NY Times:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — Participants in a contentious Baghdad security operation this month have told American investigators that during the operation at least one guard continued firing on civilians while colleagues urgently called for a cease-fire. At least one guard apparently also drew a weapon on a fellow guard who did not stop shooting, an American official said.
CBS:
BAGHDAD, Oct. 12, 2007
The first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene after Blackwater USA guards shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians at a Baghdad intersection on Sept. 16, found no evidence that the Iraqis fired any weapons at the guards, the Washington Post reported Friday.
A report compiled by the soldiers concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved" and called the incident a "criminal event," the Post reports.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers arrived at the scene 20 to 25 minutes after the shootings ended. "It had every indication of an excessive shooting."
CNN:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister wants private military contractor Blackwater out of his country after an Iraqi probe found Blackwater guards randomly shot civilians without provocation in a Baghdad square last month, an aide said Tuesday.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country, al-Maliki adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN.
Not withstanding my previous post about this happening when the Chicago Cubs make it to and win the World Series (not happening this year), if and when this happens the primary concerns that every freedom valuing American citizen should keep in mind are a: where are they going to go when they leave (they're going to be coming back here to the States to begin with) and b: what will they be doing there (your guess is as good as mine, but if the indications based on the duties secured by Blackwater in New Orleans after Katrina flushed out the majority of the more disadvantaged portion of the city's population (keeping them out of the public housing units that they still are rightfully entitled to) are anything to go by it can't be anything in the best interests of the average American).
The current administration and the support structure that keeps it in power know that the next election is a potential pivotal event. The results of said election must go in a certain direction in order for the benefactors of the current administration's policies (minimal to nonexistent tax rates for their main source of income, foreign policies that maximize profit for certain industries that they are deeply invested in (military-industrial, fossil fuel development, distribution and sale). In order for this to be achieved, the masses must remain pacified by (relatively) stable economic conditions and a seemingly calm domestic state of affairs, which means minimal public dissent and protest and NO BAD NEWS FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT HOW WE ARE IN DANGER FROM THREATS FROM TERRORISTS WHO ARE EVERYWHERE.
Pacifying and marginalizing civil dissent that goes beyond an acceptable level of intensity (read: when it starts to attract the attention of enough people to be a concern to the ruling class) usually falls to a police or military organization. But, if the local and state police are so overworked and underequipped to deal with it then a national force is usually called upon to quell the uprising, unless, the national force normally called upon to do so has already been called upon to fight in an overseas conflict and has been compromised to the point of near decimation. Then what do you do to quell the potentially polarizing protests of the administration and its policies? Why, you contract a private, corporate security force that is not answerable to any laws in the country that they're working in, even if it happens to be the country that they are indigenous to!
Peaceful Protest: What? A group of more than ten people are gathered to protest the administration's foreign policies?
CIVIL UNREST!!!
MUST BE QUELLED!!!
(SHOOT TO KILL!!!)
General Election: What? You've come to vote and you're not going to choose the ruling party on your ballot?
CIVIL UNREST!!!
MUST BE QUELLED!!!
(WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!)
All I can say is that I'm glad I live in Texas, because I think they'll think twice before coming down here and doing any sort of messing with anything or anyone given the fact that everyone down here owns at least one firearm. I'm just as nonviolent as the next person and am in total agreement with Arthur and Chris in their view of physical violence as a non option in that it always sends the wrong message and sets the wrong precident, BUT, it seems to be the only language that these folks understand AND I'm not a big fan of rolling over for the trigger happy muscle of an illegitimate administration of outlaws who have no regard for the inherent rights of human beings, be they citizens of the U. S. or any other country in the world.
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are gunning us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
--Neil Young
Showing posts with label neo cons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neo cons. Show all posts
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
THIS. IS. A. REALLY. BAD. IDEA.
McClatchy:
WASHINGTON — President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.
[Note the word charged. It implies suspicion without any corroborating evidence.]
Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.
This is totally illegal, regardless of whether the suspicions of the Shrub are accurate in the least. There is no active PUBLIC discussion about authorizing military action against Iran, either within our own government or with the cooperation of the U. N. Security Council. Whether or not it can be technically classified as legal under the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution is left to the devious skills of the student-twisters of the law that currently occupy the White House and aid and abet the administration in its current course of action:
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
NO.
