War Mongering America

Condoleeza Rice has absolutely no credibility in the International Community. If this is the first time you've heard this, then I'm sorry, but you had to find out sometime. Her recent statements to the effect that Iran is "" by OFFERING TO ALLOW CONTINUED IAEA INSPECTIONS is a transparent attempt to push the confrontation in the Diplomatic community into the realm of warfare. Her threats of putting pressure on Iran or moving to a Chapter 7 resolution by the Security Council (she's just re-iterating what the US Ambassador to the U.N. said on friday) are rediculous and only tarnish the already pathetic reputation of the United States. Let me explain.

To refer back to a previous post of mine that discussed this particular issue, I have previously noted that the only intent of the Security Council with regards to the Iran issue before it was "unresolved questions" and that Iran needed to be more transparent in their dealings with the international community regarding their Nuclear ambitions. THAT IS THE ONLY PART OF THIS THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AGREES UPON, regardless of the spin you may hear from such news agencies as (always bush's constituents). France has not sided with the U.S. regarding the "all options are on the table" nonsense or any of the rest of it, but the media is still counting them as in America's corner no matter what comes up. However, the most recent press conference with the French Ambassador to the UN stressed that all governments must work together for a diplomatic solution, and that if ALL governments don't agree on the issue then there is no issue. His exact words:

"[On Iran Mr. Ambassador, are you now close to putting something forward on a chapter 7 resolution? Does the (Iranian) announcement yesterday change the dynamics in the Council? ]
We must first wait for the discussions between the capitals before we can look at it here among ambassadors. We are now in a phase of discussions between capitals.
[But are you going towards a chapter 7 resolution right now?] As far as France is concerned, we’ve never had any problem with such a proposal. It is our position, but it has to be shared by the others."

IT HAS TO BE SHARED BY THE OTHERS. The others=China and Russia (HUGE TRADING PARTNERS WITH THE EU). China and Russia, you may recall, are also strong trading partners with Iran. The american media viewpoint that there is some kind of agreement between France and America on the "all options are on the table" stance is completely baseless.

Condi's blatant attempt to push the situation to the next level becomes painfully obvious upon review of the events that led up to it.

  • The IAEA (in march) released a report on Iran's nuclear program that stated in no uncertain terms that there was NO EVIDENCE of the diversion of Nuclear materials to any kind of weapons program, but that raised concerns about the fact that there were still some gaps in their knowledge of the atomic situation in Iran.
  • The March President of the U.N. Security Council released a decree that the IAEA was to look in to Iran's nuclear program for the purpose of "building confidence in the international community" that their Nuclear program was for peaceful civilian uses. The decree also called on Iran to halt their enrichment program FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES TO BE PUT IN TO PLACE, such as "greater transparency" in their intentions and in their actions.
  • Iran announces that they have successfully enriched uranium (and they specifically noted that it was specifically) for the purpose of producing nuclear power, a concept that the UN Security council president had specifically stated (in the same decree discussed above) was well within the realm of acceptability as far as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty was concerned, and thusly well within the purvue of UN Member States.
  • The IAEA releases their report regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and the report specifically states that Iran had continued their enrichment activities (which was already public knowledge due to statements from Tehran) which the Security Council march president had asked them to suspend ONLY FOR AS LONG AS THE IAEA WAS STILL DOING THEIR RESEARCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING CONFIDENCE IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, but the report states that Iranian Nuclear weapons intentions WAS NOT A CONCLUSION THAT COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE.
  • Iran states that they would be more than happy to allow "snap" inspections of their Nuclear sites by the IAEA, but ONLY IF the UN did not start taking direct sanction or military action against them for pursuing what they have the legal right to pursue: a civilian Nuclear Power program.
  • Condeleeza Rice flatly rejects their offer (even though it is EXACTLY what was requested of Iran by the UN in march)

If you look at this chain of events objectively and with your information drawn from the first hand sources, such as the UN or the IAEA, then it becomes painfully obvious that Iran has complied specifically with everything that has been asked of them (to the letter). Yet america continues to try to goad them into a fight.

America is well aware that if they are successful in pushing through a Chapter 7 resolution by the security council that could lead to imposing sanctions on Iran, they will most likely follow through on their threat to discontinue cooperation with the IAEA and withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, because as they so aptly pointed out, they have been cooperating up until this point and it has gotten them nowhere. What the U.S. seems to be failing to recognize (although this point is well hidden by the Western Media so most casual observers do not recognize it either) is that any kind of attack on Iran (sanctions, military, etc.) is (as Iran continually points out) not in anyone's best interests, but those who would suffer the most from it (as Iran keeps pointing out) are actually those in America. Again, let me repeat: an attack on Iran is counterproductive to American interests, economically, politically, and with regards to safety. Again, I must explain.

First of all, everyone in America is bitching and moaning these days about the price of gasoline (at record highs in many parts of the states). Sanctions on Iran are likely to drive the price of gasoline (petrol) up yet again, as the current price-highs are based primarily on the fact that everyone is worried about supplies from Iran (the worlds 4th largest producer of crude oil). What most americans don't seem to grasp is that these same gasoline prices affect the PRICE OF EVERYTHING in america. All goods sold have to get to their selling point somehow, that somehow is through oil-powered vehicles. If it costs more for their goods to get to supermarket shelves, then the products themselves are going to cost more to maintain profit margins. Simple capitalism. Attacking a huge supplier of oil will push oil futures through the roof (bloomberg.com recently reported that Oil prices are likely to continue their rise, right up to nearly 100 dollars a barrel; at the moment they're about 72 dollars, and the price at the pump is 3.00doll's a gallon. If the price goes up for crude by another 40%, then, well, you can do the math). But that's not even the greatest of America's concerns.

More worrysome to the American Taxpayer should be the fact that this war is not a winnable one (in the classic american definition of the term) for America. First of all, the U.S. has proven their ineptness militarily in Iraq (and even Afghanistan) through their failure to control what they claim to be their main danger: terrorism. They turned Iraq from a harmless and defenseless country (STILL WAITIN' on the WMDs they claimed were there...) into the largest recruitment pool for Al-Qaida in the world. You need only check the news on Iraq to see how the "coalition" forces are completely the situation. And Iraq's military was extremely weak, and the average soldier in that army was a conscript (average citizen given a gun and told they must go fight, they had no choice). Iran's military is not weak. If America cannot control Iraq (they are STILL CLAIMING THAT REMNANTS OF SADDAMS REPUBLICAN GUARD ARE FIGHTING THE COALITION TROOPS, and that's their excuse for why they can't get the security situation under control) after 3 years, and Iraq's military was tremendously weak, they don't have a hope in hell of defeating Iran.

As far as how effective a military attack on Iran would be at actually halting Iran's nuclear program, in the words of Iran's :
"It will have no effect on our nuclear programme. They say they will bomb us, but where do they want to bomb? We already have the know-how."
In fact, attacking Iran directly with military force will most likely only solidify the that their Nuclear program is a matter of national pride, and that it is important for their very national character.

Perhaps more importantly, (you should pay attention to this one) an attack on Iran is an attack on China, Russia, India, and Pakistan.

