US forces are likely to suffer massive casualties. This is unacceptable for G. Bush who already finds himself in a difficult situation. It does not take a ground operation to destroy infrastructures in Iran, to reverse the development of the country, to cause panic, and to create a political, economic and military chaos. This can be accomplished by using first the nuclear, and subsequently the conventional means of warfare. Such is the purpose of bringing the aircraft carrier group closer to the Iranian coast.

What resources for self-defense does Iran have? They are considerable, but incomparably inferior to the US forces. Iran has 29 Russian Tor systems. Definitely, they are an important reinforcement of the Iranian air defense. However, at present Iran has no guaranteed protection from air raids.

The US tactics will be the same as usual: first, to neutralize the air defense and radars, and then to attack aircrafts in the air and on land, the control installations, and the infrastructure, while taking no risks.

Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disin

[moeen yaseen]

BU$H SIGNALS THE START OF OPEN WARFARE AGAINST ISLAMIC IRAN

Zafar Bangash
http://www.muslimedia.com/irn-uswar.htm

People all over the world have long been aware of the stark gap between the reality of American policy around the world, dictated by the drive to achieve “full spectrum dominance” at any cost, and the claims of its leaders to represent enlightenment and freedom for all people. One effect of the disaster in Iraq has been to make even Americans – notoriously ignorant of world affairs – aware of their leaders’ apparent disconnection from reality. At a time when there are growing demands for the US to pull out of Iraq, and rethink its strategy in the Middle East, both among Americans generally and politicians in Washington, the Bush administration has not only reaffirmed its commitment to the war in Iraq by committing an additional 21,500 troops, but made clear its determination to go to war against Iran as well.

Bush’s intent was made clear in two major speeches last month. On January 10 he gave his long-awaited statement of future policy in Iraq, responding to the Baker Report published on December 6. As well as committing further troops to Iraq, Bush said towards the end of his 20-minute speech: “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilising the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

On January 23 Bush gave his annual State of the Union address, outlining his administration’s policies for the next year. It was during this address in 2002, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and as propagandists were preparing the ground for the invasion of Iraq a year later, that he first used the phrase “axis of evil” to make clear that Iran was also on his hit-list. This year he repeated the rhetoric of the “war on terror” that has been widely discredited, but expanded his definition of the enemy that the US faces from al-Qa‘ida to “Shi’a extremists [that] are also determined to dominate the Middle East” and “are known to take direction from the regime in Iran… which is funding and arming terrorists like Hizbullah – a group second only to Al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.”

Even before his speech on January 10, dubbed “Iraq Surge”, Bush had personally authorised escalation of tensions by ordering aggressive actions against Iran. On December 20, accredited Iranian diplomats were arrested in Baghdad in violation of all diplomatic norms; even the puppet Iraqi regime was moved to protest and demand the diplomats’ immediate release. The following day, two Iranian officials were arrested at the house of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head0 of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a major political group in the Iraqi parliament. On December 23, after intense American diplomatic activity aimed at persuading reluctant allies such as Russia to toe the line, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1737, demanding that Iran halt uranium enrichment as part of its peaceful nuclear programme. This was in complete contravention of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory. This was followed on January 9 by the US banning all transactions with Bank Sepah, accusing it of financing Iran’s nuclear programme.

The day after Bush’s January 10 speech, American troops raided the Iranian liaison office in Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan, at 3:30am, arresting several Iranian officials and stealing computers, documents and other equipment. The Kurds were livid at this affront to their authority. Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, himself a Kurd, pointedly challenged American assertions about the Iranian officials’ involvement in supplying weapons or money to the insurgency. He said the office had existed for more than 10 years and it was in the process of being upgraded to a full consulate.

At the same time, Bush announced the dispatch of a second aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf, clearly also intended to increase the pressure on Iran. Each carrier group has more than 80 combat aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornets, F-14 Tomcats, SH-60 Seahawks, S-3B Vikings, E-2C Hawkeyes and EA-6B Prowlers, capable of flying more than 150 strikes a day. In addition, each carrier group includes guided-missile cruisers, fast frigates, guided-missile destroyers, and submarines, all equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles. How this lethal ordnance will help staunch the flow of help, if any, to the insurgency in Iraq from Iran is not explained. Deployment of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf can mean only one thing: Bush has plans to attack Iran from the sea. Several commentators, including congressmen, regard these aggressive moves by the US as a prelude to a direct attack on Iran, probably sometime in April.

