It's still preemptive war on a sovereign nation, and it's just as illegal as the one we started in Iraq four and a half years ago...
Sy Hersh:
In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran.
This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
And it will still yield nothing but more misery for millions in the region as well as inflaming an already volatile situation and risking the spread of it across seas and oceans:
A senior European diplomat, who works closely with American intelligence, told me that there is evidence that Iran has been making extensive preparation for an American bombing attack. “We know that the Iranians are strengthening their air-defense capabilities,” he said, “and we believe they will react asymmetrically—hitting targets in Europe and in Latin America.”
All of this is not based on hard intelligence, but, like the hollow bellowings of 2002 about WMDs in Iraq and the empty trumpeting about an Iranian Nuclear weapons program in the past few years (in the face of the results of repeated arduous IAEA inspections pointing to exactly the opposite conclusion), the illusion of intelligence, broadcast with such volume and in such panic stricken tones to the general populace (by willing allies in the media and the administration) that the average citizen who is accustomed to being spoon fed anything and everything that they conceivably would need to think about or pretend to have thought about and developed an opinion on until the masses are squarely behind action. Never mind what the action is, or who the action is focussed on, or what the secondary and long term results of the action may be, action must be taken immediately.
Scott Ritter:
65% of the American public aren’t antiwar. They’re just anti-losing. You see, if we were winning the war in Iraq, they’d all be for it. If we had brought democracy, they’d be cheering the President. It wouldn’t matter that we violated international law. It wouldn’t even matter that we lied about weapons of mass destruction. We’d be winning. God bless America. Ain’t we good? USA, USA! But we’re losing, so they’re against Iraq.
But what happens when you get your butt kicked in one game? You’re looking for the next game, where you can win. And right now, we’re looking for Iran for a victory.
This is exactly the wrong path for us to even contemplate going down, and the scary thing is that we've already started down it:
Ritter again, in conversation with Amy Goodman:
Look, we’re already overflying Iran with unmanned aerial vehicles, pilotless drones. On the ground, the CIA is recruiting Mojahedin-e-Khalq, recruiting Kurds, recruiting Azeris, who are operating inside Iran on behalf of the United States of America. And there is reason to believe that we’ve actually put uniformed members of the United States Armed Forces and American citizens operating as CIA paramilitaries inside Iranian territory to gather intelligence.
Now, when you violate the borders and the airspace of a sovereign nation with paramilitary and military forces, that’s an act of war. That’s an act of war. So, when Americans say, “Ah, there’s not going to be a war in Iran,” there's already a war in Iran. We’re at war with Iran. We’re just not in the declared conventional stage of the war.
If the U.S. goes into Iran in an obvious and invasive manner any shred of political, and moral capital that may exist for it with the rest of the world will disappear like a snowball melting on a hot stove.
The best way for us to protect our troops is to bring them home and end our criminal occupation of a land that was a sovereign nation until we invaded it and destroyed any semblance of government and civil institution in the name of regime change and imperialism, not by illegally invading another nation on the potentially most convincing and polarizing pretext of the week.
Showing posts with label regime change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regime change. Show all posts
Monday, October 1, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
The Walrus Weighs In
Permit me to utilize the Leatherneck Weapons Inspector to debunk him:
John Bolton:
I hope Iran understands that we are very serious, that we are determined they are not going to get a nuclear weapon capability, and unless they change the strategic decision they’ve been pursuing for close to 20 years, that that’s something they better factor into their calculations.
Scott Ritter:
When the Iranians operate their cascades for any significant duration of time, every single time, the cascades self destruct. This president's trying to tell us that we are at imminent risk from the Iranians. That this Nuclear program represents a real and imminent threat to the security of the United States of America. The Vice President is creating a sense of urgency. The Media is hyping up that we're one year away from a Nuclear armed Iran. I'm telling you right now, even if Iran has a covert Nuclear weapons program, which no one has demonstrated they have, they couldn't build a Nuclear weapon if they wanted to. They just don't have the technological capacity.
Now, how do we know all this? From the inspectors.
Contrary to popular belief, Iran has not kicked out the inspectors.
Iran is operating 100% in compliance with it's legal obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is permitted, under Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to enrich Uranium. We are demanding that Iran be denied that which it is legally allowed to do when we say it must suspend it's Uranium enrichment program.
But even more than this, we're told that the Iranians are "picking a fight," that they're "searching for a conflict."
Iran fought an eight year war with Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed. Their economy was devastated. They are just beginning to recover from that and they are going through a serious period of economic difficulty with high unemployment. This nation awash in a sea of oil spends 30 billion dollars a year to import gasoline because they don't have the refining capacity to produce indigenous gasoline. They're not looking for a fight. The last thing they want is a fight with the world's sole remaining superpower.
I don't really have anything to add except perhaps this:
NIR ROSEN:
I am skeptical that they are actually sending fighters to Iraq. I just don’t see the need for it. Iraqis are very well trained. [Iran] might be sending some weapons. But then again, there’s also a black market in weapons, so just because a weapon is Iranian doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily been sold by Iran.