As I have discussed in previous posts (such as "lies, nuclear chess, and george orwell" and "conspicuously absent from western media") just last month Iran was accepted as a full member into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, an intergovernmental energy/security organisation whose founding members include China and Russia. Everyone has to be well aware by this point that Iran exports the vast majority of their oil to china, china exports a large amount of military equipment to Iran, and that Iran's nuclear program was built and is being partially operated by Russia.
If I may draw your attention to an posted recently regarding a role playing scenario acted out at an American university by university students:
"When it became clear that an American attack was imminent, the Russian team announced an extraordinary measure: the deployment of Russian troops to strategic sites in Iran"
It goes on to conclude that if that was the logical course of action for American University students, then obviously (former KGB officer) Vladimir Putin may contemplate the same. As I have discussed before, both China and Russia have important economic interests in Iran, and I do believe that they (based on their party platforms and rhetoric) would be inclined to protect their interests.
Which brings us back to the concept of sanctions, as I mentioned earlier. Ms. (it's a wonder she isn't married, isn't it?) Rice's recent rejection of the most logical course of action to solve this issue and her reiteration of the American demand for sanctions against Iran is a moronic idea. The administration in washington is also trying to assert that if the UN doesn't support sanctions that the UN is not fullfilling it's responsibility (from the administration's standpoint, apparently, that is to serve the U.S.'s interests at all times, based on the fact [as pointed out in the US UN Ambassador's friday news conference about the IAEA findings by a reporter from "News Weekly"] that the UN was "irrelevant" as far as America attacking Iraq, in violation of article 51 of the UN charter, and now the US is saying that they will again prove their irrelevance if they don't support sanctions, but yet are still trying to say that one of the dangerous aspects of Iran is that they are not living up to their responsibilities as a UN member [which, as illustrated above, is actually completely untrue] by acting in a manner that is in violation of the US interpretation of the wishes of the Security council) in yet another attempt to circumvent the actual authority of the U.N., and hopefully it's an attempt that will eventually be noticed in the International press and exposed for what it is. It seems that the U.S. is trying to set the situation up so that they can again claim the "irrelevance" of the U.N. and act unilaterally to again try to secure global hegemony. The likelyhood of sanctions as an ACTUAL solution to the problem is neglegable.
First of all, (as many media sources around the globe have pointed out) Russia and China both have veto power in the UN Security Council, and they are not going to allow tough economic sanctions against one of their close economic partners. Secondly, (as mentioned above) France only supports moving towards chapter 7 and pressing for sanctions if ALL INTERNATION BODIES AGREE that this is the proper course of action. The western media should take note of this and (AGAIN) stop their inaccurate reporting of the situation: If all parties don't agree on sanctions, France does not support sanctions. Therefore France cannot continue to be grouped in as supporting America on this issue. Thirdly, as , "Iran seems to "have pretty much decided they can accept whatever sanctions are coming their way."" which is very much in contrast to Condi's position that sanctions are the most intelligent course of action.
Therefore, sanctions obviously (as even C.P. is admitting) wouldn't have the effect of sorting out the situation. Nor would military action, as explained above. The only intelligent option left open to America is to return to the negotiating table, accept Iran's concession of allowing the IAEA free reign in Iran, and stop their war mongering. But how often does America EVER make the intelligent decision.



I came across a post with a very disturbing link to a website that I have seen before and, up until now, thought fairly highly of.

"A friend informs me that
An American web site (CafePress) is offering T-shirts, baby clothes, mugs and teddy bears with "Nuke Iran" logos. If you have the time, please write to them and tell them what you think...This is particularly distressing. I think we need to act to stop such ugly displays. It doesn't matter what you think of the Iranian nuclear crisis and/or the American response. It is beyond question that 'nuking' by the US is both a terrible strategic mistake and a humanitarian disaster."

The idea that anyone in this day and age could in their right mind be advocating (or, in the case of CafePress, be providing a venue for the advocation of) use of the most dangerous and deadly of WMD, which has historically caused the deaths of millions of people, is absolutely appalling. I urge anyone who might come across this post to please, make your voice heard, I genuinely hope that nobody who may come across this blog would possibly have the lack of moral character so deep as to not want to make their voice heard on this topic.
To contact cafe press about their willingness to disseminate hateful and inhumane rhetoric either use their own feedback form here or email them to info@cafepress.com or pr@cafepress.com or perhaps someone might know a more specific email address to contact.

The post that I came across that brought this to my attention is here.


Today, "Iran's flinty President" (thank you China State News Agency) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised the world that Iran would not abandon it's Nuclear project. I would like to note, for the record, that this is WELL in line with the UN Security Council's requirements (although I'm SURE that his statement will be spun in the western media, just you wait) as stated by the Security Council President himself when he asked the IAEA to look in to Iran's Nuclear ambitions.

"“The Security Council reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and recalls the right of States Party, in conformity with articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."

Iran has the legal right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, and there is absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that their nuclear program is ANYTHING BUT PEACEFUL. THE ONLY THING that the international community agrees on in this matter is that Iran needs to be forthcoming and transparent in their intentions and to do their work to ensure the civilian nature of their nuclear program. Regardless of the western media spin on the story, the U.S. posturing (extensively covered in the western media), and the , america has no case. It is interesting to note that they have dredged up the WMD claim (remember that from Iraq? I think they're still looking for them, I heard they made a wrong turn at Mosul and were last heard from somewhere in the Himalayas) against Iran, I've highlighted the U.S. State Department statement on the matter below in my previous "Iran" Post. It's all there in black and white, I can't help but believe that those in charge in washington suffer from just as many psychological afflictions as Bin Ladin, but I don't have my psychology PHD yet so I can't really say for sure.

Sanctions Regime

I recently read on the blog by Baghdad Treasure some obviously ignorant individual claiming that the US/EU withdrawl of support for Palestine was the West saying that they would not support the murder of innocents. That's asinine. First of all, withdrawl of aid coupled with a complete trade block on Palestine by Israel results in a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions, which is THE MURDER OF INNOCENTS. Secondly, America and Britain have been giving aid to Israel since 1948, and America especially has been providing huge amounts of military equipment, technology, and funding to the Israeli Defence Forces, which slaughter Palestinian civilians on a daily basis. Just last week, as described in my "even the BBC" entry, I briefly mentioned how, in the week prior to the recent bombing in tel aviv that took 9 lives, more than 20 civilians had been killed by the IDF in palestine in raids. That was just in the week before the Tel Aviv bombing, NOT INCLUDING Israel's military reaction to the bombing (more dead civilians). Yet people honestly believe in the richeousness of withdrawing much needed aid to Palestine, while their governments are STILL giving aid to Israel that is used to assist in the slaughter of Palestinian men, women, and children.
There have also been recent threats of Economic Sanctions against Iran and Syria, in addition to the de-facto sanctions in place that have a stranglehold on everyday life in palestine. It has been proven time and time again that sanctions destroy the population and do nothing to hurt those in power. We need only look as far as Iraq to see the devastating effect that the US/UK sanctions regime had on the population.
Don't believe me? Check the words of Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, the chief UN Humanitarian Coordinators for Iraq who resigned in protest to the "genocidal" nature of the Economic Sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s up until 2003. Or just read the moving description by Baghdad Treasure as a first hand account of the suffering. Or have a look at Human Rights watch's statements regarding the sanctions that cost countless lives. Yet it's a threat that won't be taken off the table. Do human beings really care so little about the lives of their fellow man?


