Arab Man = Militant or Terrorist

This seems to be the formula most widely accepted by the western media and the US/US's Puppy (Englerica? Ameriland?) governments. Lets take a recent Associated Press article, regarding civilian casualties (being a woman or a child under 10 still counts as a "civilian," at least for now):

BAGHDAD -- U.S. soldiers destroyed two buildings being used by insurgents in a town in the western Anbar province, killing six militants, two women and a boy believed to be under 2, the U.S. military said Sunday.

Now, out of curiosity, what legally recognised court passed the guilty verdict on these six individuals that there was sufficiently binding evidence that they must fall into a legally recognised category of illegal "militants" pursuant to civil and international law?

Or was simply being an Arab man enough to justify their death sentence?

------------------------------------------------
Also, Al Jazeera reports that Kofi Annan (previously scared to call a duck a duck and admit that the civil war in Iraq is a civil war) today did muster the courage to say what Iraqis have been thinking for years and openly articulating without qualification of late:

Annan said he agreed with Iraqis who say that life is worse now than it was under Saddam.

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life," he said.

"If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison - that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?" Annan said.

So, the UN Secretary General comes out and finally tacitly admits that the US (whose UN Mandate on Iraq was just renewed in the past week or so) has created a civil war in Iraq.

Yet the rest of the world stands by and does nothing.

Why?

Israel's Peace Offer?

Recently there has been much news coverage of the "ceasefire" between Hamas and Israel (which Condi Rice was in Israel trying to "shore up" on Thursday) and the magnanamous offer by Ehud Olmert of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

The fact that the ceasefire has been anything-but aside (monday, for example, after the ceasefire took effect sunday, Palestinian militants fired rockets into Israel and the IDF shot and killed a "militant" and a 50 year old woman they claimed tried to "run off" with his weapon. I must say, that's the first time I've ever heard of a 50 year old woman running...), Israel's "offer of peace" has been on the table now since 1947.

Peace is offered to Palestine in return for the wholesale removal of all palestinians and the creation of a Jewish-Zionist state that runs from the mediterranean to the Jordan river. Okay, I exaggerate (a little). The best offer made by Israel at the Camp David negotiations still included a 12 percent reduction in the then-current territory under direct control of the Palestinian Authority, which didn't include of course any area that is still legally part of Palestine but under de-facto Israeli control. All current offers by Israel include taking Palestinian territory that cuts straight through the center of the west bank to the Jordan river, thus dividing the West Bank into walled-in enclaves with no inter-regional transportation (due to the Israeli "security fence" and buffer zone).

Palestine's offer (from Hamas and Fatah and Al-Aqsa etc.), which was made with much less publicity just a few months back, is that Israel withdraw to their pre-1967 borders (internationally viewed as the legal boundries of Israel and referred to as the "green line") and cease all military operations in Palestine. However, we don't hear about Palestine's offer in the West, although it has stood fairly unchanged since the early 1970s.

Yet, the western media gleefully reports every action by Olmert as a "major policy shift" that is obviously him taking the high road in looking for peace. He echos the offer of a "Palestinian State" but fails to mention, and this is never pointed out in the media, that the "state" they offer is essentially a small number of small and impossible to leave communes, all surrounded by the "State" of Israel and cut off from access to water or arable land, which technically (by international law) belongs to Palestine now but is part of the self-declared state of Israel in reality.

Olmert's offer is that some "suspected militants", thousands of whom are being detained without charge or trial by Israel, will be released after a kidnapped Israeli soldier is returned to Israel. They have already begun by releasing one Palestinian government minister who was kidnapped just a few weeks ago. Yes, you read that correctly: their graciousness has been displayed by releasing a kidnapped Palestinian government minister.

They also consistantly claim that Israel was planning to "unilaterally withdraw" from the west bank. But that is misleading. Israel offered to withdraw from the sections of the west bank it does not wish to keep, but maintains its claims on the farmlands and water supplies that are legally in the West Bank but viewed (only by the US and Israel and their puppy... what's it called again? Bushtain? Blairtain? Britrael?) as part of "Israeli territory."

What doesn't get covered is the UN report that was released this week that stated Israel "violated every article" of a crossings agreement they made last year regarding entry and exit from Palestinian areas. You need look no further than the blog of "A Mother From Gaza" who, as we speak, is waiting to get back into Palestine. She has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting and waiting, and waiting, and waiting... The effects of this de-facto blockade are disasterous for the Palestinians, left with no livelyhood, no food, and no water. So, as the report just linked to explains, while Israelis freely water their lawns with sprinklers, Palestinians are left having to pray for Red Cross water shipments... which are usually blocked by the IDF from entering Palestinian areas anyway.

