Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 05:40 pm
http://staging.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/surgevulnerable.jpghttp://photos1.blogger.com/img/92/3568/400/feb8fal%5B1%5D.jpg
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 07:41 pm
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/02/06/13-quilt-014.jpg

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/02/06/2-iraq-vets-042.jpg
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 08:39 pm
On and On and On



You can go on pretending and denying
You can go on selling and buying
You can go on shifting the blame
You can go on ducking the shame
You can go on living a lie
You can go on stealing lives
You can go on singing their song
You can go on and on and on

You can go on deceiving youth
You can go on bending the truth
You can go on telling racist jokes
You can go on torturing normal folk
You can go on flouting the law
You can go on breaking the poor
You can go on singing the song
You can go on and on and on

You can go on being afraid
You can go on stocking their trade
You can go on supporting their dream
You can go on making men scream
You can go on feeding their crimes
You can go on painting their crooked-cross signs
You can go on singing the age-old song
You can go on and on and on

Yeah, you can go on singing their song
You can go on and on and on



Endymion 2007

*************************


Free


Be a free man
Un-strap the burden
Lay it down
Take back all mistakes made
By colossal misunderstanding
Of youth, un-tried
Untested
Forgive thyself
In this dusty desert we call life
Be free of guilt
Humanity shamed
Listen to the gentle rain
And remember
You are already saved



Endymion 2007
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 12:34 pm
The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted February 8, 2007.

We must attend to growing social and economic inequities in order to stop the most dangerous mass movement in American history -- or face a future of fascism under the guise of Christian values.


Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told his students that when we were his age -- he was then close to 80 -- we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists."

The warning, given 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and television evangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts toward taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global Christian empire. This call for fundamentalists and evangelicals to take political power was a radical and ominous mutation of traditional Christianity. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible.

He was not a man to use the word fascist lightly. He had been in Germany in 1935 and 1936 and worked with the underground anti-Nazi church, known as the Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Adams was eventually detained and interrogated by the Gestapo, who suggested he might want to consider returning to the United States. It was a suggestion he followed. He left on a night train with framed portraits of Adolf Hitler placed over the contents of his suitcases to hide the rolls of home-movie film he had taken of the so-called German Christian Church, which was pro-Nazi, and the few individuals who defied the Nazis, including the theologians Karl Barth and Albert Schweitzer. The ruse worked when the border police lifted the tops of the suitcases, saw the portraits of the Führer and closed them up again. I watched hours of the grainy black-and-white films as he narrated in his apartment in Cambridge.

Adams understood that totalitarian movements are built out of deep personal and economic despair. He warned that the flight of manufacturing jobs, the impoverishment of the American working class, the physical obliteration of communities in the vast, soulless exurbs and decaying Rust Belt, were swiftly deforming our society. The current assault on the middle class, which now lives in a world in which anything that can be put on software can be outsourced, would have terrified him. The stories that many in this movement told me over the past two years as I worked on "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" were stories of this failure -- personal, communal and often economic. This despair, Adams said, would empower dangerous dreamers -- those who today bombard the airwaves with an idealistic and religious utopianism that promises, through violent apocalyptic purification, to eradicate the old, sinful world that has failed many Americans.

These Christian utopians promise to replace this internal and external emptiness with a mythical world where time stops and all problems are solved. The mounting despair rippling across the United States, one I witnessed repeatedly as I traveled the country, remains unaddressed by the Democratic Party, which has abandoned the working class, like its Republican counterpart, for massive corporate funding.

The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic -- to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them. This mythological worldview, one that has no use for science or dispassionate, honest intellectual inquiry, one that promises that the loss of jobs and health insurance does not matter, as long as you are right with Jesus, offers a lying world of consistency that addresses the emotional yearnings of desperate followers at the expense of reality. It creates a world where facts become interchangeable with opinions, where lies become true -- the very essence of the totalitarian state. It includes a dark license to kill, to obliterate all those who do not conform to this vision, from Muslims in the Middle East to those at home who refuse to submit to the movement. And it conveniently empowers a rapacious oligarchy whose god is maximum profit at the expense of citizens.

