Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
What if ...? Solving the Iran stand-off
by Craig Rowley
I have been mulling over a question or two. Make that a whole series of questions. They are '"What if ..." questions. They are not messy and futile backward looking "What if ..." questions of the "toothpaste back into the tube" type. They are future focused, solution focused questions that ask what if we could do something, what if we did this or something like it or something else. What if we could work through a problem together?
The Iranian regime has a nuclear program. It includes several research sites, a uranium mine, a nuclear reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include a uranium enrichment plant. Iran claims it is using the technology for peaceful purposes. The United States, however, makes the allegation that the program is part of a drive to develop nuclear weapons. A nuclear program for peaceful purposes, even one involving the enrichment of uranium, is allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), whilst a nuclear weapons development program is not. And therein lies the nub of the problem.
In the last weeks of last year the UN Security Council approved economic sanctions on Iran. If Tehran fails to comply with resolution 1737 by the end of a 60-day deadline that the UN imposed, the Security Council will consider new measures. What if the Iranian regime fails to comply?
In a few weeks time the 35 members of the Board of Governors of the United Nation's nuclear monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), will meet in Vienna and review the reports compiled by their inspection teams. They need to decide whether Iran has taken the steps required by their resolution GOV/2006/14, steps "which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme." The IAEA will then make its report to the UN Security Council on Iran’s nuclear activities. What if the IAEA reports that Iran failed to comply with their resolution and thereby Security Council resolution 1737? What then? What is the next move for the Security Council?
Coercive diplomacy seems to have been the strategy so far. That was reflected in the first Security Council resolution on Iran in response to its nuclear programme. In June 2006, acting under Article 40 of Chapter VII of the United Nations in order to make mandatory the IAEA requirement that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities, the Security Council issued resolution 1696 threatening Iran with economic sanctions in case of non-compliance. Resolution 1696 avoided any implication that use of force may be warranted. Exercise of that option, the use of force, was premature.
Resolution 1737 did not include a clear statement that use of force would be warranted in case of non-compliance. With Resolution 1737 the Security Council affirmed only that it shall review Iran’s actions in the light of the IAEA’s report and:
(a) that it shall suspend the implementation of measures if and for so long as Iran suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, as verified by the IAEA, to allow for negotiations;
(b) that it shall terminate the measures specified in … this resolution as soon as it determines that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and met the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors, as confirmed by the IAEA Board;
(c) that it shall, in the event that the report … [by the IAEA] … shows that Iran has not complied with this resolution, adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary.
The Security Council could continue with the current sanctions and set a new deadline with an explicit threat attached. What if it does so? What is likely to happen after that?
The Security Council could authorise additional and more punitive sanctions. What if it did this? What is likely to happen in this scenario?
And though unlikely at this stage, the Security Council could ultimately authorise action more punitive, more violent, than the use of sanctions. What if it does?
As we enter dialogue and together consider these questions, and in all likelihood the assumptions on which each of us base our answers to these questions, I hope we can look to the possibility of a positive outcome.
As we’ve been discussing the issues in Ceasefire and I’ve been keeping myself informed, learning what I can about the issues raised and considering everything constructive that I’ve come across during that time, I chanced upon some old Persian wisdom: “Epigrams succeed where epics fail.” So what if we keep this in mind: People make peace.
What if a way could be found, with the help of any people who want to find a way, a way without war, a firm and fair way to have Iran take those steps needed for it to be taken off America's state-sponsors-of-terrorism list without anyone being wiped of any map? What if we considered what Albert Einstein said about the menace of mass destruction?
"Most people go on living their everyday life: half frightened, half indifferent, they behold the ghastly tragi-comedy that is being performed on the international stage before the eyes and ears of the world ... It would be different if the problem were not one of things made by Man himself, such as the atomic bomb ... It would be different, for instance, if an epidemic of bubonic plague were threatening the entire world.
In such a case, conscientious and expert persons would be brought together and they would work out an intelligent plan to combat the plague. After having reached agreement upon the right ways and means, they would submit their plan to the governments. Those would hardly raise serious objections but rather agree speedily on the measures to be taken ... They certainly would never think of trying to handle the matter in such a way that their own nation would be spared whereas the next one would be decimated. But could not our situation be compared to one of a menacing epidemic?
People are unable to view this situation in its true light, for their eyes are blinded by passion. General fear and anxiety create hatred and aggressiveness. The adaptation to warlike aims and activities has corrupted the mentality of man; as a result, intelligent, objective and humane thinking has hardly any effect and is even suspected and persecuted as unpatriotic."
- Albert Einstein, 'The Menace of Mass Destruction', in Out of My Later Years.
What if we did compare our situation to one of a menacing epidemic? What if conscientious and expert, intelligent, objective and humane thinking persons were brought together to work out an intelligent plan to solve this problem?
I’ve been mulling over these questions. Most of all I’ve have in mind a couple prompted by a quote by John Ralston Saul that Margo Kingston used to open the final chapter of Not Happy, John! That quote is: “If we believe in democracy you have to believe in the power of the citizen – there is no such thing as abstract democracy.”
And the questions I mostly think about now are these: What if we, as the citizens of free democracies and the peoples seeking a democratic future, believed in our power? What if we exercised our real power, did not unthinkingly leave these problems entirely to the powers that be, and could work through our problems together?
 |
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Let's roll!
Credible evidence is being assembled, not to say fixed, by the War Dept, Zippy the Pinhead, credulous Fairfax and ABC reporters, slaking their thirsts at the Kool-Aid fountain, and Boeing to create the illusion that the IED that killed the soldier in Afghanistan was designed, built, placed and detonated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Dissenters, please line up for ritual branding: the catalogue item is A (for appeaser), C (for cut and runner).
Yes, Brendan, it's not about Oil, after all. Opium.
Tehran, here we come.
A letter makes a big difference
Trevor - checked out your link, it actually talks about IEDs developed in Iraq, not Iran.
Like the difference between Ryan Adams and Bryan Adams, that one letter makes a helluva difference. Reminds me also of the joke about the war on Iraq being a result of Bush's dyslexia. He mixed up the ‘q’ with the ‘n’ and invaded the wrong country.
Brendan Nelson Blames Iran
Sorry, David C, Trevor was on the money. Nelson's out and about already saying that there's "strong evidence" that the Iranians are sending IED's into Afghanistan and Iraq. The line that the ADF were searching as to where the bomb came from started last night. The Iranians are already guilty by insinuation.
The death and injury are tragedies. That they're already being used as a political tool is an even greater tragedy. Cynics such as Mr Kerr and myself were waiting for it. I must admit to being surprised as to how little time it took for Nelson to take the blood on his hands and smear it on Iran.
I guess it was better that it happened in Afghanistan than Sydney.
Iranians killing Australians
Richard and Trevor - I take it back. Here's Nelson, as you pointed out Richard, doing his bit to ratchet up the Iranian bogeyman:
Where Was The Debating Society?
