The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Hedley Lamarr]

By ISRAEL SHAMIR - Arab news.

Published: May 30, 2010 23:38 Updated: May 30, 2010 23:38

The Turks did it! The world as we know it has changed with the newfound independence of Turkey. Within one month, this erstwhile American semi-colony under the charismatic leadership of Recep Erdogan has made two strong moves that have brought it to the forefront of policy-making:

Together with Brazil, Turkey has arranged and signed the Tehran Declaration of a nuclear fuel swap deal with beleaguered Iran. This declaration derails the Israeli plans of sanctioning Iran to death prior to bombing it. The sanctions plan was already on its way to the Security Council; allegedly Russia and China had been pressured to agree. At the last moment, like a deus ex machina - like divine intervention in the medieval theatre - these two new great powers of Turkey and Brazil entered the stage and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. All the plotting of Israeli lobbyists in the US and Europe was wiped out in an instant.

Israel received the news of the Turkey-Brazil-Iran agreement as a heavy blow. "We were defeated by the crafty Turks and Iranians," read the headlines of Israeli newspapers. Not so fast. The US State Department had tried to minimize the damage, effectively asking: "Who cares what these lowlifes agree about? If we have decided to bomb somebody, bomb we shall. We shall never allow facts to confuse us." Thomas Friedman in the NYT was disappointed why "a Holocaust-denying thug" is allowed to live. However, world policy-making has changed, and decisions are not made exclusively in Washington, London or Moscow any more. Mid-size countries - regional powers - are back in vogue, and it is much better for all of us.

Russia's position remains somewhat doubtful. There are persistent rumors that Russia had agreed to support the sanctions despite the Tehran swap deal declaration, and these rumors had caused Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to issue a strong warning. "We do not know whether Russia is a friend or a foe," he said. 'Surely a friend', replied the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, adding that Russia is well pleased with the Declaration and wishes it to succeed. Nothing is final in our world, but meanwhile it seems that Turkey and Brazil, Erdogan and Lula, succeeded in killing the Israeli-American aggression plan.

After derailing the sanctions against Iran, the indomitable Turk sent his vessels to relieve the siege of Gaza. A whole flotilla of small and medium boats is on its way to Gaza now, and among them, a large boat from Turkey, accompanied by a boat bought and equipped by another great friend of Palestine, Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia.

Free Gaza did sail boats to Gaza over the past two years with differing results; they had some important persons aboard, notably our friend, the wonderful Cynthia McKinney, but this is the first time that the steering of this freedom regatta has passed from the hands of nice European volunteers to the locals, to the peoples of the region. This is a vast change, and a change that means a lot. While the Palestinian cause was only the cause celebré of Europeans with conscience, it was containable. Now, when it has become the concern of the local region, the countdown for the freak Zionist mini-Empire has begun.

And speaking of ships, there are clear signs that the biggest ship of all, the United States of America, is turning as well. Big ships cannot stop on a dime, advises the Nautical Almanac. They may require as much as 5 miles to stop, with gears in full reverse. Big ships may need 5-10 miles to turn. Now, what is true for supertankers and aircraft carriers is equally true for America.

By the time of Obama's inauguration, the lobby had an impressive influence over America, influence that some experts would define as total control. The lobby was closely connected with the Israeli right-wing establishment. Its roots went deeply into the coffers of Wall Street. Its fingers orchestrated the US media. Europe was in constant fear of the Jews.

Within one year, the lobby has lost much of its position:

• Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was publicly humiliated and sent back home running from the White House's back door.

• President Obama uttered an unheard-of call for Israel to join the NPT (nuclear nonproliferation treaty);

The US "accepted Arab demands to pressure Israel over its atomic program."

• A secret historical document revealing Israel's attempt to sell nukes to the South African Apartheid regime was published by the Guardian.

• Threats have been sounding that the US will stop blocking anti-Israeli resolutions in the Security Council.

• Jews are extremely unhappy with Obama, for Obama, in his inaugural address, mentioned Muslims ahead of Jews, "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and nonbelievers." (Read this craziest ever hilarious list of complaints!)