John Bolton:
I hope Iran understands that we are very serious, that we are determined they are not going to get a nuclear weapon capability, and unless they change the strategic decision they’ve been pursuing for close to 20 years, that that’s something they better factor into their calculations.
Scott Ritter:
When the Iranians operate their cascades for any significant duration of time, every single time, the cascades self destruct. This president's trying to tell us that we are at imminent risk from the Iranians. That this Nuclear program represents a real and imminent threat to the security of the United States of America. The Vice President is creating a sense of urgency. The Media is hyping up that we're one year away from a Nuclear armed Iran. I'm telling you right now, even if Iran has a covert Nuclear weapons program, which no one has demonstrated they have, they couldn't build a Nuclear weapon if they wanted to. They just don't have the technological capacity.
Now, how do we know all this? From the inspectors.
Contrary to popular belief, Iran has not kicked out the inspectors.
Iran is operating 100% in compliance with it's legal obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is permitted, under Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to enrich Uranium. We are demanding that Iran be denied that which it is legally allowed to do when we say it must suspend it's Uranium enrichment program.
But even more than this, we're told that the Iranians are "picking a fight," that they're "searching for a conflict."
Iran fought an eight year war with Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed. Their economy was devastated. They are just beginning to recover from that and they are going through a serious period of economic difficulty with high unemployment. This nation awash in a sea of oil spends 30 billion dollars a year to import gasoline because they don't have the refining capacity to produce indigenous gasoline. They're not looking for a fight. The last thing they want is a fight with the world's sole remaining superpower.
I don't really have anything to add except perhaps this:
NIR ROSEN:
I am skeptical that they are actually sending fighters to Iraq. I just don’t see the need for it. Iraqis are very well trained. [Iran] might be sending some weapons. But then again, there’s also a black market in weapons, so just because a weapon is Iranian doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily been sold by Iran.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Grumbling Bear
Stirring and beginning to mark out territory:
The Guardian:
Luke Harding in Moscow
Wednesday August 22, 2007
Vladimir Putin announced ambitious plans to revive Russia's military power and restore its role as the world's leading producer of military aircraft yesterday.
The new emphasis on Russia's revived military prowess comes against a backdrop of deteriorating relations with the west. Mr Putin has denounced the US's missile defence plans in Europe, scrapped an agreement with Nato on conventional armed forces, and grabbed a large, if symbolic, chunk of the Arctic.
San Diego Union Tribune:
By Guy Faulconbridge
REUTERS
6:15 a.m. August 2, 2007
MOSCOW – Russian explorers dived deep below the North Pole in a submersible on Thursday and planted a national flag on the seabed to stake a symbolic claim to the energy riches of the Arctic.
Russia wants to extend right up to the North Pole the territory it controls in the Arctic, believed to hold vast reserves of untapped oil and natural gas.
The first item is no doubt a reaction to this inane policy revival on the part of the Bush administration, using the onionskin paper thin justification of a ballistic missile threat to its allies from rogue nuclear nations.
The second item would seem to be more of an insurance policy on the part of Russia in reaction to the continuation of the neo cons' undeterable urge to expand the conflict in the Middle East that could spiral out of the control of anyone or any nation.
Like every other nation, Russia recognizes that energy is the key to survival and a source of energy needs to be secured in order to ensure the security of that survival. The U. S. is and has been for decades making more and more aggressive inroads into the energy resources right in Russia's backyard with no regard for the rights of the nations and peoples who can lay rightful claim to those resources. So, two options present themselves and are being acted upon by Russia. The strategic economic one, in the form of the Arctic claim, and the strategic military option in the form of the increased military production and patrolling:
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:11pm BST 22/08/2007
Eurofighter Typhoon jets scrambled for the first time to intercept Russian nuclear bombers approaching British air space, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday.
The Tu-95 Bear nuclear bombers were detected over the Atlantic on Friday, the RAF said yesterday.
Tornado F3 fighters and two Typhoons were scrambled from RAF Leuchars in Scotland.
And let's not forget the Dragon, who also has a big vested interest in the resources of the region:
Iran has become the top oil exporter to China, surpassing Saudi Arabia. Official Iranian statistics have stated that China's oil imports from Iran more than doubled in 2006. In June 2007, China reportedly imported around 567,000 barrels per day (b/d).
As Scott Ritter said in a discussion with Seymour Hersch:
Our oil-based economy is operating on the margins, as we speak. We only have 1.0% to 1.5% excess production capacity. If you take the Iranian oil off the market, which is the first thing the Iranians will do, we automatically drop to around minus-4%, which means there ain’t enough oil out there to support the globe’s thirst for oil, especially America’s thirst for oil. And we're not the only ones drinking it. You think for a second the Chinese and the Indians, the world’s two largest developing economies, are going to say, “Hey, Uncle Sam, we’ll put everything on hold, so we can divert oil resources, so you can feed your oil addiction, because you attacked Iran”?
