The Many Faces of US Politics...

[tyssam5]

This latest article could cause a few pole-reversing swings on the  moral compasses of some of our more right-wing contributors? Surely if the A-rabs are now against Bazza he must be doing something right?

[give her dixie]

will you stop f**king posting articles....one or two is ok but you have been just ripping the complete arse out of it.

Jesus christ but you are one preachy b**tard.

The last time I looked, this thread was about the many faces of US politics.

I think the article I posted relates to how McChrystal was sacked for comments he made about the president,
and a man who says murdering people is fun gets promotion!

To me, that is a change of face in US politics.

Now, could you imagine the outcry if a British General had said the same thing about shooting Irish people
here during the troubles?

[dowling]

If anyone wants to take exception to your posts or be ignorant to the information you provide that is of course their perogative Dixie.
I very much appreciate what you do and the time you take to keep information that I might otherwise remain ignorant of coming.

[give her dixie]

Thanks Dowling.
By now we are all aware that the western media doesn't report the real truth, and most of us rely on the internet in order to find out what is really going on in the world.

When is the last time we have seen anything about what daily life is like in Afghanistan or Iraq? We see coffins coming home all the time, yet we never get to see where or how they died. Do we ever get to see the death toll from these 2 wars? Do these lives not count?

Right now, we are facing a war with Iran. It is just like Iraq all over again. The scaremongering has been going on for a while. Nuclear weapons, Israel under threat, US freedom under attack, blah blah blah. The following article is a good look at the current state of affairs regarding Iran, and who is pulling the strings.


The Three Stooges Go To Israel
     

Keith Johnson
Revolt of the Plebs
July 12, 2010

Slowly I turned... step by step... inch by inch...

Does anyone remember the famous black-and-white skit, performed by the Three Stooges, where a psychotic Moe goes berserk and attacks an innocent bystander who unwittingly utters the trigger words "Niagara Falls!"?

These are the guys the American people have entrusted to dictate our foreign policy?
 
Today, we have a new cast of crazies doing the same routine.  However, you can substitute the word "Iran!" in place of the words "Niagara Falls!" and still get the same reaction out of the likes of Joseph Lieberman (I – CT), John McCain (R – AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R – SC), AKA:  The Three Stooges.

For the last few days, this psychotic trio of serial killers were in their beloved homeland of Israel, licking the hand that feeds them and performing renditions of John McCain's favorite tune: "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" to an audience of likeminded Israeli warlords.

Actually, what was said behind closed doors can only be speculated.  But, considering the track record of these three filthy war criminals, you can be almost certain that the blood sacrifice of your children and the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Persians were among the highlights discussed by these well-fed senior citizens as they stuffed their sagging jowls with caviar and sipped champagne from their thin, purple lips.

When they emerged, they met the press.  Their comments were purposely measured in tone and contradictory in nature.  While they denied that neither Israel nor the U.S. were planning to strike Iran anytime soon, they strongly suggested that they were prepared to take any action necessary to halt continued progress on its nuclear ambitions.  Their tempered and seemingly innocuous statements were the most telling sign—to date—that an attack on the Islamic state is imminent.

Speaking from Jerusalem on Wednesday, John McCain addressed a gaggle of reporters after meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Israel's military chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi.  When asked if he would support an Israeli military strike on Iran, McCain said, "I don't believe we are at the point of making that kind of decision, nor is the Israeli government, given the state that Iran is in now as far as the development of their nuclear weapons is concerned." McCain said it was impossible for him to say whether he would back such an operation because it "would be dictated by so many different circumstances."

Those "many different circumstances" that McCain refers to are the multitude of options that the Israeli government and their NeoCon puppets are weighing as an excuse to launch a U.S. led strike on Iran.  McCain has been frustrated by sanctions, because as far as he's concerned—sanctions are for pussies! Nothing less than a mushroom cloud rising out of the ashes of a big steaming pile of Bar-B-Qued 4-year-olds will make John McCain happy.  For months he has been rallying support among his constituency of misguided Christian Zionists and armchair war hawks, insisting that nothing short of tough military action should be taken to prevent Iran from destroying the world with their cache of low-grade medical isotopes.  Why now would he tone down his rhetoric unless he was confident that his dream of mass destruction was soon to become a reality?

Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, couldn't help but reiterate his long held position of aggression.  He told reporters that there is a broad consensus in Congress that military force can be used, if necessary, to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Lieberman cited the recent sanctions passed by Congress as a potential deterrent.  But he went on to say that keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power would be accomplished, "through diplomatic and economic sanctions if we possibly can, through military actions if we must."

Little Lindsey Graham summed up the trio's true "consensus" best when he declared, "Congress has Israel's back!" It was his little way of letting Israel know that their AIPAC money was being well spent on him, and that there was no need to out him as a homosexual.

What a confederacy of dunces!  These are the guys the American people have entrusted to dictate our foreign policy? They insist that Iran is developing nuclear weapons when their own intelligence sources provide evidence to the contrary.

I wrote in a previous article that as recently as February 11, 2010, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a claim by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran had produced the first stock of 20 percent enriched uranium.  Gibbs said, "The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year.  We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching." The enriched uranium that Ahmadinejad was referring to was not for building a nuclear weapon but rather for medical isotopes used to treat cancer patients.  And even if they did have the capability of enriching to 20 percent, it still falls far short of the nearly 98% that is required for building a weapon of mass destruction.  As a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium in the manner that they are claiming.

These are the facts.  So why would anyone believe these morons?  Need I remind you of the last time we went to war over the assumption that another Middle Eastern country was in possession of weapons of mass destruction?  The idiots who are making false claims about Iran's weapons program were the same ones making those claims back then.  Both Lieberman and McCain were signators on a letter (dated December 5, 2001) to President George W. Bush, urging him to go after Saddam Hussein for his mythical weapons program.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Of course history has now shown that Lieberman, McCain and other likeminded fools were dead wrong.  What's worse is that they most likely knew they were wrong.  But that didn't stop them from leading us into a war that resulted in the murder of over a million Iraqis and the deaths of over four thousand (conservatively) of our American servicemen.

Now we stand on the precipice of yet another disaster that will make the Iraq War look like a Pop Warner scrimmage.  Are we going to let them do it?  Do we have any choice?

All the chess pieces have been laid out on the table.  Every attempt to bring Iran into western influence has thus far failed.  In 2009, the Brzenzski /Soros team failed to affect regime change by way of a "color revolution" during the Iranian presidential elections.

Now we have sanctions.  But these have yet to apply adequate pressure on the Iranian government or encourage dissenters, within the Regime, to stage a coup.  It is unlikely that sanctions will ever dissuade Iran from relinquishing its sovereignty.

As a matter of fact, while threats from the west loom, prospects for Iran have never been brighter.  Iran's ambassador, Mahamoud-Reza Sajjadi, told the Islamic Republic News Agency "Many countries and even American firms don't like Iran to be under sanctions. That's why they are operating in Iran with different names or through proxy companies from other countries." In a relaxed manner, Sajjadi added that, "The question of sanctions is commonplace to our people as Iran has been under sanctions for the past 31 years."


Sajjadi was confident that his nation would survive sanctions and allow for internal economic development that would help bring them closer to self-sufficiency.  But his most compelling statement was in regards to the true nature of Iranian-Russian relations when he said, "We are two neighbors with common interests and (common) threats. Iran and Russia are against the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel's expansionist objectives."

Don't underestimate Russia.  Russia's signatory to a joint UN resolution on Iranian sanctions is a clever ploy to delay an attack on Iran.  Their strategy is to eliminate justification for western strikes on the Islamic regime while sanctions are in place.

During a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev boldly voiced strong criticism of the additional U.S. and EU sanctions on Iran that go beyond those approved by the UN Security Council.  "We didn't agree to this when we discussed the joint resolution at the U.N.," said Medvedev.

As stated previously, Iran continues to survive with covert Russian aid and western trade alliances working by proxy.  Muslim nations, even those with fundamental religious differences, are now finding themselves obliged to aid Iran in light of the worldwide condemnation of Israel over the botched raid on the Gazan peace flotilla.

Nowhere was this reversal so self-evident than when, On June 11, the London Times initially quotes a U.S. security official as saying that, "The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way. They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren't scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department." It further quoted sources in the Saudi government as saying that officials in the country "all know" about the plan, and that they "will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing."

