Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Gen. Tony McPeak: "The Turks would go berserk. They would see Kurdistan as a base for the Kurdish insurgency inside Turkey, which has bedeviled them like the IRA in Ireland or the Basques in Spain."

They're not the only ones with a plan for the Kurds. So does the hereditary Ba'athist dictatorship in Syria:

Although Syria has links with politicians from the Shi'ite sect dominating the post Saddam Hussein political system, it has supported calls by Arab Sunnis to revise the policy of firing former members of Iraq's Baath Party, which ruled Iraq for 35 years, from the army and the government.

Syria says Iraq's federal constitution, written under US occupation, should not comprise the country's unity, encourage sectarianism and erode Iraq's "Arab identity".

That's politically correct speak for "Iraq's constitution should not give autonomy to the Kurds" because "We would like to get back to the way it was when our fellow Ba'ath Socialists ran Iraq." And these are the thugs behind the "resistance".

Daniel Smythe: "Congratulations, Mike. Then you belong to a group [Americans] that ninety percent of the world hate and fear according to many different surveys (but not ones carried out by the White House)."

Well, not according to this survey:

A total of 70 per cent (of Australians) said the alliance (with the USA)  was either very or fairly important. When "somewhat important" was included, a huge 92 per cent felt there was a degree of importance in the alliance (despite George W. Bush). Yet Australians believe their leaders toady too much to the US, a view driven by the Iraq war.

Also...

So Britain, predictably, topped this year's poll (of nations Australians are 'favourably disposed toward) at 74 per cent, another proof of the pull of cultural tradition. It was followed by Singapore on 65 per cent and Japan on 64 per cent. The US rated 62 per cent, the same as India.

And the Yanks didn't do bad in this one either, which ranks the USA the third most popular tourist destination in the world after France and Spain.

Maybe you could tell us which surveys you were talking about Daniel?

Mike Lyvers: "the voters didn't vote the way you wanted..."

Hmmm, democracy. I believe that a fair and fully functioning democracy has at least these pre-requisites; 1) an educated and engaged electorate, 2) a free and fair press, and 3) a varied choice of competent candidates.

IMHO, what we actually have, is 1) an electorate which is mesmerised by the portrayal of all possible perversions plus near endless sport and other vile trivia like "Big Brother" on their flat-panel TVs and further, are pre-occupied with a cargo-cult, many going obese on junk-food, and blasting CO2 by the bucket-full out'a behemoth fat 4WDs (and even grosser SUVs, Ameri-speak - spit! Spit!), 2) a corrupt and venal MSM (including big bits'a the AusBC and SBS; boo! Hiss!) all shoving a lying paradigm down our necks, and 3) a corrupt two-party system whereby both parties represent corrupt big-business far more than ever representing us, we the sheople®.

Oh yeah, nearly forgot: apart from misrepresenting us, apart from currently being obsessed with the character of the opposition (pot/kettle; Haw!), I find it absolutely abhorrent that we were lied into an illegal war. Did I mentioned that before?

So apart from having a practically worthless vote every three years or so, to choose between tweedledum and tweedledumber - and recalling that real bewdy when our grave concerns over the impending illegal invasion of Iraq were dismissed out-of-hand and as coming from 'a mob,' I don't really think our democracy 'cuts the mustard.' (Do you, dear reader?)

Dear Mr Lyvers, you obviously believe (or give a good impression of believing) that we live in close-to if not the best of all possible worlds; that everything in the garden is Oh-so-lover-ly, and that, for example, the wanna-be hegemon has the right to murder for oil, its illegal sprog has the right to murder for land and water, and that the side-kick and the dag are dead within their rights to be gung-ho accessories.

An approximate summary of your beliefs, Mr Lyvers?

Well ha, ha, Mr Lyvers, my views are to the contrary.

Of course you are welcome to your beliefs, Mr Lyvers, but you probably know that you are unlikely to ever shift my opinion - which, not just BTW, is indeed that the wanna-be hegemon, its illegal sprog, the side-kick and the dag are exactly as described, i.e. the most foul and brutal murdering criminals.

Sooo, why do you bother?

Or, as one'o your like-thinking 'mates' Jay White might say: "What's in it for you? Eh?

Speaking of Jay W, I see that he confirms my projection, the the US will stay until they steal all the oil: "The US is there now (Middle East) and no, and I mean no, future government will be up and leaving... Bloody disgusting murdering thieves, that's all I can say.

Angela Ryan: "The Balkanisation and division of Iraq was indeed the alternative solution that Jay S missed. I am not surprised that one with your philosophy Jay W would not omit it, in fact parade it."

Hey I am not the one who parades quotes and links to political realists such as Henry Kissenger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Poor ole Cyrus Vance would be turning in grave.

Angela Ryan: "I wonder, with people like Jay around who actually have no respect for nation's sovereign rights, whether the whole idea is really a farce and depends upon permission from as Jay puts it the World Order?"

Actually I think you would find a newly created Kurdistan would welcome US support. And it is Iraq that at the moment wants the US the US military out. Or so I keep reading.

Angela Ryan: "Kurdistan is landlocked, a hopeless base for US imperialism and surrounded by enemies. There is no real benefit to the US for this proposal. It also antagonises both Turkey, Iran and Syria regarding Kurdish nationhood. It is politically and strategically for the US the worst possible outcome as it continues a festering target and damages ME relationships important for US interests and adds to the instability of the region."

Actually that it is so close to many of these nations makes it a huge stategic advantage. Added to that a friendly and mostly a welcoming population. Turkey would indeed be a problem, however that is what diplomacy is all about. We are not talking of Iran here.