It appears that President Obama is a cool customer, who knows when to go forward and when it is good to wait. He probably has learned how to catch the big fish. Meanwhile he is undoing the financial basis of the lobby.

• The Madoff affair was a painful attack of the lobby's purse. That criminal managed the funds of many Jewish organizations. For mysterious reasons he admitted his crime, and the dominoes began to fall. An old and venerable American Jewish Congress went down, as well as many smaller bodies and individuals.

• For obscure reasons, Lehman Brothers was allowed to fall, starting the financial crisis. Lehman Brothers was a prominent Jewish institution, actually a reincarnation of the famous Kuhn, Loeb bank. It went down. Such a collapse could not take place without the Obama administration's blessing.

• Now there is a lasting and sustained attack on Goldman-Sachs, one of the biggest and power-connected financial groups. Goldman-Sachs was described by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz as an institution whose list of partners reads like a list of East Side Synagogue donors, all Jewish. Now there are daily reports of misdeeds and crimes committed by GS in the US and elsewhere. GS can be tried, found guilty, dismantled and its executives sued. If it goes down, and this is possible, the lobby will find itself in a harsh and inhospitable world. Obama is closely connected to GS, the body that infiltrated all power structures, but apparently he is not going out of his way to save them.

In Israel, there is a feeling that the Dubai debacle was played up by Obama. Israeli security services took a proper lashing in Dubai. They had planned a small and neat trick: the assassination of a Hamas official. But this crime provided Dubai with an opportunity to out many Israeli spies, who apparently were using the Gulf merchant city as their forward HQ in preparing an action against Iran. From Dubai, it is possible to enter Iran even without passport control. Dozens of Israeli spies weren't there just to kill a Hamas man; they were after bigger prey.

Now, not only have they been outed, but the modus operandi of Israeli services who cloned European and American passports wholesale was made public as well. After the UK, Australia expelled an Israeli 'diplomat' representative of the Mossad. In France, where the Zionists were at peak strength, now there are big changes. President Sarkozy (despite his Jewish roots) has expressed his lack of patience with Israel. One of the best known political writers of France, Regis Debray has published a book attacking not just Israel, but even the French Jewish community and its synagogues for their support of Israel. In the UK, a politician that has constantly criticized Israel has become the deputy prime minister.

In the old argument of Dog and Tail, the Dog decided to downgrade the Tail, while the  pathetic attempts of the Tail to order the Dog around had failed miserably, and not for lack of trying. Apparently, somewhere within the US establishment it was decided that the American imperial interests are not being served by Israel, and moreover, that the Jewish establishment has become too overbearing and bitchy for its own good. It was decided that the Jewish shrew must be tamed, and so she shall.

I doubt the Israeli wet dream of attacking Iran will materialize now. The chances are 80 to 20 against such a move. However we will have a storm warning: if and when Tzipi Livni joins the government, the chances will go up to 50:50. Israel has never entered a war without the substantial support of the left, and Ehud Barak's presence is not sufficient.

Taming is not breaking. A cautious President Obama did send signals that he is not looking for an all-out war with the organized Jewry. He met with Elie Wiesel and comforted him. He invited more Jewish leaders to the White House - and at the same time he allowed Israel to take a substantial beating. Obama is devious, observers in Israel feel; he is playing a tricky game of embracing with one arm and pushing away with another arm. It appears that there is a forthcoming weather change: at least the older generation of Jewish leaders - conservative, belligerent, aggressive, suspicious - will give way to a new generation, that of Dan Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, J-street and the like. Whether it will be a change of style or of substance, it is too early to say - but style is substance, too.

Sure, this will not be enough for many of our friends. People began to pour out their disappointment with Obama within 24 hours of his inauguration. "Wot! A whole day has passed and the American troops are not out of Iraq yet, Israel still gets American support and the bankers are being bailed out?"  However, this was to be expected. The US was fully geared to go in a certain direction; even if Obama would like to change course, it would take a longish time.

An interesting sign of this change can be observed in the Hollywood movie Prince of Persia. It is a fable of the Empire's assault on an innocent state (the US attack of Iraq?). The assault was caused by a bald Jewish-looking neocon of a king's brother who lied and supplied false information of WMD because he wanted to become the King. The bad neocon used evil assassins (surely Israelis?). Eventually the main character, the prince, born in the gutter and elevated by the king for his merit (Obama?) stops the war, makes peace with the enemy, even marries the princess.