We now live in a nation where the top 1 percent control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, where we have legalized torture and can lock up citizens without trial. Arthur Schlesinger, in "The Cycles of American History," wrote that "the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights in the contemporary sense -- not only for their acquiescence in poverty, inequality and oppression, but for their enthusiastic justification of slavery, persecution, torture and genocide."

Adams saw in the Christian right, long before we did, disturbing similarities with the German Christian Church and the Nazi Party, similarities that he said would, in the event of prolonged social instability or a national crisis, see American fascists rise under the guise of religion to dismantle the open society. He despaired of U.S. liberals, who, he said, as in Nazi Germany, mouthed silly platitudes about dialogue and inclusiveness that made them ineffectual and impotent. Liberals, he said, did not understand the power and allure of evil or the cold reality of how the world worked. The current hand-wringing by Democrats, with many asking how they can reach out to a movement whose leaders brand them "demonic" and "satanic," would not have surprised Adams. Like Bonhoeffer, he did not believe that those who would fight effectively in coming times of turmoil, a fight that for him was an integral part of the biblical message, would come from the church or the liberal, secular elite.

His critique of the prominent research universities, along with the media, was no less withering. These institutions, self-absorbed, compromised by their close relationship with government and corporations, given enough of the pie to be complacent, were unwilling to deal with the fundamental moral questions and inequities of the age. They had no stomach for a battle that might cost them their prestige and comfort. He told me, I suspect half in jest, that if the Nazis took over America "60 percent of the Harvard faculty would begin their lectures with the Nazi salute." But this too was not an abstraction. He had watched academics at the University of Heidelberg, including the philosopher Martin Heidegger, raise their arms stiffly to students before class.

Two decades later, even in the face of the growing reach of the Christian right, his prediction seems apocalyptic. And yet the powerbrokers in the Christian right have moved from the fringes of society to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the House before the last elections earned approval ratings of 80 to100 percent from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. President Bush has handed hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid to these groups and dismantled federal programs in science, reproductive rights and AIDS research to pay homage to the pseudo-science and quackery of the Christian right.

Bush will, I suspect, turn out to be no more than a weak transition figure, our version of Otto von Bismarck -- who also used "values" to energize his base at the end of the 19th century and launched "Kulturkampf," the word from which we get culture wars, against Catholics and Jews. Bismarck's attacks, which split Germany and made the discrediting of whole segments of the society an acceptable part of the civil discourse, paved the way for the Nazis' more virulent racism and repression.

The radical Christian right, calling for a "Christian state" -- where whole segments of American society, from gays and lesbians to liberals to immigrants to artists to intellectuals, will have no legitimacy and be reduced, at best, to second-class citizens -- awaits a crisis, an economic meltdown, another catastrophic terrorist strike or a series of environmental disasters. A period of instability will permit them to push through their radical agenda, one that will be sold to a frightened American public as a return to security and law and order, as well as moral purity and prosperity. This movement -- the most dangerous mass movement in American history -- will not be blunted until the growing social and economic inequities that blight this nation are addressed, until tens of millions of Americans, now locked in hermetic systems of indoctrination through Christian television and radio, as well as Christian schools, are reincorporated into American society and given a future, one with hope, adequate wages, job security and generous federal and state assistance.

The unchecked rape of America, which continues with the blessing of both political parties, heralds not only the empowerment of this American oligarchy but the eventual death of the democratic state and birth of American fascism.

http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/storyimage_thumb_020807story_1170898325.jpg
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 12:45 pm
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 04, 2007

Bush seeks record $245bn for war

George Bush, the US president, is to ask congress for $245bn to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - while proposing curbs in spending on the US health care system.

Bush, speaking in his weekly radio address on Saturday, said Monday's budget proposal would emphasise restraint on domestic spending and make military funding the top priority.

Bush is to request $100bn for the rest of the current fiscal year and $145bn for next year, an administration official told Reuters news agency.

His budget also proposes squeezing about $70bn in savings from the US Medicare and Medicaid health programmes over the next five years.



SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2007

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has harshly criticised the US for what he said was an attempt to force its will on the rest of the world.


"What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master," he said to an annual gathering of top security and defence officials in Munich, Germany, on Saturday.

