American Hegemony: India and Iran in the New World Order

Updated November 24 & 25 below.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lord Acton once implored us to remember a simple mantra:

Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Since its inception, American foreign policy has essentially been to expand the sphere of American dominance at whatever cost is necessary. It began with simple expansion out along the American continent, slaughtering the inhabitants along the way. In 1899 President McKinley issued the "Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation" announcing Americas intention to set up its own version of the British Empire. This policy continued through the years of "Wilsonian Idealism" and accelerated after World War II, reaching its climax under the guise of "Humanitarian Intervention" under Clinton. Each step along the way has seen an increase in the scope of Americas hegemonic ambitions, and each time the sphere of influence was expanded. First it was just the North American continent, then nearby islands, Central and South America, and finally expanding through the Middle and Far East.

Americas two most recent conquests, Afghanistan and Iraq, are becoming indicators that the time of American Empire may be coming to an end. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remained as the sole world superpower, excersising its will with reckless abandon. However, the extension - and expansion upon - these policies by George Bush Junior has polarised the world in a very different way. The unipolar order of The United States and everybody else is giving way under the paralysing weight of American ambitions of dominance. What is emerging is a multipolar order, with the United States being put in a position of being unable to exert its influence at will, and instead having to increasingly accept foreign influence and input in world affairs.

The end of America's reign as the worlds sole superpower, and the absolute corruption that such power brings along, should be welcomed and encouraged by people the world over. As important policies in America are seldom even discussed (The Kyoto Protocols, Nuclear Disarmarment, Human Rights), and the US is using its global power to marginalise such important doctrines as those set forth by the Geneva Conventions, any move away from the absolutely corrupting Absolute Power given to American interests should be heralded as a positive move by anyone concerned about the safety and well being of our species as a whole.

Lynchpin: India

The United States Senate last week passed (by a vote of 85 to 12) a measure approving the transfer of Nuclear technology, equipment, and fuel to India. Doing so required that an exception be made to the Atomic Energy Act, which specifically forbids the sale of nuclear materials to countries that are non-signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The important reasoning behind this was spelled out in a recent article in The New York Times which stated that the vote was "expressing that a goal of nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns over the risks of spreading nuclear skills and bomb-making materials." Such an agreement also brings to an end the 30 year old doctrine prohibiting the transfer by the United States of Nuclear reactor components and fuel to other countries.

Today, Chinese Premier Hu Jintao is in India on a visit meant to increase bilateral ties between the two countries. The China Daily reports that

As the first Chinese president to visit the country in a decade, Hu is expected to work with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, to "fill in the specifics" in the strategic partnership, according to Sun Yuxi, Chinese ambassador to India.

China and India announced the establishment of their strategic partnership for peace and prosperity last April in a joint statement signed by Premier Wen Jiabao and Singh.

Hu's talks with Singh today will iron out the details for enhancing this partnership in political, economic, military, cultural, scientific, technological and educational spheres, Sun revealed in a group interview last Friday with Chinese journalists at his residence.

Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that this meeting between Chinese and Indian premieres is likely to lead to a Nuclear arrangement being ironed out between those two countries as well, with China adding their bid for India to the one already on the table from the US.

If China and India enter into a nuclear cooperation agreement, it will mark a new stage in the increasing competition between China and the United States for India's friendship.

President Bush branded China a "strategic competitor" as soon as he came to office in 2001. Since India's burgeoning economy and muscular military can tip the balance of power in Asia, over the last year the United States and China have been trying to build closer ties with India, said Sun Shihai, deputy director of the Institute for Asia Pacific Studies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.

"The US always said it wants to use India to balance China," Sun said. "China feels it needs to engage India more [and] develop some kind of Russia-China-India cooperation" that can balance US hegemony. "So there is some kind of competition happening."

The White House's July 2005 decision to enter into civilian nuclear cooperation was widely seen as a critical step in attracting India into the US orbit.

The worrysome emergence of spheres of influence outside of US control, specifically Russia and China (with partnerships growing to include Latin America, India, Iran and Pakistan), has US planners on their heels, of which the US offer of Nuclear technology to India is merely a byproduct.

The most specific worry for US planners is the duo of China and Russia extending their influence beyond the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and including countries in Latin America (Brazil, Venezuela) and such strategic heavyweights as India, Pakistan, and Iran. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has aggressively been trying to expand NATO influence as far east as possible, encompassing many former Warsaw Pact nations. This is where the importance of India comes into play.

Were India to join a strategic alliance with China and Russia, they would throw their sizeable population (over 1 Billion people, the 2nd most populous nation on the planet behind China and much larger than the US with 300 Million) and strategic central-asia location (between China and another country the SCO has been courting, Pakistan) into the already economically- and militarily- hefty China/Russia partnership. Moves have already been made in increasing cooperation between China and India with trade set to exceed $20billion (US) this year, exceeding the target set by the two governments for 2008. There is also talk of a bilateral free trade agreement between the two countries, which could enable an increase in the already strong rate of general economic growth in the region.

There are, of course, a couple of sticking points in the China-India relationship, which the US is trying to take advantage of while it still has the opportunity. These include Chinese cooperation with India's foe Pakistan, the asylum of the Dali Lama from Tibet in India, and the China/India border. The border was in fact originally drawn by the British government near the end of their colonial reign, and has not been agreed upon by China or India. In the heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Nikita Kruschev is rumored to have encouraged Chairman Mao to go ahead and attack India over their disputed border, which India accepts but China views as claiming for India 90,000sq-km of Chinese territory. This act set in motion stronger ties between the US and India, which continue to this day; for instance, including a ten year mutual protection pact between the two countries currently in effect.

However, steps have also been taken in recent years to increase military cooperation between China and India, another factor worrying to US planners who hedge their bets on permanent US military dominance. This cooperation is being manifested in the areas of economics and defense, mainstays in the US's exertion of dominance in world affairs.

The value of courting India away from China/Russia is not lost on analysts, with such influential writers as Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky making their opinions heard on the subject. A regional economic and military alliance comprising Russia, China, and India, would have severe implications for continued American dominance.