There is also talk of the US and/or Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran. According to a report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the kind of bunker-buster bombs the US has threatened to use against Iran’s nuclear facilities, would penetrate only a few feet into the ground, too shallow to contain the massive radiation fall-out that could spread over 1000 miles. If the US actually used nuclear weapon itself, as some have suggested, the results would be even worse. If a single 1.2-kiloton bomb were dropped on Isfahan, three million people would be killed within two weeks of the explosion around Isfahan and another 35 million, including many in neighbouring countries, would be at high risk of cancer due to radiation. That would be madness indeed, and may be regarded as beyond the bounds of possibility; but nothing is impossible from this administration. The results of such an attack would of course be blamed on Iran for having a nuclear facility in the first place, rather than on the US or Israel for bombing it.

The propaganda campaign is also in full swing with zionist-controlled papers—the New York Sun and the British Daily Telegraph among them—leading the charge, circulating scandalous allegations as fact. This is a repeat of what happened before the war against Iraq. In August 2002, Judith Miller of the New York Times had published lurid details about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. These turned out to be completely false; they were deliberately planted by vice president Dick Cheney’s office and other neo-cons on the Bush team to prepare the public for a war against Iraq that has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

There are other echoes too of what is now known about the build-up to the war in Iraq. In Iraq, the US financed and supported anti-government forces to undermine the Ba’athist regime. Now, it is well established that the US finances and supports the terrorist Mujahideen-e Khalq Organisation (MKO) against Iran. Additionally, US officials and journalists, Seymour Hersh for instance, have suggested that American Special Forces are already operating inside Iran, instigating unrest against the government and encouraging acts of terrorism. This is a clear violation of its sovereignty and a declaration of war against Iran.

As in the period before the invasion of Iraq, US officials are engaged in intensive diplomacy marshalling support for their plans. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice went on yet another of her frequent flyer visits to the region between January 13 and 19 to drum up support for this latest American folly. Rice started her journey with pilgrimage to the zionist state of Israel, followed by visits to Mahmoud Abbas in Occupied Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In another expansion of its military presence in the Persian Gulf, the US has recently deployed Patriot missile batteries in Qatar, no doubt charging the tribal sheikhs a few billion more dollars for their “defence” – in fact, to pay for another American adventure that will cause the death of hundreds if not millions of Muslims.

The question we must ask is: if American troops are getting a bloody nose in Iraq and 20,000 additional troops will make little difference to the situation there, why is Bush so keen to open another front by instigating a war with Iran? The simple answer is that he does not care even for American lives much other peoples’ lives. After all, an estimated 655,000 Iraqis have been killed in the nearly four years since American troops went to “liberate” them, according to a study by the British medical journal, Lancet, published in October 2006. Bush’s aggressive policy prescriptions have been met with gasps of incredulity by most Americans—from members of Congress to lay persons in the street—but he is unmoved. Charles Sullivan, an American writer and photographer, wrote in the US webzine, Information Clearing House, on January 12: “The man with his finger on the nuclear detonator is mentally ill, incapable of remorse—a fact that should terrify every world citizen. I do not say this out of malice or to demean the president; it is simply a statement of fact based upon quantifiable evidence that any student of psychology would easily recognise.”

Yet there is method in this apparent madness. Bush and his neo-con advisors are driven by an insatiable greed to grab oil and money, and if this road to riches is littered with corpses then so be it. The US cannot win in Iraq—Bush has admitted as much, but still insists that the US is “not losing either”—but in the process it is determined to cause as much havoc in that part of the world as possible. Iraq has been destroyed; the neo-cons now hope to repeat the same feat in Iran to maintain and protect the US’s hegemony in the region.

Iran, which is celebrating the twenty-eighth anniversary of the victory of the Islamic revolution during the first ten days of this month, has not taken these threats lying down. On January 22 the Revolutionary Guards launched three days of military exercises, in which they tested the Shahab-5 and Zelzal missiles. Iranian military officials have made clear that they will give a fitting response to any aggression from the US or its protégé, Israel. Iran would be well advised not to lower its guard since the person occupying the White House may have lost the support of the American public but is driven by an ideological agenda that combines the US’s long-established determination to destroy the Islamic State, which has driven the policies of every administration in Washington since 1979, with the militaristic aggression of the neo-conservative movement that came to power in 2000.

Starting with their claims to “manifest destiny” and arriving at “full spectrum dominance”, Americans of all stripes have long strutted the world stage claiming to promote enlightenment and freedom, but inflicting only misery and suffering on people all over the world.