Sadly the IAEA report on Iran that was released today was realeased ONLY to Diplomats of the countries on the Security Council, and is not available to the public. We can, however, look towards the U.S. Ambassador's own statement on the report after he had seen it, wherein he stated, about the assertion by the U.S. that Iran's program is for weapons, the report "doesn't make any conclusions in that regard."
In it's own push to remind the world that we should all fear Iran, the U.S. State Department released their own report today (to coincide with the IAEA's statements) about the "State Sponsors of Terror," which somehow NEVER includes the United States, even though America fits the American definition of "state sponsor of terror."

[To step away from Iran to talk about the U.S. as the worlds leading "State sponsor of terror," lets look at the words of President Bush:
"If you harbor terrorists, you are [a] terrorist. If you aid and abet terrorists, you're a terrorist, and will be treated like one."
Just to mention a couple of the terrorists "harbored" in America today (not including the actions of the american military and how they fit the definition of "terrorism," as that would take too long and I don't have the patience), we should really mention: (1)Luis Posada Carilles (Miami), (2)Jorge Mas Canosa (Miami), (3)Emmanuel Constant (New York), etc.
(1) Nicaragua, (2) Cuba, and (3) Haiti should all (theoretically) be flattening America with carpet-bombing as we speak, but enough about that.]

Today's report on "State Sponsors of Terror" by the State Department was accepted as Fact by countless "news" organisations, including CNN Europe, who seem to have never heard of the U.S. State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, Bureau of International Information Programs (quote from their site: "IIP informs, engages, and influences international audiences about U.S. policy and society to advance America's interests"), Advisory Commision on Public Diplomacy, or any of the other countless Executive Branch departments that specialize in providing propaganda to the people of the world. So anyway, this piece of [insert appropriate noun here] was presented today as honest Fact on CNN, coinciding with the (non-public) release of the IAEA's findings on the Iranian Nuclear Program.
The U.S. would like the world to know:

"Iran remained the leading state sponsor of terror." (they were last year as well apparently? Ok, if that's what you believe, then fine).

What are the specific reasons given for why Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror? As follows:

  1. Iran's continued support for terror groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the PLO, including support through rhetoric, and providing them with funding and weapons.
  2. "Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaida members it detained in 2003." Bringing to justice is defined as "transfer custody of detainees... to third countries for interrigation and/or trial."
  3. "Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the transitional government and the Multi-National Forces in Iraq."

I don't honestly see how this could possibly put Iran ahead of America as the Leading State Sponsor of Terror.

First of all, the actions of Hizbollah, Hamas, AAMB and the PLO all fall within the confines of International Law as it relates to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and a state or region's ability to protect its land and its people from a foreign invasion force, that invasion force namely being the Israeli Defence forces regarding their occupation of what is by law land that belongs to Lebanon and Palestine. Therefore, supporting them is actually more in line with international law than the support that France gave to the rebels in the English Colonies during the time of the "American Revolution" and is not an action that could be defined as "sponsoring terror" in the honest definition of the phrase. What is in violation of international law is the continuing incursions by the IDF into foreign territory, and they are using U.S. supplied Apache helicopter gunships and U.S. supplied bulldozers, which is the same kind of thing that the U.S. is trying to pin on Iran. In psychology we call that "displacement."

America's definition of "bringing to justice" is that these Al-Qaida suspects are to be turned over to the U.S. for interrogation. However, the U.S. interrogation practices are in violation of international law as it relates to the Humane Treatment of Prisoners, so for Iran to turn over these suspects to the U.S. (the third party, or "third country" as phrased in this report) would be for them to willingly aid in the violation of International Law and treaties. So their actions in attempting to stymie additional violations of international law are apparently "terrorist" actions. Right.

Iran's policies in Iraq "appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the Multi-National Forces." And, of course, the puppet "transitional" government put in to place by these multi national forces. So, Iran's policies in an invaded territory are inconsistant with those of the people who violated international law (Article 51, U.N. Charter, again) when they invaded the country anyway? And that makes Iran the sponsors of terrorism?

I don't see how ANY of these accusations are supported by ANY real evidence WHATSOEVER, but yet it's all accepted as truth by "journalists" who are supposed to be "unbiased" and "objective" but yet have somehow lost the ability to reason for themselves. The report is topped off with a great statement trying to pin WMD's on Iran as well (it worked so well in Iraq, lets try it on Iran!):

"State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD threat." How? "A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organisation to aquire advanced WMD." Ok, but where did you come up with the factual basis for Iran having ANY WMD's AT ALL? "Nations that fail to live up to international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism." So if a nation fails to live up to its international obligations, then they must have WMDs that they're going to give to terrorists. What defines failure to live up to international obligations? Maybe attacking a defenseless country on the grounds that it may possibly somehow in the future develop WMDs or could possibly have WMDs or would like to know where to get WMDs, or what? We heard this about Iraq, and we're still waiting for these WMDs to be found. Are you actually coming forward now to give evidence that Iran has some sort of WMDs? "Iran is capable of producing biological or chemical agents or weapons." WHAT?!?!?! "Iran could support terrorist organisations seeking to aquire WMD." WHAT?!?!?!?! ARE YOU MAKING BASELESS WMD ACCUSATIONS AGAIN?!?!? HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO FEED THE WORLD SHIT AND TELL EVERYONE ITS CHOCOLATE?!?! WHEN ARE YOU GONNA STOP WITH YOUR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE PARANOID OBSESSION WITH WMD?!?!?! ENOUGH ALREADY, GET A FUCKING SHRINK!!!!!!!

NOT ONCE in this WHOLE REPORT did they produce ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran has ANY sort of WMD program, but yet they're still mentioning it, trying to plant the seed. And even CNN buys this shit hook line and sinker.

[The report also made mention of the fact that the "war on terror" is probably going to last for a very very long time. If anyone who may be reading this has not read the novel 1984 by George Orwell, you would be well served to give it a read.]

(If you don't believe me that I have accurately quoted the report, you may see for yourself the section of the Report on Iran, and the Full Report, both of which are in .PDF format and available on the U.S. State Department website.)

Another small bit mentioned in the terror sponsor state report was how Iran refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions to halt Uranium Enrichment, which makes them a nation that will "fail to live up to international obligations." This issue is far simpler than it's being made out to be, and one of the things making it much more complicated in the news is, as usual, INACCURATE REPORTING.

First of all, if you listen to CNN you would be likely to believe that there was a UN Security Council Resolution 30 days ago that demanded that Iran halt all enrichment activity or be held in violation of international law. As are most things reported in the "news" these days, that is simply not true. What happened 30 days ago was in fact a Presidential Statement calling on the IAEA to look in to unresolved questions regarding Iran's Nuclear Program. The statement was basically this:

“The Security Council calls upon Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, notably in the first operative paragraph of its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions, and underlines, in this regard, the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA."