One day later, Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news service, completely discredited this assertion by proclaiming that, "Saudi Arabia on Saturday denied a report in the London Times that it had given Israel "clear skies" to attack Iran. According to the report, Saudi Arabia was testing its radar and defense equipment in order to partially disable defenses, in order to allow Israeli planes to fly over Saudi airspace in the event of an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.  Riyadh [capital of Saudi Arabia] denied the report later Saturday, saying it was "slanderous. Saudi Arabia rejects violating its sovereignty or the use of its airspace or territories by anyone to attack any country," an official said in a statement."

So where does that leave us?  Any good gambler would look at his cards and fold.  Not so with the U.S. and Israel.  These two never leave the table because they believe they have an endless supply of money to cover even the most foolish bet.  The U.S. is in it to win it, and you won't find a sympathetic or reasonable shoulder to cry on from either end of the political spectrum; they are both afflicted with the same mental illness.

The Democrats and Republicans both agree that Iran must fall to western rule.  The Brzenzski/Soros led left wanted to affect that through peaceful regime change while the Israeli led NeoCons would like to just blow the Hell out of the place.

The left had their chance and they blew it.  The "color revolution" fell flat and it looks like sanctions won't work either.  So now it's up to the insane NeoCons to do things their way.  That's why McCain is so calm, cool and collected these days.  There's no longer any need for strong words.  The ships are in the gulf, the rockets are ready to launch out of Diego Garcia...all that's missing is the slightest provocation from Iran and it's GO TIME!

I guess all we can hope for is that Iran avoids a confrontation by refraining from doing anything provocative.  That's easier said than done.

Imagine having a psychotic policeman–who's got a grudge against you–parked outside your front door 24/7.  He's looking for any excuse to bust you!  The minute you hit the street—he's on your tail.  The minute you get out of the car—he's on your heel.  The minute you come around a corner—he's lying on the floor—but you don't see him! Your right toe goes into his thigh as you trip over his body and land flat on your face.  The next thing you know you've got your hands behind your back and you're on your way to the county jail for assaulting a police officer.

I know this may sound like something out of a slapstick comedy.  For these "Three Stooges" and the rest of their cohorts, playing with peoples lives might seem like all fun and games.  But as far as you and I and the rest of the world are concerned?  This is no laughing matter.

[heganboy]

By now we are all aware that the western media doesn't report the real truth

Fixed that for you...

[Hedley Lamarr]

[give her dixie]

Chomsky: Is the U.S. Gearing Up for the Destruction of Iran?

Iran sits at the top of US concerns about keeping control of Middle East oil-producing regions, preparing for serious violence if other means do not suffice.


The dire threat of Iran is widely recognized to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that "the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability" in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of US global concerns. The term "stability" here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under US control.

In June 2010 Congress strengthened the sanctions against Iran, with even more severe penalties against foreign companies. The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding US offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia, claimed by Britain, which had expelled the population so that the US could build the massive base it uses for attacks in the Central Command area. The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group. According to a US Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 "bunker busters" used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these "massive ordnance penetrators," the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.

"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran," according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. "US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours," he said. "The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003," accelerating under Obama.

The Arab press reports that an American fleet (with an Israeli vessel) passed through the Suez Canal on the way to the Persian Gulf, where its task is "to implement the sanctions against Iran and supervise the ships going to and from Iran." British and Israeli media report that Saudi Arabia is providing a corridor for Israeli bombing of Iran (denied by Saudi Arabia). On his return from Afghanistan to reassure NATO allies that the US will stay the course after the replacement of General McChrystal by his superior, General Petraeus, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Israel to meet IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and senior military staff along with intelligence and planning units, continuing the annual strategic dialogue between Israel and the U.S. The meeting focused "on the preparation by both Israel and the U.S. for the possibility of a nuclear capable Iran," according to Haaretz, which reports further that Mullen emphasized that "I always try to see challenges from Israeli perspective." Mullen and Ashkenazi are in regular contact on a secure line.


The increasing threats of military action against Iran are of course in violation of the UN Charter, and in specific violation of Security Council resolution 1887 of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.