Bob Wall
What he actually wrote was:
The attempt of selective quoting of course changes the context of his point. Your attempt to quote out of context should disqualify you from making any further argument; however, I digress.
Religious faith is of course a personal experience. Any message resulting from such faith will differ for each individual. This is commonly known as an accepted fact. An example of this fact in practice would be the number of religions throughout the world. This is of course why you attempted the use of the burden of proof fallacy.
Therefore, it seems fair enough that examples of those that the person making an assessment based of those expressions is asked for examples.
This is known as the appeal to fair play. The appeal to fair play fallacy usually follows anything but fair play. Your attempt to quote out of context would prove me correct in this instance.
You might care to explain how asking for such evidence is a red herring and how the burden of proof falls on me rather than the person making the claim.
The red herring comes about because this particular argument is unrelated to any questions asked of Angela Ryan. The questions asked of Angela Ryan are directly related to you entering the argument.
I never wrote the burden of proof falls on you. The burden of rebuttal falls on you. In your rebuttal you would have to prove that Mike Lyvers personally thinking Bush speaks religion to placate religious right-wing nutters is not based on fact.
As you chose to repost my question to you, perhaps you would like to answer the second part which was:
I cannot recall you ever answering any question I have asked of you?
Are you suggesting ... or, having asked others for evidence, they themselves do not need to provide any to support their own views?
He supplied at least one piece of evidence; you pointed this out in one of your posts. Perhaps you would like to prove Mike Lyvers claim incorrect?
The only person seemingly making suggestions is you. In what I am sure is sheer coincidence they all seemingly have that begging the question, and burden of proof fallacy, feel about them.
Lies, but "God made me do it".
Scott Ritter - The Big Lie.
Brown noses in with some support.
Joscha Fischer on ME policy.
The use of fear.
Making matters worse.
More on political wickedness and moral bankruptcy.
Conservatives back away from Bush ...
And ...
On the matter of Bush and God.
And.
And.
But is God the motivation? Or? (OK, it's a spoof.)
Or is it?
Enough for the moment, plenty for people to get a grasp of.
Baseless.
Paul Morrella, so you agree people can have an opinion based on nothing of substance. However, when people make such comments such as "a lot of his expressions of religious faith ..." they infer that they have a basis, that is, an awareness of those expressions. Therefore, it seems fair enough that examples of those that the person making an assessment based of those expressions is asked for examples. You seem to think not. You might care to explain how asking for such evidence is a red herring and how the burden of proof falls on me rather than the person making the claim.
As you chose to repost my question to you, perhaps you would like to answer the second part which was:
Angela, exactly. Shortly I will look for some material of substance that I am sure some people will really enjoy. And they do seem determined that I do so.
Oh, The Answer To Your Questions
Bob Wall, Hopefully this post appears after you have so kindly answered my questions.
Regarding this particular situation I am suggesting nothing of the sort. What I will suggest is that you have been selective with your claims. Mike Lyvers has given you supporting evidence in regards to his claim, and your question. You have stated so yourself.
The burden of rebuttal is now upon your shoulders. A shifting of the burden of proof or appeal to ignorance is certainly not a valid response. Not even a particular tricky one.
A Politician In The House?
Bob Wall
Actually, people share opinions every day that are not based on producing supporting evidence. Such opinions usually go under the category of a hunch, a feeling, belief, sixth sense, free speech etc. If subscribing evidence were required with every statement about one billion parents would be out of luck with their best kid in the world analogies.
As I have clearly shown you have opted to use a red herring, and then opted to use a burden of proof fallacy. The interesting question is: why you constantly feel the need to use such a combination when any person is asked a question which you for one reason or another do not wish to see answered? Do you have a political background by any chance?
No basis?
Paul Morrella, are you suggesting that people can have no evidence on which to base their opinions, or, having asked others for evidence, they themselves do not need to provide any to support their own views?
modus operanti, consitanti neconi , watcha expect
Heck Bob, that is modus operandi of the neocons for the last 6 years!
A Poor Argument
Bob Wall:
Possibly in a Court, though depending on the situation, still questionable.
The question asked by Mike Lyvers:
would be legitimate. It is known as begging the question. I believe a standard practice in any Court.
He sure is.
Mike Lyvers
Bob Wall
You should have noted he made the premise of his argument with the term "I think". He is the originator of the argument. This may even be considered a closing argument. The burden of rebuttal falls on your shoulders. However, you merely beg the question.
"I think" if it were a Court the Judge looking at the sequence of argument would be within his or her rights to ask why you believe offering a red herring, and using the burden of proof fallacy is a competent defense. All cryptic arguments regarding dates, times, and other assorted evidence, only you seem aware, would be struck from the record.
Given it is not a Court, Mike Lyvers should totally ignore your argument, and continue to make his own opinions known.
Only the shadow knows....
Mike Lyvers, hi!
I think the attribution of 'motive' based on some presumed belief is beside the point, when you think about it.
For all we know, when Stalin decided to set up the GULAG, he may have been acting on some residual punitive impulse arising out if his time as a seminarian in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Or he may have been just acting as a good Communist.
The only purpose in discussing which of these two possible motives was at work depends on whether one is inlcined to slander the Church or the Communist Party.
In the final analysis, it may even be a problem for psychiatry, not political science at all.
The proletariat knows no fatherland
Mike Lyvers says:
So Angela, it seems you opposed U.S. interventions in not just Iraq, but also in Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, and presumably Bosnia as well.
In Angela's defence, Mike. A lot of people on the left of politics were opposed to the 'US' (actually NATO) intervention in the former Yugoslavia for the same reason they opposed the UK-USA 'No Fly Zones' in Northern Iraq.
They were both seen as violations of Yugoslavian and Iraqi sovereignty.
All mouth and trousers.
Mike Lyvers, I remind you of the post from which my question arose:
Here you are asking for specifics from someone as well as passing a judgment on a group of people.
I asked for examples of Bush's professions of religious faith on which you based your opinion. Your response was to cite one example that was provided by another 'diarist after I had posed my question. Surely it is not too much to ask you to provide an evidentiary basis on which you assess Bush's motivations and the demeaning comment about other people?
Money for blood.
Freedom Watch tries to make a case but there is scepticism.
A pinch, or a shipload? And once bitten ...?
A view on the morality and deceit.
And the sanctions campaign might be counterproductive.
Thanks, Angela, glad you liked them.
Mike Lyvers, I see you have returned in question asking mode. Perhaps you might also go into answering mode and address the matter I raised with you on the 4th of this month.
Bob Wall
Bob Wall, as this is a discussion forum, questions regarding other people's opinions are quite appropriate. Questions that demand ever more examples of this or that, by contrast, can sometimes merely constitute harassment and do not merit a response. I put your last question to me in that category.
Shifting sands
This has the potential to upset a lot of people:
Seeing as Sadr is an outright proxy of Tehran, could this be because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Ober Fuhrer back in Tehran are beginning to feel the pressure from outside?