The US is there now (Middle East) and no, and I mean no, future government will be up and leaving (not after the amount of time and money spent getting there). Their presence will remain in one form or another. Leaving the rest to fight it out will not be their primary concern. And much of the Western world would share (whether they say so publicly or not) the concern of an out of control Middle East making up their own rules. That's realism.

The advantage a future President has is that he/she can always blame the previous one for the unavoidable situation they now find themselves in. After some diplimatic patch up jobs, I think most will find this a case of let's move on.

That's just what I think will happen. And I cannot really see a problem with the US having a protective presence in a newly formed nation that wants them there.

G'day world.

It was exactly four years ago today, when we around here, those of us who cared enough, all trooped down to the Aussie par-lar-ment to demonstrate against the war (then only 'feared;' but what did we know?) - the war that became the illegal invasion of Iraq, now a brutal occupation without any apparent end in sight: endless, heartless, criminal mass-murder for oil.

'Back then' and all across the world were many similar 'demos.'

All ignored.

-=*=-

This day, four years later, is bee-you-tea-full, as seen from my little alcove.

So sad then, to think that this day marks an anniversary we could well have done without: the anniversary of the day B, B & H told us, we 'the mob,' to go and get well and truly st*ffed: "We (B, B & H) will have our war; yous (the sheople®) can all p**s off!"

-=*=-

Is that the end of the story? Basically daaarlings, that's up to you.

G'day Craig, Angela, Daniel, Phil and Jay S., I did take a look at Hagee before bed last night and yes, it was unsettling. The audience reaction especially so. Any attempts to dismiss this kind of rhetoric should be considered in light of the influence of AIPAC and of the Christian right.

Found this editorial in the Daily Star on the what to do about the prospect of nuclear proliferation in the ME.

And interesting comments from Pakistan's defence minister.

BUREWALA: Defence Minister Rao Sikandar Iqbal said on Sunday Pakistan would never provide logistic support to the US in case it attacked Iran.

Addressing a press conference in Vehari, The minister also said, the present Iranian situation is quite worrisome but Pakistan would support Iran as a brother Muslim country. “President Musharraf is working hard for an amicable solution of Iranian nuclear issue,” he added.

And:

Our Kasur correspondent adds: Kasuri said Pakistan desires peace and stability in Afghanistan and a solution to the Kashmir dispute. “Pakistan has a successful foreign policy, as it has amicable relations with two big powers — America and China — at the same time.

He said Pakistan was strengthening its relations with its neighbour China and making a modern high-speed fighter aircraft at the cost of $15 billion in collaboration with China. He hoped that the aircraft would compete with F-16. He said joint military exercises with China would give a new direction to the friendship.

A new direction and one that will not please DC.

warrior n. 1 person experienced or distinguished in fighting. 2 fighting man, esp. of primitive peoples. 3 (attrib.) martial (warrior nation). [French werreior: related to *war] [POD]

enemy n. (pl. -ies) 1 person actively hostile to another. 2 a (often attrib.) hostile nation or army. b member of this. 3 adversary or opponent (enemy of progress). [Latin: related to *in-2, amicus friend] [ibid]

-=*=-

In the beginning, B, B & H told us: "We will disarm him!"

It was a filthy, premeditated lie; see the Downing St. Memo:

Web Results 1 - 100 of about 250,000 English pages for "the Downing Street Memo". (0.24 secs)

The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?

The Downing Street Memo, recently leaked, reveals that President George W. Bush decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the summer 2002 and—determined to ...

www.downingstreetmemo.com/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

It was also in summer 2002 when Howard visited GWBush in Texas, I think it was...

Lies, lies and more filthy lies, then murder for oil... But that's all old stuff, and not quite what I wanna talk about.

-=*=-

Have you noticed, that the Iraqi resistance is now called "the enemy?" And that the US 'grunts' ("Let's go play in Iraq!") are now called "warriors?"

Yep; it's 'framing,' fellas. Oh, and sheilas.

Framing was brought to our attention by Lakoff; he pointed out that so-called conservative think-tanks (actually big-money propaganda factories) had developed 'talking points' for the Repugs, and progressives better take note and learn to counter such. Esoteric? Yes, but nevertheless relevant.

Sooo, now we send in our warriors to kill enemies in Iraq. No matter that the warriors are only there to enable oil theft (Oh, and to 'save' Israel, haw, haw - how sick-making); that a big proportion of the 'collaterals' are women and children, that Iraq is being turned into the sort'a moonscape the US created in Dresden say, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki ("All option" nukes soon coming to Iran?) - the 'framing' now is that our 'warriors' are confronting 'the enemy.'

-=*=-

Consider: Phillip Adams Longing for a little Reagan sunshine

Many lefties are reassessing the Cold Warrior's presidency - March 06, 2007

Adams has brought some good stuff over the years; but this 'sunshine' item is definitely amongst his worst: even the absolute pits - Oh, only IMHO, of course. (Perhaps he thinks the sun shines out of his b*m. Oh OK; cheap.)

But: one of Reagan's multitudinous and nefarious sins (if my recall is correct), was giving the military the vote, which was, up to that time, sensibly denied them.

If the military's job was truly defence, all might be OK - but it obviously isn't. See Iraq, illegal invasion turned brutal occupation, aka murder for oil.

The grunts playing in Iraq are trained and aggressive killers, sent to do imperial 'work.' We might need trained killers for defence - but we neither need 'em nor want 'em for offence. Oh, no.

It used to be, that Iraqis were our friends; now they're our enemies.

It used to be that soldiering was a half-decent profession, now they're indecent, invading warriors. Support our 'honorable' troops? Like hell; they seem more like murdering pariahs.