"It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion," Putin said.

"People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves."

'World less safe'

Putin said that the US, above other western nations, had repeatedly overstepped its national borders in questions of international security, a policy that he said had not made the world safer.

On the contrary, the world had become less safe, he said.

Putin said: "Unilateral actions have not resolved conflicts but have made them worse.

"This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure any more because nobody can hide behind international law."

He did not mention any specific conflicts, but he has been very critical of the US decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Missile defence system

Putin also voiced concern about US plans to build a missile defence system in eastern Europe, probably Poland and the Czech Republic, and the expansion of Nato as possible challenges to Russia.

"The process of Nato expansion has nothing to do with modernisation of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe," Putin said.

"On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust."

He also dismissed suggestions that the European Union and Nato had the right to intervene alone in crisis regions.

"The legitimate use of force can only done by the United Nations, it cannot be replaced by EU or Nato," he said.

On the missile defence system, Putin said: "I don't want to accuse anyone of being aggressive" but suggested it would seriously change the balance of power and could provoke an unspecified response.

"That balance will be upset completely and one side will have a feeling of complete security and given a free hand in local, and probably in global, conflicts...," he said.

"We need to respond to this."
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 02:40 pm
Operation Occupation: A Nation that does not take care of its Veterans has no business whatsoever making new ones.
Submitted by stacybannerman on Sat, 2007-02-10

Saturday 10 February 2007

Operation Occupation moved in to Capitol Hill this week, starting with the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the 2008 Defense Budget and Fiscal Year 2007/2008 War supplemental appropriations with Secretary of Defense Gates, General Pace, and DOD Controller Jonas on Tuesday, February 6th. I arrived shortly before Chairman Carl Levin, (D-MI) gave his opening remarks, and sat near Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin and several other Pinkers, who interrupted proceedings several times, until they were escorted from the room.

This is probably the fourth or fifth House or Senate hearing I've attended over the past three years where the focus was the cost of the war in Iraq. Not a single one has ever included testimony from soldiers or military families about the human costs of war. Perhaps because there's not a line item category that will ever be large enough to contain it.
At least Senator Byrd had the presence of mind to ask the panel, "Can you give us some idea as to the … cost in dead and wounded as of now? We can probably get that from the newspapers, but do you have it?"

Silence.

He asked again.

More silence.

Sweet Jesus, can it really be that NO ONE on the Panel knew the answer? That not one of the Senators who keep sending our soldiers to war knew how many had come home in a coffin? In a wheelchair? With the psychic equivalent of a sucking chest wound that is Post-traumatic stress disorder?

God forbid they should look at the armband I was wearing with 3,101 written in black, the death tally that day. That they read that the V.A. has already seen approximately 64,000 troops for post-combat mental health problems; that there are almost 53,000 non-fatal combat and non-combat related casualties, according to the Associated Press. But they drag you out if you tell the truth.

Secretary Gates didn't have to worry about that, though, when he misinformed the Committee, saying, "We honestly don't see any permanent bases [in Iraq]." Dude, you need to go there, then, and take a closer look, or just talk to the soldiers who have been stationed at those invisible permanent bases. At one point, Secretary Gates responded to one of the Senator's questions about National Guard deployments with - I am paraphrasing, but this is pretty darn close to what he said- "the plan is to have them deployed for just one year out of every five."
Not one of the Senators contradicted the statement, apparently unaware of, or unwilling to embarrass Sec. Gates by pointing out that on January 11, 2007, the Pentagon (which, if I am not mistaken, is where Gates hangs out) stated that it was discarding the time limit that prevented Guard and Reservists from serving more than twenty-four total months on active duty for either the Iraq or Afghan wars. And Gates and Pace are so obviously removed from the on-the-ground reality that they weren't aware that Guard mobilizations are typically a year and a HALF, the longest of virtually any branch of service.

These are just a few fantastic tidbits from the folks who are making the decisions about the lives of our loved ones and the future of this nation. What are we paying these people for? If you're so inclined, you can watch the whole sorry affair at C-Span.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 02:46 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/images/0203-01.jpg
Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington February 1, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)

War a Calamity, Ex-Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski Tells US Congress
by Barry Schweid

WASHINGTON -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq is a calamity and likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large."