Battleground: Iran

Successful defiance of American hegemonic interests is not undertaken lightly. However, the failed US invasion and occupation of Iraq has put the United States in its weakest position in decades, leaving open the opportunity for other power centres to assert their influence.

Previous attempts at defiance have led to serious consequences for countries such as Cuba, which suffered at the hands of an American economic strangulation since the overthrow of the US-backed Batista regime. Overt actions have been taken against others guilty of defiance in the past, such as many Latin American countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Sudan, and the recent US-sponsored coup attempt in Venezuela to oust the elected president Hugo Chavez.

Historically, Russia and/or China have consistantly fought the US on different battlegrounds, with Mao's troops fighting American troops in both North Korea and Vietnam (in the latter, the 100,000 strong Chinese forces even went so far as to don their Chinese military uniforms), the placement of Russian Nukes in Cuba, American Nukes in Turkey, and so on.

The re-emergence of Russia and China as global players is today being showcased in Iran. What was originally a confrontation strictly between France (proportedly representing the EU, although EU polls at the time indicated that the EU population was more worried about US militarism than Iran's nuclear program) and Iran has become a standoff between the East (Russia/China) and West (US/UK). Backed by these two UN Security Council Veto holders, Iran has refused to back down in front of US pressure regarding their nuclear program. Simultaneously, Iran is stepping to the forefront of one of the major issues of the day, the civil war raging in Iraq.

After two decades of diplomacy suspension, Iran's close ally Syria and American occupied Iraq are resuming diplomatic relations. Syria, branded by George Bush Jr. as a member of the "axis of evil" along with Iran and North Korea, broke ties with Iraq in 1982 in reaction to the US-backed war against their partner Iran; increasing ties between Syria and the US-installed regime of Malaki (and Talabani) could only be as surprising to their US masters as Malakis denunciation of Israel's US-backed murderous escapades in Lebanon and Palestine over the past few months.

Even more surprising for the US is the acceptance of the offer of a state visit to Iran by Talabani this weekend, where the major issue is likely to be the civil war raging in Iraq (it is often referred to in the western media as the "security situation" but to a rational observer 100 sectarian murders a day is beyond a simple "security situation"). This is on the heels of a call by Tehran for a summit with Iraqi and Syrian leaders to discuss Iraqs deep seeded problems.

The idea of such a summit occuring is so worrysome to the US that the US Embassy immediately issued a warning to the Iraqi government to stay away from Iran and Syria, and The US Propaganda machine immediately issued a report that such a summit would never happen.

Why should America be so worried about Iranian influence on Iraq? It is generally accepted by those who look beyond Fox News Headlines that the US's intention was to impose a client regime on Iraq, opening up for US businesses "economic opportunities," in other words unfettered access to Iraqs vast reserves of natural resources, and a permanent US presence in the center of the resource-blessed region. Iran, on the other hand, wholeheartedly rejects the idea of any American and British influence in the region. An op-ed in the Iran Daily reflects this:

Many Arabs and Muslims I talked to at the weekend about his new round of irresponsible statements about Iran were of the opinion that Blair could be suffering from a fresh bout of dementia.

In a television interview, the Labour boss known to many peace lovers in and outside Britain as “Tony Bliar“, “Phoney Tony“ and “King of Spin“, publicly admitted that the war he jointly engineered with George Bush was a “disaster.“
However, that admission of defeat did not stop him from blaming Tehran for all that has been going very wrong in occupied Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair arrogance.
...
He said he had a message for Tehran and Damascus: “If you are prepared to be a part of the solution, there is a partnership available to you.“

We cannot speak for the leadership in Syria, nor do we know if or when Bashar Assad proposed any mechanism to help bring peace to the volatile Middle East. As far as Tehran is concerned, Blair, who will be remembered by posterity as a pro-war ruler obsessed with Israeli security and interests, had the wrong address once again. Those who decide foreign policy in our country do not recall ever wanting to be partners with killers of innocent Muslims like Blair or Bush.

Having said that, it deserves mention that the UK prime minister who dragged his country into the bottomless quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, is simply not in a position to make offers or speak on behalf of the people in our part of the world. One need not be a political scientist to understand that there is not one single country in the Muslim-Arab world that wants even impartial western rulers to speak on its behalf.

Now, how can Iran get away with such blatant disobedience of American power? The answer lies, once again, in the East. Iran's ties with Russia and China are consistantly played down in the western media in favor of a portrayal of Iran as a country on the verge of aquiring nuclear weapons and intent on using them to commit genocide against Israel. However, if we look back at the timeline of the most recent developments in the confrontation we see other important factors. Iran's military is being supplied by the Chinese (who in turn were supplied by Russia), and their military capabilities were most recently demonstrated in excersises they carried out in nearly half of their provinces and the Persian Gulf. This chinese-supplied military capability is widely seen as a deterrant to the American military option. Additionally, Iran has secured a trade partnership with Russia (and, in turn, the SCO) that comprises the worlds largest supply of Natural Gas and one of the top five supplies of crude oil, and it is Russia (not Iran) that is building in Iran a new state-of-the-art nuclear reactor.

Strategically, Iran is in an ideal position to all but cut off the supply of Middle East oil to the West, while allowing oil supply to continue through pipelines to their allies in the East. Iran's close ties with China and Russia are likely to prevent the US taking any more aggressive stance against the country than they already have, for economic reasons I have explained before:

Another dangerous economic trend is the steady decline in value of the US Dollar. Against the Euro it has dropped by more than a third of its value over the past five years. America's aggressive foreign policy isn't helping the situation much either, as the countries that were subsidising the US's enormous budget deficit by (as required by the IMF) purchasing US government bonds as collateral to insure their own currencies, such as many South American, Asian, and "Old Europe" countries, are looking to withdraw from their IMF obligations and take their money elsewhere in response to what they rightly perceive as American Imperialism.