[moeen yaseen]

IGNORING THE US's IRAQ FIASCO, BU$H SIGNALS THE START OF OPEN WARFARE AGAINST ISLAMIC IRAN

Zafar Bangash
http://www.muslimedia.com/irn-uswar.htm

People all over the world have long been aware of the stark gap between the reality of American policy around the world, dictated by the drive to achieve “full spectrum dominance” at any cost, and the claims of its leaders to represent enlightenment and freedom for all people. One effect of the disaster in Iraq has been to make even Americans – notoriously ignorant of world affairs – aware of their leaders’ apparent disconnection from reality. At a time when there are growing demands for the US to pull out of Iraq, and rethink its strategy in the Middle East, both among Americans generally and politicians in Washington, the Bush administration has not only reaffirmed its commitment to the war in Iraq by committing an additional 21,500 troops, but made clear its determination to go to war against Iran as well.

Bush’s intent was made clear in two major speeches last month. On January 10 he gave his long-awaited statement of future policy in Iraq, responding to the Baker Report published on December 6. As well as committing further troops to Iraq, Bush said towards the end of his 20-minute speech: “Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilising the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

On January 23 Bush gave his annual State of the Union address, outlining his administration’s policies for the next year. It was during this address in 2002, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and as propagandists were preparing the ground for the invasion of Iraq a year later, that he first used the phrase “axis of evil” to make clear that Iran was also on his hit-list. This year he repeated the rhetoric of the “war on terror” that has been widely discredited, but expanded his definition of the enemy that the US faces from al-Qa‘ida to “Shi’a extremists [that] are also determined to dominate the Middle East” and “are known to take direction from the regime in Iran… which is funding and arming terrorists like Hizbullah – a group second only to Al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.”

Even before his speech on January 10, dubbed “Iraq Surge”, Bush had personally authorised escalation of tensions by ordering aggressive actions against Iran. On December 20, accredited Iranian diplomats were arrested in Baghdad in violation of all diplomatic norms; even the puppet Iraqi regime was moved to protest and demand the diplomats’ immediate release. The following day, two Iranian officials were arrested at the house of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head0 of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a major political group in the Iraqi parliament. On December 23, after intense American diplomatic activity aimed at persuading reluctant allies such as Russia to toe the line, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1737, demanding that Iran halt uranium enrichment as part of its peaceful nuclear programme. This was in complete contravention of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which Iran is a signatory. This was followed on January 9 by the US banning all transactions with Bank Sepah, accusing it of financing Iran’s nuclear programme.

The day after Bush’s January 10 speech, American troops raided the Iranian liaison office in Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan, at 3:30am, arresting several Iranian officials and stealing computers, documents and other equipment. The Kurds were livid at this affront to their authority. Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, himself a Kurd, pointedly challenged American assertions about the Iranian officials’ involvement in supplying weapons or money to the insurgency. He said the office had existed for more than 10 years and it was in the process of being upgraded to a full consulate.

At the same time, Bush announced the dispatch of a second aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf, clearly also intended to increase the pressure on Iran. Each carrier group has more than 80 combat aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornets, F-14 Tomcats, SH-60 Seahawks, S-3B Vikings, E-2C Hawkeyes and EA-6B Prowlers, capable of flying more than 150 strikes a day. In addition, each carrier group includes guided-missile cruisers, fast frigates, guided-missile destroyers, and submarines, all equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles. How this lethal ordnance will help staunch the flow of help, if any, to the insurgency in Iraq from Iran is not explained. Deployment of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf can mean only one thing: Bush has plans to attack Iran from the sea. Several commentators, including congressmen, regard these aggressive moves by the US as a prelude to a direct attack on Iran, probably sometime in April.

There is also talk of the US and/or Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran. According to a report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the kind of bunker-buster bombs the US has threatened to use against Iran’s nuclear facilities, would penetrate only a few feet into the ground, too shallow to contain the massive radiation fall-out that could spread over 1000 miles. If the US actually used nuclear weapon itself, as some have suggested, the results would be even worse. If a single 1.2-kiloton bomb were dropped on Isfahan, three million people would be killed within two weeks of the explosion around Isfahan and another 35 million, including many in neighbouring countries, would be at high risk of cancer due to radiation. That would be madness indeed, and may be regarded as beyond the bounds of possibility; but nothing is impossible from this administration. The results of such an attack would of course be blamed on Iran for having a nuclear facility in the first place, rather than on the US or Israel for bombing it.

