All 8 entries tagged War
May 16, 2008
April 21, 2008
Writing about web page http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?hp
December 04, 2007
Writing about web page http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00801220071203
A new U.S. intelligence report says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that it remains on hold.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate concluded: "We do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
This contrasts strongly with an intelligence report two years ago that stated Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons."
However, the new assessment said the technical capabilities Iran is pursuing would likely be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon "sometime during the 2010-2015 time-frame." So that might yet provide the Bush administration (or a prospective Clinton administration) with enough terror to fuel their wars for corporate command and control.
Full story at Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00801220071203
November 28, 2007
This is the extended edit of an article I wrote for today’s Warwick Boar (unfortunately they didn’t seem to receive my emails with the new version!):
Why things will get worse in the US under Hillary
Bush – Clinton – Bush…..Clinton? If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency of the USA in 2008, the country will have watched the same tag-team tournament for 19 years. It feels like one of those maddening instances of sports coverage where for some reason the game refuses to end, gliding past the surrendering boundaries of the TV schedule, and while you bemoan the futility of it all the commentators get more and more worked up about how immensely exciting it is. I wish the crowd would just stand up and do that chant, “Blow the f-ing whistle, blow the f-ing whistle…”
By the most recent estimates Hillary Clinton holds a massive 33 point lead on her closest Democratic competitor, Barack Obama, and she has raised more money for her campaign (over $90 million) than all the Democratic and Republican candidates combined. Given that the Republican candidates are, with the exception of grassroots contender Ron Paul, such unapologetic, unrelenting warmongers at a time when a majority of the public is solidly against the Iraq war and the Republican administration, the surely nominated Hillary will go up against an unelectable Republican ticket.
Hillary’s recent rhetoric over the Iraq war (a “grotesque mistake” and a case of “mismanagement”) is, sadly, convincing enough for a large constituent of faithful Democrats, despite the fact that she voted for the war and backed it for 3 years. They don’t recognize the couched complicity of her position that US forces must persist in Iraq until there is a “unified government”. As one Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin described it, “she sneaks and slithers past you with her opinion on a war that kills every day.” Hillary has said that she if she wins the presidency she won’t take US troops out of Iraq even by 2013. Journalist Ted Kopel recently told NPR that she has also admitted that troops would be in Iraq at the end of her second term – that’s 2018.
Mrs. Clinton is also encouraging a more hostile policy towards Iran, suggesting military force and criticizing Bush for not being aggressive or hasty enough in branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard an “international terrorist organization”. She really is stretching her hand up highest in a class full of war hawks. Accordingly, the “defence” industry has now publicly abandoned its allies in the Republican Party and is backing Hillary.
Of course, it is not so much Hillary’s policies that ensure the success of her campaign as her celebrity status. The lasting sympathetic picture of a wronged yet strong wife, the exciting prospect of a female president, the accolade of “experience”, all of this has distracted the public from the question of whether Hillary would actually offer the country a departure from the Bush/Cheney administration’s imperialism, domestic authoritarianism and unaccountability. I dread Hillary’s success in 2008 because she will, on the contrary, “stay the course”, with the added problem that Democrats who would usually stand up to the moronic menace of Bush will feel less inclined to stand up to the “liberal” autocracy of Clinton.
Still, some liberals know to jump off the bandwagon when Rupert Murdoch jumps on. Murdoch, the chairman and CEO of News Corp and an open cheerleader of the Bush administration, hosted a fundraiser dinner for Mrs. Clinton last year.
“But isn’t Murdoch a conservative and Clinton a liberal?!” we instinctively cry. No. In fact these labels have been spun past the orbit of recognition. Both Murdoch and Clinton favour big government and imperial war, same as the Bush administration. Bush the “conservative” borrowed over £1.05 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions from 2001-2005. That’s more than the accumulated borrowings of all previous Presidents.
Hillary will now inherit much newfangled machinery of state corporatism from the Bush years, for example the sprawling Department of Homeland Security, whose internal records show that 0.0015% of cases they deal with are actually terrorism related, and the “New Freedom Initiative”, a Big Pharma program of compulsory mental health tests for all children and eventually all adults. Similar developments will no doubt accelerate with Hillary in the White House because she has even fewer inhibitions about promoting Statism.
Corruption of power and the power of corruption will always saturate the political process but they are made less of a threat by a) tying the hands of the government’s executive branch and b) anticipating the accession of politicians with compromised or dubious track records. Here’s the current situation:
a) The current members of the executive have casually declared themselves unaccountable to Congress; Cheney even announced that his office is independent of the executive. This is additional to the dictatorial powers provided by congressionally approved legislation, for example the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which completely erases “habeas corpus” (the most important constitutional safeguard of personal liberty), and the Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which allows the President to declare martial law autonomously.
b) The Bushes and Clintons are utterly compromised politicians and businesspeople (extending beyond booze and blowjobs). They’re even personally affiliated. George Bush Snr and Bill Clinton are good friends and Barbara Bush calls Clinton a “surrogate son”. Perhaps the drug smuggling operations through Mena in the ‘80s provided some common ground. Or maybe Bush, as a former CIA director, was especially forthcoming to Clinton on account of his work for the CIA while at Oxford University (and conceivably beyond).