Perhaps more worrysome for the American economy is the fact that major energy-commodity trading countries, which have been propping up the value of the dollar since the seventies as it is the major trading currency for oil, are also responding to american imperialism with a desire to switch to other currencies as their oil buying and selling currency. Most notable would be China, which holds the largest foreign reserve of US dollars on the planet, and which has begun serious discussions this year to switch to Euros as its oil buying currency. That would lead their main oil supplier Iran, which the US has been bullying recently, to switch to Euros as well (for oil), and could lead other OPEC countries to follow suit. This would lead to a rapid decline in the value of the already weak dollar, and skyrocketing inflation in America.

The end result is that the US, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing strong eastern opposition, is not currently in any position to enforce their hegemony.

Future Implications

Once an empire enters into decline, history tells us that the end result is consistantly terminal to their ambitions of dominance. Rome, Greece, Persia, the Ottomans, Britain; each have fallen by the wayside as their policies led to their downfall. What is emerging now is a multipolar order (rather than a unipolar order under US control) with the US sharing its global power with China and Russia, India (whom America is having to attempt to woo away from the other emerging powers), and a Latin America being led by Democratic Venezuela in partnership with defiant Cuba and economically strong Brazil, and with close ties to the strategic alliance of Russia and China in the East.

The indications of the demise of America as the worlds sole dominant superpower can only be welcomed by those who care about the future of our civilisation. The absolute power and absolute corruption that a system of American Hegemony has brought along is far from the best interests of the people, and it will be the people who benefit from moving away from the current Status Quo.


--------------------
cross posted at Daily Kos and European Tribune.
---------------------------------------
Update: November 24, 2006

The India Daily reports today that China will be soon announcing its full support for India to be granted a permanent UN Security Council seat. This is different from the recent Kofi Annan proposal of six semi-permanent non-veto holding seats.

China opposes Japan and favors India just to make sure Western dominance of in UN Security Council is challenged. Japan is seen as an American satellite. Brazil is a mixed bag. Though India is tending towards Japan’s posture, most likely Indian people will not accept American policies as their own.

We should also bear in mind that the US does not want to see a peaceful and prosperous relationship between India and Pakistan, as it might lead to a strengthening of the Asian bloc that is emerging as a counterbalance to American hegemony. China sees this, and on Hu Jintao's recent visit he was quoted as saying china "welcomes and supports" improved relations and would like to take a "constructive role" in advancing the interests of Asian peace. However, he stopped short of offering to directly mediate talks. I get the impression that India and Pakistan, although still succeptable to mutual pervading animosity, are aware of the positive ramifications of normalisation and strengthening of relations. This would be an important step in the emergence of a South Asian bloc to counterbalance current American hegemonic interests.
------------------------
Update November 25

As previously mentioned, China supplies much of Iran's defensive military capabilities. As Xinhua (China's State-Run news agency) is reporting today Russia is also supplying defensive military capabilities to Iran.

MOSCOW, Nov. 24 (Xinhua) -- Russia has begun delivering air defense systems Tor-M1 to Iran within the framework of an earlier signed agreement, Russian news agencies reported on Friday.

"The deliveries of Tor-M1 to Iran have begun. The first systems have been delivered to Iran," a source in Russia's military and intestinal complex was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying, adding the Iranian soldiers who will operate the systems were trained in Russia.

"Earlier Russian officials stated that Iran is a sovereign state, a member of the UN and League of Arab States, and no international sanctions prohibiting it from receiving defensive arms have been imposed," the arms-exporting company Rosoboronexport said.

One lesson that States who find themselves on the US's hit list have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that the likelyhood of attack increases as military power decreases. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had little or no military capabilities, which made them easy targets for the militaristic Bush administration.

One byproduct of these invasions is that it has sparked a mini arms race, with countries that the US comes out against scrambling to build up a military deterrant, as evidenced by Iran's increasing purchase of weapons from the east and North Koreas test of a nuclear bomb some weeks back, seen as a "deterrant to US designs" in the words of N. Chomsky.

China and Russia are eager to provide such a deterrant to countries who are willing to offer to them their strategic value, such as Iran, while simultaneously condemning measures that are viewed as "provoking" the United States, such as N. Koreas missile and nuke tests.

It should also be noticed how Russia is working to build an energy consortium which "runs counter to and increasingly circumvents the established liberal US-backed global oil market denominated in US dollars," often (as seen by their recent stance with Georgia) in a very aggressive and (dare I say) Western Capitalist manner.

Also, it will be interesting to see how the how the cold-war-relic Robert Gates, anti-Chinese Nancy Pelosi, and anti-Russian Tom Lantos (incoming Chairman, House Committee on International Relations) affect the re-emerging competitive nature of the relationship between East and West. The Asia Times has a thoughtful analysis on the subject.

Hope

When confronted with harsh realities, human beings have an inherent nature to do one of two things: bury their heads in the sand and say "it can't be true," or give up hope along the lines of a pessimistic austrian writer who once wrote "A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die."

Grave predictions, uncertain futures, and a feeling of powerlessness can lead people to give up hope. I won't pretend to not understand why someone in Baghdad who has lost their family to american shells and sectarian bullets would want to give up hope. Or why someone in Michigan might sigh as they look back on 2 presidential elections that should have been won, the first that was stolen blatantly and the second that produced an unimaginable result based on what seemed to be an astounding turnout of young and opposition voters, and surrender to institutional structures that they believe will never change. Or how someone, after too long under the screw of an oppressive occupation, could be left so devoid of hope that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the purpose of hurting their oppressors. I can understand these people.

But hope should never be abandoned. We as human beings have the capability to be so much more than we allow ourselves to be. I believe that human beings have the capability to forsake anger and hatred, vengence and violence, and overcome any challenge they are presented without having to sacrifice their dignity and morality. This power comes not only from our minds, but from our hearts as well.

A courageous leader once stated that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." He also pointed out that "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Leading scientists and intellectuals often proffer dire predictions and observations, and many of us pass along these statements without pointing out constructive solutions. It is painfully obvious that human beings have an unprecedented capability to destroy, but along with the ability to destroy comes an unprecedented ability to create, to nourish, and to improve.