It was noticed that the US film industry often produces films presaging changes in the policy. Bombing of Serbia, 9/11 and Afghan war were shown in Hollywood movies before they occurred in real life. Judging by the Prince of Persia, the childish Americans are being prepared to a big change.

— Israel Shamir is an internationally acclaimed columnist and writer.

[Tyrones own]

I love the way any different view is deemed US bashing
God bless America.

And I love the way any different view is deemed US Fox News propaganda
...Oh yes and God Bless America

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Watching fox last night and they were interviewing an Israeli Minister. (no sign of anyone for the other side, fair and balanced..) After he had finished trying to discredit the aid flotilla and Turkey in general and pretty much saying they are all al-qaeda terrorists. The fox news guy, not sure of his name but fills in on Fox and friends sometimes came out with this classic (paraphased) When have al-qaeda cared about the palestinians before.

In nearly ever address given by Osama he has referenced the treatment of the Palestinians. Right Wing Media seem to have this logic - terrorists* = bad = have to be earsed = bombing countires that have terrorists in the hope they kill them all = problem solved. No investigation into why they become terrorists, why the general public are sympathetic to their cause, why killing civilians turns people to terrorist organisation. Just look at some guerilla type terrorist organisation from the past 30 years and they would learn alot. Even the last attack in Russia was carried out by a widow of someone killed by the Russians.

*i used this term but there are many types of people and groups classed as terrorists, Right-wing don't seem to see any difference.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Petraeus replaces McChrystal

Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus. (AP)

By BARBARA FERGUSON | ARAB NEWS

Published: Jun 23, 2010 23:49 Updated: Jun 24, 2010 04:52

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama fired his top Afghanistan commander on Wednesday over inflammatory comments that angered the White House and threatened to undermine the war effort.

Calling it the "right thing for our mission in Afghanistan," Obama relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command after a 30-minute meeting at the White House and named Gen. David Petraeus, head of the US Central Command, to replace him.

Gen. McChrystal had been summoned by Obama to explain remarks he and his aides made in a magazine article that disparaged the US president and other senior civilian leaders.

"The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

"It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan," he said.

The sacking of Gen. McChrystal represents a rare dismissal of a wartime military commander by a civilian leader.

The general had given a long, close and after-hours access to a journalist from Rolling Stone and also apparently made no complaints when the magazine sent him a pre-publication copy. "McChrystal blew it. You don't say those things in front of a reporter. And a good commander also doesn't say those things in front of his subordinates," a former Marine officer told Arab News.

Gen. McChrystal's comments include saying he was reportedly "disappointed" at his "10-minute photo op" with President Barack Obama last year.

When preparing to answer a question about the vice president, he said that he found last fall "painful" because he was "trying to sell an unsellable position."

He said he felt "betrayed" by US ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.

Gen. McChrystal accused him of "cover(ing) his flank for the history books" in criticizing Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Aides also called National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones a "clown...stuck in 1985," and the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke a "wounded animal...hearing rumors he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."

On Vice President Joe Biden, he commented: "Biden? Did you say 'bite me'?"

The general immediately apologized for comments where his aides portrayed Obama as a disengaged dilettante and blasted his Afghanistan team as incompetent.

He also laughs about not wanting to open an e-mail from Holbrooke, and exhibits a reluctance to have a posh dinner in France. Gen. McChrystal's comments have laid bare a nasty internal battle among members of Obama's joint military-civilian Afghanistan team that is splintered by personality conflicts and divided over how to end the longest war in American history.

Military officials here told Arab News that Gen. McChrystal's remarks were mostly ill-judged wisecracks. "Some aides need to wash their mouths out. That really is about it," said one retired officer who preferred anonymity.

In Washington, reaction to the Rolling Stone story was immediate. Gen. McChrystal is said to have received unhappy phone calls from the White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and was summoned to DC to explain his comments in person to the president.