IRANIANS.
WERE.
ON.
ANY.
OF.
THE.
FOUR.
PLANES.
Want to guess who was on the planes?
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11
7:45 a.m.: Departed Boston for Los Angeles.
8:46 a.m.: Crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
Mohamed Atta, pilot and group leader
Age: 33.
Nationality: Egyptian.
Abdulaziz Alomari
Age: Unknown.
Nationality: Saudi.
Satam M.A. Al Suqami
Age: 25.
Nationality: Saudi.
Wail M. Alshehri
Age: 28.
Nationality: Saudi.
Waleed M. Alshehri
Age: 22.
Nationality: Saudi.
UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175
7:58 a.m.: Departed Boston for Los Angeles
9:02 a.m.: Crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center
Marwan al-Shehhi, pilot and group leader
Age: 23.
Nationality: United Arab Emirates.
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
Age: 28.
Nationality: Saudi.
Ahmed Alghamdi
Age: 21.
Nationality: Saudi.
Hamza Alghamdi
Age: 20.
Nationality: Saudi.
Mohand Alshehri
Age: 21.
Nationality: Unknown.
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
8:10 a.m.: Departed Washington Dulles for Los Angeles
9:40 a.m.: Crashed into the Pentagon
Hani Hanjour, pilot and group leader
Age: 29.
Nationality: Saudi.
Nawaf Alhazmi
Age: 25.
Nationality: Unknown.
Majed Moqed
Age: Unknown.
Nationality: Unknown.
Khalid Almihdhar
Age: Unknown.
Nationality: Unknown.
Salem Alhazmi
Age: Uknown.
Nationality: Saudi.
UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93
8:42 a.m.: Departed Newark for San Francisco
10:01 a.m.: Crashed in Stony Creek Township, Penn.
Ziad Samir Jarrah, pilot and group leader
Age: 26.
Nationality: Lebanese.
Saeed Alghamdi
Age: 25.
Nationality: Saudi.
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
Age: 20.
Nationality: Saudi.
Ahmed Alnami
Age: 23.
Nationality: Saudi.
Hmmmm, no Iraqis, no Iranians, and a whole bunch of Saudis.
Interesting.
I wonder what we're doing about Saudi Arabia? Oh, right:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is developing a proposed $20 billion, 10-year arms sales package for Saudi Arabia, a senior administration official confirmed on Saturday.
Why, you may ask. Well, aside form the obvious nepotism laden reasons, there's this load of bunkum:
The proposed sale, first reported in The New York Times, is intended to upgrade the Saudi military's ability to counter possible Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf region, the official said.
"This is all about Iran," said the official, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity because discussions with the Saudis are still going on and the arms sale deal has not been completed.
How about a better, more constructive idea?
Sure, Iran has not suspended its uranium-enrichment program as initially requested by the United Nations Security Council exactly a year ago, but Iran has complied with other aspects of the council's, and the IAEA's, demands pertaining to greater nuclear transparency, access, and the resolution of "outstanding questions".
If the IAEA's reports of Iranians slowing down on the centrifuge program and openly entertaining the "time out" option do not constitute progress and a major plus, then what does? Any undue impatience with the diplomatic approach is uncalled for and indicative of a lack of a sound policy approach by the White House, seemingly riveted by contradictory influences by the moderate-hawk voices coming from different branches of the government.
Alas, it would seem that the words "sound policy approach" and "Bush White House" relate to each other in a manner similar to that of Matter and Anti-Matter.
WASHINGTON — President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.
[Note the word charged. It implies suspicion without any corroborating evidence.]
Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.
This is totally illegal, regardless of whether the suspicions of the Shrub are accurate in the least. There is no active PUBLIC discussion about authorizing military action against Iran, either within our own government or with the cooperation of the U. N. Security Council. Whether or not it can be technically classified as legal under the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution is left to the devious skills of the student-twisters of the law that currently occupy the White House and aid and abet the administration in its current course of action:
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
NO.
IRANIANS.
WERE.
ON.
ANY.
OF.
THE.
FOUR.
PLANES.
Want to guess who was on the planes?
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11
7:45 a.m.: Departed Boston for Los Angeles.
8:46 a.m.: Crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
Mohamed Atta, pilot and group leader
Age: 33.