Some analysts who seem to be taken seriously describe the Iranian threat in apocalyptic terms. Amitai Etzioni warns that "The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East," no less. If Iran's nuclear program proceeds, he asserts, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other states will "move toward" the new Iranian "superpower." To rephrase in less fevered rhetoric, a regional alliance might take shape independent of the US. In the US army journal Military Review, Etzioni urges a US attack that targets not only Iran's nuclear facilities but also its non-nuclear military assets, including infrastructure -- meaning, the civilian society. "This kind of military action is akin to sanctions - causing 'pain' in order to change behaviour, albeit by much more powerful means."

Such inflammatory pronouncements aside, what exactly is the Iranian threat? An authoritative answer is provided by military and intelligence reports to Congress in April 2010 [Lieutenant General Ronald L. Burgess, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, Statement before the Committee on Armed Services, US Senate, 14 April 2010; Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran, April 2010; John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service, "Report to Congress Outlines Iranian Threats," April 2010.

The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it does not rank particularly high in that respect in comparison to US allies in the region. But that is not what concerns the military and intelligence assessments. Rather, they are concerned with the threat Iran poses to the region and the world.

The reports make it clear that the Iranian threat is not military. Iran's military spending is "relatively low compared to the rest of the region," and of course minuscule as compared to the US. Iranian military doctrine is strictly "defensive, ... designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities." Iran has only "a limited capability to project force beyond its borders." With regard to the nuclear option, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."

Though the Iranian threat is not military aggression, that does not mean that it might be tolerable to Washington. Iranian deterrent capacity is considered an illegitimate exercise of sovereignty that interferes with US global designs. Specifically, it threatens US control of Middle East energy resources, a high priority of planners since World War II. As one influential figure advised, expressing a common understanding, control of these resources yields "substantial control of the world" (A. A. Berle).


But Iran's threat goes beyond deterrence. It is also seeking to expand its influence. Iran's "current five-year plan seeks to expand bilateral, regional, and international relations, strengthen Iran's ties with friendly states, and enhance its defense and deterrent capabilities. Commensurate with that plan, Iran is seeking to increase its stature by countering U.S. influence and expanding ties with regional actors while advocating Islamic solidarity." In short, Iran is seeking to "destabilize" the region, in the technical sense of the term used by General Petraeus. US invasion and military occupation of Iran's neighbors is "stabilization." Iran's efforts to extend its influence in neighboring countries is "destabilization," hence plainly illegitimate. It should be noted that such revealing usage is routine. Thus the prominent foreign policy analyst James Chace, former editor of the main establishment journal Foreign Affairs, was properly using the term "stability" in its technical sense when he explained that in order to achieve "stability" in Chile it was necessary to "destabilize" the country (by overthrowing the elected Allende government and installing the Pinochet dictatorship).

Beyond these crimes, Iran is also carrying out and supporting terrorism, the reports continue. Its Revolutionary Guards "are behind some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past three decades," including attacks on US military facilities in the region and "many of the insurgent attacks on Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq since 2003." Furthermore Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, the major political forces in Lebanon and in Palestine -- if elections matter. The Hezbollah-based coalition handily won the popular vote in Lebanon's latest (2009) election. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian election, compelling the US and Israel to institute the harsh and brutal siege of Gaza to punish the miscreants for voting the wrong way in a free election. These have been the only relatively free elections in the Arab world. It is normal for elite opinion to fear the threat of democracy and to act to deter it, but this is a rather striking case, particularly alongside of strong US support for the regional dictatorships, emphasized by Obama with his strong praise for the brutal Egyptian dictator Mubarak on the way to his famous address to the Muslim world in Cairo.

The terrorist acts attributed to Hamas and Hezbollah pale in comparison to US-Israeli terrorism in the same region, but they are worth a look nevertheless.