We must never allow ourselves to become slaves to fear, hopelessness, vengence, or greed. We need not destroy ourselves and our environment to satisfy our primal urges, we have the capability to be so much better than that.


There are many things wrong with the world today. There is no other species that destroys its own with such ferocity and on such an immense scale. I would like to present you today with the words of unquestionably one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, Albert Einstein, with help from Bertrand Russell.

From the Russell - Einstein Manifesto:

Almost everybody who is politically conscious has strong feelings about one or more of these issues; but we want you, if you can, to set aside such feelings and consider yourselves only as members of a biological species which has had a remarkable history, and whose disappearance none of us can desire.

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it.

...

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

...

"In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued existence of mankind, we urge the governments of the world to realize, and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for the settlement of all matters of dispute between them."

Now, I do not consider myself a pacifist. I believe that there are situations, as described in Article 51 of the UN Charter, in which military action is appropriate. However, military action as a first resort, rather than a last resort, is a danger to all of us, and a danger that can easily be avoided.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty demands that its signatories not only refrain from producing new nuclear weapons, but also take steps to dismantle existing nuclear arsenals. The Bush administration's continued simultaneous assertions to be against the proliferation of WMDs and intent development of "low yeild" "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons are not only hypocritical , but a danger to all of us. Their actions have already triggered the beginning of an arms race, and their constant war-like posturing is increasing the danger posed to all of us. Simultaneously they claim christian piety, and as such, to them and their supporters I say "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5).

On this page I had previously planned to illustrate the un-democratic nature of American governance, but not for the purpose of inspiring despair, or causing people to surrender to what they see as an unbreakable system for the "protection of the minority of the opulent," but rather because real change, for the better, is possible. In any event, a discussion of the American Republic form of government (republic, not democracy) and its implications for the world will be postponed.

Rather, at this point it is necessary to point out some key facts that are relevant to the world's current state of affairs.

The first is American Militarism. Most Americans are in fact not the militant "chicken hawks" that are so often highlighted in the media. The majority of Americans do not wish to go to war unless no other options are available. As we have seen with the collapse of all pretexts for the invasion of Iraq, those in power are not catering to the will of their people. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and "liberation," by any rational definition, does not entail 500,000 civilian deaths as a direct result. The only people who have reaped any positive benefit from the invasion are the small number of people who made a profit off of the $350billion in congressional budget appropriations for the conflict, and a profit from the redistribution of Iraq's wealth of natural resources to private companies. A well informed American would not have chosen such a course of action. A byproduct of this invasion, brought about by a militarism that is not in the wishes of a majority of the population, is an increase in support for organisations that assert their intentention to launch reprisals against what they perceive (rightly) as American Imperialism.

Another byproduct of this militarism, or resort-to-force-as-the-first-option, is that other countries are developing their own military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, as a deterrant to the American threat. This is evidenced by North Korea's recent Nuclear test. This increases a danger to us all, due to the fact that they increase the risk of provocation of a larger conflict, and as discussed by Russell and Einstein above, this would have disasterous effects for our species as a whole.

But how can this situation be changed? Because it is America that poses this threat, it is the American people who are in the best position to alleviate it. It is widely understood that the coming American election will have little or no effect on US government policy. Simultaneously, there is a pervailing sentiment (rarely articulated) that regardless of who is in charge (in the US), things will stay the same. This is partially right. Madeline Albright (Bill Clinton's Secretary of State) has intoned that every president over the past few decades has had a strategy like George Bush's in their back pocket, they just know better than to bash people over the head with said strategy. We need look no farther than the first months of the Clinton administration to see that he was more than willing to engage in military strikes as a first option, with disasterous consequences for hundreds of children holed up in a Baghdad childrens shelter.

However, a change in regime as far as the US congress is concerned could lead to additional positive moves. Most notably, the American public would likely be let in on the realities that have been so vehemently hidden from them for the past 6 years. As we all know, an ignorant population is easy to control, and the Bush administration has excersised this control to the fullest. Their unprecedented control over the flow of information to the population has allowed them to excersise unprecedented control over public discussion on major issues, many of which are not open for public discussion to begin with. A few examples:

The first that comes to mind is the recent "conflict" between Israel and the civilian populations of Lebanon and Palestine. The very limited discourse on the subject was limited to the scope of Israel's actions, proportedly against "terrorists" but realistically against civilians (in violation of the Geneva conventions), was evidenced both in the mainstream and so-called "fringe" media. I'm including in the "fringe" media blog sites and information websites, including the well known site "MyLeftWing." On that particular site I was directly threatened with expulsion from discussion by the site's owner for a comment regarding the fact that those who supported the Israeli military incursions that killed thousands of civilians, many of whom were children, was tantamount to support for murder. And this site is proportedly the epitome of "the left" in America, which it was observed to me by a source that I trust that there really is no "left" left in America, and "the right" committed political genocide against "the left" decades ago. Aprepo, though not entirely accurate. The fact of the matter is that most Americans, even those who consider themselves well versed in news and politics, and of a "liberal" bent, are inherently subject to the information control mechanisms of an overreaching Executive, which has the power to disseminate a very large volume of disinformation to the public so as to cloud any attempt at rational discourse. Supressed from the public was the fact that Israel's invasion plans were drawn up long before the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, that Israeli soldiers had kidnapped "suspected hizballah" members just days before, and the fact that the weapons used to flatten Lebanon were handed to the Israeli military with the costs deferred to the American taxpayers.

Another example that comes quickly to mind is of course the Iraq war, wherein civilian and military death tolls are surpressed to an unprecedented extent by the Bush administration. This has included going so far as to arrest Hospital personnell in Iraq for realeasing accurate but "too high" casualty figures, and barring the US media from covering the return of injured or dead American soldiers. Due to current disagreement in elite circles as to the effectiveness of the US's Iraq policy, some dissent has filtered through into the US Media (much the same as in later stages of the Vietnam conflict), and as such the issue is receiving a large amount of coverage. However, even policy makers on the democratic side of the aisle (including Chuch Schumer and Hilliary Clinton) do not disagree with the administrations stated goals, merely question the methods. Again, even a "regime change" in the US congress is unlikely to have any impact on policy.