Nationality: Egyptian.
Abdulaziz Alomari
Age: Unknown.
Nationality: Saudi.
Satam M.A. Al Suqami
Age: 25.
Nationality: Saudi.
Wail M. Alshehri
Age: 28.
Nationality: Saudi.
Waleed M. Alshehri
Age: 22.
Nationality: Saudi.
UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175
7:58 a.m.: Departed Boston for Los Angeles
9:02 a.m.: Crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center
Marwan al-Shehhi, pilot and group leader
Age: 23.
Nationality: United Arab Emirates.
Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
Age: 28.
Nationality: Saudi.
Ahmed Alghamdi
Age: 21.
Nationality: Saudi.
Hamza Alghamdi
Age: 20.
Nationality: Saudi.
Mohand Alshehri
Age: 21.
Nationality: Unknown.
AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
8:10 a.m.: Departed Washington Dulles for Los Angeles
9:40 a.m.: Crashed into the Pentagon
Hani Hanjour, pilot and group leader
Age: 29.
Nationality: Saudi.
Nawaf Alhazmi
Age: 25.
Nationality: Unknown.
Majed Moqed
Age: Unknown.
Nationality: Unknown.
Khalid Almihdhar
Age: Unknown.
Nationality: Unknown.
Salem Alhazmi
Age: Uknown.
Nationality: Saudi.
UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93
8:42 a.m.: Departed Newark for San Francisco
10:01 a.m.: Crashed in Stony Creek Township, Penn.
Ziad Samir Jarrah, pilot and group leader
Age: 26.
Nationality: Lebanese.
Saeed Alghamdi
Age: 25.
Nationality: Saudi.
Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
Age: 20.
Nationality: Saudi.
Ahmed Alnami
Age: 23.
Nationality: Saudi.
Hmmmm, no Iraqis, no Iranians, and a whole bunch of Saudis.
Interesting.
I wonder what we're doing about Saudi Arabia? Oh, right:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is developing a proposed $20 billion, 10-year arms sales package for Saudi Arabia, a senior administration official confirmed on Saturday.
Why, you may ask. Well, aside form the obvious nepotism laden reasons, there's this load of bunkum:
The proposed sale, first reported in The New York Times, is intended to upgrade the Saudi military's ability to counter possible Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf region, the official said.
"This is all about Iran," said the official, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity because discussions with the Saudis are still going on and the arms sale deal has not been completed.
How about a better, more constructive idea?
Sure, Iran has not suspended its uranium-enrichment program as initially requested by the United Nations Security Council exactly a year ago, but Iran has complied with other aspects of the council's, and the IAEA's, demands pertaining to greater nuclear transparency, access, and the resolution of "outstanding questions".
If the IAEA's reports of Iranians slowing down on the centrifuge program and openly entertaining the "time out" option do not constitute progress and a major plus, then what does? Any undue impatience with the diplomatic approach is uncalled for and indicative of a lack of a sound policy approach by the White House, seemingly riveted by contradictory influences by the moderate-hawk voices coming from different branches of the government.
Alas, it would seem that the words "sound policy approach" and "Bush White House" relate to each other in a manner similar to that of Matter and Anti-Matter.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Puppeters
Someone needs to get in there with a pair of sharp scissors...
Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Wherever we look in this world, we see the U. S. trying to install a network of puppets, who owe more to the us than to the people of their own countries. In simplistic terms, the corporate media pushes the idea of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'--silly symbols that take us back to mythic cowboy movies. In fact, any given leader can be a good guy and a bad guy depending on the time you're talking about. The late Saddam Hussein, now derided almost universally as a dictator, was an American ally just a brief time before--receiving a bounty of U. S. arms and, yes, weapons of mass destruction. As long as Saddam was using his weapons against Iran, all was well. Today, an Iraqi puppet sits on the national throne, a creation of us power, as surely as was the late Shah of Iran. Afghanistan presents an almost identical snapshot, a leader supported on a throne of U. S. bayonets--in a word, a puppet.
Why is it the business of the us to appoint the leaders of other nations? What's right about that? What's Democratic about that? We don't question it, because it's so deep in our national and international experience.
Why national?