The propaganda campaign is also in full swing with zionist-controlled papers—the New York Sun and the British Daily Telegraph among them—leading the charge, circulating scandalous allegations as fact. This is a repeat of what happened before the war against Iraq. In August 2002, Judith Miller of the New York Times had published lurid details about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. These turned out to be completely false; they were deliberately planted by vice president Dick Cheney’s office and other neo-cons on the Bush team to prepare the public for a war against Iraq that has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

There are other echoes too of what is now known about the build-up to the war in Iraq. In Iraq, the US financed and supported anti-government forces to undermine the Ba’athist regime. Now, it is well established that the US finances and supports the terrorist Mujahideen-e Khalq Organisation (MKO) against Iran. Additionally, US officials and journalists, Seymour Hersh for instance, have suggested that American Special Forces are already operating inside Iran, instigating unrest against the government and encouraging acts of terrorism. This is a clear violation of its sovereignty and a declaration of war against Iran.

As in the period before the invasion of Iraq, US officials are engaged in intensive diplomacy marshalling support for their plans. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice went on yet another of her frequent flyer visits to the region between January 13 and 19 to drum up support for this latest American folly. Rice started her journey with pilgrimage to the zionist state of Israel, followed by visits to Mahmoud Abbas in Occupied Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In another expansion of its military presence in the Persian Gulf, the US has recently deployed Patriot missile batteries in Qatar, no doubt charging the tribal sheikhs a few billion more dollars for their “defence” – in fact, to pay for another American adventure that will cause the death of hundreds if not millions of Muslims.

The question we must ask is: if American troops are getting a bloody nose in Iraq and 20,000 additional troops will make little difference to the situation there, why is Bush so keen to open another front by instigating a war with Iran? The simple answer is that he does not care even for American lives much other peoples’ lives. After all, an estimated 655,000 Iraqis have been killed in the nearly four years since American troops went to “liberate” them, according to a study by the British medical journal, Lancet, published in October 2006. Bush’s aggressive policy prescriptions have been met with gasps of incredulity by most Americans—from members of Congress to lay persons in the street—but he is unmoved. Charles Sullivan, an American writer and photographer, wrote in the US webzine, Information Clearing House, on January 12: “The man with his finger on the nuclear detonator is mentally ill, incapable of remorse—a fact that should terrify every world citizen. I do not say this out of malice or to demean the president; it is simply a statement of fact based upon quantifiable evidence that any student of psychology would easily recognise.”

Yet there is method in this apparent madness. Bush and his neo-con advisors are driven by an insatiable greed to grab oil and money, and if this road to riches is littered with corpses then so be it. The US cannot win in Iraq—Bush has admitted as much, but still insists that the US is “not losing either”—but in the process it is determined to cause as much havoc in that part of the world as possible. Iraq has been destroyed; the neo-cons now hope to repeat the same feat in Iran to maintain and protect the US’s hegemony in the region.

Iran, which is celebrating the twenty-eighth anniversary of the victory of the Islamic revolution during the first ten days of this month, has not taken these threats lying down. On January 22 the Revolutionary Guards launched three days of military exercises, in which they tested the Shahab-5 and Zelzal missiles. Iranian military officials have made clear that they will give a fitting response to any aggression from the US or its protégé, Israel. Iran would be well advised not to lower its guard since the person occupying the White House may have lost the support of the American public but is driven by an ideological agenda that combines the US’s long-established determination to destroy the Islamic State, which has driven the policies of every administration in Washington since 1979, with the militaristic aggression of the neo-conservative movement that came to power in 2000.

Starting with their claims to “manifest destiny” and arriving at “full spectrum dominance”, Americans of all stripes have long strutted the world stage claiming to promote enlightenment and freedom, but inflicting only misery and suffering on people all over the world.

[rodin]

[ian neal]

I thought this muslim group might interest you Moeen

http://www.thinkersforum.org/aboutus.php

[moeen yaseen]

Further to the popular appeal of this thread with about 18000 hits. This has had a technical downside with posts on the thread becoming rather awkward to input and download because of the volume of data. Accordingly a new thread with the same name - When love of profits clashes with the love of the Prophet will commence but it will be marked -Part 2. JHR the webmaster will make this thread available for consultation at this website. I think that it is in the public interest to continue providing unique Truth perspectives inclusive of powerful global Islamic critiques during these difficult times of the GWOT. So I will continue to share these insights as a public service for humanity at large with Part 2:-

see http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=7208

Enjoy the TRUTH RIDE and the thread that charts new directions for the Universal paradigm shift for the 21st century.

Moeen Yaseen

[Leiff]

Go for it moeen.

Do you know any good sites to post this link relating to the 'wipe off map' comments question on webcameron?

http://www.webcameron.org.uk/blogs/2413-Wipe-Israel-off-the-map-commen ts

[TonyGosling]

A sign put up by the Taliban reads: “The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan not only engenders illegal things forbidden but launches effice struggles against illicit drugs as these drugs are a great threat to personality, wisdom, life, health, economy, and morality.” [Source: BBC]