Meanwhile, Palestine suffers from a whopping 40% unemployment rate; simultaneously, the US has historically provided unconditional aid to Israel to the tune of nearly a hundred billion dollars, and it continues to increase to this day.

The Human Rights Situation in Palestine is a travesty, and it has been inflicted upon Palestinians by Israel for decades. Additionally, those familiar with the situation are well aware of the disasterous effects that America's unconditional support for Israel has on the US's standing in the world, as evidenced by a letter from 50 retired American diplomats to George Bush on the subject. However, we in the west cannot say anything negative about Israel.

To give an example, a well known and very knowledgeable diplomat and former US president intricately familiar with the subject recently published a book called "Peace not Apartheid" which is naturally critical of Israel's actions towards Palestine.

Upon the book's release, the "new breed" of democrats who are taking over the US Congress in january were chomping at the bit to condemn the book as anti-semetic. Among those who came out against the book were Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers.

The formula is nothing new. Anything that is anti-Zionist (Zionism meaning building a Jewish state in the holy land, by UN terms it was a code-name for racism for 20 years lets not forget) and disagrees with Israel's murderous policies (much like 62 percent of the Israeli population disagreed with Ehud Olmert's actions in Lebanon this summer) must therefore be anti-semetic.

I think this kind of fear-and-hate mongering insults the intelligence and the morality of Jews and Gentiles everywhere. One does not have to support murder to be jewish, as those who are so quick to throw out the anti-semetic label would like you to believe, and one does not hate jews just because they disagree with the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians. The whole issue is so asinine I can't believe it even has to be addressed.

In 2002 Counterpunch published an interesting article on "anti-semitism." It's worth a read.

As far as Israel's "peace offer" goes, I would like to reiterate my take on the issue. Once the following conditions are met, I'm sure peace will soon follow.

• The US needs to cut off its unconditional military aid to Israel, instead offering such aid only on the condition that murderous incursions by the IDF into foreign territories is ended immediately and finally.


• Israel must withdraw from occupied territories back to the internationally agreed 1967 borders, and tear down its illegal perimeter wall.


• The US must at once re-evaluate its position of unconditional support for Israeli policies and cease using its Security Council Veto to stymie any international attempt at mediation.


• Iran must exert its influence on Hamas and Hizballah to stop targeting civilian areas, as it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.


• Israel must cease aggressive posturing against Iran that encourages the Iranian leadership to encourage Hamas and Hizballah to continue to provoke the IDF into attacks.

Internet Governance Forum

Just a quick post about the Internet Governance Forum that was held in Greece over the past 3 days. Some information about it is available below.

The introductory remarks of the section that I, personally, am most interested in (the "openness section," i.e. the freedom-of-speech section) included the following, loosely transcribed:

The institutional fears of the new empowerment, because of the new fragility which is out there for governments and cooperation in power at the moment. The instinct of many still to control and intervene. Online censorship, the pressure now on bloggers. There's a particular case here in Greece at the moment. Should the major corporations use their massive bargaining power to change the terms that host governments give them to operate in some countries? Blocking by governments. Questions, should Internet service providers maximize freedom of expression in countries with restrictive laws on information and communication? The aspiration of knowledge for all. Those tensions that are built into the system. The tensions between defining copyright and intellectual property rights issues, how to balance the rights of the consumer and the content producer, and the threat to upholding human rights. Questions like, shouldn't companies resist compliance with local laws that are inconsistent with human rights principles? How to square that circle defined yesterday here at this time by the prime minister, Mr. Karamanlis, to enhance democracy, to have social cohesion and respect the rule of law. Recall Commissioner Reding's remarks yesterday. We must respect fundamental human rights and protect freedom of expression. That's the core of openness. So what are the best practices to strengthen freedom of expression through openness? What are the limits acceptable to preserve openness? Legal, policy, regulatory frameworks?

This forum has largely been relegated to secondary news sources recently, however it is an important one to have at least a small amount of knowledge about, based on the fact that the majority of us use the internet on a very regular basis, and there are those who would like to take away many of the inherent freedoms that the internet provides for the flow of information.

(I would like to take a random sidebar here and mention that recently I have had the opportunity to have a look through some of the scanned books available on Google Book search... it's basically an online library, with a large number of volumes available for perusal. If you have a few minutes to kill, it's well worth a look, just to look up a random topic you're interested in and see what books come up. And yes, they are actual published books, a large percentage of which were kindly scanned (by hand on desktop computer scanners by [I believe] the University of Michigan, and to them we should all say a big thank you.)