Energy. It's what inevitably brought down Hitler's Germany when he made the fatal decision to invade the Soviet Union when he did which was in response to the aggressive moves that Stalin was making towards the Ploesti Oil fields in Romania. The Wehrmacht was nothing but a useless mass of steel with out petroleum based products. The decision was made in June of 1941, and the course of the war was essentially set, although it would take several years and millions of lives to secure the ultimate result.
The Japanese push in the Pacific six months later was essentially a similar grab for resources, although not in reaction to aggressive moves by rival nations but to the power vacuum left in the Pacific following the marginalization of the European colonial powers in 1940 with the fall of France and the Battle of Britain and the tying up of the Soviet military in the West six months earlier. Ultimately the defeat of Germany and the over stretching of the Japanese Army and Navy (along with key battles such as Midway) determined the outcome of the war in the Pacific.
Energy. Once again rearing its ugly head as the primary reason that nations threaten and attack each other. I have a sinking feeling that even when the so called 'renewable' energy sources become the preferred option people will find ways to fight over the wind and sunlight.
And speaking of Solar Power:
The Guardian:
Luke Harding in Moscow
Wednesday August 22, 2007
Vladimir Putin announced ambitious plans to revive Russia's military power and restore its role as the world's leading producer of military aircraft yesterday.
The new emphasis on Russia's revived military prowess comes against a backdrop of deteriorating relations with the west. Mr Putin has denounced the US's missile defence plans in Europe, scrapped an agreement with Nato on conventional armed forces, and grabbed a large, if symbolic, chunk of the Arctic.
San Diego Union Tribune:
By Guy Faulconbridge
REUTERS
6:15 a.m. August 2, 2007
MOSCOW – Russian explorers dived deep below the North Pole in a submersible on Thursday and planted a national flag on the seabed to stake a symbolic claim to the energy riches of the Arctic.
Russia wants to extend right up to the North Pole the territory it controls in the Arctic, believed to hold vast reserves of untapped oil and natural gas.
The first item is no doubt a reaction to this inane policy revival on the part of the Bush administration, using the onionskin paper thin justification of a ballistic missile threat to its allies from rogue nuclear nations.
The second item would seem to be more of an insurance policy on the part of Russia in reaction to the continuation of the neo cons' undeterable urge to expand the conflict in the Middle East that could spiral out of the control of anyone or any nation.
Like every other nation, Russia recognizes that energy is the key to survival and a source of energy needs to be secured in order to ensure the security of that survival. The U. S. is and has been for decades making more and more aggressive inroads into the energy resources right in Russia's backyard with no regard for the rights of the nations and peoples who can lay rightful claim to those resources. So, two options present themselves and are being acted upon by Russia. The strategic economic one, in the form of the Arctic claim, and the strategic military option in the form of the increased military production and patrolling:
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:11pm BST 22/08/2007
Eurofighter Typhoon jets scrambled for the first time to intercept Russian nuclear bombers approaching British air space, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday.
The Tu-95 Bear nuclear bombers were detected over the Atlantic on Friday, the RAF said yesterday.
Tornado F3 fighters and two Typhoons were scrambled from RAF Leuchars in Scotland.
And let's not forget the Dragon, who also has a big vested interest in the resources of the region:
Iran has become the top oil exporter to China, surpassing Saudi Arabia. Official Iranian statistics have stated that China's oil imports from Iran more than doubled in 2006. In June 2007, China reportedly imported around 567,000 barrels per day (b/d).
As Scott Ritter said in a discussion with Seymour Hersch:
Our oil-based economy is operating on the margins, as we speak. We only have 1.0% to 1.5% excess production capacity. If you take the Iranian oil off the market, which is the first thing the Iranians will do, we automatically drop to around minus-4%, which means there ain’t enough oil out there to support the globe’s thirst for oil, especially America’s thirst for oil. And we're not the only ones drinking it. You think for a second the Chinese and the Indians, the world’s two largest developing economies, are going to say, “Hey, Uncle Sam, we’ll put everything on hold, so we can divert oil resources, so you can feed your oil addiction, because you attacked Iran”?
Energy. It's what inevitably brought down Hitler's Germany when he made the fatal decision to invade the Soviet Union when he did which was in response to the aggressive moves that Stalin was making towards the Ploesti Oil fields in Romania. The Wehrmacht was nothing but a useless mass of steel with out petroleum based products. The decision was made in June of 1941, and the course of the war was essentially set, although it would take several years and millions of lives to secure the ultimate result.
The Japanese push in the Pacific six months later was essentially a similar grab for resources, although not in reaction to aggressive moves by rival nations but to the power vacuum left in the Pacific following the marginalization of the European colonial powers in 1940 with the fall of France and the Battle of Britain and the tying up of the Soviet military in the West six months earlier. Ultimately the defeat of Germany and the over stretching of the Japanese Army and Navy (along with key battles such as Midway) determined the outcome of the war in the Pacific.
Energy. Once again rearing its ugly head as the primary reason that nations threaten and attack each other. I have a sinking feeling that even when the so called 'renewable' energy sources become the preferred option people will find ways to fight over the wind and sunlight.
And speaking of Solar Power:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)