However, that is not to say that people should give up hope in initiating change. One of the first steps for making changes is to be presented with the full picture, which influential analysts argue will increase in likelyhood with a change in those in charge (in congress) of overseeing the actions of the government as a whole, specifically the executive. It is pointed out that Democratic oversight committees would be able to share much needed information with the American public, and put them in a better position to make informed decisions, one of the most important aspects of reclaiming democracy in America.
From Unclaimed Territory:

A Democratic takeover of one or even both houses of Congress is unlikely to result in any new affirmative legislation or policies, since their control will be by only a small margin, dependent on conservative lawmakers in their majority, and subject to a presidential veto. With some exceptions (such as the power to control appropriations and cut off funding), the real power they will have will be to investigate and expose the conduct of the Bush administration and to reveal to Americans what has really been going on.

It is difficult to overstate how crucial that is for exposing what the Republican Party has become and undermining those who control it. The administration has been able to ward off even the most incriminating accusations and disclosures because they control the primary sources of information. They can deny anything, selectively release misleading exculpatory information, and operate in the darkest shadows and behind the highest walls of secrecy. As a result, disclosures about what they have done are always piecemeal and easily obscured.

Armed with a more realistic view of what's going on, Americans are put in a much better position to initiate the so-badly-needed changes that the rest of the world is screaming for. Hope for a better tomorrow always exists as long as there are those who are willing to work for it, and who are aware of the needs and opportunities involved.

Naturally, there are those whose vested interest in seeing that things continue as they are leads them to continue to take steps to quiet their opposition. The murders ("unintentional") of dozens of foreign journalists by US troops notwithstanding, the tactics employed are nothing new: maintaining claims that "everything is allright, trust us" or playing upon the most negative of emotions, fear and anger.

To give just a couple of examples, today the BBC published a report by the US Ambassador to Iraq that "success" by the US in Iraq was still possible. This was in response to the admittal by a US State Department official that the US was "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq, a statement claimed by the White House to have been mistranslated but verified by the BBC to have been accurate. It was also immediately following an analysis by Robert Dreyfuss, echoing the sentiments of many prominent analysists, that a coup was on the cards in Iraq.

Facing such grim news, the Bush administration reverts to its classic strategy of playing upon the fears of the American population. The latest of a virtual plethora of examples is a video recently published on the Republican party's website RNC.org designed to scare the American public into obedience (much the same as Mao scared his population into obedience). The video is below:


The Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad had some thoughts and observations on this very subject in his letter to George Bush a few months back:

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people -- who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks -- some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

I think the answer is obvious. To constantly push the buttons of the population and use their fear as a tool of manipulation is an intense disservice not only to the American population, but to those against whom the fear is used to mobilise militant action. But I have hope. I have hope that Americans are as fed up with the situation as the rest of the world is. I have hope that the "elites" in the american business world are not right in their assessment that the candidate with the largest campaign war chest [must have] superior grass-roots support, the war chest referring to the amount of money they have left for their campaign. I have hope that Americans are intelligent enough to realise that the Dow Jones' record performance recently does not represent the economic welfare of their nation or themselves as individuals.

I think Americans are at a breaking point, that the situation is bad enough at this stage (domestically, for americans, and internationally) that many are coming to realise that major changes are needed, of which making a showing at their election next month is an important first step.

I have hope that the strength of morality and human decency will overpower the will of those whose greed, arrogance, and or fear have monopolised their decision making processes. I have hope for the future.

We have the power, we must only choose to use it.

Unintentionally Imperialist

The Danger Posed by Ignorance

When inhabitants of foreign (non-American) lands first encounter the average stereotypical American Tourists there are certain characteristics that they consistantly find surprising. For the sake of enlightening some Americans who have been overseas and were wondering what the locals were blabbing to each other about as they passed, I shall share a couple of these observations.

The first thing that many non-americans notice about americans is that Americans Speak Very Loudly. I'm not really sure what the reasoning behind this is, but perhaps it is due to the inherently loud nature of American Sport Utitilty Vehicles (they tell me everyone has one now), which preclude carrying on conversations at a normal volume in public places. I am also told that when the mobile ("cell") phone revolution hit America, the american companies were in such a rush to catch up with other industrialised countries that they forgot that telephone reception is an important aspect of the use of mobile technology, and as such Americans have been forced to adopt a Consistantly High Volume to be heard over what is generally referred to as "static," but which in America these days could be realisticially termed "the sound of Big Brother listening in."

The other, and perhaps more troubling, aspect of the Stereotypical American is that they are quite gullible. One of the most striking examples of this in my recent memory is the story of a group of American tourists who travelled to Denmark, and subsequently (and I am not making this up) sued the Danish Tourist Ministry for false advertising in saying (still not making this up) that "the sun is different over here." These particular american tourists actually believed that a different sun rises and sets over Europe, or specifically Denmark, than rises and sets over America. I'm sure that there are countless cases of locals having a bit of fun with the gullibility of their visitors from across the pond, so to avoid any unnecessary embarassment for our well-meaning visitors, may I extend the following warning to american tourists: If you ask a local where the nearest "burger joint" is, and they tell you to knock on the door of the third house on the right and ask for a "big one with cheese," when you do so and the elderly woman who answers the door starts swinging a broom at you, don't be perplexed or irritated; it's all in good fun.


However, believing everything one is told is not all fun and games. Americans have unknowingly allowed themselves to be turned into propagators of the greatest threat to international peace and security that the world has seen since Adolf Hitler set his sights on world domination. Among the consequences of this slide into blatant imperialism (as opposed to veiled imperialism which America has employed since its inception) is the increased likelyhood of a large scale global conflict, the increased proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the increase in popularity of and recruitment possibilities by dangerous terrorist organisations, the destruction of 2 soverign nations, the erosion of basic human rights principles, the erosion of personal freedoms for american citizens and non-citizens alike, and the deaths of literally hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention the high likelyhood of a continuation of this unnecessary loss of civilian life.