Within the inscrutable world of such connections, the most intriguing insight into the current political game in America is provided by Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s Georgetown mentor who helped get him the Rhodes scholarship to Oxford. Quigley wrote candidly in his encyclopedic “Tragedy and Hope: a History of the World in Our Time” that he was permitted in the early 1960s to examine the records of “an international Anglophile network” working through round table groups and cagey front organisations like the Council on Foreign Relations (whose select membership includes Fortune 100 CEOs like Rupert Murdoch, bankers, and politicos like Henry Kissinger, Irving Kristol, Dick Cheney and the Clintons) to “create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country” in a “feudalist fashion”.
Quigley wrote that in US politics “the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election, without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy”. This is exactly what we are seeing.
Enough with the phony pro-wrestling, the American public need to get in the ring and blow the whistle themselves.
September 27, 2007
Writing about web page http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/270907_offered_exile.htm
Saddam Offered Exile, But Neo-Cons Unleashed Carnage Anyway
What could have been saved? A trillion dollars, a million lives, the global reputation of the U.S. - but that wasn't the plan
Paul Joseph Watson
Neo-Cons could have saved a trillion dollars, spared over a million lives and prevented tens of thousands of dead and injured U.S. soldiers but decided to unleash carnage anyway, after it was revealed last night that Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq.
"Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion)," reports the Daily Mail.
"The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.""The White House refused to comment on the report last night. But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted."
According to the tapes, Bush told Aznar that whether Saddam was still in Iraq or not, "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."
Why didn't the Neo-Cons take Saddam's offer? After all, the invasion was about "weapons of mass destruction" and "spreading freedom", we were told. With the dictator gone, the U.N. and American forces were free to roam the country in search of the non-existent weapons while setting up the "utopian democracy" that Iraqis now live under.
The Neo-Cons didn't take the offer because the invasion of Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, it was about making fat profits for the military-industrial complex by bombing the country back into the stone age, slaughtering countless innocents in the process, seizing control of oil factories, and setting up military bases as a means of launching the Empire's next jaunt into Iran.
The invasion of Iraq was about having a justification to stay there indefinitely and break the country up into different pieces as was the plan all along.
Here's what $1 billion could have saved us.
- At least $200 million every single day that could have been spent on fighting poverty, building schools, taking men to Mars, ad infinitum.
- At least $1 trillion that the Iraq war will eventually cost if we ever leave. A trillion is a million millions.
- At least 1 million dead Iraqis according to the latest numbers, along with millions more that will die in the years to come as a result of depleted uranium poisoning, malnutrition, cholera and all manner of other horrors brought about by the invasion.
- Over 1.1 million displaced Iraqis who have been forced to leave their new "utopian democracy" and another million who have been forced to leave their homes due to sectarian violence and persecution.
- Over 3800 dead U.S. soldiers since the invasion began.
- 300 dead coalition soldiers since the invasion began.
- Anything from 23,000 to 100,000 injured U.S. soldiers since the invasion began.
- The reputation of the U.S. around the world as the most hated nation on earth.
- The ballooning deficit and the probable eventual collapse of the U.S. dollar and the economy.
Thanks Neo-Cons - I hope it was worth it.
September 05, 2007
Writing about web page http://infowars.net/articles/september2007/050907Iran_war.htm
Fox News Responds To Cheney Call For Iran Attack PR Blitz
The propaganda flows from the administration's favourite warmongering mouthpiece
Wednesday, Sept 5, 2007
Following yesterday's revelation that Dick Cheney has ordered top Neo-Con media outlets to unleash a PR blitz to sell a war with Iran, Fox News has already responded with two prime time slots devoted to all out warmongering propaganda in favour of a strike on Iran's facilities.
The New Yorker magazine reported yesterday that Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that "instructions" had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.
"It will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects, writes Rubin, "It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”
The onslaught has already begun on Fox News with both the FOX & Friends and Hannity & Colmes shows devoting extensive segments to discussions on attacking Iran.
The former show featured arch Neocon, Weekly Standard Editor and PNAC Chairman Bill Kristol who gave not one but two reasons for bombing Iran. Kristol stated that the US will have to take action either to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program or in order to quell alleged support of Iraqi insurgents by Iranian forces.
"We may have to do more to stop Iran, at least with respect to Iraq, leave aside the nuclear program." Kristol stated.
He neglected to mention the fact that Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents has not been verified by any intelligence and has been flatly refuted by the Iranian government. In addition it is so called "Al Qaeda affiliated insurgent groups" that the U.S. government is openly funding and supporting in order to carry out bombings in Iran and destabilize Ahmadinejad's power base.