-=*=-

G'day Jay Somasundaram. IMHO, the US will maintain its garrison in Iraq with their brutal jackboot on the puppet-government's neck, and will probably invade the oil-rich part of Iran bordering Iraq. The killing will only go on and on and on. The US just cannot conceive of getting their filthy, thieving fingers off the oil, now that they are finally there; the 'policy' of murder for oil-theft has bipartisan support - and also (even worse) seeming support from lots'a the sheople®. Q: Why else were B, B & H each re-elected? A: To "stay the course;" to continue as-is with the oil-theft. that's why.

IMHO, the only chance of stopping the criminal US rape of resources is for decent people everywhere to become warriors for peace and raise such a stink that the US is completely and terminally shamed:

"STOP THE KILLING! STOP THE THEFT! GO HOME YANKS!"

Oh. And vote out all those who did then, and continue now, to support murder for oil. They are our real and worst enemies.

Jay Somasundaram: "The problem is, of course, is that (ii) and (iii) will lead to an European style Middle East in a couple of years, and thus an end to discount petrol. It will also lead to a gradual evolution to democracy. We’ve already accepted that we’re going to get higher oil prices. Let’s just get out."

Oh yes, the democracy part. We have no hope of seeing that in this part of the world in our lifetimes. I think the biggest mistake the neocons ever made was thinking that we did. I will admit that once I too thought it a chance (or at least hoped). No chance!

Phil Kendall: "Worse than Nixon? Nah, each worse than Hitler."

You seem to be saying that Nixon is the worst, followed by Bush, Blair and Howard and they all outrank Hitler for worseness. What a curious comment.

Jay Somasundaram, I think you're wrong on two points.

1.  Only a section of what we now know as Iraq would want or even settle for a Shiite Government with close Iranian links.

2. Most people have not accepted massive increases in petrol. The ignorance of oil and how petrol pricing comes about is astounding (a percentage think the government makes the price up, for heavens sake). Most have not got a clue what it means, how it comes about and how much it will effect them. It goes a little deeper than just starting to catch the train of a morning. And I have argued for some time the implications should be spoken about in a clear and rational manner. And the average Joe should at least know it exactly what they could mean.

I suspect you do not remember the '70s? And that is not meant to be condescending. A radical religious government with a very anti-Western bent could make the '70s look like playschool.

Now let's forget neocons under the bed, religious end times lunatics and get serious, hey? The thing most feared by pro-Western capitalist nations is exactly the thing that hard core leftist secretly dream about. It is an united Arabia (preferably socialist, though other forms are acceptable) which will clearly be dominated by a major nation or region. And, of course, an anti-Western Russia and the Asian region lead by communist China comes into this equation. The implications for the world order are huge. So big, in fact, that this will never ever (at least whilst oil remains the main source of energy) be allowed to happen.

And this is the big future problem, Jay. Because if it did happen, or even become likely to happen, that is when war really will begin. And it will begin with full people-backing, making it a real war. And real war is not something anyone (outside of our end times friends) wants to see.

Now I think this surge has no chance of success. Well, not the type of success the more optimistic types are hoping for. And I suspect the more pragmatic in the US military and government already understand this and are now being heard. So I have no doubt alternative plans are well in place.

I find it highly unlikely that when they talk about tactical withdrawal they are meaning "let's all jump on a plane and forget about". I would look more for a cut back in forces and move towards the north (Kurdistan) with a presence still left in Iraq not involved in day to day events. The US is not a dirty word in that neck of the woods and they can also claim to be wanted there and the Kurds needing protection.

The problem Iran faces is when you light a fire (proxy wars) it is hard to put out. And their problem is compounded because the fire is in their backyard. Many of the same tactics now being used on the US could well start being used across their border on them. If a free-for-all does ensue, and it seems probable it will, the US population (war weary) is hardly going to be calling on US troops to be putting an end to it. And by this time they will be placed safely away in their own special patch of heaven, so to speak.

One thing learnt from this whole adventure is that these people hate the US, but they hate each other just that little bit more. And that, Jay, is the world of pragmatism, a world far removed from neocon fairy land and magic democracy dust. A brutal realist view of a number of possible futures that looks at a situation with all bad endings and takes the route that is the least-worst bad ending.

A headline over at huffingtonpost is: "The Injustice at Justice: The White House's Fingerprints Begin to Show"

... if you've been following the sordid saga of the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department. And, as of this weekend, we're inside the White House now.

One from talkingpointsmemo: "Newsweek: Former White House official says the Vice President's office was "out of control," but Scooter Libby is likely to be pardoned after 2008 election."

From tpmmuckraker: "Today's Must Read By Paul Kiel - March 12, 2007, 8:40 AM

Salon's headline, "The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq," pretty much sums it up."

We've heard about illegal intercepts of phones and internet: "Who cares; if you've nothing to hide..."

Worse than Watergate? Nah, worse than the 3rd Reich.

But basically, daaarlings, who gives a s**t?

-=*=-

What really worries me is the continuous slaughter in Iraq, and the "All threats (Nukular? You bet'cha!) are on the table" directed at Iran. Then there's Israel out'a control, and the black-ops (run by Cheney?) to continuously destabilise the ME...

Oh yeah, the resource rip-offs; the US with 5% of the world's population consuming 25% of the world's resources, the greenhouse...

They can all go obese, drive gas-guzzling behemoth 4WDs, live in gross McMansions... (Ooops! Happening here as the great Aussie-unwashed does 'Monkey-see, monkey-do' inspired by the Hollywood-trash on their flat-panel TVs - etc.)

The US of bloody A can turn into a fascist state for all I care; the constitution torn up, people can be abused and even locked up in solitary forever (Hicks; who cares? Obviously guilty of something) - a pox on all of 'em.

But armed robbery with actual deadly force (aka murder for oil) should never have been tolerated, not for the smallest part of a pico-sec.

Yet the illegal invasion turned brutal occupation of Iraq grinds on.

10s if not 100s of 1000s murdered - all in our name: thanks to B, B & H.