On May 25 Lebanon celebrated its national holiday Liberation Day, commemorating Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon after 22 years, as a result of Hezbollah resistance -- described by Israeli authorities as "Iranian aggression" against Israel in Israeli-occupied Lebanon (Ephraim Sneh). That too is normal imperial usage. Thus President John F. Kennedy condemned the "the assault from the inside" in South Vietnam, "which is manipulated from the North." This criminal assault by the South Vietnamese resistance against Kennedy's bombers, chemical warfare, programs to drive peasants to virtual concentration camps, and other such benign measures was denounced as "internal aggression" by Kennedy's UN Ambassador, liberal hero Adlai Stevenson. North Vietnamese support for their countrymen in the US-occupied South is aggression, intolerable interference with Washington's righteous mission. Kennedy advisors Arthur Schlesinger and Theodore Sorenson, considered doves, also praised Washington's intervention to reverse "aggression" in South Vietnam -- by the indigenous resistance, as they knew, at least if they read US intelligence reports. In 1955 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff had defined several types of "aggression," including "Aggression other than armed, i.e., political warfare, or subversion." For example, an internal uprising against a US-imposed police state, or elections that come out the wrong way. The usage is also common in scholarship and political commentary, and makes sense on the prevailing assumption that We Own the World


Hamas resists Israel's military occupation and its illegal and violent actions in the occupied territories. It is accused of refusing to recognize Israel (political parties do not recognize states). In contrast, the US and Israel not only do not recognize Palestine, but have been acting relentlessly and decisively for decades to ensure that it can never come into existence in any meaningful form. The governing party in Israel, in its 1999 campaign platform, bars the existence of any Palestinian state -- a step towards accommodation beyond the official positions of the US and Israel a decade earlier, which held that there cannot be "an additional Palestinian state" between Israel and Jordan, the latter a "Palestinian state" by US-Israeli fiat whatever its benighted inhabitants and government might believe.

Hamas is charged with rocketing Israeli settlements on the border, criminal acts no doubt, though a fraction of Israel's violence in Gaza, let alone elsewhere. It is important to bear in mind, in this connection, that the US and Israel know exactly how to terminate the terror that they deplore with such passion. Israel officially concedes that there were no Hamas rockets as long as Israel partially observed a truce with Hamas in 2008. Israel rejected Hamas's offer to renew the truce, preferring to launch the murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead against Gaza in December 2008, with full US backing, an exploit of murderous aggression without the slightest credible pretext on either legal or moral grounds.

The model for democracy in the Muslim world, despite serious flaws, is Turkey, which has relatively free elections, and has also been subject to harsh criticism in the US. The most extreme case was when the government followed the position of 95% of the population and refused to join in the invasion of Iraq, eliciting harsh condemnation from Washington for its failure to comprehend how a democratic government should behave: under our concept of democracy, the voice of the Master determines policy, not the near-unanimous voice of the population.

The Obama administration was once again incensed when Turkey joined with Brazil in arranging a deal with Iran to restrict its enrichment of uranium. Obama had praised the initiative in a letter to Brazil's president Lula da Silva, apparently on the assumption that it would fail and provide a propaganda weapon against Iran. When it succeeded, the US was furious, and quickly undermined it by ramming through a Security Council resolution with new sanctions against Iran that were so meaningless that China cheerfully joined at once -- recognizing that at most the sanctions would impede Western interests in competing with China for Iran's resources. Once again, Washington acted forthrightly to ensure that others would not interfere with US control of the region.

Not surprisingly, Turkey (along with Brazil) voted against the US sanctions motion in the Security Council. The other regional member, Lebanon, abstained. These actions aroused further consternation in Washington. Philip Gordon, the Obama administration's top diplomat on European affairs, warned Turkey that its actions are not understood in the US and that it must "demonstrate its commitment to partnership with the West," AP reported, "a rare admonishment of a crucial NATO ally."


The political class understands as well. Steven A. Cook, a scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations, observed that the critical question now is "How do we keep the Turks in their lane?" -- following orders like good democrats. A New York Times headline captured the general mood: "Iran Deal Seen as Spot on Brazilian Leader's Legacy." In brief, do what we say, or else.

There is no indication that other countries in the region favor US sanctions any more than Turkey does. On Iran's opposite border, for example, Pakistan and Iran, meeting in Turkey, recently signed an agreement for a new pipeline. Even more worrisome for the US is that the pipeline might extend to India. The 2008 US treaty with India supporting its nuclear programs -- and indirectly its nuclear weapons programs -- was intended to stop India from joining the pipeline, according to Moeed Yusuf, a South Asia adviser to the United States Institute of Peace, expressing a common interpretation. India and Pakistan are two of the three nuclear powers that have refused to sign the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the third being Israel. All have developed nuclear weapons with US support, and still do.