One of the most distressing news items of the past couple of weeks was the report by The Lancet that put on paper what most Iraqis already knew: that the American invasion of Iraq had directly contributed to the deaths of roughly half a million Iraqi civilians. Due to the fact that a large percentage of Iraqi civilian deaths go unreported, Americans who bought into the professions of benign intentions in the invasion of Iraq are quick to dismiss such claims, choosing instead to cower under the umbrella of uplifting rhetoric provided on a daily basis by their manipulative leaders and passed on unquestioningly by their subjugated media. However, to immediately write off works of scientific scholarship in favor of an unfailing belief in the inherent piety of greedy ruling elites is to bury one's head in the sand as a sandstorm approaches; half a million people dead leaves countless millions of berieved angry family members and friends, many of whom might consider turing to violence "to avenge this" (to borrow the words of the Marine Staff Sargent in the recent film "World Trade Center"). This violence will manifest itself in what the US Government refers to as "terrorism," in other words "when others do to us what we do to them."

Another byproduct of this new blatant imperialism is the physical manifestation of the excuses given for the agression from the beginning: proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As anyone who has not been holed up in a cave in afghanistan without access to the outside world is aware, on Monday, October 9, 2006, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea to the west) tested their first Nuclear bomb. This unsurprisingly led to immediate worldwide condemnation, though not for the reasons that most Americans would assume. Many worldwide leaders condemned the action as a provocation: provoking the American government which has shown itself willing to engage in military conflict for far less substantial reasons.

However, Americans have allowed their government to become the Tyrannical British Empire that their forefathers fought a war of liberation from. How? It comes back to their inherent gullibility, or perhaps to put it more nicely to the fact that they have entirely too much trust in people who are not trustworthy.

I feel it is necessary to point out some painful but obvious truths to the American population, and I shall try to do so in a manner in which they may understand:

Your Government Lies To You All The Time.

Your Media Lies To You All The Time.

Those Who Claim To Be The Opposition In Your Government Lie To You All The Time.

You Need To Stop Buying All The Lies.

That is all.

-----------

By the way, my absence from here was not intentional, and I have no intention to see it happen again.

Could all that's been won
be lost so soon again
could the ending we've been dreading
only be a matter of when?
did you mean to make them suffer?
did you mean to make them cry?
when you arrived, did you ask them
if they had prepared themselves to die?
Does the future really matter
if we're not around to see it?
When you were young, your future dreams
could this, now, really be it?

The Bush, The Devil, The Lies
don't act like you're surprised.

When you sell out, give in,
give up the fight
you can't just expect
everything to be allright.

Stand up.
Ask why.
Lets not let more children die.

Views on Terrorism

This is merely a re-post of an article I wrote weeks ago, but I think it's important to reiterate my view on the subject.


It has been recently brought to my attention (by people who actually concentrate on my comments or posts rather than my profile) that some of my statements come across as sympathetic to what is colloquially defined as "terror."
I am not, nor ever have been, supportive of terror, terrorism, or any other related actions; I feel that they fly in the face of basic morality.
As far as the question of "do the ends justify the means" (as in, if a positive goal is achieved does that justify the negative way it was brought about), I believe that they most certainly do not.
Call me a dreamer, but I believe that human beings have within their nature the capability to accomplish their goals without sacrificing basic human morality.
Regarding morality, I agree with conclusions reached by Plato and Aristotle that not only is morality the most effective means to achieve one's objectives, it is also it's own reward.

That having been said, there is an important aspect of this dialogue that is not being covered. It is important to contemplate the difference (?) between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist," especially as it relates to one's self image.

If I may, I would like to leave you with a question. Or a few, perhaps. Of the following, whom would you consider to be a "freedom fighter" and whom a "terrorist." Or are they neither? Or both? (What exactly constitutes "terrorism" these days anyway?) Furthermore, does their view of themself hold true to your characterisation, and does the historical record agree with your point of view, or theirs? Does that historical record change with the times? So what are they, really, then?

Nelson Mandela? Gerry Adams? Osama Bin Ladin? Yassir Arafat? Shimon Peres? Emmanuel Constant? Bobby Sands? James Connolly? George Washington? Robert E. Lee? William Wallace? Che Guevera? Fidel Castro? Ronald Reagan? George Bush? Abu Abbas? George Shultz? Leon Klinghoffer? Kemal Zugheyer? Bill Clinton? Margaret Thatcher? Bobby Seale? Ali Akbar Mohtashemi? Wolfe Tone? Txabi Etxebarrieta?

And, perhaps most importantly, why?

Misneach Stories blog new post today:
The Next 9/11: coming soon.
"I can still remember the morning of September 11, 2001, as if it were yesterday..."
...it continues.
WARNING: the post contains graphic imagery.
The main topic is why American foreign policy is creating an atmosphere in the world that will ensure that they will face additional terrorist attacks. This subject greatly upsets me, because I feel that it should be the job of the government to protect its citizens as part of serving them and doing what is best for the nation as a whole. I also feel the the current U.S. regime has disrespected the memories of the innocent civilians lost on September 11 by a) using their deaths as an excuse to invade Iraq, b) responding to their deaths by bringing about more bloodshed, and c) ensuring that such an atrocity will happen again by pursuing policies that engender rage and resentment towards America and towards the west in general. This includes Europe as well, in addition to other America-friendly countries that haven't had the courage to stand up and say that Americas policies are wrong, and work to bring an end to them and see that the perpetrators of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity are brought to justice.



Also, this week (as I discussed previously about the SCO and Iran) the Iranian President was welcomed in China. This is in line with the closer ties between Iran and China (and Russia) I have discussed on numerous occasions in this blog.

On that subject, another intelligent take on the issue:
Awakening of a Giant
from Bottle Message™ blog at Yahoo 360.

Playing Chess with Iran
from TomDispatch blog.
-------

Something mentioned as a side-note in an article in the Tehran Times is an important aspect of this discussion that's not being covered.