Well, while many folks know about the FBI's harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., how many of us know that the government planned to replace him as a black leader with someone who was more malleable, and less committed to civil rights? The FBI wanted to replace King with Samuel Pierce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Reagan, someone who Reagan incidentally greeted as a guest to the White House, not recognizing that he was a member of his own cabinet.
The imperial industry of placing puppets over other people didn't begin abroad, it didn't start when one crossed the border, it began in the U. S., in an attempt to control and channel a popular movement. That's because empires begin at home, in essence, they export the methods they use at home abroad.
Democracy Now!:
The United States yesterday has lifted its embargo on direct aid to the Palestinian government in an effort to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah's struggle against Hamas. Last week Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip. Abbas responded by dismissing the democratically-elected Hamas-led government and formed a new cabinet led by a prime minister who has the backing of Israel and the United States.
John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, in an interview with Amy Goodman:
Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil, and we'll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid, and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won't get education, health, and other social services, and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as Iraq.” And in that way, we've managed to build a world empire with very few people actually knowing that we've done this.
I started off as economist, became chief economist, and my job really – I had a staff of several dozen people. My job was to get them, and for me to convince these countries to accept these very large loans, to get the banks to make the loans, to set up the deal so that the money went to big U.S. corporations. The country was left holding a huge debt, and then I would go in or one of my people would go in and say, “Look, you know, you owe us all this money. You can't pay your debts. Give us that pound of flesh.”
The other thing we do, Amy, and what's going on right now in Latin America is that as soon as one of these anti-American presidents is elected, such as Evo Morales, who you mentioned, in Bolivia, one of us goes in and says, “Hey, congratulations, Mr. President. Now that you're president, I just want to tell you that I can make you very, very rich, you and your family. We have several hundred million dollars in this pocket if you play the game our way. If you decide not to, over in this pocket, I've got a gun with a bullet with your name on it, in case you decide to keep your campaign promises and throw us out.”
I can make sure that this man makes a great deal of money, he and his family, through contracts, through various quasi-legal means, and I can also – if he doesn't accept this, you know, the same thing is going to happen to him that happened to Jaime Roldos in Ecuador and Omar Torrijos in Panama and Allende in Chile, and we tried to do it to Chavez in Venezuela and are still trying – that we will send in the people to try to overthrow him, as, in fact, we recently did with the President of Ecuador, or if we don't overthrow him, we'll assassinate him. And these people all know the history. They know that this has happened many, many, many times in the past.
The degree to which this nefariousness goes is pretty remarkable. I guess one can't underestimate the power and allure of cold hard cash and the power and influence that comes with it, but one has to consider the ramifications to one's soul, as I talked about here and here.
Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Wherever we look in this world, we see the U. S. trying to install a network of puppets, who owe more to the us than to the people of their own countries. In simplistic terms, the corporate media pushes the idea of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'--silly symbols that take us back to mythic cowboy movies. In fact, any given leader can be a good guy and a bad guy depending on the time you're talking about. The late Saddam Hussein, now derided almost universally as a dictator, was an American ally just a brief time before--receiving a bounty of U. S. arms and, yes, weapons of mass destruction. As long as Saddam was using his weapons against Iran, all was well. Today, an Iraqi puppet sits on the national throne, a creation of us power, as surely as was the late Shah of Iran. Afghanistan presents an almost identical snapshot, a leader supported on a throne of U. S. bayonets--in a word, a puppet.
Why is it the business of the us to appoint the leaders of other nations? What's right about that? What's Democratic about that? We don't question it, because it's so deep in our national and international experience.
Why national?
Well, while many folks know about the FBI's harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., how many of us know that the government planned to replace him as a black leader with someone who was more malleable, and less committed to civil rights? The FBI wanted to replace King with Samuel Pierce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Reagan, someone who Reagan incidentally greeted as a guest to the White House, not recognizing that he was a member of his own cabinet.
The imperial industry of placing puppets over other people didn't begin abroad, it didn't start when one crossed the border, it began in the U. S., in an attempt to control and channel a popular movement. That's because empires begin at home, in essence, they export the methods they use at home abroad.
Democracy Now!:
The United States yesterday has lifted its embargo on direct aid to the Palestinian government in an effort to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah's struggle against Hamas. Last week Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip. Abbas responded by dismissing the democratically-elected Hamas-led government and formed a new cabinet led by a prime minister who has the backing of Israel and the United States.