Testifying before the Senate foreign relations committee Thursday, Brzezinski skewered U.S. administration policy as driven by "imperial hubris" and a disaster on historic, strategic and moral grounds.

Bush Administration Savaged

While other former U.S. officials and ex-generals have criticized administration policy in committee hearings, none savaged it to the degree Brzezinski did.

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large," said the security adviser in the Democratic administration of former president Jimmy Carter.

He set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq failing to meet benchmarks set by the administration, followed by accusations Iran is responsible for the failure, then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran, culminating in so-called defensive U.S. military action against Iran.

That, Brzezinski said, would plunge the United States into a spreading quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Proposing a massive shift in policy, Brzezinski, who holds a senior position at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the United States should announce unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq "in a reasonably short period of time."

Second, he said, the United States should announce it is undertaking talks with Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed.

Instead, he said, the administration is developing a mythical, historical narrative to justify the case for a protracted and potential expanding war.

Initially based on false claims Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, Brzezinski said "the war is now being redefined as the decisive ideological struggle of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism."

© Copyright 2007 Associated Press
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 02:54 pm
TA soldiers called-up for Taliban offensive
Published: 02 February 2007

Call-up notices are going to estate agents, dustmen, lawyers and electricians to take on the Taliban in south Afghanistan.

More than 400 "civvy street" soldiers in the Territorial Army are being summoned from their private jobs to reinforce British Army regular soldiers to repulse a Taliban spring offensive.


*****************

I saw this in the Independent a few days ago - no where else - not the BBC
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 03:41 pm
endy
Have you visited this site yet?

Robert Graves
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 06:27 pm
Thanks Edgar
That's powerful stuff.

I'll get it onto the War Poetry thread.
I've read a lot about Sassoon and Owen - but I hadn't really come across Graves.

It's especially interesting to me because I'm thinking about writing a 'paper' (don't laugh too hard) on why I think mental trauma suffered inside a War Zone, should (for both armed forces and civilians alike) be called something other than Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (Which I recently heard a doctor on the radio say, a person can suffer from if they back their car into another pulling out of their drive. And I'm sure that's true.)
In reference I sometimes say "war-trauma"
It used to be shell-shock. Why not 'War-shock' ?
That's what it is.
And I don't see why it's called a 'disorder' - when it's a natural reaction to horror (which every soldier experiences on a different level, both externally and internally).

The numbers of suicides amongst vets is going up - people are loosing it here at home and the bastards at the top do nothing. We all know the figures for Vietnam. Twice as many that died in battle. Over 100, 000

!00,000 suicides. You'd think that would tell people something, wouldn't you?





Meanwhile...


Iraq bomb attack soldier is named

A British soldier killed in a roadside bomb attack in Iraq on Friday has been named as Private Luke Daniel Simpson.
The explosion five miles south east of the Basra also injured three other soldiers, one of them critically.
Pte Simpson, 21, from Howden, East Yorkshire, was a member of the 1st Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment.
The MoD said private Simpson was returning to his base from a routine patrol when the device detonated close to the vehicle he was driving.

Lance Corporal Chris Blunsdon said: "He was not the biggest guy in the world, in fact we called him 'kid's body', but he used to go on about how huge he was all the time. I remember him once complaining that the new Land Rover was not big enough for his massive frame and pretending to get cramp in the front seat."

Pte Stuart Brown, formerly of 1 Platoon, said: "You would see a group of giggling troops and guarantee that 'Boob' would be in the middle... I will miss him dearly."

*****************

So it goes on
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 06:44 pm
BTW Edgar I like your new avatar
It's not a model T Ford is it? Probably isn't - but I rode in one of those once at a village car show - when I was just a nipper
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 06:49 pm
That's a photograph of the family car, in the 1940s. It's a '28 or '29 Dodge VIctory Six. Note the wood spoke wheels.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 08:36 pm
I bet if they made electric cars that looked like that - people would buy them right up.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:29 pm
If I ever strike it rich, I intend to try to find one.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 09:53 pm
she's out there somewhere
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Feb, 2007 10:09 pm
(Big headline on BBC site)


Cameron 'smoked drugs at school'


Conservative leader David Cameron took drugs while he was a pupil at Eton College, a new biography has claimed.
The book, serialised in the Independent on Sunday, says Mr Cameron, then aged 15, was one of several boys caught smoking cannabis at Eton.