A McChrystal press aide has reportedly been fired over the incident, and Gen. McChrystal is understood to have tried calling nearly every figure mentioned in the article to apologize personally.

"Commanders who indulge in sloppy, tough guy, cowboy lingo — 'smackdown, scumbags,' etc. tend to run sloppy, tough guy, cowboy operations. Units, and especially staffs, tend to adopt the language and demeanor of their commander," one Marine told Arab News.

"Afghanistan is a mess, and it's getting worse. To make matters worse, the president's been dealing with internal squabbling on this for some time," said Steve Clemons, a senior fellow at the Washington-based New America Foundation who has written extensively on Afghanistan.

"If there's a bright side to all this, it's that the president has an opportunity to reattach himself to a new policy, fire this guy and start with something new," Clemons told reporters. "It's a tremendous opportunity to reset. But he can't do anything until he fires McChrystal."

NATO will maintain its approach to Afghanistan after Gen. McChrystal's sack, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said. "While he will no longer be the commander, the approach he helped put in place is the right one," Rasmussen said of Gen. McChrystal in a statement. "The strategy continues to have NATO's support and our forces will continue to carry it out."

   — With input from agencies

[Denn Forever]

The sacking of Gen. McChrystal represents a rare dismissal of a wartime military commander by a civilian leader.

Is the President not the Commander in Chief of the armed forces?

[give her dixie]

Click on the following link to read the full Rolling Stones article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

As for Petraeus, well, it isn't too long ago he said the following recently, and duely retracted it......

"Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world"

As the Who song goes:  "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

[muppet]

Click on the following link to read the full Rolling Stones article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

As for Petraeus, well, it isn't too long ago he said the following recently, and duely retracted it......

"Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world"

As the Who song goes:  "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Welcome back Dixie.

Just to clarify in my own head though, are you criticising Patraeus' comments quoted above or his retraction of them? I'm not a fan of Israel's government, nor their Neo-Con supporters in the States, but I've read a bit about Patraeus and he might be the man to make a difference.

His rise through the ranks came on the back of his ability to deal with the locals in Iraq and thus avoid or minimise conflict, which contrasted sharply with the other commanders in Iraq.

[give her dixie]

Muppet, Petraeus spoke the truth in his statement, and within a week or so, he had to change it.
I felt he spoke the truth, and had to bow to pressure to ammend his speech.

The full article in the Rolling Stones is very good reading, and it gives a very real insight into the current situation on the ground in Afghanistan. It is as good an article as I've read in a long time.

However, wether it is McChrystal, Petraeus, yourself, or myself in charge, it makes no difference.
The fact is, that big business, and a zionist agenda is driving the war in the middle east, and securing their natual resourses along with the land is the main objective.

So, the wheels will keep on turning, no matter who is steering them.

Within 90 days, I predict an attack on Iran. The attack on the Mavi Marmara was an indirect attack on Iran, and already there are over 20 war ships stationed in the Red Sea prepared for an attack. Not to mention the nuclear armed Israeli sub already there......

p.s. it's good to be back....

[Hedley Lamarr]

U.S. Makes Huge Discovery in Afghanistan, But It's Not Osama bin Laden
Posted Jun 14, 2010 01:05pm EDT by Aaron Task
Related: GLD, DBC, FCX, HAL, JJC, ^DJI, ^GSPC
The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, The NY Times reports. Experts say the large deposits of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and industrial metals like lithium could transform Afghanistan's economy from one based on poppy production and tribalism to one based on mining.
Afghanistan could become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium," an internal Pentagon memo states, according to The Times.

"There is stunning potential here," Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command told the paper. "There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant."

There are, of course, huge obstacles to overcome, including the lack of sophisticated mining equipment and expertise in Afghanistan, not to mention the ongoing war between the U.S.-led coalition and the Taliban and its allies.

Hope & Cynicism 

As Henry and I discuss in the accompanying clip, the hope is that minerals and mining will spur economic growth in Afghanistan, which can lead to relative peace and stability. As with Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the transformation won't be pretty, especially since the Karzai administration is already rife with corruption. But an economy based on natural resource (other than poppy seeds) sure beats the status quo.