John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, in an interview with Amy Goodman:
Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil, and we'll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid, and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won't get education, health, and other social services, and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as Iraq.” And in that way, we've managed to build a world empire with very few people actually knowing that we've done this.
I started off as economist, became chief economist, and my job really – I had a staff of several dozen people. My job was to get them, and for me to convince these countries to accept these very large loans, to get the banks to make the loans, to set up the deal so that the money went to big U.S. corporations. The country was left holding a huge debt, and then I would go in or one of my people would go in and say, “Look, you know, you owe us all this money. You can't pay your debts. Give us that pound of flesh.”
The other thing we do, Amy, and what's going on right now in Latin America is that as soon as one of these anti-American presidents is elected, such as Evo Morales, who you mentioned, in Bolivia, one of us goes in and says, “Hey, congratulations, Mr. President. Now that you're president, I just want to tell you that I can make you very, very rich, you and your family. We have several hundred million dollars in this pocket if you play the game our way. If you decide not to, over in this pocket, I've got a gun with a bullet with your name on it, in case you decide to keep your campaign promises and throw us out.”
I can make sure that this man makes a great deal of money, he and his family, through contracts, through various quasi-legal means, and I can also – if he doesn't accept this, you know, the same thing is going to happen to him that happened to Jaime Roldos in Ecuador and Omar Torrijos in Panama and Allende in Chile, and we tried to do it to Chavez in Venezuela and are still trying – that we will send in the people to try to overthrow him, as, in fact, we recently did with the President of Ecuador, or if we don't overthrow him, we'll assassinate him. And these people all know the history. They know that this has happened many, many, many times in the past.
The degree to which this nefariousness goes is pretty remarkable. I guess one can't underestimate the power and allure of cold hard cash and the power and influence that comes with it, but one has to consider the ramifications to one's soul, as I talked about here and here.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
More on the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act...
Which should be called the "Multinational Oil Corporations stealing Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act".
DN! on Wednesday, June 6:
AMY GOODMAN: As the Iraqi parliament moves closer to a final vote on a controversial oil law, local opposition is growing. This week, oil workers in southern Iraq announced a strike to oppose the law and demand better wages. More than 600 workers are taking part, affecting two major pipelines. The workers want to be a part of the negotiation process from which they've been excluded. Critics say the law will expose Iraq's oil to major privatization and foreign takeover.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, the strike is critical. It’s been a long time building. There had been some negotiations between the strike leaders and Prime Minister al-Maliki. There are a number of demands, basic working conditions, wages, as you say, but also a seat at the table and opposition to the attempt to turn over Iraq's oil to foreign oil corporations and the -- as more knowledge has been brought to Iraq, it’s been very difficult for Iraqis to even learn what this oil law was about, just like it’s been difficult here. As more information has spread, the opposition has spread, as well, and now the workers have taken the situation into their own hands and struck.
This is really quite amazing and tremendously heartening. The Iraqis are finally seeing through all the smoke (literally) and mirrors of the last five years and realizing what all the ruckus is really about. Hopefully they'll be allowed to continue and grow as a representative group looking out for their own interests, which just happen to be the natural resources of IRAQ, not...
ANTONIA JUHASZ:If the law passes, US corporations have the potential to own a true bonanza of oil and, if the US military stays, protection to get in and get it. Now --
AMY GOODMAN: Which companies, in particular?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Chevron, Exxon, Conoco, BP, Shell, Marathon.
The key to this is that while the Iraqi Parliament can and most likely will pass a resolution ending the occupation of Iraq, it must also be passed by the Cabinet, which is where Al Maliki has his base of support, which is essentially in the role of lap dogs for the US and its corporate interests in the region.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: The United Nations mandate for the US occupation of Iraq gives ultimate authority to the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi cabinet to determine if the occupation can continue. So, theoretically, if the Iraqi parliament, joined by the cabinet -- and that’s critical -- say that the occupation cannot continue, theoretically it would have to end. That stands in vast opposition to the plans of the Bush administration and now, apparently, the plans of the Democratic leadership, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Couldn't it give Bush an out?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It could give Bush an out, if he wanted an out. I don't think he wants an out.