He confessed and was grounded. Some of the other boys were expelled.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: "David has always maintained politicians have a right to a private life before they come into politics."

He pointed out that the alleged incident happened almost 25 years ago. Mr Cameron, now 40, has so far made no comment.


Mr Cameron was initially asked at a fringe meeting at the 2005 Conservative party conference if he had ever taken drugs.

He told the meeting he had had a "typical student experience", later adding: "I did lots of things before I came into politics which I shouldn't have done. We all did."

Later that same year on BBC One's Question Time, he said everybody was allowed to "err and stray" in their past.

He told the audience he would not bow to a "media-driven agenda" to "dig into politicians' private lives".

'Not relevant'

Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit told BBC News 24 the claims would not do Mr Cameron much good with Tory activists.


(but) Conservative spokesman on Rural Affairs, Peter Ainsworth, said he saw little relevance in the story.

"I frankly don't give a monkey's... it's simply not relevant to what we're doing today with the Conservative Party or to British politics."

****************************


Frankly I don't give a monkey's?
Laughing
The Tories will probably make votes out of this

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42558000/jpg/_42558865_cameron203body_pa.jpg
The Toking Tory
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 05:10 pm
I can't believe the silence here in Britain. It is sickening.




http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/09-02-2007/87250-arms_race-0

Prava (Russia)

USA launches new arms race and prepares to wage war against Russia

America needs a very strong army to be prepared for possible threats in the future. Russia is one of those "future threats," the new Pentagon head Roberts Gates said. "We need a full set of measures to conduct a war, including both special military units necessary for war against terrorists and infantry troops to be able to fight against large regular armies. We do not know what changes can take place in such countries as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and others," Robert Gates stated.

George W. Bush labeled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as "axis of evil" in January 2002. Five years later, when Saddam Hussein's regime no longer exists, the US administration is still concerned about possible enemies. Moreover, Russia and China have been included on the list of potential unpredictable rivals for the USA, in the same line with North Korea and Iran. Unlike the previous potential enemies, the new ones possess large armies.

Does it mean that the USA is getting ready for an armed conflict with Russia and China - two huge countries that have nuclear weapons at their disposal? Russian military specialists believe that Gates publicly declared the USA's intention to stand in an opposition with Russia and China. "Robert Gates specified USA's potential enemies. His speech has most likely been coordinated with the White House and therefore mirrors the official stance of the US administration," retired colonel-general Eduard Vorobyov told the Vremya Novostei newspaper.

Russia and the USA may launch another arms race some time in the future. The Pentagon does not take only verbal actions to attack Russia. The USA has recently deployed radar stations near Russia's borders within the scope of the US air defense program.

Missile Defense Agency director Henry Obering said several days ago that the USA completed the redeployment of a sea-based X-band radar from Hawaii to Adak, in the Aleutian islands. The islands are located close to Russia's Kamchatka region. The radar is about 100 meters long and 65 meters wide, rising 25 meters up above the platform. General Obering said that the sea-based radar would help defend the USA and its allies against attacks of ballistic missiles.

The system is very simple, from the USA's point of view: air defense systems in Eastern Europe will intercept Iranian missiles, whereas complexes based in the Pacific Ocean will destroy North Korea's hope to attack the US. However, Russia and China, the two new links of the "axis of evil," according to the Pentagon, have every reason to believe that the US systems are aimed against their nuclear and rocket potential. The above-mentioned X-band radar connected with intercepting missiles in Alaska embraces a huge territory of Russia's East Siberia, the Far East and China. Such a fact cannot but raise serious concerns with the Russian administration.

Furthermore, deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, Patrick O'Reilly said that the USA intends to put the system on high alert during the current year. At present moment the US has 14 anti-missile complexes in Alaska and two more in California. Their number is to be increased up to 21 and 4 respectively. The quantity of air defense systems in Alaska is to reach 40 by 2011.