Worse than Nixon? Nah, each worse than Hitler.

But who gives a s**t?

It seems to me that no one ever clearly defines exactly what they see as an acceptable solution for Iraq, reluctant to voice the West’s goals. There seem to me three possible objectives for a stable Iraq:

(i) A country with strong military ties to the US.

(ii) A democracy.

(iii) A non-democratic form of government – which will likely turn out to be an Islamist state with a Shi-ite flavour and ties to Iran.

I don’t think the first one was ever possible. The second one was possible soon after the invasion, but since the US was trying for (i), it blew it. The third is still possible, and something I suspect the Iraqis now want to settle for.

The problem is, of course, is that (ii) and (iii) will lead to an European style Middle East in a couple of years, and thus an end to discount petrol. It will also lead to a gradual evolution to democracy. We’ve already accepted that we’re going to get higher oil prices. Let’s just get out.

Craig Rowley, obviously you have come around to understand that the war that never was is, is just not going to be. How else can I explain your apparent need to link in depth quotes to some new age religious nutcase? Is this the US Secretary of Defence or a spokesperson for any US governmental offical? Perhaps in Farsi it translates as I love milk and honey? The "end times" map meme perhaps?

PS The interesting part to this fellow's biographical link was his pay scale. Strangely voting himself one million plus for sixteen hours a week work. Not bad if you can get it I suppose. Seems a strange amount though, considering the "end times" are upon us. Not sure there would be much value in spending a good wad on interior design. I am, though, not picturing him in a humpey.

All bodes well for my guy Rudy at the primaries. Put this crowd up against Hillary and it is good morning President Clinton. Now good morning President Rudy has a much nicer sound to it don't you think?

The biggest failure is to constantly under-estimate the strength of the US system. The system that has made it the greatest nation on earth. Americans have an adverse feeling toward failure. They neither seek it nor wallow in it. Hence the punishment now being dished out on Rumsfeld. McCain calling him the worst Defence Secretary in history and so forth. I suspect merely the beginning. A fall guy does come in handy.

Though it is not the failure itself that is the problem it is how one learns from it and deals with it that is the issue. People constantly ask the question: What is victory in Iraq? When they should be asking: what is defeat? And that, of course, all comes down to one's perspective and what one was looking for to begin with.

The Iraq adventure may very well be seen as a personal failure for George Bush. Who knows it is impossible to tell the future. It, though, does not mean it cannot be a personal victory for a future President nor US society as a whole. There are opportunities and advantages in almost every situation. The hardest part is identifying them and putting them into action.

And that Craig Rowley is what you should be looking at. Everybody knows what happened yesterday. The big bucks, though, are in knowing what is going to happen tomorrow.

And that is the greatest strength of American society. The ability to constantly revise, change and invent. The advantage that will always in the end see to it defeating places such as Iran that are self-perpetuating time-warp encircled entities. Unable to see, let alone deal, with this very basic truth.

In the end everything changes and moves on.

Don't want to cause sleep disturbance so be warned - this is nightmarish...

Right wing superhero Pamela Geller is at the AIPAC Conference, hooting and hollering as she hears Dr John Hagee, who can't decide if it is 1938 or the end times, hammering away with a sermon on heaven and hell, holocaust and hate, holy war and all the old rhetoric we'll hear repeated again and again ...

G'day Craig, Daniel, Phil, Angela, thanks (?) to Craig for that piece from the AIPAC Conference. I took the "same old rhetoric" comment as a health warning. Fortunately I watched it well before I had dinner.

Jim Lobe has an article about the manoeuvring in DC.

From Rolling Stone a panel discusses ramifications of the Iraq disaster.

The panel:

Zbigniew Brzezinski
National security adviser to President Carter

Richard Clarke
Counterterrorism czar from 1992 to 2003

Nir Rosen
Author of In the Belly of the Green Bird, about Iraq's spiral into civil war, speaking from Cairo, where he has been interviewing Iraqi refugees

Gen. Tony McPeak (retired)
Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War

Bob Graham
Former chair, Senate Intelligence Committee

Chas Freeman
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War; president of the Middle East Policy Council

Paul Pillar
Former lead counterterrorism analyst for the CIA

Michael Scheuer
Former chief of the CIA?s Osama bin Laden unit; author of Imperial Hubris

Juan Cole
Professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan

Here is the health warning - this is from the best case scenario:

BEST-CASE SCENARIO
CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ AND A STRONGER AL QAEDA

Zbigniew Brzezinski: If we are willing to engage with all of Iraq's neighbors -- including Iran -- in a regional effort to contain the violence, the best we can hope for is an Iraq that is politically passive but hostile toward America.

Gen. Tony McPeak: It's not a question of whether we're going to leave Iraq -- it's a question of when. And everybody in Iraq knows that. So they say, "Fine. We'll stock arms and wait for you guys to leave. And then we'll do what we want."

But the administration has repeatedly highlighted the potential for chaos in Iraq after our departure as a reason we must stay and fight.

Richard Clarke: All the things they say will happen are already happening. Iraq is already a base for terrorists; there is already a civil war. We've got 150,000 troops there now and we can't stop it.

Nir Rosen: There is no best-case scenario for Iraq. It's complete anarchy now. No family is untouched by kidnappings, murders, ethnic cleansing -- everybody lives in a constant state of terror. Leaving aside Kurdistan, which is very different, there's nobody in Iraq who is safe. You can get killed for being a Sunni, for being a Shia, for being educated, for being part of the former regime, for being part of the current regime. The Americans are still killing Iraqi civilians left and right. There's no government in Iraq; it doesn't exist outside of the Green Zone. That's not only the government's fault, that's our fault: We deliberately created a weak government so that we would have final authority over everything in Iraq.