Iran should try to balance nuclear offer
Tehran Times Political Desk

We support Iran's position on the peaceful use of atomic energy because this right is enshrined in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa said.
"This right exists for all Arab and non-Arab countries which have signed the NPT and wish to achieve progress," Mussa added.
But he stressed the region was not in need of a military nuclear program. "This applies to Iran and Israel and others," Mussa said.

Everyone involved, from East to West, seems to be in agreement on one key issue: Iran should not have Nuclear Weapons. China, Russia, France, Germany, the U.S., and even Iran herself all agree that Nuclear Weapons are not something that it would be in the best interests of the world for Iran to possess.

This is understandable, and rational, and legal based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is also in line with UN Security Council Resolution 687, Article 14, which outlines "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missles for their delivery."

Based on current intelligence data, the only country in the area of the Middle East, West Asia (up to Afghanistan) and North Africa that possesses Nuclear Weapons is Israel. While they are non-signatories to the NPT, and as such their actions (at least in this one specific instance, we can revisit the ICJ wall ruling or UN General Assembly resolutions, or the Geneva Accords, or the Nuremberg Tribunal's precedents another time) are in line with their international obligations. However, the aim of resolution 687 was a very understandable one: due to the constant state of conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel being armed with 200 Nuclear Weapons is a far more dangerous issue than Iran enriching a very small percentage of the amount of nuclear material required to build one bomb.

If we are going to hold Iran to the understandable standard of maintaining their abstinence from Nuclear Weapons, why must we not demand the same from their regional comrade Israel?

--------
Sourcing:
CNS: Middle East WMDs: Israel

Russian Intelligence Estimate on Nuclear Weapons 1995

Ha'aretz July 2000 article on Israel's Nuclear Weapons Program
--------
Loads more news sources than you're used to at Misneach Homepage News

Good Morning America

A new day is dawning, the sun is just starting to peek through the windows, and the sounds of the world around you coming to life are starting to make their way into your consciousness through the painfully-early morning haze. A haven't-had-that-first-bit-of-caffeine-yet America lies with its eyes half closed; the blaring of the alarm clock is barely audible as a faint background noise in the dream that hasn't quite ended, and the instinctive reach towards the snooze button has already begun...

However, as some of us realize, now is not the time to be going back to sleep. It's time for eyes to open and moves to be made to hop up out of the confort of the sleeping quarters; much more delay, and you could find yourself too late. There are deadlines to meet, promises to keep, and many miles to go before one can again contemplate a restful sleep (to paraphrase a well known American poet). But then again, who wants to wake up anyway? Who wants to leave the confort and warmth of our reverrie?

This dream is a fun place, a relaxed place, a place with no worries; full of happy images, sitcoms, and professions of neverending freedom, and always being congratulated for being so moral, mighty, and respectable. Of course, we have no wish to wake up to a world of lies, pain, death, despair, and destruction. Who would.

To stray from the normal confines of acceptable opinion these days is to be as annoying as a buzzing alarm clock interrupting a nice dream. Such opinions are hushed, as an alarm's "snooze" function, through omission or even direct attack. Many dissenting opinions (such as my own) that point out disturbing recurrant themes are summarily dismissed as "conspiracy theory" babble. Those who would seek to push dissenting opinions away with such characterisations do so because they have to; their belief structure cannot continue to justify actions that for those of us with a critical eye cannot be rationally categorised as moral while these individuals maintain a necessary self image of taking the moral high road; much the same as people who have lost a loved one fighting wars (read: Iraq) to further imperialist agendas need to believe that the death was not for this purpose and not in vain, but rather that the person genuinely died for the "cause of freedom." It is too painful for them to think about it any other way. To do so would be the equivalent of having a bucket of ice water dumped on yourself to wake up, an unacceptable jolt from their reverrie; sometimes reality can be just too hard to face.

As far as critical minds being lumped into the category of a paranoid schitzophrenic and labelled as "conspiracy theorists," this is just another way to sidestep any real dialoge on important issues. As far as any actual belief in some X-Files type conspiracy, what exactly constitutes a conspiracy anyway? According to my understanding of the word (and that of webster.com as well) a conspiracy is people working together in secret towards a shared goal. To forget the negative connutations of the phrase for a second, is one to assume that un-related people or groups who all have the same goals in mind and are all working towards those goals are not basically striving for the same end result as a "conspiracy" would have? Are you saying that, for example, the owners of the major media companies in America and other business leaders and also the business-centered leadership of the American government don't have the same goals in mind (maximising profits, increasing business share value, increasing personal wealth)? But nobody is pretending that any of this is a secret, at most it's just conveniently ignored as a facet of our "liberal" economic system (only economically liberal, not "bleeding-heart" style liberal).

To illustrate just one of the many examples of the so-called "conspiracy" outlined above, lets have a look at one of the American media giants, NBC. NBC, MSNBC, etc. are all owned by General Electric (to make the situation sound sweet and nice it's referred to as the "parent company"). GE has, at a minimum, $850 Million worth of "defence" contracts developing and building weapons for the American military. As such, why would one of their business want to sabatoge another of their business. Put more literally, why would NBC want to point out problems with american military aggression: no aggression, no need for huge military expendetures, no demand for weapons systems, and GE loses a ton of money. Losing money rather than making money is the exact opposite of any definition of the "American Dream" that I have ever heard, and what American company wants to be un-American?