And certainly, the worst possible thing that could befall the Sunni "resistance" would be the sudden withdrawal of the Coalition, leaving them to the mercy of the Shia.
Maybe they now figure it's best to settle things down a bit before (a) Iran is fighting a civil war of its own and (b) a Democrat President or Democrat controlled Congress decides to abandon Iraq to its fate.
Anyway....
Thanks for your very full and elaborate response to my question, Angela. I appreciate it.
So, are you predicting a US invasion of Iran?
Crystal ball readings, an attack, you betcha, and snow
Hi Eliot, sorry I missed your question earlier as being a real question. Do you really find an interest in whether I personally predict a US invasion of Iran? It humbles me, as I am also interested in your real view about it, as you more than other like minded at least have an excellent grasp of some of the facts of history and the art of studying it. More than I, I think.
Have you worded that question as you wish it answered? Invasion? Or attack?
Currently there is an 85% chance of attack from US/Israel in the next 6 months, and this has slightly fallen after this week's activities.
There is also a 3% chance of snow this Christmas season at Mt Kosciusko. I remember when it did the year we were there.
A snowball's chance in Sydney summer of Howard winning any legitimate election this November/December. And a 23% chance of Ratzinger falling off his peg before his visit next year. Nice Judeo-Christian leader. And Gordon Brown? Who cares? Prediction of US election? Whatever the Diebold fixers agree to. Still not attended to despite the fraud in Ohio, and Connecticut, and as always Florida. Will both candidates be Skull and Bones again? That was amusing last time … unless one takes it all seriously. Neither Hilary nor Obama would ever get up in a real election. I wonder why the Dems are wasting so much time with lame ducks in such a racist sexist society. Talk to them, they talk the talk but would never vote for a black or a woman for President, especially the more, ahem, bible Belt/type education level areas.
Any more predictions? Dimona will get hit hmm, about 45%, that rose after Google deliberately focused down on it. (those eeevil eyeranians and their eevil laackees, bombombombomb) Gates will go? The hard way, 87%. Cheney will live to a hundred and no-one will notice? Welll, assuming he is still alive in there, only the good die young. The US will be attacked … not by Iran? … 100%, already have been. Colonel Shu's tortured body would be termed a suicide? 100%, already has been. No noise. Did he talk? Apparently not. . Have they listened ? Apparently not, Deafcom 3.
Will the warmongering Neocons start WW4? … still 85%. The missing stealth nuke found before used? 23%. The closest the nuclear clock has ever been to a nuke war since Bay of Pigs apparently. How proud Neocon supporters must feel. Will the response be blistering? 100%. Will the US dollar freefall? 75%, or 100% if attack. Makes 10 trillion US bucks a smaller amount and even Argentina look attractive. And Roubles. Another operation Bramble Bush? Already, missed.
Chance of US war criminals being tried for anything, even, or only actually tax evasion?. 000000005%. If the wind changes. of course a hurricane might bring some really interesting conspiracy and treason charges. Reminds one of Charles 1 in so many ways.
For more predictions see Angela's Crystal ball readings same channel Halloween. or maybe Malcolm will return with his famous source.
Printed readings require Paypal, in Euros :)
Cheers, gotta feed the cat, I mean sister.
Dangerous criminals through the ages
Fiona Reynolds says:
I've been re-reading Brigitte Hamann's book 'Hitler's Vienna: a dictator's apprenticeship' and was reminded of this startling fact: both the racist, far right Social Christian Party of Austria and the marxist Austrian Social Democrats were off-shoots of Georg Schonerer's pan-German movement.
The Christian Socials were founded by the anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna, Karl Leuger, the Social Democrats by ViktorAdler, after the pan-Germans collapsed.
Georg Schonerer's so-called 'Linz Program' and Karl Leuger were important influences on Hitler. Schonerer's speeches and social programme are almost identical with Htler's.
So, we're not talking 'circles' - it's more like a family tree.
Angela Ryan says:
Hi Margo, yep, "almost incredible". Yet will no-one rid us of these dangerous criminals?
So, Angela, Margo? Are you predicting an invasion of Iran by the USA?
Also, the Supreme Leader and President of Iran? Dangerous criminals? Yes or no?
Justice or murder? Criminals or not if they have power?
Ah, Eliot, there was I missing the usual lines of Chris Parsons and you have kindly come along. It's really sweet of you, and you do ask good questions showing such insight as to the workings of these criminals minds.
I am sure there are many who have committed crimes and are not held accountable. All the same, just as you, i would call mass murder and waging wars of aggression as bad a crime as it can get, just as it was back at the Nuremberg trials time. I am not sure the Iranian President and teh Ayatollahs have done any of that, I think from memory that it waa Iraq back in 1980s that attacked Iran amd recently we have the US coallition attacking and invading both Afghanistan and Iraq (and Somalia, Haiti,....) with amazing stories and prosecutions for mass civilian deaths and torture. Hard to believe we are allied, just as Mussolini was to Hitler, with the wagers of wars of Aggression.
Of course here you may be different to C Parsons as he was very assertive and rightly so, about regimes attacking civilians, such as the Kurds suffering, and the use of illegal and inhumane weapons, such as the halajaba gassings. Or do you support the use of such weapons, such as third generation perfected Napalm and Fletchette weapons and cluster bombs etc. Do you support the Iraq invasion? By what justification? Is that internationally legal ?
If the WMD evidence was faked and fabricated, and that WAS the reason given ,to justify the invasion as self defence, then shouldn't the persons who faked such and fabricated such and who knew about this now illegal invasion be prosecuted as criminals?
Hitler used the same defence to invade Poland, "self defence" after a faked attack. Is it ok to invade nations today or do you think Hitler was falsely prosecuted? ?
Or do you think it is just victor's justice that really rules? is there a real justice system without fear or favour that is supported by the international community or is it just the occasional sacrificial lamb that is sent to appease the masses and pretend there is indeed justice equally wrought? If it is the latter then Nuremberg trials were what? Just murder of the vanquished? Justice should not depend upon who is th emost powerful or it is not justice ,just murder.
cCheers
it seems Lady Justice is not just blinded but violently gang raped by the powerful and none but watch.
So Angela...
The Threat of the Noose.
Angela, James Bovard on holding people accountable - he asks "Are Presidents Entitled to Kill Foreigners?"
Now for some Bushspeak.
I remind readers that Bush has been described as a pathological liar. And seems to have no sense of irony.
Is Blackwater fueling trouble in Iraq?
But Mushroom Cloud is introducing some oversight.
On different perspectives - Norman Finkelstein on Jeffrey Goldberg's new book.
Some might not like that piece, so here's something more for them.
Keep seeking Angela, it is far too easy to succumb to blandishments or pressures. Good intentions are far too easily corrupted.