AMY GOODMAN: Because?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, I think there’s many ways in which the war is not going all bad for the President and for the administration. The only thing that’s truly going bad is the instability. But what has worked is a government in place that is more amenable to US interests than the last ten years of the Hussein regime, a government in place that is willing to negotiate in a dramatic fashion on the nature of Iraq's oil regime, and being on the precipice of a transfer of Iraq, a fundamental transfer, in its oil policy. We have US oil corporations engaging daily in negotiations with the Iraqi oil ministry, waiting on the sidelines.
AMY GOODMAN: And if they don't pass this law?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: If they don't pass the law, it’s a big strike at the heart of the agenda. I would say that the game wouldn't be over, and the fact that the administration is talking publicly about this Korea policy, the idea that the United States would maintain some sort of military presence similar to the US presence, quote/unquote, "keeping the peace between South and North Korea," that’s a permanent military engagement, which could last as long as fifty years. The thirty-year contracts, the length, the extended length of the occupation, leads me to believe that this is the idea that the administration wants to pursue.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of this comparison?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It’s incredibly disturbing. First of all, the conditions are completely dissimilar, except for the desire of the United States to maintain a presence and to use the misunderstanding, I think, of the American public as to the role of the US military in Korea, to say, “Well, we’ve created peace for fifty years in one situation. We can create peace for fifty years in this other situation. Oh, and by the way, our military will be really well situated to move forward across the region to spread peace across the Middle East, where, oh, by the way, there also happens to be two-thirds of the world's remaining oil.” It’s a terrifying proposition.
I'll say. Let's hope the Iraqis stick to their guns (of principle, mind you) and "Throw the Bums Out!"
By no means do I mean to refer to any of our military personnel as the bums in question. That particular moniker is reserved for anyone in Iraq solely for the purpose of making a fast buck on the destruction of a country, culture, and people-- from contractors all the way up to CEOs.
DN! on Wednesday, June 6:
AMY GOODMAN: As the Iraqi parliament moves closer to a final vote on a controversial oil law, local opposition is growing. This week, oil workers in southern Iraq announced a strike to oppose the law and demand better wages. More than 600 workers are taking part, affecting two major pipelines. The workers want to be a part of the negotiation process from which they've been excluded. Critics say the law will expose Iraq's oil to major privatization and foreign takeover.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, the strike is critical. It’s been a long time building. There had been some negotiations between the strike leaders and Prime Minister al-Maliki. There are a number of demands, basic working conditions, wages, as you say, but also a seat at the table and opposition to the attempt to turn over Iraq's oil to foreign oil corporations and the -- as more knowledge has been brought to Iraq, it’s been very difficult for Iraqis to even learn what this oil law was about, just like it’s been difficult here. As more information has spread, the opposition has spread, as well, and now the workers have taken the situation into their own hands and struck.
This is really quite amazing and tremendously heartening. The Iraqis are finally seeing through all the smoke (literally) and mirrors of the last five years and realizing what all the ruckus is really about. Hopefully they'll be allowed to continue and grow as a representative group looking out for their own interests, which just happen to be the natural resources of IRAQ, not...
ANTONIA JUHASZ:If the law passes, US corporations have the potential to own a true bonanza of oil and, if the US military stays, protection to get in and get it. Now --
AMY GOODMAN: Which companies, in particular?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Chevron, Exxon, Conoco, BP, Shell, Marathon.
The key to this is that while the Iraqi Parliament can and most likely will pass a resolution ending the occupation of Iraq, it must also be passed by the Cabinet, which is where Al Maliki has his base of support, which is essentially in the role of lap dogs for the US and its corporate interests in the region.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: The United Nations mandate for the US occupation of Iraq gives ultimate authority to the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi cabinet to determine if the occupation can continue. So, theoretically, if the Iraqi parliament, joined by the cabinet -- and that’s critical -- say that the occupation cannot continue, theoretically it would have to end. That stands in vast opposition to the plans of the Bush administration and now, apparently, the plans of the Democratic leadership, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Couldn't it give Bush an out?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It could give Bush an out, if he wanted an out. I don't think he wants an out.