No sane person wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons; or anyone. One obvious way to mitigate or eliminate this threat is to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. The issue arose (again) at the NPT conference at United Nations headquarters in early May 2010. Egypt, as chair of the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, proposed that the conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations in 2011 on a Middle East NWFZ, as had been agreed by the West, including the US, at the 1995 review conference on the NPT.

Washington still formally agrees, but insists that Israel be exempted -- and has given no hint of allowing such provisions to apply to itself. The time is not yet ripe for creating the zone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated at the NPT conference, while Washington insisted that no proposal can be accepted that calls for Israel's nuclear program to be placed under the auspices of the IAEA or that calls on signers of the NPT, specifically Washington, to release information about "Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel." Obama's technique of evasion is to adopt Israel's position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the US can delay indefinitely, as it has been doing for 35 years, with rare and temporary exceptions.

At the same time, Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, asked foreign ministers of its 151 member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel "accede to" the NPT and throw its nuclear facilities open to IAEA oversight, AP reported.

It is rarely noted that the US and UK have a special responsibility to work to establish a Middle East NWFZ. In attempting to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of the Iraq in 2003, they appealed to Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which called on Iraq to terminate its development of weapons of mass destruction. The US and UK claimed that they had not done so. We need not tarry on the excuse, but that Resolution commits its signers to move to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East.


Parenthetically, we may add that US insistence on maintaining nuclear facilities in Diego Garcia undermines the NWFZ established by the African Union, just as Washington continues to block a Pacific NWFZ by excluding its Pacific dependencies.

Obama's rhetorical commitment to non-proliferation has received much praise, even a Nobel peace prize. One practical step in this direction is establishment of NWFZs. Another is to withdraw support for the nuclear programs of the three non-signers of the NPT. As often, rhetoric and actions are hardly aligned, in fact are in direct contradiction in this case, facts that pass with as little attention as most of what has just been briefly reviewed.

Instead of taking practical steps towards reducing the truly dire threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, the US is taking major steps towards reinforcing US control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions, by violence if other means do not suffice. That is understandable and even reasonable, under prevailing imperial doctrine, however grim the consequences, yet another illustration of "the savage injustice of the Europeans" that Adam Smith deplored in 1776, with the command center since shifted to their imperial settlement across the seas

[magickingdom]

will you stop f**king posting articles....one or two is ok but you have been just ripping the complete arse out of it.

Jesus christ but you are one preachy b**tard.

i tried that approach a few months back ms, youd need to be unemployed to keep up with all the sh1t he posts

[give her dixie]

will you stop f**king posting articles....one or two is ok but you have been just ripping the complete arse out of it.

Jesus christ but you are one preachy b**tard.

i tried that approach a few months back ms, youd need to be unemployed to keep up with all the sh1t he posts

So posts on US foriegn policy that kills innocent people is sh1t to you?
I suppose you will support a US/Israel attack on Iran then?
All in the name of "democracy" eh?

[Tyrones own]

will you stop f**king posting articles....one or two is ok but you have been just ripping the complete arse out of it.

Jesus christ but you are one preachy b**tard.

i tried that approach a few months back ms, youd need to be unemployed to keep up with all the sh1t he posts

Either that or he's on the Hamas payroll as chief Propagandist
but in fairness to him, he is all after all back on the aid  kick...and thought
no one would notice the recent about face  

[Hedley Lamarr]

US missile defense ill-prepared for Iran attack
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN | THE MEDIA LINE

Published: Jul 16, 2010 00:39 Updated: Jul 16, 2010 00:39

WASHINGTON: The US missile defense systems protecting American forces in four major Gulf States is inadequate and "vastly outnumbered" to deal with the looming Iranian threat, a key American missile advocate has warned.

"The shortcomings are the numerical disadvantages the US has right now in being able to handle the thousand or so Iranian missiles that are 120 miles away. So we are lacking the numbers of the specific PAC-3 missiles, we are lacking the launchers that are needed and other systems that are needed to be deployed as quickly as possible," said Riki Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a US-based organization.