The Iranian government is also diplomatically allied to the current Iraqi government, where as the Neocon White House has recently been implicated in the actual overthrow and replacement of the Iraqi administration.
Watch the video courtesy of News Hounds:
Later the same evening Hannity and Colmes featured Michael Ledeen whom Hannity announced as one of his favourite authors, calling his newest book on how Iran needs to be attacked "terrific".
Ledeen spouted that “It could be almost any day now where we have two terrible choices to make, do we accept the existence of a nuclear Iran, with all that implies or do we attack them militarily, which is also a terrible choice."
Hannity then suggested that there is a modicum of gender inequality in Iran, as if that provides reasoning for attacking the country with military force, and stated that he "views them as the rise of Nazi-ism in our time".
Watch the video:
An organized mass media campaign to propagandize for a military strike on Iran mirrors exactly what happened in late 2002 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq and would be seen as par for the course in anticipation of an attack that presidential candidate Ron Paul amongst other expert observers fear will take place within 12 months.
All indications are that an attack is imminent. The London Times reported on Sunday that the Pentagon had finalized plans for a 3 day blitz designed to annihilate 1,200 targets in Iran and destroy the country's military capability. In addition President Bush has warned of the risk of a "nuclear holocaust" if the Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear capability, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has intimated that an attack is on the cards, The White House has declared the Iranian army a terrorist group, and the U.S. has stationed three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.
July 28, 2007
Writing about web page http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html
Pat Tillman, famous American Football player who joined the US army eight months after the 9/11 attacks, became a poster-child for the "War on Terror". Unfortunately for the US establishment, when Tillman discovered that the invasion of Iraq was built on a foundation of lies and saw first-hand the destruction brought to Iraq by "Operation Iraqi Freedom", he was prepared to return home and become an anti-war figure.
As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion, Tillman told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, "You know, this war is so fucking illegal," and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election. Tillman had even begun to arrange meetings with anti-war icons like Noam Chomsky upon his return to America. On April 22nd, 2004, he was killed in action by friendly fire while on patrol in Afghanistan, where he had been re-deployed.
The Associated Press came out with this report 2 days ago: 'New Details on Tillman's Death', demolishing the official, accidental "friendly fire" explanation.
As well as the suspicious proximity of the three bullet holes in Tillman's forehead, leading doctors to conclude that he had been killed by an M-16 fired from just 10 yards away, and the fact that no other person, nor any government equipment was hit by enemy fire, new documents reveal that "Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments."
This again reveals the true colours of the felons behind the Iraq War. They claim to be spreading freedom and democracy, yet they do it by means of aggressively silencing and in this case literally killing dissent.
July 25, 2007
Writing about web page http://infowars.net/articles/july2007/230707ExecOrder.htm
Monday, July 23, 2007
President Bush's newest executive order states that any American citizen who threatens the peace and stability of Iraq and undermines efforts to promote reconstruction and reform there may have all their property and interests seized by the Treasury department without warning. The hypocrisy on display here is astounding given that the only persons in America who are doing these things are the ones who invaded Iraq in the first place and continue to sow chaos and destruction in the face of all time high public opposition.
The Executive Order titled 'Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq' was signed last week on the 17th of July and acts as an amendment to the National Emergencies Act.
While many have decried it as the latest in a string of legislation that constitutes a crack down on protest and free speech, few have pointed out the ultimate irony that under this order high ranking members of the Bush administration are the only ones that should be punishable.
The order focuses on
...acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq
stating that since such acts pose an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security" of the United States, "all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States" should be "blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in".
The order states that those who are subject to it include:
...any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
Which "persons" in America are responsible for initiating a war which has seen somewhere in the region of 655, 000 innocent Iraqis lose their lives?
Which "persons" in the U.S. are responsible for the orchestration of Death squads in Iraq?
Which "persons" in America, according to high ranking army officials and investigators are responsible for operating coordinated torture programs throughout Iraq?
Who are the "persons" in the U.S. calling for the balkanization of Iraq and its dissolution into three territories, and which "persons" have formulated plans such as the Salvador Option and P2OG, the objective of which is to provoke violence and separation amongst Iraqi tribal groups?
Which "persons" in the US are responsible for constructing highly unpopular separating walls around Baghdad neighborhoods despite the continued protests of the Iraqi government?
Which "persons" in America are arming, training and funding Sunni insurgents, the very same people they are supposedly in pitched battle with?
Which "persons" in the U.S. are now reportedly planning to topple the democratically elected government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki because they are opposed to his strong criticism of widespread and unwarranted interference by Washington in Iraqi domestic affairs?
Which "persons" are responsible for sending a further fifty thousand troops into the country saying they wish to quell the violence but instead end up increasing it to all time highs?
So given all these facts, whose actions towards Iraq are responsible for endangering the national security of the U.S. and whose properties and interests should be at risk?
One thing is for sure, it's not peaceful anti-war protestors.