Michael Scheuer: Even in the best-case scenario, the disaster we're seeing now is nothing compared to the disaster that we'll see after we leave. The real issue here is American interest: The longer we stay, the more people we get killed. I don't think the longer we stay, the better we make Iraq. Probably the reverse.

What happens to the civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shia Arabs when we leave?

Juan Cole: The civil war will go on for five or ten years -- that's inevitable. But the best-case scenario is, at the end of it they find a way to come back together as a nation-state, like Lebanon did in 1989.

Rosen: People are talking about a reconciliation process, but Iraqi Shias don't want to compromise with the Sunnis. They don't have to. There's going to be a genocide of Sunnis in Baghdad. The Shia have the numbers to do it; they can absorb all the Sunni car bombs it takes. The Americans aren't capable of stopping it; they can't tell a Sunni from a Shia. The best you can hope for is that it doesn't spill into the neighboring countries.

McPeak: You have to hope that Iraq devolves into a federal state with three strong regional governments. But that has its downsides: The Turks would go berserk. They would see Kurdistan as a base for the Kurdish insurgency inside Turkey, which has bedeviled them like the IRA in Ireland or the Basques in Spain. And if Iraq devolves into three separate "stans," then it's going to be pretty tough for Sunnistan not to provide a retirement home for Al Qaeda agents. It's got warts all over it -- but among the "don't call my baby ugly" possibilities in this world, that looks the prettiest.

Read on.

Israeli Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni has headed to the United States where she will address the AIPAC Conference today (keep an eye out for a transcript of her speech).

Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed "strong man" and Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, thought it important to get the message out - Israel would be able to face any Iranian "nuclear threat" alone if international sanctions failed to yield results.

"Israel is capable of dealing alone with the Iranian threat even if sanctions don't work," the ultra-nationalist minister said in an interview with Channel 2 television, Israel's most watched TV channel.

"Israel is prepared to face the Iranian issue even if it remains alone," he said.

Is Avigdor Lieberman saying that Israel is prepared to face the need to implement a political solution conforming to international law and avoid triggering a regional, if not global, disaster?

Or does being "prepared to face the Iranian issue" mean something else?

G'day Bob, I've found just a small sample of the AIPAC conference this year here, where Ephraim Sneh talks about how strong and tough the IDF is and James Woolsey talks about how much stronger and tougher the US 'must' be. So it's more of the same old 'strict father' routine so far ...

Let's talk pragmatically.

From Daniel Smythe (g'day): "In the main, humans are violent creatures, ..."

Me: Well, no. Yes, there are some violent types, but in the main, all those Norm & Edna Everages 'out there' just want a quiet life; a job, a house'n a Holden, a few kids out in the backyard playing cricket under the Hills hoist...

McMansions, swimming pools, behemoth 4WDs, wide-flat-screen TVs and iPods etc are all optional, even though there's been a bit of a run on all those lately (Madison Ave. type marketing.)

Keeping in mind 'a quiet (and satisfying) life,' think of the English bobby of old, out on his beat - unarmed.

No, I'm not going all maudlin.

-=*=-

Roughly paralleling the David Roffey (g'day) thread "Morality without a God" (1678), NewScientist asked "Can we be good without God?" Apart from the slightly offensive nature of the question (at least to non-believers), I think it's fair to say that most people acknowledge a certain morality, i.e. they know right from wrong but more, they try to live within their morality-frame. (Q: Who's deliberately bad? A: Only pathological types, aka criminals.)

(As an aside, I set out to document the chezPhil morality.)

Trying to keep this short, is it OK to:

1. Lie? In principle no, but this one is a bit slippery; some (mostly good) people divide lies into a) little whites and b) whoppers.

From 'Bringing up Baby:' "Don't lie to your kids!" - you will destroy their trust in you.

The class of whoppers is perfectly illustrated by the John Howard Lie # 21.

The office of the PM tried to rebut that lie, dragging 'our Kev' in for effect.

(Note that some of the pm.gov.au material has a) been 'archived' then b) seems to have disappeared (at time of writing.))

2. Steal - i.e. oil from Iraq? No.

3. Murder? No.

-=*=-

Now (in principle), there are always two sides to any argument.

Some people will argue that lies don't matter (i.e. via the cop-out: "All politicians lie!")

Fewer people will argue that stealing oil is OK, saying things like "The US is entitled to secure its oil supply." (Me: Why?) or even "It's our oil anyway!" (Me: What?)

Far fewer people will argue that murder is OK, saying things like "It's not murder, there's no law and they were only following orders." (Me: Oh yeah; the good old ‘Nuremberg (non!) defence’).

But: a crime is a crime is a crime; basically what people are saying when they say 'lying, stealing and/or murder is OK' is that they think that some perpetrators are somehow allowed to get away with their crimes (while we, the sheople® would go directly to gaol) - but just how fair is that?

-=*=-

Intermezzo: The Age of Reason.

One should be very careful when one is 'Bringing up Baby.' Before a certain age, children are toadally® credulous. This is thought to be a survival mechanism, as in learning how to cross a road: if "Stop, look, listen!" is quickly and properly assimilated, that's one danger-source nullified. (Pretty-well; one can never ensure perfect safety.)

Trouble is, 'rubbish' can be transmitted too. In this way, a person could become an uncritical life-long adherent to irrational parental beliefs, this leads some to characterise politics as religion.

The last word here, is that good parents will pass on good morals. Good morals will eventually produce good citizens, who will a) not act immorally themselves, and b) feel uncomfortable if/when confronted with others acting immorally. Good so; that's the way proper and civil societies work.

-=*=-

Conclusion:

Because of "Shock and Awe," the wanna-be hegemon, its illegal sprog, its side-kick and its dag were put under the moral microscope.