Ellison told The Media Line that some Iranian rockets are "only a few short minutes of missile flight away" from US personnel and other targets in the Gulf countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Ellison spoke following a visit to missile installations in Bahrain this week, revealing that only two US air defense battalions are currently spread across the four countries to protect thousands of US personnel, as well as the nearby cities, military sites and civilian populations.

The United States has reportedly been planning to bolster missile protection for its allies in the Gulf, including dispatching sea-based cruisers with sophisticated Aegis defense systems. Washington also reportedly said it was beefing up its eight Patriot missile batteries, although there has been no evidence of this.

While steadily developing its long-range ballistic missile, Iran has been concentrating more readily on short- and medium-range missiles that put the Gulf states well within reach. These are the types of systems that the Patriots and Aegis systems are designed to defend against.

According to Ellison, there are currently four basic types of deployed Iranian ballistic missiles: Shahab, Sajjil, CSS-8 and the M11.

The declared goal of Ellison's organization is to drive "development, deployment and evolution" of missile defense.

He outlined a number of steps the US should take to enhance missile protection, particularly in Bahrain, which hosts the US 5th fleet headquarters, and Qatar, home to a modernized US air operations center that has played a key role in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. These include increasing the number of PAC-3 Patriot launchers from one in each of the eight batteries deployed and doubling their missile inventory, Ellison said.

Another suggestion was the deployment of the new THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system designed to shoot down incoming rockets in space before they re-enter the atmosphere. The THAAD system just last week passed a successful test at a US range in the Pacific, intercepting a target missile inside the Earth's atmosphere. The test also included coordinated interoperability links with a Patriot missile defense system, according to Defense News.

Ellison also advised that the US integrate all the regional missile defense systems to make a combined shield.

"The size and scope of this [Iranian] threat drives the need for missile defense protection to be top priority," he said. "The US missile defense systems, which are vastly outnumbered by Iranian missiles in the Gulf need to be addressed in order to perform their critical mission."

[give her dixie]

While the US slips further and further into recession, and more and more US citizens join the dole line, Uncle Sam decides that sending more bombs and bullets to kill innocent people in Palestine is more important.
It seems that taking life instead of protecting life is now the norm for the US.

I hope anyone joining joing the dole who voted for Obomber relaises that this is the "Change" they voted for.

Plus, in Hedleys article above, it looks like Uncle Sam is going to find another few billion to fund more weapons of mass destruction in the middle east........

US aid to Israell...... The gift that keeps on giving.....


Saturday July 17, 2010 06:03 by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC & Agencies

U.S.. Assistant Secretary of State, Andrew Shapiro, stated Friday that the Washington intend to grant Israel the amount of 2.775 Billion U.S.. Dollars in what was described as the largest military-security aid to Israel.


He said that the money is considered a special military-security aid to Israel in order to ensure "its security needs are met under the current circumstances".

The Obama administration already asked the Congress to grant this amount to Israel.
His statements came as he addressed the US-Israeli relationships on Friday during a speech at the Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

He said that he has no doubt that the relation between Israel and the United States is unbreakable and that this relation is too important to be anything less than a top priority.

Shapiro also stated that this aid would also boost the chances of Middle East Peace, and would help Israel in making the correct decision for a comprehensive peace.

The Assistant Secretary of State added that the United States is committed to Israel's security and added that "Israel has the right to defend itself", and that peace cannot be achieved without accepting this fact.

"Israel is a very important friend to the United States, it is the cornerstone for U.S. commitment to security in the region", Shapiro said, "The U.S. support to Israel is not only to show this friendship, it is also a commitment to Israel's security as this security boots the U.S. national security, and helps Israel in making the needed decisions".

[give her dixie]

Does Event Honoring Israeli Spy Suggest Another Israeli Operation?


Less than two weeks prior to the mass murder of September 11, 2001, the Israeli government made a $1 million grant to Israeli super-spy Jonathan Pollard. In retrospect, the facts suggest that grant may well have served as a signal to Israeli operatives inside the U.S.


Jonathan Pollard
On July 13, 2010, in observance of Pollard's 9000th day of incarceration, the Jerusalem municipality dimmed the lights illuminating the Old City. This gesture of Israeli solidarity included a projection onto the darkened walls of a message urging that President Obama release their spy from prison.

Thus the concern among knowledgeable intelligence operatives that this Pollard commemoration may mean that another Israeli operation is underway.