Sol Salbe: Attacking Iran would be devastating
Sol Salbe recommends The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating:
It seems almost incredible after the catastrophe of the Iraq war, but the signs are growing that the Bush administration wants to do it all over again - this time to Iran. Just as in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Washington air is thick with unsubstantiated claims about weapons of mass destruction; demonisation of the country's president has reached bizarre proportions; intelligence leaks about links with al-Qaida and attacks on US and British targets are now routine; demands for war from the administration's neoconservative outriders are becoming increasingly strident; the pronouncements of George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, are turning ever more belligerent - and administration sources claim that the British government is privately ready to play ball.
You might imagine after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq at such huge human and strategic cost, an attack on another Muslim country would be the last thing on the US president's mind. But the drumbeat of war has been unmistakable since the summer, when Bush declared he had "authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities", and the administration let it be known that it was preparing to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organisation".
Last month Bernard Kouchner, the hawkish new French foreign minister, insisted that "we must expect the worst" and "the worst is war" - while Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN's chief weapons inspector in charge of overseeing Iran's nuclear programme, warned against the "neo-crazies" pushing for an attack after 700,000 had died in Iraq on "suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons". Meanwhile, Israel's recent air raid on Iran's ally Syria has been widely interpreted as, at least in part, a power play aimed at Tehran.
internal double think of those who condone evil
Hi Margo, yep, "almost incredible". Yet will no-one rid us of these dangerous criminals? Do none care about the weight of deeds done? How careful we must be not to harm others, especially when we are in positions of power and hence responsibility?
Here are some wise words from a truly great man who has stared down a terrible regime himself and is doing so again:
These words could apply anywhere, to any religion or humanism, whether one is talking of an Almighty, or Karma, or human justice etc.
Desmond Tutu.
So what is our treatment of those who are vulnerable, not as powerful, hungry and voiceless? And what is our treatment of those who speak out for them?
How would we feel if we were an Iraqi stuck with our family in Baghdad? An Iranian with our family in Tehran? A Palestinian family in Bethlehem? A Polish family in Warsaw 60 years ago? Would we feel the international community is treating us with justice and compassion? Would we be welcoming the threats of nuclear drop upon us? Continued occupation? Bombings and state military terrorist attacks from the air or private military terrorist attacks from our streets?
There is true injustice . Will it persist? Is there a god watching that cares? Are there perpetrators who care? How do they justify the suffering of others in their minds?How? Is it a sophisticated dehumanisation? or a hardening of their own soul? Is there some perverted religious teaching going on, some abrogation?
I see people's words here and I cannot understand them. It is often those who talk most loudly of "evil" that condone it. This I cannot understand. Is it an internal doublethink going on? And how simplistic to call certain famous persons Evil, when they can be the opposite depending upon to whom one talks.
It is their deeds that are evil or good, or both. Thus an otherwise "Good" person we may like or admire may have done terrible things, this is how complex humans are, how forgiving we must be thinking and how wary of such frailty, even/especially in our leadership.
To simplify it otherwise is dumbing down and compromising our understanding and damaging our wariness and ability to find solutions and people to work them...Still for those who fear thinking deeply about such matters, such simplification may remove the need, paint the world black and white, us or them. And thus silence that little voice." Is this really right?"
Cheers
PS: I just watched Shaun of the Dead, hilarious but am much too scared to go to sleep, so thought some international politics would help. But how do we deny 27000 nuclear weapons? Shall now try some Ben Elton, hmmm, Popcorn.
Fiona: Please lend me some of your resilience, Angela. Have one current, and too many memories. I don't want to run out of steam now.
Margo: Re the Kevin Andrews attack on Sudanese refugees, Pauline Hanson called for discrimination against African refugees when annoucing her intention to stand for the Senate. So the government follows suit, yet again. The irony - Ruddock as immigration minister championed these refugees, saying they were the reason for the boat people policy!!!
who did fund Abbott's get the chip shop babe fund
It is little wonder, and I bet that Bishops' 13000 she announced were mainly Christian, and now i bet the need is Muslim. Just a guess. So hard to get hold of these stats.
Of course whatser-face would be keen for this one, Right up her alley.
And perhaps a bit of revenge in tweaking the issue too. :)
We never did find out who funded the Abbott hit fund that was out to get her. Amazing stooge-like behaviour of the electoral commission considering it was politically motivated which does fit the law methinks.
Cheers
ps resilience, anyone who can spell it probably has it,especially it they are still here :)
Still crazy ... but some sanity?
Wurmser beating it ...
Compare the claims made in this article with the wealth of other material that has been provided.
Now for some sanity.
On Iraq, a greater sense of realism is beginning to appear in the Pentagon.
Chris Floyd - Lost in the roar ...
More from Floyd, this on US torture.
"... truth justice and the ..."
Improving economic ties
Here's an interesting article on increasing economic ties between Syria and Iran.
And here's item about a $112 million arms deal between China and Iraq.
Bushed analogies, refugees, saving the military ...
Dave Lindorff on Bush's Vietnam analogy.
Five million and counting - the Iraq refugee crisis.Some good links to follow in this piece.
From Tom Engelhardt - William Astore Saving the Military from Itself.
Uri Avnery on M & W.
"Woke up this morning, got myself a gun ...". Two articles on US arms sales:
Zia Mian.
Rachel Stohl.
Helpful?
It's alive!
I dunno. He's got the classic Hollywood mad scientist haircut.
Better late ..., but isn't the echo to come after?
Mike Lyvers, you now say you will echo John Pratt, who took the trouble to do some research) and wrote "... and cite Bush's remarks to a National Prayer Breakfast ...". However, your previous comment addressed "... a lot of his professions of religious faith ..." and also preceded John's post.
What other professions of Bush's religious faith were you referring to?
A little list
Michael Coleman says:
"The idea that the same people who brought us Iraq Watch with their fabulous stories of Saddam's huge, 21st Century arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry, would suddenly provide a realistic assessment of Iran's capabilities is really very, very funny."
Oh, so the "chemical weapons" the USA "supplied" to Saddam now don't exist? Is that it?
Or are you saying the University of Wisconsin data-base of firms supplying Iran's weapons development industry is, what, fake?
Would that include the American firm on the list? Or would you, in view of that, like to reconsider your position?
Do you have a better list?
Urban sophisticates in the age of faith
Mike Lyvers says:
You mean George W has a supporter base?
And speaking as an atheist, I don't really see what the problem is with political leaders expressing a religious viewpoint, to be honest.
I mean, I'd rather a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim political leader who genuinely subscribed to a religious viewpoint than someone like Joseph Stalin who didn't.
It rather depends on how the religiously inspired leader feels he or she is accountable to their notion of a deity and how they imagine that deity expects them to behave.
Martin Luther King was a political leader with a poor, Southern, religious constituency, too.
Whereas Vladimir Illyich Lenin has to this day an "intellectual", urban based, atheistic following, inlcuding people like Kim Jong Ill.
Guess whose log cabin door I'd sooner knock on if I needed some political advice?
response to Eliot
Point taken, Eliot, but I wouldn't exactly consider Kim Jong III to be an "intellectual."