Back on topic, the IGF is essentially just a big meeting with no policy-making power that was put together with the intention of getting a large percentage of "stakeholders" in the internet together to try and find some common ground on what have emerged as some somewhat contentious issues regarding internet use, such as the balance between transparency and privacy, the prevailing english-language monopoly on internet programming and use, internet security, etc. As mentioned before, this forum has no policy-making power, however based on the fact that the intention was to get together some influential groups on the subject, it's conclusions are likely to at least carry some influence.

I haven't had time to look through much of the information available or the conclusions reached, but some of the sources include the Internet Governance Forum Official Website, some background on its creation, the original group that this forum was built upon, and the UN Secretary General's message to the forum.

With the constant assaults on freedom of speech in recent years in some of the worlds most industrialised nations, it is important to take note of issues such as internet regulation.

To give just one example, lets look the the US's "War on Terror." Some will argue that the "terrorists" using the internet, i.e. Al Qaeda cells allegedly communicating messages to each other, should (naturally) have this ability taken away from them. But who is to say what is a terrorist message? Is an internet post that could be interpreted as inciting violence against "coalition" forces in Iraq a terrorist message? As some neo-conservative advocates are arguing these days, if a withdrawl of US forces from Iraq would be a victory for "the jihadists," than isn't anyone who says the US should get [their imperial occupation forces] out of Iraq then supporting the terrorists, and as such supporting terrorism, and as such engaging in what the military commissions act of 2006 calls "hostilities" against the U.S., and shouldn't they be silenced? Perhaps shipped off to Auschwitz (sorry, I mean Guantanamo)? Where should it end?

Who was it that once said "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

The Day

Afghanistan air raid kills
up to 80 Taliban,
at least 16 civilians
Photo Courtesy of The Daily Times with their story.

From the
Nasrat Shoib
AFP story: exerpts below, specifically things that disturbed me about the situation.

To skip to my other news highlights click here.

When did human life become so meaningless that airstrikes on civilian areas were an acceptable means of accomplishing a military goal? Also, if America has the best military in the world (as conservative pundits would like us to believe), why are they not capable of sending troops in to take out the enemy fighters, why do they have to instead wipe out the entire village? And when did the proclamation by the "coalition" that the Taliban had been handily "defeated" become untrue? And why is no-one pointing out this irregularity?

Choice Quotes:

"Coalition forces conducted a significant operation early this morning in the Kandahar region near the village of Azizi that resulted in the unconfirmed deaths of possibly up to 80 Taliban members," a coalition spokesman said.

Unconfirmed... possibly up to... doesn't sound too convincing from the Coalition.

"Kandahar provincial governor Asadullah Khalid told reporters that at least 16 civilians were killed and 15 wounded in the attack"

"An elderly man, Attah Mohammad, said at the hospital that 24 members of his family, including some children, were killed in the bombing.

"They started to bomb our village at midnight and continued up to this morning," he said.

A doctor said that security forces had not allowed ambulances into the sealed-off area to fetch the wounded.

An 18-year-old with wounds to his face and chest said that there had been Taliban in the village but that they disappeared when the bombs started to fall.

"One hit my house. I was wounded and my two brothers were killed," said the teenager named Azizullah, adding that he had seen scores of dead and wounded on his way to the hospital.

A 45-year-old man named Nasratullah said that he had been having dinner with his in-laws. "Suddenly the bombardment started - there was big fire in our place. I managed to escape but I don't know what happened to my in-laws," he said. "
----------------------------
More...
The New York Times vs. Hugo Chavez
FAIR Media Views reports: This title was taken by FAIR from CounterPunch, regarding the Front Page of the New York Times yesterday.

-----------------------------
Daring Depraivity Blog, my interesting find of the night
new posts:
US figures out how to solve UN Torture Crisis...
and
Foreign Law does not apply to the U.S.
-----------------------------
JERUSALEM, May 22, 2006 (WAFA)- The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said the ability of Palestinians to move inside the West Bank (WB) has significantly worsened in the past nine months.

In a report on "territorial fragmentation of the West Bank, May 2006", OCHA stated that a combination of checkpoints, physical obstacles and a permit system has effectively cut the West Bank into three distinct areas in addition to East Jerusalem.