Obviously we should all hope for the best in Afghanistan, for humanitarian and military reasons alike. But the cynic in me can't help ask the following questions, which I'm sure are on the minds of many Americans today:

* $1 trillion is a lot of money: Who reaps the bounty?
* Did the U.S invade Afghanistan to plunder its natural resources, as many believe was the real reason we invaded Iraq?
* How come the U.S. Army can find all these minerals, but not Osama bin Laden.
* Shouldn't our military be putting ALL our resources into defeating the Taliban and finding bin Laden before digging for gold (and iron and copper, etc. etc.)?

Exit strategy.....what exit strategy?

[give her dixie]

Obama Internet kill switch plan approved by US Senate
President could get power to turn off Internet
By Grant Gross
Published: 11:02 GMT, 25 June 10

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

Obama security review gets mixed reception
The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.

The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.

The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month.

"Our responsibility for cyber defence goes well beyond the public sector because so much of cyberspace is owned and operated by the private sector," he said. "The Department of Homeland Security has actually shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks like utilities and communications could bring our economy down for a period of time if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber terrorists."

Other sponsors of the bill are Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat.

One critic said Thursday that the bill will hurt the nation's security, not help it. Security products operate in a competitive market that works best without heavy government intervention, said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank.

"Policymakers should reject such proposals to centralize cyber security risk management," Crews said in an e-mail. "The Internet that will evolve if government can resort to a 'kill switch' will be vastly different from, and inferior to, the safer one that will emerge otherwise."

Cybersecurity technologies and services thrive on competition, he added. "The unmistakable tenor of the cybersecurity discussion today is that of government steering while the market rows," he said. "To be sure, law enforcement has a crucial role in punishing intrusions on private networks and infrastructure. But government must coexist with, rather than crowd out, private sector security technologies."

On Wednesday, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors. The bill gives the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered, the letter said.

Without a definition of critical infrastructure there are concerns that "it includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free speech and to access information," said the letter, signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups.

"Changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests," the letter added.

[give her dixie]

For a light hearted laugh on the current world news, watch the FKN NEWZ............


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz5UlcyS82Q

[give her dixie]

Put Away the Flags
Remembering Howard Zinn on July 4th
by Howard Zinn

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.

That self-deception started early.

When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."

When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."

On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."

It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.

We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.

As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."

We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.

Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.

How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?

One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.

We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.

We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.

[give her dixie]

"It's Fun To Kill In Afghanistan", says  General James Mattis

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/its-fun-to-kill-in-afghanistan-says-top-us-commander-2023155.html

The US military, still recovering from the shock of the sacking of General Stanley McChrystal, its top commander in Afghanistan – is facing fresh problems over revelations that another top commander declared that it was "fun to shoot people" in Afghanistan.


A video of General James Mattis making his comments was yesterday spreading through the Muslim world at a fraught time in Afghanistan for the US and it's Western allies. General Mattis has been named as successor to General David Petreaus as head of US Central Command. General Petraeus is moving to Afghanistan after McChrystal's sacking over derogatory remarks made about President Obama to Rolling Stone magazine. But General Mattis has yet to be confirmed by the US Senate. The general led the controversial US military assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004.

The comments which have come back to haunt him were made at a leadership seminar in 2005. He said: "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know it's a helluva hoot. I'll be right up front with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you get guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil ... guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, said that the remarks were made five years ago and General Mattis had learnt his lesson. But one senior American officer serving in Kabul, said: "This is not what we want to see happen after a very difficult time in the campaign. But we don't think the Senate will block his appointment.

"The fact is people in the forces tend not to speak like bishops. We'll have to make clear to Afghans that what he was talking about related to the Taliban, who oppress women, and certainly not Afghans and Muslims as a whole."

[Mike Sheehy]

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 bastard.

[Hedley Lamarr]

By LINDA HEARD | ARAB NEWS
Obama's Freudian slip is telling
A Palestinian state on Obama's watch will be nothing more than a mirage

By the looks of it, President Barack Obama is set to go down in history as one of the most disappointing American leaders ever. Unlike the bumbling, inarticulate George W. Bush, Obama is an accomplished speaker whose inspirational rhetoric turned him into a heroic international icon. At last! Here was a president with an unshakable moral compass and the courage to do what is right. How wrong we all were! The determined individual who charmed and captivated us with honorable sentiments and firm promises before his inauguration is light years away from the man who sits in the Oval Office today.