My point was simply that Bush's profession of religious beliefs may, at least in part, be politically motivated.
Religious versus athiest leaders
Eliot, I should clarify that I have no problem with political leaders having or expressing religious beliefs. I'm an atheist, too, but not an evangelical atheist like Dawkins. You’re spot-on about Stalin – and recall that Hitler’s ‘Christianity’ was a front for a Nietzschian worldview that completely rejected Christian notions of compassion and forgiveness.
And for the record, I’m a big fan of what Jesus is recorded as saying.
My problem with Bush and Ahmadinejad is their apparent preoccupation with their respective religions’ accounts of Armageddon (more speculation than certainty with Bush, granted), which threaten to become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Specificity.
Mike Lyvers, you have asked David Curry to provide a quote for you. As David is quite busy and as you have said "... I also think a lot of his professions of religious faith are intended merely to placate ..." perhaps you could be specific about which Bush professions of religious faith you are referring to. It might avoid duplication on David's part.
Why Pontius Pilot got recalled from the Middle East
David Curry says:
I can see Jesus voting more for Barrack Obama, myself. But certainly, George W is right. Jesus was a remarkably inspiring fellow.
I've always thought it would be good to do a movie from the point of view of Pontius Pilot.
There he was doing his best to settle down the natives, bring a bit of progress to the region, sort out the local factions.
Everything went wrong.
He built a viaduct over sacred Jewish ground. Completely misunderstood the whole 'graven images' thing.
Then there was that fiasco with the bloody Essenes. How was he supposed to know the local auxilliaries were Sadducees and they had long standing grievances?
Faulty intelligence. Typical of the Praetorian Guard to misread the chatter.
Then the Jesus thing pops up.
"Finally, something I can give them so they'll respect me," Pontius thought.
"But, oh no. He's the bloody Messiah, fer Chrissakes."
"Now I have to go lockstep through history with Jesus as the guy who handed God over for execution, I suppose."
"Anyway, the Emperor recalled me. One stuff-up too many."
"Wife's annoyed because the 'golden barge down the River Jordan' and 'eating grapes fed by slaves' thingy has been totally called off."
searchable database of firms supplying Iran's weapons program
Here's an interesting on line resource for people following developments in the Persian Gulf, especially in Iran.
Thoughtfully provided by the University of Wisconsin, it includes a searchable database of entities - persons, companies, governments - that are thought to have supplied technology, equipment, material or expertise to Iran that would enhance Iran's ability to construct nuclear, chemical, biological or advanced conventional weapons or long-range missiles.
This should clear up any misunderstandings in the "The USA armed the Ayatollahs" phase of the propaganda push after Iran nukes one or other of its neighbours.
Hope this helps.
Iraq Watch: Redux
Check out this piece of work published by Milhollin and Katz in November 2002 [extract]:
Read the whole article and you will see that these people didn't have a clue about Iraq or the US government's intentions. It is hard to find a single prediction that has turned out to be true. Good stuff if you're trying to justify an invasion though.
So, why should we trust these idiots to tell the truth about Iran, and why should we have any confidence that they know what the truth is?
Derogatory parentheses
Angela Ryan says:
From a linguistic point of view, the use of derogatory parentheses is typically intended to belittle or degrade the referent of the word enclosed.
Take this example: “Zombie” is a terribly derogatory term, an awesomely hurtful schoolyard taunt.
The purpose is clear - to isolate, subjectivise and deny authenticity to the subject of the word.
I suggest that Webdiary seriously consider such a device, when used in reference to an ethnic group, and invidious term or perjorative slur.
David C: Hi Eliot - see Angela's comment here. It seems clear to me that the purpose is clearly not to denigrate Kurds but to question the boundaries of the Kurdish region, which is quite a different proposition. Perhaps 'diarists should be careful to elaborate when using "derogatory parentheses" (here to signify a quotation!) around an ethnic or racial group.
The beat goes on, and bigger pictures.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi on what's wrong with declaring the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps) a terrorist organisation.
Playing into Ahmadinejad's hands.
A little piece from Little Rock.
From DemocracyNow! - Mr Prince goes to Washington.
Erik Prince is the founder of Blackwater.
Also from DemocracyNow! an interview with Norman Solomon.
What about not seeking foreign entanglements? Here's another one.
The tentacles reach far and wide.
Drum beating.
Angela, I concur with David's comments on the quality posts you have provided today. I am glad to see the use you make of the material I supply as well as your own sources. So I have a little more to add ....
On the beating of drums:
Scott Horton.
Justin Logan.
Blackwater:
Robert Scheer.
Blackwater has friends ...
And they will even write reports on their behaviour.
Robert Parry - Bush's Global "Dirty War".
And they think they're the good guys...
Edge to a boundariy? Eliot and "Kurdish "
Very kind words, we chose to bat, despite the googlies.
Hi Craig, Hi Bob, and what a hot one eh? Down here on holidays. Shall delicately toe the tepid waters of international events just one more time, with the four year old pulling at my seat as I do so, to go to the Beach. Bowling from the Western End:
“Eliot”, why do I use inverted commas? Not for any of your assumptive - like reasons, my my, projecting are we? (And does the Kurdish suffering that CParsons so eloquently educated us about in the past, justify resorting to terrorism ,PKK , Al Ansar etc style that we see now in all its gory detail Eliot? Just wondering).
Well, it is out of respect and political correctness as the area is not Kurdistan, there is no such country ,and the area has been home for many generations to many different ethnic groups, including Assyrian, Kurds, Yezhidi, Turkmen, Shiite, etc with intermarriage, and ethnic democracy changes during the decades of Saddam time where Arabs were encouraged to move there after the post Iran Iraq war and Kurdish uprising with predictable violent suppression and US washing of hands and even supporting such as described earlier, and where currently violent retribution is going on.
Where exactly are the boundaries of any future “Kurdish” region is still something to be decided (postponed plebiscite, what parts of Ninawa, Arbil,Kirkuk, As-Sulaymaniyyah etc) and Kurdish nationals and their foreign supporters are naturally keen for oil rich areas, such as the recently terrorist targeted Yezidi/Assyrain area to be included. This requires ethnic cleansing if the plebiscite is to support separation from Iraq ,and such demographic changes are supported by the occupiers as seen with the post Saddam constitution that was so fallacious in the process of voting for it (remember the changes midstream to the process and the exclusion of the Sunni Arab groups, Fallujah destruction time). Here is a bit about Kirkuk:
“…However, some critics of the plan describe it as tantamount to gerrymandering ahead of the referendum, while others call it another form of forced migration. The Sunni-led Muslim Scholars Association issued a statement on September 11 warning that the plan would harm the integrity of Iraq and lead to its eventual partitioning. "The conspiracy to divide Iraq enters a grave phase with the occupation puppet government officially encouraging through financial incentives, to expel Kirkuk's Arabs and facilitate their transfer to other regions of Iraq," the statement said.