BUILD CONFIDENCE. The idea was that Iran was to stop what they were doing for the sake of BUILDING CONFIDENCE in their intentions of having a strictly peaceful nuclear program. This statement by the President of the Security Council for March was in response to a report by the IAEA from earlier that month, which concluded:

"The Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran´s nuclear programme.
For confidence to be built in the peaceful nature of Iran´s programme, Iran should do its utmost to provide maximum transparency and build confidence. Only through clarification of all questions relevant to Iran´s past programme and through confidence building measures can confidence about Iran´s current nuclear activities be restored. This is clearly in the interest both of Iran and of the international community."

If I may bring your attention back to the beginning of the second paragraph: "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." They only wanted "confidence to be built." And this was all pre-SCO-Membership for Iran (as discussed in my "Conspicuously Absent from Western Media" entry) which means that China and Iran and Russia are all very close trading partners and security partners now, as they weren't when this whole posturing began by the U.S. government to try to drum up support for ANOTHER WAR to make americans feel confident in their Bullies in Office come November Congressional Midterm Elections.

N. Korea and America the Bully

While searching the United Nations homepage scouring the internet for first hand resources and documentation regarding the current "Nuclear Situation" in Iran (to be discussed in greater detail in the next post), I came across the following statement by the IAEA:

"Implementation of Safeguards in the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
Since the end of 2002, when at the request of the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK) the Agency´s verification activities were terminated, the Agency has been unable to verify the DPRK´s nuclear activities.
As I have reported before, the Agency stands ready to work with the DPRK - and other concerned parties - towards a comprehensive solution that addresses the security and other needs of the DPRK, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the needs of the international community to ensure that all nuclear activities in the DPRK are exclusively for peaceful purposes."

Then was their findings on Iran:

"Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran
The report on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran is before you. As you are aware, the Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE IAEA REGARDING IRAN, MADE IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR. But that's not the point of this particular blog entry. It is important to note that, while Iran is being cooperative with the IAEA, North Korea is not. Not at all, in fact the inspectors have been thrown out of their country and are not invited to return. So why is America going after Iran (who's not really doing anything wrong, but we'll discuss that in the next post) and not North Korea?
[(Other than to steal China's oil I mean)]

The NEXT funny bit I found was the HOMEPAGE of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is so anti-American that one can't help but smile or laugh (depending on your perspective). It calls Americans "imperialist," states bluntly that the U.S.A. has no interest in peace, they are "racist" and "separatist" and lie when they claim to be defenders of freedom. The homepage of N.Korea says ALL OF THIS about America, and yet it's Iran that the U.S. is going after, even though it's painfully obvious that with N.Korea's refusal to cooperate with the IAEA they are obviously the more out of line of the 2 countries, and they use a far more harsh rhetoric than the President of Iran has. Why?

THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SCHOOLYARD BULLY. They went after Iraq because it was weak, they are going after Iran because they feel it is weak (it is, in point of fact, actually NOT. At All.), but they are scared of North Korea, so North Korea doesn't even get mentioned, regardless of the fact that their lack of cooperation with the UN's IAEA is far more dangerous than that of Iran. Just a thought.
The homepage of DPRK linked to through the title is brilliant though. Thought you'd like to know. Back with IRAN, CNN, U.S. PROPAGANDA, and more soon.



It's such a beautiful little town... what did the egyptian tourist industry ever do to anyone? There are some gorgeous places there where you can sit on the beach sipping a coffee drink mixed with ice cream (yummy!) and being waited on by charming staff bringing you drinks right out to the beach. Now...

"Three nearly simultaneous explosions went off today in Dahab", and it's not that big of a place so it must have been absolute chaos. The link to the news story is here.

The thing that I found (personally) refreshing about Dahab when I was there was that, in relation to the other parts of the region I had been to, it was somewhere that Israelis and Arabs could enjoy the bounty that is creation SIDE BY SIDE, with no violence, no (visible) hatred; I thought to myself, if Arabs and Israelis can party together in Dahab, then there's hope for the world. I hope I wasn't wrong.

I find it so depressing sometimes that violence seems to be an unstoppable force gripping the world today. We have Rogue States intent on dropping nuclear bombs on the countries that used to be their close business partners; we have a schitzophrenic paranoid bipolar who's convinced that every international armed robbery of resources is the next Crusade, and people are listening to him; we have a situation of neverending revenge wherein the corpses are piling up and no-one has the courage to say enough is enough; we have countless people dying EVERY DAY for absolutely no reason than to line the pockets of someone whose pockets are already fat, or because they meditate (pray) differently from each other they feel they have to kill each other, and for what? Where is all this violence getting us?


Rumsfeld Indictment?

An article relating to Rumsfeld's knowledge of torture of Guantanamo detainees that I discussed in my "deranged American government" entry was posted last week in Human Rights Watch's news:

"Rumsfeld could be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility the legal principle that holds a superior responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates when he knew or should have known that they were being committed, but fails to take reasonable measures to stop them. "

describes the American concept of command responsibility quite well for those of you who haven't heard of it before.

Donald Rumsfeld's actions are not only in violation of international law, they are also in violation of American Law. When will the American government take responsibility for their actions?

And, out curiosity, how many of you lovely readers are old enough to remember the Iran/Contra affair of the 1980s? Or how it ended with the pardon of key players by george w bush's father? How it led to the death of the Swedish Prime minister, the (fairly recent) execution of a reporter who investigated the affair? Or how it tarnished the office of the President of the United States? Or how alot of the key players were recycled into the current Bush administration?

I wonder if these people will EVER take responsibility for their actions, rather than being hypocrites (ex. selling arms to Iran last time they were in power and demanding the world not sell arms to iran now) and demanding obedience while they themselves do not feel constrained by such frivolous things as laws. If they were part of any other country's government they would be in jail or worse, but I guess there's more than one interpretation of "land of the free."

America: Immigration vs. Destruction

Stated so eloquently by Michael Reese on "Sports and Politics"
Okay, all you guys and gals who had ancestors that did not have Green Cards on the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria, get out of our Country NOW!

Interesting that the Bush Administration has been able to draw the "immigration" issue into the forefront of the American consciousness while simultaneously the visit by Chinese premier Hu Juntao is pushed to the middle (unread) section of the newspapers. In fairness, there is NO American citizen whose ancestors were the rightful owners of the land that comprises the United States (I make such a bold statement based on the fact that Native Americans are not actually considered American Citizens), so it's a bit hypocritical of ANYONE in the U.S. to be making such a big issue of "illegal" immigration.
The logic behind pushing this issue to the forefront of the current political discourse in america is well demonstrated by a (right wing conservative!) economic analyst for Bloomberg who made some startling observations about the American workforce on Bloomberg news this week.
He stated that the number of people under-employed or un-employed in rural china exceeds 150Million, while the ENTIRE MANUFACTURING WORKFORCE of western europe AND the united states COMBINED is roughly 80Million people. His (logical) premise was that America AND Europe could lose ALL of their manufacturing jobs to China and China would STILL have loads of room for growth. This brings us to the state/non-state visit by Chinese Premier Hu Juntao this week.

American news (which for some strange reason is also broadcast on certain foreign channels as well) has been consistenly pointing out that the Chinese Premier made NO CONCESSIONS as far as the US/China IMMENSE trade deficit, but that's not entirely accurate.