It was revealed, that all of the crimes specified in the chezPhil morality (lying, cheating, theft and murder) are actively being carried out, in various degrees, by the whole rotten bunch, i.e. the putative hegemon and its hangers-on.

Not 'just' that, but this has been going on since at least WW2, which ended with a criminal bang - actually two, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And even worse, it's getting worse; the wanna-be hegemon is now openly threatening nukes: "All options are on the table!"

"All options..." is code; what is actually being threatened is nation destruction via nuclear war.

If the above-described immorality and/or the 'options' threat makes you uncomfortable, you could follow the advice of an old friend of mine, "If you don't like 'something/anything,' then change it!"

The only practical way we have of changing such things is at the ballot-box. Quiz your candidates; does s/he support lies? Does s/he support cheating? Does s/he support theft? Does s/he support murder?

(There is an immediate problem for any candidate currently in the Federal government, an extra question then is "Why didn't you move to stop Aus involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq?")

Unless you get four 'no' answers (plus a very good excuse if applicable - Oh! There are no good excuses), put that candidate at the bottom of your preference list.

G'day Craig and Daniel, still awaiting transcripts of the AIPAC Conference, but not with the anticipation of any pleasure in reading them. Perhaps something to settle one's stomach could be kept handy as we can expect lots of hypocrisy and pandering. I think it safe to suggest that we will not not be hearing demands for sanctions against Israel for its assorted crimes and human rights abuses and for its own pursuit of nuclear weapons in secret without international oversight.

I do expect more of the same old rhetoric directed at others which not only is gross hypocrisy but, imo, does nothing to help find solutions for the situation in the ME. Probably will do the reverse.

Along with the Syrians, C Parsons, anti-Shi’ite terrorism is being supported by the US and Saudi Arabia.

If we believe that we are a civilised democracy, then we must act that way. We need to see the beam in our own eye before picking on the mote in theirs. We sit on the other side of the world, playing an abstract chess game with their lives. And we expect them not to understand what we are doing? How arrogant!

The debate is not about us and them. The debate is about us: Can we achieve a good life without being unethical. Can ‘the Bush Administration … be stopped without violence’ , without us descending into the same immoral pit? They say that Gandhi succeeded only because the British were Gentlemen. Bush may not have all the characteristics of a gentleman, but he desperately wants to be seen as one, and that's all that matters.

Daniel Smythe: "Mike, thanks for straightening me out. Obviously I need urgent treatment to remove my obsessive rhetoric."

Oh, goodness, you are far from being the worst case. That was my university political economy tutor who "proved" to her own, though nobody else's satisfaction that the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration was "the same" as Adolph Hitler's Third Reich.

Goering would have doubtless wished she could have appeared as an expert witness for the defense at Nuremburg. Instead, she later took a job in a Californian polytechnical institute teaching self loathing to the pampered children of Huntington Beach and Laguna.

Bob Wall: "G'day Craig, Angela, Daniel and Phil, a note of appreciation for Angela's efforts here and elsewhere yesterday, also to Phil and Daniel - there discussion as to whether the Bush Administration can be stopped without violence is interesting and a difficult one to answer."

What kind and level of violence directed against Americans would be acceptable in your view, Bob?

And when you refer to the "escalating brutality" in Iraq, does this exclude or include the daily attacks by Syrian forces on Shi'ite civilian targets and the payback killings by Iranian backed militias against Sunnis? I mean, that's the bulk of killing going on there.

I'm looking forward to a frank and honest expression of Syrian opinion about its plans for genocide in Iraq, and Iran's proposal to annex the southern part of Iraq for itself. That would be progress.

G'day Bob, Angela, Daniel and Phil, sorry I've not found transcripts of the AIPAC lobbyfest to share with you as yet, but in the searching I've picked up a ten page transcipt of a conversation between John Bolton and "American Zionist Call Club" members of AIPAC that took place on 7 January 2007. 

The transcript is taken from a recording of the conference call which was posted (and later removed) by Pamela Geller Oshry on Atlas Shrugs, a pro-AIPAC, right-wing blog (notice how Pamela thinks she's a superhero like someone else we know). Anyway, here's the portion of the transcript that gives some insight into neocon thinking on Iran:

Let me turn now to the question of Iran and what I think the situation is there.  The Security Council just passed a resolution.  The resolution that the Security Council passed at the end of last month imposing certain limited sanctions on Iran, obviously the product of a long effort based on Iran’s refusal to comply with the earlier Security Council resolution that gave them until August 31st to cease their uranium enrichment activities.  I’d have to say because I’m a private citizen and therefore a free man again, and these are my personal views, now, that this sanctions resolution is very disappointing.  It is not as tough as I would have liked to have seen it.  In many respects the Russians did an outstanding job from their point of view in protecting Iran, in narrowing the scope of the sanctions, in limiting the effectiveness, I think, of many of the things that we wanted to try and do to prevent the Iranians from continuing to make progress on their nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

I think the Iranian reaction to the sanctions resolution has been very telling in that respect, although they’ve passed a resolution in parliament to re-evaluate their relation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, they have not rejected the sanctions resolution, they have not done anything more dramatic, such as withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, or throwing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I actually hoped they would do – that that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us.

What kind of counter-reaction did Bolton have in mind? Escalation into violence?

Daniel can you not see that you play right into neocon hands when you argue the same 'big stick' action as they do?

G'day Craig, Angela, Daniel and Phil, a note of appreciation for Angela's efforts here and elsewhere yesterday, also to Phil and Daniel - there discussion as to whether the Bush Administration can be stopped without violence is interesting and a difficult one to answer. Previous material and experience teach that the Administration is not one to let anything get in its way - reality, public opinion - including election results (midterms), failure etc. The Dems sending mixed messages and are part of the problem - the placing of future electoral prospects ahead of the need to impeach Bush and Cheney is a mistake, imo. However, the revelations of more corruptions and scandals might impel action being taken.