Finally, there is the spectre of violence among the Kurds, Turkomans, and Arabs who all have a stake in Kirkuk. There is a fear that holding the referendum in the ethnically mixed governorate could lead to the type of sectarian bloodshed that has gripped Baghdad and central Iraq.
…”
Here.
And here is accusation of Kurdish terrorism involvement in Ninevah and discussing cleansing going on in Iraq:
Here.
And here is a bit more about the huge bombing that harmed 1500 Yazidis, who benefits? Who is the ALqaida?
Perhaps another reason to call it “Kurdish ”with inverted commas is the dominance now of Saudi influence, perhaps "Saudistan" would be more appropriate. What influence? Here is a bit about it:
In recent conversations with her NGO colleagues, Sayadi has found that within the last two years, the Saudi government has financed the construction of at least 50 mosques in Erbil and Suleimaniya alone. They are also very active on the Turkish/Iraq border and in Kirkuk and Halabja. She explains, “They go to areas where there is the most poverty and suffering, stepping in to offer services that people are not getting from the government — health care, education, and sometimes employment — and in the process implanting their fundamentalist ideology.”
Sayadi believes the Saudi monarchy is directly involved in funding “at least four new Islamic groups in Kurdistan. They are exploiting the fact that Kurds are mostly Sunni.”
During the summer of 2005, members of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sunna cells were among several extremists arrested in Erbil, and most of them were Kurds. Prior to this, Saudi mosque-building in the area during the 1990’s combined with the return of Kurdish militants who had fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is believed to have led to the emergence of groups like Ansar al-Sunna. The general perception was that these men aspired to radicalize the general population by replicating the Afghan model in Kurdistan. Reinforcing this trend around that time, Saudi Arabia established links with these Kurds to counter the power of Saddam Hussein. …….. Wahabi teachings followed in Saudi had been translated into Kurdish and imported into the region, accompanied by the Salafi strain, a puritanical, strict interpretation of the Koran adhered to by al-Qaeda.
In 2003, U.S. air-strikes had targeted bases of Ansar al-Islam on Iraq’s north-eastern border with Iran. These same radical groups, thanks in large part to Saudi backing, are now alive and flourishing in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq.
Here.
Thus “Eliot”, Saudistan , with the hatred of US, is replacing the dream of Kurdistan due to the “friend” of the US, the Royal House of Saud, supporting and using the Sunni Kurds to promote their Wahabism , a fundamentalist form of Islam that now destroys the lives of Kurdish , esp women, women,even being taken to Saudi as the article goes, and of course is the fanatical religion of Alqaida. We see Al Ansar and the progress they make. Remember the Aussi camera man killed? It isa valid question to wonder at supporting terrorism by kurdish fanatics when we are supposed to be at war with terrorism. And who supports such terrorists? If it is the Saudi/Cheney alliance that Hersh speaks of, allegedly supporting the Sunni terrorist/extremist group in Lebanon, the group just arrested, then again, why are not their assets frozen as US law demands? Is this double speak when it comes to terrorism. The terrorist of my terrorist is my friend?
This is another example of the enemy of my enemy is my friend philosophy that originally made the US State department (Armitage et al) support Saddam in his war against Iran including the non-conventional weapons as posted elsewhere today and Israel support the “Clean Break” paper. Now the same philosophy is arming Saudi, 15 billion worth just announced and protecting Saudis from BAE corruption scandals in UK,, and placing their fanatical version of Islam in a more and more powerful position both at home (see particularly the UK,but also here even in Sydney) and in occupied regions where the anti-Jewish and Anti American nature is openly declared by these Wahabist Jihardists.. What madness is this? What short term foolishness? To allow the perversion of the “Kurdish region”, and grab of oil rich areas thus enabling Tapline and ARAMICO to consolidate enormous oil power is both ethically wrong and politically unwise.
Now, are all the players ready? Or is there a better way?
Cheers
PS “Eliot”, a golden duck again, and with gold prices hitting the roof there are many that would prefer a quacker to a buck. But do we need a Hare? I just play the ball, edge to the boundaries. But time for tea now. Shall watch that arm action, Eliot, sure I have seen it before. Pity about the stitches. New ball, new bowler, same team.
She slipped into a comma when it came to the Kurds
Angela Ryan says:
Angela, hi! Could you explain why you would enclose the word "Kurdish" in double inverted commas?
Is this because you don't believe the Kurds are actually entitled to call those regions their own? Or is there another reason?
Would you, for example, refer to "Aboriginal" lands when talking about land rights in Australia? Or "Palestinian" lands when talking about Gaza or the West Bank?
Also, could you refer us to any source material on any "ethnic cleansing" currently underway in Kurdistan?
And how would you say it compares with the actual ethnic cleansing of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein's regime?
No easy answers.
Hello Angela, another tour de force. So many aspects covered in it that it is an answer in itself of the question you put to me. We all the factors, actors and possibilities at play answers are difficult (at a minimum) arrive at. So what we can do is provide as much material as we can that passes our standards, then consider the possibilities ... until the next batch is added to the mix. People have their own areas of interest and expertise and agendas, on the last, some more than others. Then there is the material we do not see - government documents consigned to the secure files for decades and such.
Never forgetting the spin. And the complicity of the media in facilitating it. The internet allows us to find other sources that can provide other views and other information. The article about AQI is a good example. The Bush administration tries to direct much of the blame to AQI in an attempt to justify remaining in Iraq due to it being part of the war on terror. But there is a lot of material that questions that claim. The latest article is just one more. So we take this collection of pieces and compare it to the Bush version. We know who has a track record for lying. I tend to the view that if the occupation ended then the Iraqis would sort out AQI.
I had not yet prepared a collection of articles for posting when your post appeared, but, as you mentioned the human cost of the Iraq occupation, that is a good lead in for the latest Tom Engelhardt - We Count, They Don't. Covers a lot of ground with lots of internal links. Starts with the Senate vote to partition Iraq.
At least Caesar was just commenting on reality when he wrote that "all Gaul is divided into three parts." Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden attempted to create reality when an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Senate voted for his non-binding resolution to divide Iraq into three parts -- Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish autonomous zones. Shailagh Murray of the Washington Post reported that the 75-23 Senate vote was "a significant milestone…, carving out common ground in a debate that has grown increasingly polarized and focused on military strategy." Murray added, "The [tripartite] structure is spelled out in Iraq's constitution, but Biden would initiate local and regional diplomatic efforts to hasten its evolution."
In Iraq, the plan was termed a "disaster" by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; a representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called the Senate resolution "a step toward the breakup of Iraq." He added, according to Juan Cole's Informed Comment website, "It is a mistake to imagine that such a plan will lead to a reduction in chaos in Iraq; rather, on the contrary, it will lead to an increase in the butchery and a deepening of the crisis of this country, and the spreading of increased chaos, even to neighboring states." In the meantime, Sunni clerics and various political parties joined in the denunciations. Only the Kurds, eager for an independent state, evidently welcomed the plan.