AMY GOODMAN: Because?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, I think there’s many ways in which the war is not going all bad for the President and for the administration. The only thing that’s truly going bad is the instability. But what has worked is a government in place that is more amenable to US interests than the last ten years of the Hussein regime, a government in place that is willing to negotiate in a dramatic fashion on the nature of Iraq's oil regime, and being on the precipice of a transfer of Iraq, a fundamental transfer, in its oil policy. We have US oil corporations engaging daily in negotiations with the Iraqi oil ministry, waiting on the sidelines.
AMY GOODMAN: And if they don't pass this law?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: If they don't pass the law, it’s a big strike at the heart of the agenda. I would say that the game wouldn't be over, and the fact that the administration is talking publicly about this Korea policy, the idea that the United States would maintain some sort of military presence similar to the US presence, quote/unquote, "keeping the peace between South and North Korea," that’s a permanent military engagement, which could last as long as fifty years. The thirty-year contracts, the length, the extended length of the occupation, leads me to believe that this is the idea that the administration wants to pursue.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of this comparison?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: It’s incredibly disturbing. First of all, the conditions are completely dissimilar, except for the desire of the United States to maintain a presence and to use the misunderstanding, I think, of the American public as to the role of the US military in Korea, to say, “Well, we’ve created peace for fifty years in one situation. We can create peace for fifty years in this other situation. Oh, and by the way, our military will be really well situated to move forward across the region to spread peace across the Middle East, where, oh, by the way, there also happens to be two-thirds of the world's remaining oil.” It’s a terrifying proposition.
I'll say. Let's hope the Iraqis stick to their guns (of principle, mind you) and "Throw the Bums Out!"
By no means do I mean to refer to any of our military personnel as the bums in question. That particular moniker is reserved for anyone in Iraq solely for the purpose of making a fast buck on the destruction of a country, culture, and people-- from contractors all the way up to CEOs.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Getting ready to bite of more than they can chew (again)
Arthur:
Almost three months ago, I described in detail a series of actions that might help deter the current administration from launching an attack on Iran. You can probably think of a number of others, if you seriously put your mind to it. Some of those actions require the Democratic Congress to do something, or at least try to do something. Thus far, the Congress has not seriously tried to do even one of them: it has not moved to rescind either AUMF, nor has it passed a resolution condemning a possible attack on Iran, let alone proposed that such a non-defensive attack would be an impeachable offense. It has done nothing. Periodically, a few Democrats will make noises about doing something -- at some time in some indeterminate future.
So let me tell you something. If this paralysis and inaction continues, and if the Bush administration does order an attack on Iran, I don't want to hear one goddamned word from a single goddamned Democrat about how terrible and calamitous it is. They've been able to take action for months, and they can take action now. They do nothing.
Alain Gresh:
Since the 1960s, i.e., well before the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Iran sought to develop a nuclear infrastructure to prepare the post-oil period. With the development of technologies, complete mastery of the civilian nuclear cycle makes the shift to military usage much easier. Have the leaders in Tehran made that decision? Nothing allows us to assert that. Does the risk exist? Yes, and for reasons that are easy to understand.
During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Saddam Hussein's regime used chemical weapons against Iran - in violation of all international treaties: neither the United States nor France became indignant over this usage of weapons of mass destruction, which traumatized the Iranian people. Meanwhile, American troops are encamped in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran is surrounded in a dense network of foreign military bases. Finally, two neighboring countries, Pakistan and Israel, have nuclear weapons. What Iranian political leader could be insensitive to such a context?
and Me...
Iran is not an immediate threat to the United States or its allies in the region. IF Iran is pursuing nuclear enrichment technology for the purpose of developing a weapons program in addition to an energy program, it is not an offensive act. It is an act of defense motivated by the fact that Iran is now surrounded by declared and undeclared nuclear powers: Russia to the North, Pakistan, India and China to the East, Israel to the West, and the United States to the South in the Persian Gulf with an disproportionately sized naval armada.
If there were a situation where the United States was surrounded in such a manner (Canada and Mexico possessing proven nuclear weapons and another major power such as China or Russia having placed a similarly sized force in the Gulf of Mexico) I'm sure that the United States would be rattling its nuclear sabers, and if the U.S. didn't have nuclear weapons, it certainly would be pursuing that technology as vehemently as Iran and most likely more so, all the while defending its inherent right to that technology and the right to possess it for use as a DETTERENT. This is the reason the U.S. gives for possessing nuclear weapons (despite the fact that it is the only nation to have actually used them on another country) and yet it tries to deny other countries with a legitimate case for possessing nuclear weapons as a DETTERENT the opportunity to do so.