If his shattered campaign promises were printed on leaflets they would cloak the White House Rose Garden in litter. On the domestic front, these are too numerous to go into and of little concern to non-Americans. But most of you will recall his undertakings to bring American troops home from Iraq within 16 months, close Guantanamo within one year, end torture "without exception," reach out to America's friends and foes alike and engage in unconditional direct talks with the Iranian government on uranium enrichment. None of these promises have been kept.

Ironically, the one promise he has adhered to is his pledge to vigorously pursue the war in Afghanistan, which most experts — including commanders and diplomats in country — conclude cannot be won militarily. Yet when it comes to this fruitless quest that consumes so many coalition and Afghan lives he is doggedly persistent.

Until now, many in this region are still pinning their hopes on the US president's promise to bring peace to the Middle East and to work toward the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Unlike Bush who is a born-again Christian Zionist, Obama was once seen as inherently sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

For one thing, Obama was highly critical of Israel's apartheid 'fence' telling the Chicago Jewish News that "the creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this administration (Bush administration) in brokering peace."

For another, when Obama spent two-years at Columbia University during the early 1980s he is thought to have befriended the late Palestinian-American literary theorist and advocate for Palestinian rights Edward Said who was a professor there at the time. In 1998, Obama and his wife Michele were pictured engaged in intense conversation with Said and his wife Mariam at a banquet, where Said was the keynote speaker.

Ali Abunimah, who is an American-Palestinian journalist and cofounder of the website Electronic Intifada, says Obama frequently attended pro-Palestinian events in Chicago. "I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999 when we had a major community fund-raiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank," he told the host of the radio show 'Democracy Now.'

On his website, Abunimah wrote: "The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood... As he came in from the cold and took of his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front. He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy and said, "Keep up the good work!"

Fast forward to July 2010 and, once again it's hard to believe that Obama is the same person as the man who cheered on Abunimah's efforts six years earlier.

Last week, Obama warmly greeted Israel's hard-line Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on an official White House visit and assured him that the US "will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests." He volunteered to visit Israel at "any time" and inadvertently uttered this truism that goes a long way to explaining why he is seemingly rolling over in favor of the Jewish state:

"We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it's in and the threats that are leveled against us — against it, that Israel has unique security requirements."

"Leveled against us"? Does this mean that Israel and the US are one and the same? Until now this has been the stuff of conspiracy theorists. This Freudian slip begs the question is Obama or any US leader for that matter, genuinely America's commander in chief? When Obama told Abunimah "when things calm down I can be more up front" on Palestinian issues he probably meant every word at the time. So now that he's the boss — or, at least, nominally the boss — why the hesitation?

It is true that he gave Netanyahu a somewhat frosty reception during the Israeli leader's previous White House visit. This was in response to the latter's intransigence over the expansion of Jewish settlements and Israel's announcement that hundreds of Jewish homes would be built in East Jerusalem that was timed to coincide with a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden. But Obama swiftly caved upon criticism from the pro-Israel lobby and US lawmakers, whose sycophancy toward the Jewish state knows no bounds.

In recent months, Obama has failed to condemn the Mossad for cloning foreign passports used by its agents to assassinate a Hamas agent in Dubai. He has also failed to back America's close ally Turkey that has called for an impartial international investigation into Israel's killing of nine peace activists aboard a Turkish vessel on the high seas. And, most importantly, he has neglected to demand that Israel lift its illegal blockade on Gaza that has turned 1.5 million Palestinians into prisoners. And as for Israel's apartheid wall that Obama once condemned it appears to have faded from his memory.

If the so-called leader of the free world feels unable to follow his conscience on Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians for whatever reason, then Washington cannot be an effective broker. In the event, Obama decides to grow a backbone he may yet prove me wrong. But I strongly suspect that a Palestinian state on his watch will be nothing more than a mirage, just as the great bringer of change has ultimately turned out to be.