He DID offer to take steps to level out the disparity between exports to america and imports from america (america, for those of you not up to date, imports a far far larger number of chinese goods than exports goods to china) and also offered to take steps to crack down on copyright infringement of American products in china, but only on the condition that America make some important concessions of their own. These requests were refused as quickly as they were made.

Among them:

  • America needs to allow the UNITED NATIONS to take the lead in international issues, security issues, dealing with threats to world peace, etc.
  • America needs to stick to the obligations they made when they signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, wherein all Nuclear armed countries agreed to discontinue creation of additional Nuclear Warheads and also agreed to NOT sell/give nuclear weapons to other countries, etc.
  • America needs to USE DIPLOMATIC MEANS TO SETTLE THE NUCLEAR SITUATION IN IRAN. He was very specific when he said this, and even paused when he mentioned Nuclear Situation; he did not say Iranian nuclear threat, nor nuclear power situation, nor uranium enrichment conundrum, he specifically called it a Nuclear Situation. Lets not forget that Bush has not ruled out using Nuclear Weapons against Iran, and that China has VERY close economic ties with Iran, and as such would (logically) seek to protect their assets and economic interests: NUCLEAR SITUATION is a very ominous statement to make by the worlds #2 superpower to the worlds most dangerous regime.

It is also important to note that countless (I honestly lost count at like 10) times he reiterated Chinas commitment to World Peace. So these days the communists are more commited to peace than their "moral" (fucking newsweek calls Bush's murderous agression a quest to spread morality, yet try to call themselves objective news) American counterparts.

Lets also remember the issue of the DULY ELECTED PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT, which most of the world (INCLUDING CHINA) recognizes due to the fair nature of the elections, but which america (which professes to be scouring the world for opportunities to advance the cause of "freedom and democracy") refuses to recognize. Its kind've funny that people genuinely believe in the moral nature of the "american quest to bring democracy" but yet don't see the disconnect when america fails to recognize a democratically elected government due strictly to the fact that their views are not in line with those of the ruling elite in washington. (Can you hear the starving palestinian children laughing?)

Yet the american press is pre-occupied with the CIA press-leak story, the New Orleans mayoral election, and the fucking Miss USA pageant.


Recent Noam Chomsky Article

New Noam Chomsky article that is not yet available on

Important Points:

"Here are a few simple suggestions for the US:

1. Accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal

Court and the World Court;

2. Sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols;

3. Let the UN take the lead in international crises;

4. Rely on diplomatic and economic measures

rather than military ones in confronting the grave threats of terror;

5. Keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter:

The use of force is legitimate only when ordered
by the Security Council or when the country is
under imminent threat of attack, in accord with Article 51;

6. Give up the Security Council veto, and have

"a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the
Declaration of Independence advises,
even if power centres disagree;

7. Cut back sharply on military spending and sharply

increase social spending: health, education,
renewable energy and so on.

For people who believe in democracy,

these are very conservative suggestions:
They appear to be the opinions of the majority
of the US population, in most cases the
overwhelming majority. They are in radical
opposition to public policy; in most cases,
to a bipartisan consensus. "

See? It's not just about pointing out problems,
we bloggers offer solutions as well.



But yet he's STILL HERE...

Open Letter to Reuters

has long been a news favorite of mine based on objectivity and attention to detail, however I am very worried regarding your recent coverage of events unfolding in the Middle East and Asia. Most notably absent is an announcement by the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO Background) that was run in a front page article in the Asia Times that Iran, India, and Pakistan would all be welcomed as full members. The fact that Pakistan and India would share membership in this energy cooperative notwithstanding, I think it's quite important to note that India and Iran will both be full members of this organization whose members also include China and Russia. I think it's irresponsible for Reuters to run comments about George Bush's reluctance to rule out Nuclear Strikes on Iran and NOT mention that Iran has joined in this organization (as both events happened on the same day). Here's why.

  • Firstly, well known in the western media is the fact that America has been courting India for closer ties for some time, based primarily on a fear of India developing closer ties with China (an American rival these days apparently). If George Bush offering Nuclear technology to India (specifically to try to thwart the above-mentioned increase in diplomatic ties with China) is newsworthy, the fact that India has instead gone and joined the SCO is more than newsworthy.
  • Secondly, with the other full members of the SCO (an interGOVERNMENTAL organization) including Russia and China, it should be MORE THAN newsworthy that Iran has been accepted as a full member. Much has been said recently about Russia's reluctance to agree to sanctions against Iran, so as such the announcement that Iran and Russia are now both in an energy consortium is an IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT. Additionally, (and definitely not the least important issue at hand, not by a long shot) the fact that CHINA is now a close (very close if you do some reasearch into the SCO) partner to Iran economically would make it in China's best interest to defend (with military force if necessary) their economic interests in the country. The U.S. is threatening (implicitly) nuclear strikes on Iran, and somehow the fact that Iran and China are now close partners doesn't get mentioned?

I honestly believe that your lack of due diligence in investigating such matters is an irresponsible blunder. I genuinely hope it is nothing more than a blunder, but what (for me) was once an impressive reputation of Reuters for providing all the things one needs to know is quickly washing down the drain.If there is some specific reason that the country America is threatening nuclear strikes against entering into an exclusive organization with Russia and China (not to mention Pakistan and India) is not newsworthy, then please, let me know what it might be.

misneach: Conspicuously Absent from Western Media

misneach: Conspicuously Absent from Western Media: The Beijing announcement that India, Pakistan, and IRAN were all now to be accepted in the SCO (Shanghai Cooperative, members including china and Russia) which basically means that China and Russia have thrown their weight into the Iranian debate, and they've gone in behind Iran, not with the U.S., STILL hasn't been mentioned ANYWHERE in the western media. Can you find it? Anywhere?

"It's frightening to Washington, and likely to be marginalized (or unknown) in the US media" -Noam Chomsky

Even the BBC

I would expect this from the American news agencies, as their parent companies have alot to gain from America's aggressive foreign policy (also known as colonialism, theft, pillaging, inhumanity, aggression, etc.), but not from the BBC. I've been quite impressed by the BBC and their strict adherence to the facts and objectivity through the years, but I fear they are going the way of Viacom's CBS (Dan Rather you poor soul, 30 years with the network, you run one anti-bush story and your ass is out the door) or GE's NBC. Honestly, I always held them in high regard what with programs like Panorama and even their World News was generally the spot to find news the American media was hiding. In the words of a famous folk singer, "the times, they are a-changin."

In an article run monday on the front page of BBC News, regarding the Tel Aviv Bombing and Israel's response to it, they said:
"Israel holds Hamas responsible for a deadly suicide bombing in Tel Aviv but will not hit back against the Palestinian Authority, officials say.
A special cabinet meeting ended with agreement to increase security efforts but not launch a military strike. "

That is simply not true. Within hours Israel had launched a military strike, several in fact, sending troops in to the Gaza strip, Nablus, Qalqilia, Jenin, and Gaza City. The operation involved more than 80 military vehicles, including BULLDOZERS (and they aren't for anything to do with clearing away Palistinian settlements to make way for Israeli settlements, they are strictly to "fight terror" my Israeli sources tell me. They swear to this.) and the ubiquitous (American) Apache Helicopter Gunships. It's in print if BBC would get off their lazy asses and check it out.