On March 4, 1987, this Israeli-American was sentenced to life imprisonment for conveying to Israel more than 1 million classified U.S. military documents. Tel Aviv passed those secrets on to Moscow.

In practical effect, this Israeli espionage jettisoned not only America's Cold War defense strategy, it also jeopardized the entirety of NATO's defense posture.

From 1948 to 1989, U.S. taxpayers invested $20 trillion in Cold War-related defense (in 2010 dollars). In practical effect, an Israeli spy operation negated those outlays. Following Pollard's arrest in 1986, Israel repeatedly assured U.S. leaders that he was part of a rogue spy operation.

Not until 12 years later did Tel Aviv concede the obvious: Pollard was an Israeli spy the entire time. According to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, "[It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by...Pollard's treasonous behavior."

Twelve years later, the Pollard storyline shifted again when in June 2010 Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., revived the phony "rogue" portrayal in yet another attempt to distance Tel Aviv from the fact that Israel continues its espionage operations in the U.S.

Another "hyphenated American," Oren relinquished the U.S. component of his citizenship to serve as Israel's ambassador to Washington. Though he withdrew his Pollard statement, no one could explain why someone with his sophistication would issue a "rogue operation" statement.

Signaling the Network

Tel Aviv's first concerted attempt to gain Pollard's release dates to 1998 when, while negotiating the Wye River Accords, Prime Minister Ehud Barak secured from President Bill Clinton an agreement for Pollard's release. Clinton backpedaled when threatened with a mass resignation by outraged members of the U.S. intelligence community.

The entryway to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia features an agency crest imbedded in the tiled floor. An adjoining wall commemorates with stars the unnamed dead who lost their lives as U.S. intelligence operatives. Those featured typically achieved the equivalent military rank of colonel.

As a result of Pollard's spying, 110 C.I.A. operatives lost their lives. In addition, a reported 1,600 prime American assets were lost due to this Israeli espionage. Americans have yet to be told the true extent of this loss.

In the history of U.S. national security, Pollard enjoys top billing as inflicting the most damage. In Israel, he is revered. Eligible for release in 2015, he will be welcomed home as a Zionist hero to a nation that granted him citizenship and several national awards.

His iconic status assures that news of Pollard—any news whatsoever—emboldens Israeli-Americans committed to the Zionist geopolitical agenda. Attempts to secure his release assure hyphenated Americans that their "homeland" will stand in solidarity with them at any cost. Israeli offers of large sums of money reinforce that commitment.

Americans remain largely clueless about the espionage role played by Israeli-Americans. Few recall Jonathan Pollard. Fewer still grasp the costs that Pollard's treason imposed in blood and treasure. Nor do Americans understand the overwhelming influence of dual-citizens both in creating and communicating the false intelligence that took the U.S. to war in the Middle East.

"To wage war by way of deception" has long been the operative credo of the Mossad, Israel's intelligence and operations directorate. Mossad operatives routinely target Israeli-Americans as recruits when staging operations in the U.S.

Even now, many Americans believe that Israel is an ally despite more than six decades of facts confirming the contrary. Israeli espionage remains ongoing aided by a cadre of cooperative members of both the House and Senate and their staffs.

To believe otherwise allows gullibility to displace facts confirming the gravity of the threat that this entangled alliance imposes on the U.S. and, by extension, on the international community.

This latest Israeli adoration of traitor Jonathan Pollard is clearly an affront to the U.S. as Israel's sponsor, financier, protector and primary arms supplier. Of immediate concern, this high profile event may be a signal setting in motion another murderous incident meant to persuade Americans that they face an external threat rather than the ongoing threat of an enemy within.

[magickingdom]

whats your point? just another dumb dig? you do know that the black guy was elected president of the USA. maybe your buddies at arabnews.com do irony

[magickingdom]

whats your point? just another dumb dig? you do know that the black guy was elected president of the USA. maybe your buddies at arabnews.com do irony

What? Did it really take you 3 days to work that out? Thank God for education
u and your arsehole frie3nds on here can suck my a~~.....I've been sorting out the USA's mess for too long now to care about arsewipes like you and your f**kbuddies on here.
Stay in your bunker in Tralee

nice