It brings up the idea that Moscow and Beijing may not be willing to conduct peaceful cooperation with Washington against such a background.

Major-General Alexander Vladimirov said in an interview with the Vremya Novostei that recent remarks from top US defense officials and the current US-led military activities in the world bear a certain resemblance to war preparations. The specialist believes that the current state of affairs is caused with USA's failures in Iraq and the shattering position of the Republican administration.

Declaring Russia a part of the axis of evil may also be interpreted as an attempt of the US administration to justify the enormous defense spending and inefficient foreign policies of the White House in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia was obviously not happy with those statements from the US Defense Secretary, although they are not supposed to become a reason for a new arms race between the two countries.

Vremya Novostei

Translated by Dmitry Sudakov
Pravda.ru


************************************************


Iran: a war is coming
(John Pilger)

1 Feb 2007

The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its disaster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria", he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

"Networks" means Iran. "There is solid evidence," said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, "that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government." Like Bush's and Blair's claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the "evidence" lacks all credibility. Iran has a natural affinity with the Shia majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda, condemning the 9/11 attacks and supporting the United States in Afghanistan. Syria has done the same. Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons. General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said no such evidence exists.

As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, "neocon" fanatics such as Vice-President Cheney believe their opportunity to control Iran's oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring. For public consumption, there are potent myths. In concert with Israel and Washington's Zionist and fundamentalist Christian lobbies, the Bushites say their "strategy" is to end Iran's nuclear threat. In fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest.

Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations - until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use. The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to "go anywhere and see anything". They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei says that an attack on Iran will have "catastrophic consequences" and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Unlike its two nemeses, the US and Israel, Iran has attacked no other countries. It last went to war in 1980 when invaded by Saddam Hussein, who was backed and equipped by the US, which supplied chemical and biological weapons produced at a factory in Maryland. Unlike Israel, the world's fifth military power with thermo-nuclear weapons aimed at Middle-East targets, an unmatched record of defying UN resolutions and the enforcer of the world's longest illegal occupation, Iran has a history of obeying international law and occupies no territory other than its own.

The "threat" from Iran is entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran's "nuclear ambitions", just as the vocabulary of Saddam's non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage. Accompanying this is a demonising that has become standard practice. As Edward Herman has pointed out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "has done yeoman service in facilitating this"; yet a close examination of his notorious remark about Israel in October 2005 reveals its distortion. According to Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle History, and other Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He said, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". This, says Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all". Ahmadinejad compared the demise of the Jerusalem regime to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Iranian ergime is repressive, but its power is diffuse and exercised by the mullahs, with whom Ahmadinejad is often at odds. An attack would surely unite them.

The one piece of "solid evidence" is the threat posed by the United States. An American naval buildup in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. This is almost certainly part of what the Pentagon calls CONPLAN 8022, which is the aerial bombing of Iran. In 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorisation, was issued. It is classified, of course, but the presumption has long been that NSPD 35 authorised the stockpiling and deployment of "tactical" nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This does not mean Bush will use them against Iran, but for the first time since the most dangerous years of the cold war, the use of what were then called "limited" nuclear weapons is being openly discussed in Washington. What they are debating is the prospect of other Hiroshimas and of radioactive fallout across the Middle East and Central Asia. Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker last year that American bombers "have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions . . . since last summer".

The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by Cruise missiles launched in the Mediterranean. "The war in Iraq," he wrote on 24 January, "was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries. [When the attack on Iran begins] Israel is sure to come under Iranian missile strikes. Posing as victims, the Israelis will suffer some tolerable damage and then an outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution . . . Public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian hysteria, leaks, disinformation etcetera . . . It remains unclear whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war."

Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the "surge" of US troops to Iraq, Vice-President Cheney said, "It won't stop us." Last November, a majority of the American electorate voted for the Democratic Party to control Congress and stop the war in Iraq. Apart from insipid speeches of "disapproval", this has not happened and is unlikely to happen. Influential Democrats, such as the new leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and would-be presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have disported themselves before the Israeli lobby. Edwards is regarded in his party as a "liberal". He was one of a high-level American contingent at a recent Israeli conference in Herzilya, where he spoke about "an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel (sic). At the top of these threats is Iran . . . All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon." Hillary Clinton has said, "US policy must be unequivocal . . . We have to keep all options on the table." Pelosi and Howard Dean, another liberal, have distinguished themselves by attacking former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt and has had the gall to write a truthful book accusing Israel of becoming an "apartheid state". Pelosi said, "Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party." She is right, alas.