Here is the latest from Tom Engelhardt - features Michael Schwartz on the escalating brutality in Iraq and the sabre rattling and spin in re Iran.

Here is a bit of reality that the WH won't want to hear.

A report on the Baghdad talks.

A couple of extracts:

In a speech to the conference, Khalilzad pointedly urged Iraq's neighbors to stop the flow of weapons, fighters and sectarian propaganda fuelling violence in Iraq.

Now the Iranian response:

... Araghchi said foreign forces were fuelling a cycle of bloodshed because their presence was used to justify violence and violence was used in turn to justify their presence.

 

"The presence of foreign forces cannot help the security in Iraq in long-term time," Araghchi said. "We need a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces."

Asked about U.S. charges that Iran was arming militant groups in Iraq, Araghchi hit out at the United States over what he called "intelligence failure".

 I wonder if Mr Khalilzad understood who these foreign forces are.

On sanctions.

The game continues.

G'day Daniel (rülps!) - pardon; I was just having dinner.

If you wanna talk about violence, riddle me this: where did all the Stingers go?

Even worse, why doesn't the Iraqi resistance have any, or its analogue?

Does the world's greatest free-market proponent - and incidentally, probably the world's greatest arms-manufacturer - control the arms market so closely, that it determines who can buy what and when? Where's the fairness in that? Boo! Hiss!

Violence is just so yesterday.

G'day Daniel, whatever is to be done must be non-violent. 'Getting physical' would play right into their hands; our very own Gulag-Guantánamos would be activated, any violent activists could be effectively disappeared. No, no progress that way. Decent politicians of any stripe, and especially opposition parties who currently do not oppose need to pull their fingers out: "Save our country, restore our good name!" - or be voted out. They need shaming.

If we want to change anything, it's gotta be with the 'tools' currently available, however poor: after all, a good workman does not blame his tools.

The AusBC could reform itself; they take our dough and they should perform. They have the power to say "Stop censoring us!" - It would be a public showdown no government could survive. Put Elizabeth Jackson in control; kick all the stooges out. Come on, AusBC; stop feeding us the B, B & H line of BS; give us the truth for once and then forever more.

And the sheople® do have the power to stay "Stop!"

All hands to the pump!

It really would help if the Muslims/Arabs could unite and stop killing each other, even if only as long as it takes to eject the murdering thieves. We do know of the destabilisation driven by the US and/or Cheney et al. The venal/corrupt bits of the MSM wherever they are deserve worse than Guantánamo. As for the guilty politicians, well...

All we really need is truth and decency to come to the fore.

We know who the biggest terrorists on the planet are, we just can't do much about it.

The global wanna-be hegemon, its illegal sprog, its side-kick and its dag - to use some apt aliases, are all in the business of lying, stealing and murder.

In the wanna-be hegemon's case, it's currently murder for oil.

In the illegal sprog's case, it's always been murder for land and wardah.

In the illegal side-kick's and its dag's case, it's murder for the alliance. What!? - But that's exactly what it looks like, either that or some more or less obscure financial advantage. (Which is worse?)

In all cases, they propagandise us through the MSM. I once counted myself as a 'supporter' of the illegal sprog; we all thrilled as if it were David vs. Goliath. Pretty-much my sole source of info 'back then' was the AusBC; this shows (as if proof were needed), that the AusBC often retails the "lying, stealing and murder" pushed-paradigm.

But many things changed after 9/11 (toadally®, criminally misused to bring "Shock and Awe" 1st to Afghanistan and then to Iraq); I had the time and interest - and the new ability (thanks to the internet), to dig behind the crooked MSM/AusBC pushed-paradigm. Perhaps I was too slow 'back then,' or just too pre-occupied, to see what was really going on.

So now I - and I'm sure many more of us, we the people, know who the biggest terrorists on the planet are, and it's the global wanna-be hegemon, its illegal sprog, its side-kick and its dag who, we can clearly see, are all in the business of lying, stealing and murder. The difference is only in the degree, but murder-most-foul it is.

The lying takes a particular form, usually called propaganda.

The propaganda comes from the so-called leaders and is transmitted to us by the MSM (often including the AusBC and SBS). All such transmitters are violating their supposed raison d'être, and worse, our trust. That makes the MSM (often including the AusBC and SBS) venal and corrupt.

But: it's not 'just' politicians, the MSM, 'our' AusBC and SBS who propagandise, there is a huge lobby (tip: M-W).

And: it's not 'just' that huge lobby, there are amateurs active as well. Boo! Hiss!

Lying, stealing and murder are against the basic tenets of our civilisation and culture, said to be based (amongst others) on Christian principles.

Specifically, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's Ox" - nor oil, land, wardah etc, and the 'biggie,' "Thou shalt not kill."

All people actively engaged in the lying, stealing and murder for oil, land, wardah etc, are criminals, and any giving moral support are accessories, before, during or after the fact. As I understand it, accessories are usually judged to be just as guilty as the actual criminals themselves, as the vilification of the populations of the WW2 'Axis powers' testify, some of this vilification actually taking place in here, in this time.

And, of course, the current 'enemies' of the wanna-be hegemon, its illegal sprog, its side-kick and its dag are being vilified, not only by the so-called leaders, the MSM, 'our' AusBC and SBS, and that vile lobby - Oh, no; the amateurs are at it too.

The current 'enemies' are vilified, so that the sheople® will (once again) acquiesce - or at least not object too loudly, when the wanna-be hegemon, its illegal sprog, its side-kick and its dag - one, two or all together - attack their next victim. "All options are on the table."

The current 'enemies,' everyone knows, just so happen to be sitting on some of the world's biggest oil fields. Hmmm?