[ To digress, for a moment, I would like to note that the American Dream is embodied in the pursuit of riches. There is also the idol-status of those who made it big then died very young; Marilyn Monroe and James Dean are two examples that come to mind. If "live fast, die young" is an ideal, then America's near-suicidal attempts to provoke military conflicts that are ever-increasing in their magnitude is much more understandable. Lets assume for a moment that nobody really wants a slow and painful death, instead they want it to be instant and painless. Lets also take into account that a modern nuclear warhead would wipe out a very large city in a matter of seconds, leaving nothing behing; near instantaneous death for all those near the center of the explosion. For those people living in large urban centers like New York and Washington, DC, perhaps stoking the fires that may well one day lead to a final showdown and nuclear war is merely a manifestation of the administration's desire to help push everyone down a path towards the American Dream and the status of an idol; attack everyone to maximise short-term financial gains, then when judgement day arrives go out in a blaze of glory, thus the culmination of our attempt to have ourselves heroified in folklore. This may seem to be an extreme interpretation, but it still seems to be supported by the facts and insofar as the direction in which America (and, sadly, with it the rest of the northern hemisphere) is headed. ]

Dick Cheney was right when he said fairly recently that those who didn't support America's (imperialist) Iraq war were Un-American. If you hold to the belief that the pursuit of the american dream is a pursuit of material riches, then taking over a country rich in valuable resources is very much in keeping with this ideal, and his perplexion is understandable. It's more than evident in the corporate culture of America that individual lives mean little, if anything, as evidenced by the trend of layoffs-to-maximise-profits. Who cares that John Q. cannot feed his family as long as the bottom line is solid. Similarly, who cares if tens of thousands of John Q.'s or Muhammad R.'s die as long as their sacrifice brings us a large influx of cash. Empathy and compassion fly in the face of the very notion of "every man for himself" that the capitalist system embodies. We could all learn something from VP Cheney's insights; eat or be eaten.

There will be those (just west of the atlantic) who say my premises are absurd, and will proceed to call me crazy. "America wants a nuclear showdown and doesn't care about human life? Man, you're nuts" is what they will say. But lets just have a look, for a second, at what the american regime has been up to recently, since we're on the subject of sanity. And remember that, as we have been told, those in power in America are the ones that the majority of americans (supposedly) "gave a mandate to" in the last presidential election to continue what they were/are doing. As such, the world is led to believe that the wishes of the Bush regime are the wishes of the American people. Then lets take a minute to reflect upon the recent statements and actions from the Bush regime regarding China and Russia. First there was the state/non state visit by Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, where he was more welcomed by Bill Gates in the U.S. than he was by G.W., and the rhetorical attacks by the Bush administration against China regarding Human Rights abuses (an issue that America is in NO position to be lecturing on at this stage: close Guantanamo and quit flying "suspects" who haven't been charged with anything all over the world to be tortured and then MAYBE you can start talking). Then, follow those up with recent attacks against Russia about democracy (again, NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT since you stole the office of the presidency in 2000 and then spent 4 years of propaganda making sure you got it for another 4 years) and their capitalistic use of their energy supplies. Ok, so, you want to pick a fight with China, pick a fight with Russia, and also threaten with DEVASTATING NUCLEAR ATTACKS their CLOSE PARTNER IRAN (see my previous postings on the subject). Goading the next strongest militaries (behind the american $500 billion per year one) to yours into a fight when you can't even control defensless Iraq and protect yourselves from a humanitarian disaster created by a hurricane (read: Katrina). Picking fights with everyone in your path, but somehow it's the rest of the world that's crazy. Americans are the sane ones.
Ok guys, sure. Just remember that when the people in white come to give you a free jacket and take you to the "safe place," they're your friends.

It's no wonder that those who point out reasonable (yet terrifying) observations about the current situation are ignored or silenced (where is that snooze button!). Sadly, those of us who care about the world we leave (or don't leave) our children and grandchildren are pushed off to that tiny section of the consciousness that is overpowered by the part that wants, or needs, to stay in the dream. Who wants to wake up to a reality like this? Instead we can lose ourselves in this dream (with scrubs, and seinfeld, friends, and desparate housewives) and just assume that everything is ok: if the (fictional) characters on these tv shows can go around all day without a care in the world about a bleak future, then surely we can as well! Besides, those who "society" (based on music contracts, tv, magasines like Cosmo) tell us we should idolise keep getting younger, so perhaps those of us over the age of 20 who aren't famous millionares have outlived our opportunities anyway, so why should we fear a catastrophic end. Perhaps we should just embrace it, maybe that truly is the culmination of the dream, of the american ideal. Why worry about any of this when the powers that be have provided us with so many distractions to keep our minds from contemplating anything that could be dangerous to the status quo.

Just go back to sleep America. Stay in your dreams, ignore the alarm.

Terrorism

It has been recently brought to my attention (by people who actually concentrate on my comments or posts rather than my profile) that some of my statements come across as sympathetic to what is colloquially defined as "terror."
I am not, nor ever have been, supportive of terror, terrorism, or any other related actions; I feel that they fly in the face of basic morality.
As far as the question of "do the ends justify the means" (as in, if a positive goal is achieved does that justify the negative way it was brought about), I believe that they most certainly do not.
Call me a dreamer, but I believe that human beings have within their nature the capability to accomplish their goals without sacrificing basic human morality.
Regarding morality, I agree with conclusions reached by Plato and Aristotle that not only is morality the most effective means to achieve one's objectives, it is also it's own reward.

That having been said, there is an important aspect of this dialogue that is not being covered. It is important to contemplate the difference (?) between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist," especially as it relates to one's self image.

If I may, I would like to leave you with a question. Or a few, perhaps. Of the following, whom would you consider to be a "freedom fighter" and whom a "terrorist." Or are they neither? Or both? (What exactly constitutes "terrorism" these days anyway?) Furthermore, does their view of themself hold true to your characterisation, and does the historical record agree with your point of view, or theirs? Does that historical record change with the times? So what are they, really, then?

Nelson Mandela? Gerry Adams? Osama Bin Ladin? Yassir Arafat? Shimon Peres? Emmanuel Constant? Bobby Sands? James Connolly? George Washington? Robert E. Lee? William Wallace? Che Guevera? Fidel Castro? Ronald Reagan? George Bush? Abu Abbas? George Shultz? Leon Klinghoffer? Kemal Zugheyer? Bill Clinton? Margaret Thatcher? Bobby Seale? Ali Akbar Mohtashemi? Wolfe Tone? Txabi Etxebarrieta?

And, perhaps most importantly, why?

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. Brothers and Sisters, 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.
::::THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT::::
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.*
*Returns*
During that time Ireland's population dropped from 8 million to around 3 million.
*Takes another cigarette*
YES THATS FIVE MILLION FUCKING PEOPLE.
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 The Proclamation of The Irish Provisional Government said To The People Of Ireland 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.