In Britain, Downing Street has been presented with a document entitled "Answering the Charges" by Professor Abbas Edalal of Imperial College, London, on behalf of others seeking to expose the disinformation on Iran. Blair remains silent. Apart from the usual honourable exceptions, Parliament remains shamefully silent.

Can this really be happening again, less than four years after the invasion of Iraq which has left some 650,000 people dead? I wrote virtually this same article early in 2003; for Iran now read Iraq then. And is it not remarkable that North Korea has not been attacked? North Korea has nuclear weapons. That is the message, loud and clear, for the Iranians.

In numerous surveys, such as that conducted this month by BBC World Service, "we", the majority of humanity, have made clear our revulsion for Bush and his vassals. As for Blair, the man is now politically and morally naked for all to see. So who speaks out, apart from Professor Edalal and his colleagues? Privileged journalists, scholars and artists, writers and thespians who sometimes speak about "freedom of speech" are as silent as a dark West End theatre. What are they waiting for? The declaration of another thousand year Reich, or a mushroom cloud in the Middle East, or both?


http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=426

************************************


NO MORE WAR
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 05:11 pm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/images/0210-01.jpg
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 07:33 pm
Iraq Veterans Against the War

http://www.ivaw.org/


Why we're against the war

Q: Why are veterans, active duty, and National Guard men and women opposed to the war in Iraq?

A: Here are 10 reasons we oppose this war:

1. The Iraq war is based on lies and deception.
The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001. They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict. They hide our casualties of war by banning the filming of our fallen's caskets when they arrive home, and when they refuse to allow the media into Walter Reed Hospital and other Veterans Administration facilities which are overflowing with maimed and traumatized veterans.
For further reading: www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/index.html


2. The Iraq war violates international law.
The United States assaulted and occupied Iraq without the consent of the UN Security Council. In doing so they violated the same body of laws they accused Iraq of breaching.
For further reading:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm
http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/


3. Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq.
From privately contracted soldiers and linguists to no-bid reconstruction contracts and multinational oil negotiations, those who benefit the most in this conflict are those who suffer the least. The United States has chosen a path that directly contradicts President Eisenhower's farewell warning regarding the military industrial complex. As long as those in power are not held accountable, they will continue...
For further reading:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0714-01.htm
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/


4. Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq.
Despite attempts in training and technological sophistication, large-scale civilian death is both a direct and indirect result of United States aggression in Iraq. Even the most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths number over 100,000. Currently over 100 civilians die every day in Baghdad alone.
For further reading:
http://www.nomorevictims.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A1EF73C5A0C758DDDA10894DE404482


5. Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war.
All in service to this country swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, they are prosecuted if they object to serve in a war they see as illegal under our Constitution. As such, our brothers and sisters are paying the price for political incompetence, forced to fight in a war instead of having been sufficiently trained to carry out the task of nation-building.
For further reading:
http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/content/view/172/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qa6ZHYcG_EM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dAXQeH7y9g&mode=related&search=
http://girights.objector.org


6. Service members are facing serious health consequences due to our Government's negligence.
Many of our troops have already been deployed to Iraq for two, three, and even four tours of duty averaging eleven months each. Combat stress, exhaustion, and bearing witness to the horrors of war contribute to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a serious set of symptoms that can lead to depression, illness, violent behavior, and even suicide. Additionally, depleted uranium, Lariam, insufficient body armor and infectious diseases are just a few of the health risks which accompany an immorally planned and incompetently executed war. Finally, upon a soldier's release, the Veterans Administration is far too under-funded to fully deal with the magnitude of veterans in need.
For further reading:
http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/
http://www.vets4vets.us/


7. The war in Iraq is tearing our families apart.
The use of stop-loss on active duty troops and the unnecessarily lengthy and repeat active tours by Guard and Reserve troops place enough strain on our military families, even without being forced to sacrifice their loved ones for this ongoing political experiment in the Middle East.
For further reading: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_loss_092704,00.html