  1. "troops did roll into Nablus moments after Monday's attack. The army will also likely consider targeting the Palestinian Authority" -Jerusalem Post
  2. "the IDF attacked targets in Gaza yesterday and last night" -Arutz Sheva, Israel National News
  3. "Israel Responds with Military Raids" (that was the TITLE, need I say more?) - Al Jazeera
  4. "Other decisions were taken about actual operation in the territories, which were not released for publication. It seems security forces will carry out pinpoint operation in reaction to the terror attack. " Is what Y-Net News (Yedioth, Israel's largest media company) said about the 80 vehicles they sent in to Palestine. That statement was after their bit about the revoking the travel priviledges of Hamas ministers living in Israeli occupied (but legally Palistinian) lands.
  5. "Israeli troops raided a West Bank village near Jenin " -Israel Insider

I think it would be superfluous for me to continue, but you get the idea. Additionally, nearly every article mentioned that the Israeli cabinet had decided to revoke the residency of some Hamas MPs that were living in Israeli occupied territories. No mention that it was occupied territory that they were to be removed from, simply that they were to be removed from "Israeli Territory." And of course, no mention of the fact that "the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law". -(2004 judgement by the International Court of Justice at the Hague)

Thank you . Thank you very much. You have proved once again that western media is worthless.


Conspicuously Absent from Western Media

There was a HUGE STORY that broke from Beijing early this morning that's been conspicuously absent from the western media, I can't find even a reference to it on yahoo or google news but it is (I think) going to have a HUGE impact on the current international relations dynamic.

Background wise America has been trying to court India into it's corner with offers of important Nuclear technology, and of course everyone is aware of the war of words between the U.S. and Iran recently, but China has trumped the U.S. diplomats by announcing (on the eve of a state visit to Washington) that Mongolia, PAKISTAN, INDIA, AND IRAN will all be joining an energy cooperative with China and Russia.
Yes folks you heard right and you heard it here first, China + Russia + Iran (not to mention India AND Pakistan, surprising as they've been fighting with each other over Kashmir for ages)(and that will really throw a wrench into the U.S.'s plans as they've been trying so hard to court India that they went so far as to have Henry Kissinger write propaganda op-ed's in the Khaleej Times) = DANGEROUS TIMES (see, for reference, my listings on Nuclear Chess, and see also Noam Chomsky (chomsky.info) articles relating to "new world order" and Dangerous Times.). I was wondering why all of a sudden Iran was basically saying to the U.S. "bring it on" but now I'm gettin the impression that this deal has been in the works for some time.

All this on the eve of what the Chinese government is calling a "State Visit" to Washington but that Bush is dismissively describing as just a visit.

Sadly the bush administration is trying it's best to push the world into Nuclear War, what with his statements (TODAY) when asked if preventive (not pre-emptive, preventive is the jargon used today; preemptive strikes fall within the boundries of international law, PREVENTIVE strikes do not) Nuclear Strikes were in the works against Iran, he responded by saying "all options are on the table."

Just to re-cap, the U.S. is threatening NUCLEAR STRIKES against a country that is ENTERING a cooperation package with RUSSIA and CHINA and INDIA and PAKISTAN (all nuclear armed countries), but this somehow DOESN'T WARRANT WESTERN PRESS COVERAGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?! They seem to be too busy doing their part in the anti-Iran-Nuclear Propaganda Campaign, instead running a story about the Chernobyl Death Toll in the Associated Press.

The looming war that could escalate into a full fledged Nuclear showdown doesn't warrant news coverage. Does this not worry anyone else?

Knight Takes Bishop, Check;

The asia times just broke a story wherein the Shanghai Cooperation Association has admitted 4 new members: Mongolia, Pakistan, India, and Iran.

Background: "The SCO, an Intergovernmental organization whose working languages are Chinese and Russian, was founded in Shanghai on June 15, 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The SCO's change of heart appears set to involve the organization in Iran's nuclear battle and other ongoing regional issues with the United States. "

Cigarette, anyone?


Trying to calm down...

AlJazeera ran a front page headline on their website today regarding the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed 9 people. The 18 people killed in recent attacks by the Israeli military on Northern Gaza get one sentence buried deep in the article about the Tel Aviv bombing, and a search on AlJazeera.net for "Gaza Attack" gets 11 hits, the most recent of which is from JULY OF 2005. And people think Aljazeera has an arab bias.

The Pope's statements during his easter mass yesterday being misstated or completely absent from the media (what he actually said was something along the lines of asking the world community to "assist the Palestinian people to overcome the precarious conditions in which they live, and to build their future, moving toward the constitution of a state that is truly their own.") could EASILY be construed as part of a systematic misrepresentation and manipulation of news stories by international media. As what he ACTUALLY said does not fit with the current propaganda model and what appears to be a push to relegate the lives of Arabs to the status of nothing more than "collateral damage" as opposed to "human lives." It doesn't fit, so it gets left out.
Perhaps that's why Palestine is so bullied. Honestly, can you think of ANY OTHER WORD to describe Palestine or the Palestinian people OTHER THAN bullied? All over the news today are statements by Iran and Quatar pledging aid to Palestine, and WHY are the U.S. and E.U. WITHOLDING their aid? Because Hamas won't recognize the Israeli state?! OF COURSE THEY WON'T RECOGNIZE ISRAEL YOU MORONS, TO DO SO WOULD BE TO SURRENDER THE PALISTINIAN TERRITORIES BEING ILLEGALLY ADDED TO THE TERRITORY OF ISRAEL BY THEIR FUCKING WALL! THE WALL THE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT AT THE HAGUE RULED WAS ILLEGAL TWO YEARS AGO BUT THAT IS STILL BEING BUILT! WHERE ARE THE FUCKING SANCTIONS AND WITHHOLDING OF AID FOR ISRAEL OVER THAT?!?!?!?!
Fucking Twats.


Example 1: (about the Pope's Easter Mass)
"The Pope called for serious and honest negotiations to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran, peace between Israel and the Palestinians and in Iraq and an end to the week-long impasse over the election result in Italy."

He did not call for "peace between israel and palestine." He called for "support for the Palistinians" and a "Free Palistinian State." IT WAS ON MY TELEVISION YESTERDAY! DON'T LIE TO ME ABOUT IT TODAY!