Cole caught the essence of this latest stratagem perfectly: First, he pointed out, the Senate "messed up Iraq by authorizing Terrible George to blow it up, now they want to further mess it up by dividing it."
But here's the most curious thing in this strange exercise in counting to three -- simply that it happened in the United States. Let's imagine, for a moment, that the Iraqi Parliament had voted a non-binding resolution to grant congressional representation to Washington DC or to allow California's electoral votes to be divided up by district. Or what if the Iranian parliament had just passed a non-binding resolution to divide the United States into semi-autonomous bio-regions?
Such acts would, of course, be considered not just outrageous and insulting, but quite mad and, on our one-way planet, they are indeed little short of unimaginable. But no one I noticed in the mainstream of political Washington or the media that covers it -- whether agreeing with the proposal or not -- seemed to find it even faintly odd for the U.S. Senate to count to three in support of a plan that, at best, would put an American stamp of approval on the continuing ethnic cleansing of Iraq.
That says much about the US and its approach. But there is much more in the article.
To Iran and the machine keeps spinning madly, Bonkers is a prime example. But the crazies do seem intent on a course of action. Podhoretz has the Commander's ear. No one is sure who has his brain. All the claims about Iran's intentions, yet there are people who have expressed their intentions very clearly who have influence over those who have the means to act upon them. Bryan Law asked elsewhere:
Is the USA stupid enough to spread the war into Iran and Syria?
Some are. And if you think the mess in Iraq was due to hubris, delusion and incompetence, then that adds weight to that contention. But why did they go into Iraq? Perhaps it was to create chaos to justify maintaining a military presence. Plus a number of other contributing reasons. So would the next step be authorised? We've seen predictions of what would result. But there were also predictions of what would happen in Iraq. Have they learned? Perhaps not.
And the Commander thinks he is doing God's work.
We might have to rely on some senior officers saying "No." But they could be replaced by more compliant officers.
Then there is the increasing tension that could lead to an incident and momentum takes over.
Agree with you about accountability. But the faults are across party lines in the US and the culprits there have not been held to account. And yes, the public has allowed it to happen.
Note: Angela's links did not work for me. And limited my response, Angela.
Later I will see if there are more articles to add to the mix.
Know thy enemy (or not) and the "H" word.
"It's al-Qaeda in Iraq!" Or is it?
Iran to continue intensified cooperation with IAEA.
That's more than some do.
Sauce for the goose is not always sauce for the gander.
But ... read on.
And OK for some.
Paul Craig Roberts Hypocrisy rules the West.
the march to war, then and now, with a time imperative this time
Hi Bob, thanks again for keeping us up to scratch on the propaganda battle going on. Each an interesting article.
What did you think of them? It is always a little sad when one reads work from an expert and so much is left out. One wonders as one thumbs through the pages: is it deliberate, was it a rush job, is it not really their niche superspeciality? One such example was when that Indian terrorism expert was interviewed by RN about the OBL fabricated tape and his depressing twaddle about it. Still it helps separate chaff and the stooges who write it.
.Another is the first link you have made. There were some interesting white-outs in the commentary. To blame Shiites for the multiple truck bombing of the Malek sect is perhaps a little imaginative. It also ignores the current ethnic cleansing going on in the "Kurdish" regions and supported by the 2003 agreements made by the US. The plebiscite on separation has been delayed, from last September when it was due, and currently there is a Cholera epidemic in many of the refugee camps. Interestingly the UN reports had the water that was trucked in being that contaminated, as well as certain wells. Hope it wasn't US companies involved in that contract.
The other white out area is the Saudi support for Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which made prominence after US warnings to Saudi recently. Little wonder as now the casus belli is to be Iranian Foreign government supporting terrorist militias, it would be embarrassing if all pointed out the Saudi roll still mucking along.
Note it is the AQI group who are most often responsible for the most heinous attacks upon civilians such as markets and such promoting of ethnic/sectarian violence benefits Saudi and the Salafy/Wahabist fundamentalist cause. Note the infiltration into Kurdish regions of this jihadist/terrorist group.
It is the Kurdish troops that were blamed, true or not by locals, for the more horrible of the military crimes like the sacking of certain Iraqi towns.
Another example found in the same article is a bit of a white out to blame Shiite groups for an attack upon the most revered Shiite site. Again it was security troops dressed in black that were reported at the time, perhaps again foreign or Kurdish militias would fit such a role best, not Shiite groups.
Finally, not a word about MEK in that article. Such a trained terrorist group let lose and funded and armed by the anti-Iranian warmongers are an uncertain entity even in Iraq itself, as described by Seymour Hersh. What has been their role, if anything, locally and is Iran correct that they have been responsible for a number of heinous terrorist atrocities in Iraq and Iran? The Neocons and Israel are on record as supporting this group. It is a designated terrorist organisation. Why are the assets of the supporting groups not frozen as per US law now? As well as the Wahhabist group in Lebanon whose leader has just been caught.
The blatant hypocrisy of condemning Iran for supporting anti-Israel nationalist groups /terrorists while arming and funding this MEK group and the Lebanese Wahabist group and ignoring or silencing the Saudi connections to Al-Qadir in Iraq stinks as high as the cholera bodies piling up in the hot sun.
A stinking reality that is such a preventable tragedy.
Over a million dead, ten times that injured at least. All in our name, all funded by us, all supported by our elected government, all due to an invasion based upon deliberate deceit and forgery for which there has been no trials nor accountability and the same war criminals are pushing for attacks now upon more people. Colonel Gardiner, later, has published a 56 page report on this deliberate deception, back in July 2003.
Germans paid for what their totalitarian fascist government did for 60 years and are still paying. How long should we pay, when we re-elect in freedom, such criminals and seek no accountability after the crimes are known? Are we not accomplices of the very worst kind?
And what of the next war we are being rushed into, headlong, this time clearly for Israel, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out?
Debka runs a fear piece significantly raising tension, that is not substantiated anywhere about all the Russian techies suddenly leaving Bushehr, and contradicted by this piece. Is a strike imminent now? But wait... here.
".... In a meeting with the Head of Iran's Parliamentary Commission on Foreign Policy and National Security Alaeddin Boroujerdi on Monday, Sadovinkov said Russia would finish the construction of the long-awaited power plant whose completion has been delayed several times.
The Russian envoy underscored the key position of Iran in his country's foreign policy and said that Russia's President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran is to take place in a sensitive time and it would be crucial in boosting the two nations' ties..."
Maybe the Russians haven't left.
Israelis fly over Syria and bomb a decayed building with a cover story by dumbass stooge Bolton, a known liar, claiming nuclear works that local Israeli journalist laugh at here :
And here.
Just more lies about Iran/Syria yet again?.
And this story has the Syrian FM claiming that Israel is trying to escalate tensions.
Really? Is there a time imperative? Does it benefit Iran to have more time?