8. The Iraq war is robbing us of funding sorely needed here at home.
$5.8 billion per month is spent on a war which could have aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina, gone to impoverished schools, the construction of hospitals and health care systems, tax cut initiatives, and a host of domestic programs that have all been gutted in the wake of the war in Iraq.
For further reading:
http://www.costofwar.com


9. The military uses racism and discrimination as tools.
In order to recruit for the Iraq War, the most vulnerable minority and social groups in the United States are preyed upon to be used as cannon fodder. Once inside the military, they are subject to racism, sexism including harassment and assault, homophobia, and religious intolerance. When at war, the troops are taught to dehumanize the people of Iraq as an enemy with intolerance and racist epithets.
For further reading:
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1338&theType=NR
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/fear-mongering-leads-to-anti-arab.html


10. Today's youth face aggressive recruitment tactics that don't tell the whole story.
Popular perception of the military as an "all-volunteer force" hides the fact that our future troops are aggressively recruited from our lowest income neighborhoods. Economically conscripted, the poor and socially vulnerable young are bought with the lies of discipline, education and civilian job training to carry out the wishes of powerful political individuals who are far from war's true horror.
For further reading:
http://presstelegram.com/news/ci_4181091http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=52249302ccbe366889f3258d46e2eabd
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 07:57 am
For Neocons, an Attack on Iran Has Been a Six-Year Project
Larisa Alexandrovna, Raw Story
The escalation of war rhetoric against Iran from the Bush White House and the neocons is just the latest installment of a long-term plan for another preemptive war.

The Media Escalates Its Lies about Iran
David Swanson, davidswanson.org
MediaCulture: Reporters from the New York Times and others are trying to convince us that this time around, we can trust the U.S. intelligence community's evidence of Iran's bad intentions, but where is the evidence?

http://www.alternet.org/

*******************************************************

Target Tehran: Washington sets stage for a new confrontation
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 12 February 2007 UK Independent




The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the "highest levels" of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf.

"We assess that these activities are coming from senior levels of the Iranian government," said an official in Baghdad, charging that the explosive devices come from the al-Quds Brigade and noting that it answers to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. This is the first time the US has openly accused the Iranian government of being involved in sending weapons that kill Americans to Iraq.

The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.

The insurgent groups have repeatedly denounced the democratically elected Iraqi government as pawns of Iran. It is unlikely that the Sunni guerrillas have received significant quantities of military equipment from Tehran. Some 1,190 US soldiers have been killed by so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But most of them consist of heavy artillery shells (often 120mm or 155mm) taken from the arsenals of the former regime and detonated by blasting caps wired to a small battery. The current is switched on either by a command wire or a simple device such as the remote control used for children's toys or to open garage doors.

Such bombs were used by guerrillas during the Irish war of independence in 1919-21 against British patrols and convoys. They were commonly used in the Second World War, when "shaped charges", similar in purpose to the EFPs of which the US is now complaining, were employed by all armies. The very name - explosive formed penetrators - may have been chosen to imply that a menacing new weapon has been developed.

At the end of last year the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, President Bush has taken a precisely opposite line, blaming Iran and Syria for US losses in Iraq.

In the past month Washington has arrested five Iranian officials in a long-established office in Arbil, the Kurdish capital. An Iranian diplomat was kidnapped in Baghdad, allegedly by members of an Iraqi military unit under US influence. President George Bush had earlier said that Iranians deemed to be targeting US forces could be killed, which seemed to be opening the door to assassinations.

The statements from Washington give the impression that the US has been at war with Shia militias for the past three-and-a-half years while almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. These are often led by highly trained former officers and men from Saddam Hussein's elite military and intelligence units. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the US and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces.

The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.

The White House may have decided that, in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, it would be much to its political advantage in the US to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents.

It is likely that Shia militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible that the Sunni insurgents have received some aid. But most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein. His well-supplied arsenals were all looted after his fall. No specialist on Iraq believes that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency.

The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the US and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shias have been at war with the US while in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Revolution
  3. » Page 11
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 11:20:04