"Within these areas further enclaves have been created - also bordered by checkpoints and roadblocks - that has led to one Palestinian community being isolated from its neighbour," it said

more at the Palestinian News Agency
-----------------------------
An Op/Ed from Pravda Russian News

If United States can occupy Iran, or at least change the regime in Iran to something that is subservient to the American interests, then U.S. can have over half of the world’s oil reserves under its control. There are four countries in the Middle East, that combined, have over 50% of the world’s proven oil reserves. These countries are: Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

the story continues here...
-------------------------------
German Foreign Minister Urges Flexibility to End Iran Stand-off

Britain, France and Germany are preparing a package of trade, technology and security benefits if Tehran stops enriching uranium, a process which creates fuel for power plants but can also form the core of a nuclear bomb

the story is here, from the German news source Deutsche Welle

--------------------------
Iraq: children suffer as food insecurity persists, UNICEF reports
From the U.N. News Center
--------------------------

Stand together

on the issue of torture

The BBC and UN human rights report...

The bbc has changed their main headline twice now in the past hour. The first version was this:

US 'must close Guantanamo camp'

The committee told the US to end secret detention

The US should close the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba and any secret "war on terror" detention facilities abroad, a United Nations report has said.
The UN Committee against Torture
said that detaining persons in such conditions was a violation of the UN Convention against Torture.
It also urged the US to put in place "immediate
measures" to eradicate torture of detainees by its troops.
The committee's
report follows a hearing in early May into US conduct.
"The state party
should cease to detain any person at Guantanamo Bay and close the detention
facility," the 11-page report said.
It also told the US to ensure no-one was
detained in any secret detention facility.
"The state party should
investigate and disclose the existence of any such facilities and the authority
under which they have been established and the manner in which detainees are
treated," the report said.
The report also urged the US to "rescind any
interrogation technique" that constituted torture, such as the use of dogs to
scare detainees.
It criticised vague guidelines that it said had led to
serious abuse of detainees and techniques which "have resulted in the deaths of
some detainees during interrogation".
The report was compiled by a panel of
10 experts who heard testimony in early May from a delegation of US officials
into its "war on terror" conduct.

THEN this story was put through their bleach cycle, and came out like this an hour later:

US 'must end secret detentions'

The committee told the US to end secret
detentionThe US should close any secret "war on terror" detention facilities
abroad and the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba, a United Nations report has said.
The UN Committee against Torture urged the US to ensure no one was detained
in any secret facility.
The report followed the first US appearance before
the committee since the 11 September 2001 attacks.
During the hearing in
early May, the US neither confirmed or denied the existence of secret prisons.
UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
Recommendations
in full (131K)
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but
you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download the reader
here
The US has been holding hundreds of terror suspects arrested since
11 September at facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. There are also reports
of CIA-run secret facilities in other countries.
The committee told the US
to provide more information on secret detention facilities.
"The state party
should investigate and disclose the existence of any such facilities and the
authority under which they have been established and the manner in which
detainees are treated," the 11-page report said.
It also called on the US to
end detentions at the Guantanamo Bay camp and close it.
Detaining people in
such conditions was a violation of the UN Convention against Torture, it said.
Abuse of detainees
The committee also urged the US to act against
ill-treatment of detainees, calling for "immediate measures to eradicate all
forms of torture and ill-treatment of detainees by its military or civilian
personnel, in any territory under its jurisdiction".
It called for an end to
interrogation techniques it said constituted torture, such as the use of dogs to
scare detainees.
The recommendations are not binding but the BBC's Imogen
Foulkes says the committee's conclusions will not make comfortable reading for
the US, with the assertion that secret camps do constitute torture.
The US
has maintained that it is engaged in a long term war on terror and that some
aspects of the convention on torture may not apply.
But the UN committee
rejected this, our correspondent says, saying the total ban on torture applies
in time of peace, war or armed conflict and anyone violating the convention
should be prosecuted.
Human rights groups welcomed the report.
"We hope
that the United States will take heed of this report and really begin to rethink
and change its policies on a number of practices, including secret prisons, lack
of accountability for abuse, and transfer of prisoners to places where they may
be tortured," Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch told Reuters news agency.

Both of these stories (were actually the SAME STORY and) were available at the following link:

US 'must close...something, we can't decide what'

The fact that these Human Rights abuses were a violation of international law was pushed to the bottom of the story in the second version, as though that was an irrelevant fact. I wonder why...

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 "playing games" 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 "outside of the U.N." 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 ABC (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 unable to control 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 top security official:
"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 public opinion in Iran 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 article 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 Colin Powell (former holder of Condi's position) recently pointed out, "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.

Iran

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 allow IAEA inspectors 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 implications for peace, 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.

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.