The fighting never stops

According to a survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting, Baghdad ranks as the world’s worst city for quality of living three years after the U.S. government claimed Iraq to have been "liberated" and "freed from tyranny." Read any blog from Iraq and you see the fighting has not subsided and people are not living in anything close to safety. These days East New York and Bedford Stuyvesant, Brooklyn are safer places to live than Baghdad. And this is the result of what some Americans call their quest to "carry on the work of peace" and "bring freedom to others" in the words of bush. Yet three years later, with the situation detiriorating from bad to worse to unbearable, and "peace" nowhere in sight, the only excuse they can think of to come up with is to continue blaming Saddam, claiming its just the legacy of his "Deliberate Strategy Of Maintaining Power By Dividing The Iraqi People." Funnily enough, from an objective standpoint one would think that it was the Americans trying to divide the Iraqis when the President makes statements like "The enemy of freedom in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists and Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs." (My italics). Perhaps this is a wrong assumption, but don't you think that singling out one ethnic/religions group is going to foster the very divisions they claim to be trying to do away with? Have a look at the take on the situation by Riverbend (you'll see her book on shelves in NY and London) in her blog on Saturday March 18:
"I read constantly analyses mostly written by foreigners or Iraqis who’ve been abroad for decades talking about how there was always a divide between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq (which, ironically, only becomes apparent when you're not actually living amongst Iraqis they claim)… but how under a dictator, nobody saw it or nobody wanted to see it. That is simply not true- if there was a divide, it was between the fanatics on both ends. The extreme Shia and extreme Sunnis. Most people simply didn’t go around making friends or socializing with neighbors based on their sect. People didn't care- you could ask that question, but everyone would look at you like you were silly and rude."
If one were to, for a minute, operate under the assumption that the entire point of this misadventure-in-colonialism was actually just to gain access to Iraq's wealth of natural resources (oil), then it would make sense that the Americans, running out of excuses for why they should be in Iraq/ have gone to Iraq/be pillaging Iraq would want instability. As I've said before, as long as the people are busy killing each other they won't be a bother to anyone else. So here we are today, 3 years after "liberation," and things are worse rather than better. I can't put it as well as it's phrased by Baghdad Treasure:
"after three years of the "liberation", nothing has changed. Iraq is destroyed rather than built."
There was a time when the people of Iraq genuinely believed America when they said they would build a better Iraq. The same way Americans today believe that they are building a better Iraq. But the invasion has left nothing but destruction and bitterness.
So we arrive at the current situation, a repeat program like the ones you see on late night TV. I get the impression that no matter how bad things get it is not in the nature of America's incumbents to admit when they're wrong. Personally I believe that America owes it to the people of Iraq to take responsibility and clean up the mess they have made, but that doesn't seem to be on the agenda. Instead, they're basically putting the current miserably-failing conflict ON THE BACK BURNER and gradually hinting at the inevitability of attacking Iran. So, not only is Afghanistan still out of control, and Iraq is in pieces, but now they want to go after Iran.
Will someone please, PLEASE, express some support for the tiny number of U.S. government dissidents who advocate actually talking to Iran and perhaps using Diplomatic Means to alleviate the tension of this game of 3D Nuclear Chess with high civilian casualty rates that's going on around us?


Baghdad Clash Update scroll down to Adhamiya Update

Baghdad Street Fighing Intensifies but the U.S. still won't admit it's a full fledged Civil War.

Quaker Agitator: In memoriam.

Quaker Agitator: In memoriam. If only we all could be so strong and have such moral character.


America, Britain, Iraq, and Ireland

Just a quick observation.
If I were someone whom the religious leaders in Iraq (the ones who, at the end of the day, are the only ones with the possibility of controlling the violent militias) actually listened to, I would IMPLORE them to think about what's more important: wether one is a Sunni or Shia muslim, or wether or not one would like to see Iraq have any sort of viable future for its citizens for the next 200 years. It's only fair that I bring this up today on the 90th anniversary of the Sinn Fein rebellion in Ireland.
Even the people who consider themselves quite familiar with Irish history and the IRA and the 1916 rebellion often times know very little about the rebellion that happened more than one hundred years before that (more than 200 years ago) that was called the United Irishmen rebellion. In fact, one of the leaders from that rebellion has gained quite a bit of notoriety as his name, Wolfe Tone, is also the name of a very well know irish traditional rock band that plays a large repetoire of what are referred to as "Irish Rebel Songs." What is often not known about him, and indeed not known about half of the people who took part in the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion, was that he was protestant. Yes, PROTESTANT.
MOST people who are somewhat familiar with the situation in Ireland as a whole before 1922 and in the North ever since are well aware of the division of alligence along religious lines: Protestants generally favor remaining a part of the United Kingdom, while Catholics generally favor (re-)uniting with the southern 26 counties of Ireland.
News Flash: PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS ARE ALL CHRISTIANS. Brothers and Sisters, like. Yet there are factions (still to this day) among both parties that would think nothing of killing each other. Sound familiar to anyone who's heard about the civil war brewing in Iraq between Shia and Sunni?
News Flash: SUNNI AND SHIA ARE ALL MUSLIMS. , like. Are Sunni Iraqis and Shia Iraqis not ALL IRAQI?!?!? Why must we always turn on each other? Lets have a look at what happened in Ireland following the 1798 Rebellion wherin Protestant AND Catholic alike fought side by side against oppression.
1798: Protestants and Catholics in Ireland are United.
The British occupying force realized that Ireland could be quite a troublesome possession, so they devised a brilliant plan of Divide and Conquer. They went out of their way to foster divisions between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and as such worked it out so that the Irish were SO FUCKING BUSY FIGHTING EACH OTHER that, come 1840-1860 (generally known as THE IRISH FAMINE) when England was hit (MUCH MUCH WORSE THAN IRELAND WAS!) by a blight that killed off alot of their agricultural products and as such were having difficulty feeding their populations, the irish were too pre-occupied with the STUPID protestant/catholic fight to notice or be able to do anything about the fact that the british occupying forces were TAKING ALL OF THEIR FOOD and shipping it off to england, leaving them with NO FOOD ON WHICH TO SURVIVE.
*Takes deep breath and goes out for a quick cigarette.*
During that time Ireland's population dropped from 8 million to around 3 million.
*Takes another cigarette*
Numbers are vague and differ depending on your source, but roughly 3 million DIED and roughly 2 million made their way to America. (and boy they were busy when they got there, today 44 million americans claim irish descent).
All for the sake of what said To The People Of EXACTLY NINETY YEARS AGO TODAY was "differences carefully fostered by an alien government."
118 years passed between the time of the United Irishmen rebellion and "The Irish Rebellion" that eventually led to a divided, torn, and (for a long long time) awfully poor land, a state that remained right up until EU funds saved the Republic in the 1990s. Thats TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
If things continue as they are going in Iraq, NONE OF US will live to see the day when Iraq can become anything other than a decimated torn and broken land.