While Russia is planning a Syrian base set up (assumed, it was coined as a "Mediterranean' base so may be Greece/oil pipeline mates) near the huge US base in Turkey, we have Putin to visit Iran mid October.
Already in August there was set just up both the Syrian and Iranian Russian supplied and trained S_A defences that chased the Israeli planes out, causing them to drop full fuel tanks in Turkey on their way to Incirlik US airbase.
But Russia is a bit more bearish about the region:.
"...Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has called on Iran to play a larger role in settling ongoing regional and international crises.
Lavrov stressed the importance of supervising the implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by its signatories.
Bringing to fruition the NPT goals is vital, he said, adding Iran's constructive efforts to resolve regional and international issues should not be ignored.
All countries should have access to peaceful nuclear energy while immediate steps should be adopted to strengthen the NPT, the minister said.. .." Here.
A time imperative starts to emerge for Israel. Russian bases in Syria, further S-A defences, pressure to comply with NPT, distancing from Turkey and losing take off rights, and further strengthening of Hezbollah and stability and independence for Lebanon.
This is a problem for Israel. Or at least for the war hawks there. One might argue quite well that stability and peace may be good for Israel within the 67 borders.
"Regime change is, of course, our goal both in Lebanon and Syria. We wrote long ago that there are three ways to achieve it - the dictator chooses to change; he falls before his own unhappy people; or if he poses a threat to the outside, the outside takes him out..."
- Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), from strategy paper #474 "Priorities in Lebanon & Syria", March 2, 2005..." And Dick Cheney is a Jinsa member. And, considering the US vote just this week :
"...Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking Iraq up into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon...."
Here.
And all this war talk has indeed as Chris/Eliot/ Geoff et al all point out quite accurately, that Iran/Syria /Lebanon has had warmongering threats going on against it since soon after the Iraq invasion.
"... The Independent (UK) reported on January 26, 2005, that Israeli War Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Iran "was close to a point of no return" and he would not rule out an Israeli assault.
According to unnamed European Commission "experts" consulted in a February 6, 2005, article on Al-Jazeera (Qatar), "The U. S. Defense Department, the Pentagon, and Israel have put the final touches" on plans of attack on Iran that will target in part that country's nuclear facilities.
UPI reported in January that the U. S. is already daring Iran to defend herself by flying military aircraft over the country, officially, "to lure Tehran into turning on air defense systems … to grid the system for future targeting data" for the coming strikes.... "
That was from March 2005. Here.
And finally, a look back at the Iraq war by Colonel Sam Gardiner's 56 page dossier:
To remind ourselves of the lying warmongering that led to that war and the lying warmongering we are hearing now again from the same criminals. Here.
SO, back to 2003 and the Iraq war for those who are not thinking of it and the suffering it brought to millions living a hell right now:
"....The multi million-dollar propaganda campaign run out of the White House and Defense Department was, in Gardiner's final assessment "irresponsible in parts" and "might have been illegal. "
"Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies to come to the right decisions," Gardiner explains. Consequently, "Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty, democracy receives collateral damage. " For the first time in US history, "we allowed strategic psychological operations to become part of public affairs... [W]hat has happened is that information warfare, strategic influence, [and] strategic psychological operations pushed their way into the important process of informing the peoples of our two democracies. ".... "
".... According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world. Gardiner's research led him to conclude that elements at the highest levels of the US and British governments had conspired to plant "stories of strategic influence" that were known to be false....."
Lying???.
"......
"The problem was the veteran newsmen in the networks: they had "too much control of context, " Rendon complained. That has to be fixed for the next war, " Rendon declared......
At the same conference, Captain Gerald Mauer, the Joint Staff Assistant Deputy Director for Information Operations, observed that public diplomacy and public affairs are slowly morphing into a single combined information operation.
Mauer envisions a Strategic Fusion Center that "brings everything together". The Pentagon is already hard at work crafting an Information Operations Roadmap.
Mauer also told his fellow perception managers that "We hope to make more use of Hollywood and Madison Avenue in the future." The overall goal remains the same, Mauer explained: to allow the men who now control Washington to "disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial... decision-making."
Gardiner finds that the future envisioned by Rendon and Mauer is fundamentally "frightening." The phrase "adversarial... decision-making will be disrupted" reportedly was added by Douglas Feith, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. What it means, Gardiner warns, is that "we will even go after friends if they are against what we are doing or want to do."..."
And what is so sad is that Webdiarists here still quote some of the myths busted by this article made up in the PR studios for deception.
One sees the cheer squad for the war-whores repeatedly quoting myths already busted regarding the new target, Iran on other sites. Some things do not change unless there is accountability. "We will go after friends"....
Alex says "no" to Aussie contribution to this attack. An election defuser or something to be held to? Will there be an attack? Poland this time??
What are we missing? Accountability. Criminals do not modify their behaviour unless there is a negative outcome for them.
Instead we let them march us to the next war. What kind of sedative are we all on?
Cheers.
Yawn. Press The Israel Button. Yawn
The Neocons and Israel are on record as supporting this group.
This is a problem for Israel. Or at least for the war hawks there. One might argue quite well that stability and peace may be good for Israel within the 67 borders.
Israelis fly over Syria and bomb a decayed building with a cover story by dumbass stooge Bolton, a known liar, claiming nuclear works that local Israeli journalist laugh
Israeli War Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Iran "was close to a point of no return"
Syrian FM claiming that Israel is trying to escalate tensions.
And what of the next war we are being rushed into, headlong, this time clearly for Israel, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out?
And on and on and on it rolls. With the usual suspects cheering from balconies and anyone who disagrees is regarded as a troll. Called a troll and treated as one. God WD has got boring. In fact the whole "left" is so bloody boring it is a wonder how you keep each other awake.
You are talking about the Iraq war, right? Well it's been going for a few years now and yet there is something pretty basic you haven't noticed yet.
Israel has nothing to do with the Iraq war.
Get it? Nope? Didn't think so. Some people never will.
Sometimes we have shards before we have fresh air
Sorry, Dave, just saw your comment after pushing the send button for the last one.Shall stop now for a while, breather for all, as other demands and off to sporting trips for the big one, bien sur. Shall practise laconic and punctuation as I bet you have a few sport trips/ holiday visits. Am also doing it solo from next week as there are a few conferences on for hewhomustbecookedforevenifitisjustchops. Shall be a little laconic to the kids too ,methinks, that week.
As John Marsden says So Much To Say. I do hope all this October Surprise is just spin, but suspect not. Time is ticking for some groups whose window of opportunity is shutting. Perhaps one day we shall read the details of the fascinating Inhouse war going on within our allies' nests. In the meantime so much dirt will fly we may be able to rewrite a fair bit of history.
A shutting window? I hope it slams, breaks into dangerous but not harming shards, and all breathe some fresh air together. As a pragmatist, I fear the house will fall instead. It really is a choice.
Cheers
(There, no references or country capitals, a vegetarian piece, no meat :))