Sooo, what do we think of our so-called leaders, all their 'helpers;' the corrupt and venal MSM (often including the AusBC and SBS), that lobby and associated amateur apologist-propagandists?

Liars! Thieves! - Murderers!

-=*=-

Intermezzo:

It's all getting too much, daaarlings.

Hitler invaded for Lebensraum.

Hitler murdered for who knows what other reasons.

The wanna-be hegemon invades for resources, including oil.

The illegal sprog invades for land and wardah, and claims justification from the Holocaust.

The side-kick and its dag support the wanna-be hegemon and its illegal sprog - bipartisanly. Can we vote for or against bipartisanship? No.

The German people, for example, are still being vilified to this day, for not stopping Hitler - as if they had some chance to stop him.

When the vilification comes our way, what is our excuse going to be?

-=*=-

Now, this thread is about "Solving the Iran stand-off;" I have a suggestion. We, the sheople® both here and there can defeat the liars, thieves, murderers and their apologists; it's called 'people-power.' It's simple: just tell the murderers to stop, tell the thieves to go home!

All people in the so-called democracies of the wanna-be hegemon, its illegal sprog, its side-kick and its dag should put up a sign: "No more thieving and murdering; no war!"

All legal residents of the ME should put up a sign: "Thieving, murdering tyrants stop killing us; stop thieving our resources, go home!"

G'day Craig and Daniel, I note that after yesterday's mention of the AIPAC Conference and reminder of the Herzliya Conference, we have someone raising alleged Iranian rhetoric again - even to the extent of posting a link to that speech. Coincidence? Anyway, as Craig has pointed out in the latest example raised and has been pointed out about the map meme, there are interpretations at play. One should be careful about accepting translations at face value.

Also, I remind people of the lack of a sense of irony of a particularly state or its apologists making play of rhetoric (especially when there is doubt about what was actually said) from another state as opposed to the dire record of behaviour of the accusing state. See Cease Fire! for more on this and some examples of that behaviour. More can be provided if needed.

Meanwhile, here is the latest Chomsky for consideration.

Ray McGovern.

Russia and China object to new proposals for sanctions.

Iran's hopes for talks.

Much more to be played out.

G'day Craig, Angela, Phil and Daniel, I note Craig's comments about the forthcoming AIPAC Conference and hope it exhibits a grasp of reality and commonsense than one might expect. The confrontational approach is not one to be recommended. And the hypocrisy of the type heard at the Herzliya Conference is galling. A sense of irony would help, although in certain quarters it is apparently non-existent. Such as in this article.

Some examples:

Confronting Syria and Iran with

... charges they are actively fomenting the violence tearing their neighbor apart, a senior US official said Thursday.

The illegal invasion might have had something to do with that.

And:

He accused Damascus of also turning a blind eye to the activities of former associates of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein who "play a significant role in the financing and direction of the insurgency" from exile in Syria.

No mention of Saudi assistance to Sunni groups. Seems the Syrians are not the only ones turning a blind eye.

It might be helpful if these matters could be (patiently) explained to a few people before they enter negotiations.

On the matter of negotiations, there is a history of meeting between representatives of the US and Iran.

Iran responds to the latest IAEA move.

Thanks for making so much of my links, Phil, it is good to see them put to good use.

On the Cease fire! thread I covered the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference.

It was an event well attended by neocons, but also other American politicians looking to pander and position themselves as Pro-Israel (and perhaps promote themselves as 'Presidential' prospects). Republicans Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich were all on the program.  Democrat John Edwards was as well.

Now, starting this Sunday, it's time to cover what the organisers are touting as "three of the most important days affecting Israel's future!"

I expect we'll hear much of what was said at Herzliya, but it will still be an event to keep a close eye on. Here's Sunday's program:

Opening Plenary - Global Impact: Understanding Today's Middle East

A top-flight panel of experts lead delegates on a virtual tour of the Middle East with satellite stops in key locations in order to better understand how the latest events are shaping our world.

• Former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg
• Author and Scholar Robert Satloff
• Former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority Spokesman Dan Senor
• Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh
• Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey

Day One Breakout Session (Track 1) topics are set to include:

• Radioactive Revolution: What a Nuclear Iran Would Mean for the World
• Vital Votes: What the 2008 Elections Could Mean for the Pro-Israel Community
• Battle Over Beirut: What the Struggle in Lebanon Means for the Middle East
• The Changing Map of the Middle East: What's at Stake?
• Knesset Conversation: Leading Voices From Israel's Parliament

...and many others

Breakout Session Track 2 topics are set to include:

• Jihad 101: Understanding Radical Islam and Its War Against the West
• Tentacles of Terror: The Global Reach of the Terrorist Network
• What Will it Take to Revive the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process?
• Academic Challenge: How AIPAC Student Activists Overcome Campus Hostility
• Continental Drift: The Key Trends Affecting Europe's Middle East Policy

...and many others.

No wonder JAIPAC wrote AIPAC a letter pleading for them to focus on positive paths toward peacemaking.  Look at the topic list. "Tentacles of Terror"?  Followed by "What Will it Take to Revive the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process"?  How about not talking up of the threat of terror to start with?

Also listed on the program is "Breakout Session Track 3", a "special new track" where some of the world's top Middle East scholars will prepare AIPAC activists to answer the toughest questions about Israel.

Well ... here's a question or two I'd like to put to AIPAC activists: 

Will you, as the Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict have asked, please rethink the deepest meaning of  "unwavering support" for Israel and realise that collaboration between the US and Israel against Iran, encouraging, enabling, and even using Israel to engage in military ventures would represent the greatest existential threat to Israel?

Will you please make "Pro-Israel" about finding ways to live cooperatively and productively within a Middle East Community?