The only course of action in terms of Iran is to recognize its status as a country and normalize relations with no prerequisite conditions. Force will only be met with force (which, according to International Law, Iran has all the right in the world to use if attacked) and Iran has many more options open to it to inflict severe damage on the interests of the U.S. and its allies in the target rich environment of the Middle East -- even with conventional weapons.
As the animation on the end of the world that has been going around for the past few years goes, "WTF, Mate?!?" We've got plenty to take care of here at home with the insane amounts of money that we don't have and must borrow from anyone and everyone gullible enough to lend it to us that we're spending on Iraq and would potentially spend on another foolish excursion in the Middle East:
Hill Country Gal
and
Michael Moore (covered by an unlikely source)
Almost three months ago, I described in detail a series of actions that might help deter the current administration from launching an attack on Iran. You can probably think of a number of others, if you seriously put your mind to it. Some of those actions require the Democratic Congress to do something, or at least try to do something. Thus far, the Congress has not seriously tried to do even one of them: it has not moved to rescind either AUMF, nor has it passed a resolution condemning a possible attack on Iran, let alone proposed that such a non-defensive attack would be an impeachable offense. It has done nothing. Periodically, a few Democrats will make noises about doing something -- at some time in some indeterminate future.
So let me tell you something. If this paralysis and inaction continues, and if the Bush administration does order an attack on Iran, I don't want to hear one goddamned word from a single goddamned Democrat about how terrible and calamitous it is. They've been able to take action for months, and they can take action now. They do nothing.
Alain Gresh:
Since the 1960s, i.e., well before the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Iran sought to develop a nuclear infrastructure to prepare the post-oil period. With the development of technologies, complete mastery of the civilian nuclear cycle makes the shift to military usage much easier. Have the leaders in Tehran made that decision? Nothing allows us to assert that. Does the risk exist? Yes, and for reasons that are easy to understand.
During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), Saddam Hussein's regime used chemical weapons against Iran - in violation of all international treaties: neither the United States nor France became indignant over this usage of weapons of mass destruction, which traumatized the Iranian people. Meanwhile, American troops are encamped in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran is surrounded in a dense network of foreign military bases. Finally, two neighboring countries, Pakistan and Israel, have nuclear weapons. What Iranian political leader could be insensitive to such a context?
and Me...
Iran is not an immediate threat to the United States or its allies in the region. IF Iran is pursuing nuclear enrichment technology for the purpose of developing a weapons program in addition to an energy program, it is not an offensive act. It is an act of defense motivated by the fact that Iran is now surrounded by declared and undeclared nuclear powers: Russia to the North, Pakistan, India and China to the East, Israel to the West, and the United States to the South in the Persian Gulf with an disproportionately sized naval armada.
If there were a situation where the United States was surrounded in such a manner (Canada and Mexico possessing proven nuclear weapons and another major power such as China or Russia having placed a similarly sized force in the Gulf of Mexico) I'm sure that the United States would be rattling its nuclear sabers, and if the U.S. didn't have nuclear weapons, it certainly would be pursuing that technology as vehemently as Iran and most likely more so, all the while defending its inherent right to that technology and the right to possess it for use as a DETTERENT. This is the reason the U.S. gives for possessing nuclear weapons (despite the fact that it is the only nation to have actually used them on another country) and yet it tries to deny other countries with a legitimate case for possessing nuclear weapons as a DETTERENT the opportunity to do so.
The only course of action in terms of Iran is to recognize its status as a country and normalize relations with no prerequisite conditions. Force will only be met with force (which, according to International Law, Iran has all the right in the world to use if attacked) and Iran has many more options open to it to inflict severe damage on the interests of the U.S. and its allies in the target rich environment of the Middle East -- even with conventional weapons.
As the animation on the end of the world that has been going around for the past few years goes, "WTF, Mate?!?" We've got plenty to take care of here at home with the insane amounts of money that we don't have and must borrow from anyone and everyone gullible enough to lend it to us that we're spending on Iraq and would potentially spend on another foolish excursion in the Middle East:
Hill Country Gal
and
Michael Moore (covered by an unlikely source)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)