Lies, Nuclear Chess, and George Orwell

Every day it is painfully obvious that the American leaders are so out of touch with reality that their words and actions could be based on an inept bad-guy from a third rate fictional crime thriller. It's even more obvious that human lives have no meaning to an administration that is more concerned with what their stock options will be worth when they leave office. The sad part is that, not only are they putting their own people in danger by drastically increasing the threat of terrorist attacks on their soil, but they are putting innocent people ALL OVER THE WORLD in danger; and lying CONSTANTLY to EVERYONE. I cannot express in words (well, maybe I can) the sorrow that good hearted well informed people throughout the world feel for the unnecessary slaughter of countless thousands of civilians, and I must confess also how much I genuinely pity the american people who are assaulted constantly by the administration's and who honestly don't know what's going on in the world. Really, they just don't know any better, like small children who haven't been told that their parents are getting a divorce, they just don't know and they've never been encouraged to ask questions.
A: They honestly don't know any better and are too to change.
Let's take what Disney's would call "a closer look." First, the dangerous game of Nuclear Chess that's being played between The U.S., Iran, India, Russia, and China, while the lives of the worlds population hang in the balance. In recent weeks bush made his way to India to work out a deal wherein the U.S. will supply parts for nuclear reactors and refinement technology to india in return for closer ties, as america is quite afraid of how close India and China are becoming these days. Ok, first of all, India DOES have nuclear weapons and are VERY MUCH AT ODDS with one of america's "close allies in the war on terror" (george bush's words) Pakistan (a military dictatorship with a human rights record that's not exactly the best in the world). So america is basically assisting a country they should logically (the enemy of my friend is my enemy) be working against, but yet somehow don't see this as a double standard as far as Iran announcing that they had successfully enriched a MINISCULE AMOUNT of uranium for the purpose of using in a nuclear power plant (they know where the money is: selling oil; they don't want to waste a product they can make alot of money selling on providing electricity to their people when they could produce more electricity in a nuclear power plant) and america wanting to use that as an excuse to attack them.
Enter (China and) Russia:
China supplies arms and technology to Iran in return for crude oil. We'll get back to them in a second. Russia has built (/is building) a nuclear reactor in Iran for the purpose of producing electricity. This reactor is russian owned and russian operated; the disturbing thing is that it would be one of the first targets of american bombing in the event of an attack on Iran, which brings us to the bit that's awfully worrysome, and that is one of the factors (and just ONE OF) making this game of nuclear chess so dangerous-- Vladimir Putin has welcomed america's overt aggression as far as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets" and announced on a number of different occasions that Russia (now a close american ally on the "war on terror," which is a concept straight out of George Orwells 1984 but we'll get to that later) would pursue the same policies. If Russia has publicly stated that they will not hesitate to use military force to protect their interests, and they will be making alot of money from an iranian nuclear reactor, does it not make logic sense that they will use military force to defend the Russian/Iranian plant? Putin came out last week saying that Iran's grand announcements that they had successfully enriched uranium were irresponsible and dangerous; but for whom? He has to understand that an American attack on Russian interests in Iran would inevitably lead to Russian deployment to protect those assets, and nuclear armed russia DOES NOT WANT a confrontation with trigger-happy nuclear armed america, and I honestly don't think that the average World Citizen (we are all citizens of the world) wants a repeat of the cuban missle crisis that BROUGHT THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF DESTRUCTION. This is not liberal (being a European Moderate makes me an ultra left wing liberal by american standards) hype, this is fact; large scale nuclear war would bring about an end to our species.
Enter China.
To step back for a moment, lets bear in mind that The American People (YOU HAVE POWER IF YOU CHOOSE TO FUCKING USE IT!!!!) do not like long protracted costly wars, they want quick decisive victories. Although Iraq's military was quite weak (which The Insurgents, whom by U.S.A. ca. 1776 standards would have been called Freedom Fighters, have proved NOT to be), Iran's military IS NOT. Back to China.
China has been providing weapons to Iran in return for oil for quite a while. Described below in the Khaleej Times by Noam Chomsky, citing The Wall Street Journal:
" In January, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia visited Beijing, which is expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas and investment," The Wall Street Journal reports. Already, much of Iran's oil goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons that both states presumably regard as deterrent to US designs. India also has options. India may choose to be a US client, or it may prefer to join the more independent Asian bloc that is taking shape, with ever more ties to Middle East oil producers. Siddarth Varadarajan, deputy editor of The Hindu, observes that "if the 21st century is to be an 'Asian century,' Asia's passivity in the energy sector has to end." "
Back to elementary logic (American's don't begin to learn this until Secondary school, but we'll still call it elementary): If chinas economic interests are directly threatened by american aggression, would they not use whatever force is necessary to protect those interests, as China has repeatedly shown that they will not be bullied by america the way that many countries (including in europe, where the VAST majority of the people are wholeheartedly AGAINST america's colonialist aggression) constantly are? And does this bode well for the personal safety of every single individual on this planet to have the worlds superpowers playing a very dangerous game of Nuclear Chess where all of us are the pawns and the Kings are the very survival of our species?


The Rich Get Richer

This was on bloomberg.com today:
"The Cheneys had $2.47 million withheld from his salary and by their investment managers and are claiming a tax refund of $1.94 million, according to their return, released three days before Monday's filing deadline."
Ok, now correct me if I'm wrong, but I coulda swore that there were roughly 36 Million people living BELOW the "Poverty Line" in america. And these people pay MORE TAX than dick cheney pays. Millionare former and future Oil Tycoon dick (his name doesn't deserve capitalization) cheney gets tax back AND, on stock dividends (for the un-initiated, most major companies hide large percentages of the salaries they pay to their corporate executives as "stock options" or as company held dividends) pays a measley 15% tax, while the Average Joe pays roughly 30% tax (see Tax Freedom Day report on Tax Foundation's website as the only referance I could find about american tax percentages). This brings us to topic #2: Trickle Down Economics (a.k.a. Reaganomics in honor of their creator).
Giving loads of money to the rich and expecting that money to slowly filter down to the masses (George Orwell called them/us "The Proles") DOES NOT WORK. We learned this during the huge economic slump (RECESSION) of the 1980s when Reagan/Bush1 tried it the first time. But whaddya know, the SAME PEOPLE are in power again, and those SAME PEOPLE are the ones who have the most to gain from tax cuts for the rich, because, whaddya know, they ARE the rich. Unscrupulous greedy short-sighted evil little trolls that are going to try to send as many working class people off to war as they possibly can because they figure working class people won't vote for them, and so they might as well just go off and die.
Ain't america grand?

The Deranged American Government

Ok, if ANYONE out there cares AT ALL about how terrifying the prospect of a bunch of mutinous insane asylum escapees having their fingers hovering (can't you just picture them standing there twitching going "c'mon, I dare ya!") over the Big Red Button that will bring about The End of our species' short reign as kings(/queens) of this planet, then please, let me know. Lets take the news today.
, not exactly a far left wing anti-bush news agency ( they give an article to bush saying quite asinine things about his failed reaganomics tax cut scheme, and ONE LINE at the end to the opposition), ran a news story today based on an article run on Salon.com about Donald Rumsfeld (American Secretary of Defense) having of prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay, and as having PERSONALLY authorised them.
This is NOT a revelation for those of us who often read the dissident media or frequent sites that provide more unbiased views on the world today, BUT, it was in REUTERS. One of the 2 MAIN news providers for ALL news organisations worldwide. AP and Reuters stories are listed on just about every news site you'll find, from to to to to LeMonde to EVERYWHERE. IN REUTERS!!! So, one of the MAIN sources of information for THE WORLD has come out today saying that the American Secretary of Defense PERSONALLY AUTHORISED his subordinates to VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (check ) as it relates to the Geneva Conventions on Humane Treatment of prisoners, and yet these men are NOT being brought before the International Court at the Hague... WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!

Death and a beginning

It's been a rough day. I found out today that a friend from school died this month in Iraq. He was a good man, with a good heart and strong morals, and it's sad that he died fighting a cause that was morally corrupt and heartless. I wonder if the government official who sponsored him to join the army also voted for the war, and if so, did he know that such an exemplary individual would lose his life in the process, and for what?