TruthOut - Town Meeting
T O  needs your help

History Bites Back

By Leslie Thatcher

Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 02:08:12 PM EDT :: French News

People in Iran still vividly remember being gassed by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) and, as Delphine Minoui reports, still intensely resent the international community's limp and useless response to the violations of the rules of war - a response orchestrated at the time by the United States government, which was sometimes surreptitiously and sometimes openly supporting Saddam Hussein and saw his chemical weapons use not as a heinous violation of the laws of war, but principally as a public relations problem.

This came three decades after the CIA toppled Iran's elected government. As Ray McGovern makes clear in his interview with Dahr Jamail published today, Iran has ample reason to fear the US.

Americans tend to forget the history of things - if we ever knew it - and I was stunned to find this State Department quote in the ever-excellent National Security Archive page on Iraq's use of chemical weapons: "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use ... The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

The Iranians have learned from history, those sharp lessons inadvertently administered by regimes focused on "realpolitik" rather than on human reality. As Uri Avnery suggests is the case for Israel, the US just keeps digging itself a bigger hole, learning nothing from what has happened in the past.

How do "we the people" climb out of that hole?


Display:
------------------------------------------------------------
As long as you all stand around and just continue to talk about it, I'd say you're all screwed! Actions speak louder than words.


by Angelgabriel on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 02:24:56 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
Earthymom mentions attending a CSNY Concert and being impressed with how the college aged Kids knew the words and sang along with even the "Neil Young, Impeachment Song" she felt there was some hope in the future from what she saw at that show.

Earthymom must have been at a different Concert, because the following article from the NY Times tells a different tale. One of apathy, and quiet on the campuses during a time when it is of paramount importance to voice openly your disaproval of the Bush Regime of Terror being fought supposedly to fight the very same thing.

Apathy will be America's downfall. By turning away and remaining silent America, you lend your support to the killing. Your silence helps support the root cause of what your leaders claim to be fighting against. Think about it.

What type of a world will your silence bring you when the smoke has cleared?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/opinion/31observer.html?th&emc=th
 

by Angelgabriel on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 02:47:05 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
I attended the concert in Columbus, OH on August 29.  Columbus is the location of Ohio State University and is within 1 hour of at least 10 smaller universities.  

The crowd was enthusiastic -- but yes, probably not so much as to be willing to go out an protest in the streets.  But "raising consciousness" is the first step to bringing "action."

The only political booth at "my" concert was run by Planned Parenthood.  They got some interest, but mostly from us "older" concert goers.

Apathy is a problem -- world wide.  Americans' geographic, psychological, and intellectual isolation from the rest world contributes to this apathy.  Children raised from birth to interact with a screen (TV, computer, etc.) more comfortably than with a person contributes to the apathy.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
by earthymom on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 03:40:00 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
and the TV, our kids are being poisoned seriously.

I look at world apathy though and don't think it's quite the problem that is in America.  The bulk of the world isn't afflicted with such a radical presence and agenda contrary to the will of the people like you have currently.
This is in speaking of Europe, Asia and Austral Asia though. Obviously there are other pockets around the globe that are in more dire straights than the dillema you find yourselves in with the Neoconservative beast that's loose in the china shop.

But unless there is a greater effort by American's to stand up and fight for peace, nothing is going to alter the agenda of "war in perpetuity" that is the order of the day there.

You need to also consider that the "War on Terror" is merely a distraction as well! I think there is a lot more to the Empire vs Earth Community concept that is a Diary currently posted by Catntree and take in the whole concept to see what I mean EM.

by Angelgabriel on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 12:50:32 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
I heard on NPR yesterday that WalMart is testing shopping carts with DVD movie players in them to keep children distracted/entertained while parents shop.  The carts rent for $1.00 and each cart is expected to generate $20,000/year added revenue.
Also, MA is testing a school bus radio station transmitted by cell phone towers to keep children occupied during the trip to and from school.  The station will pay the school districts 5% of net profits in return for guarantees that all commercials and songs will be G rated.
What's next -- IV meds like in Brave New World to help kids "concentrate"?  

And I definitely relate to the Empire v. Earth Community concept.  

Twenty years ago an older Arab lady visiting the US remarked to me that there is hardly any "baraqa" in America.  Americans may have lots of money and material possessions, but they are so rushed and frazzled that they don't even have time to get out of their car to eat!  They drive through for everything!  And in the grocery stores the fruits and vegetables look large and beautiful -- but when you bite into them they're nearly tasteless and very unsatisfying.  She said, no wonder Americans are fat -- the food is missing the tastes you crave so you have to keep eating and eating and eating to get whatever it is that's missing (in her mind "baraqa").  She was flabbergasted by how impatient adults were -- even moreso than small children.  How adults were prone to rude outbursts over silly things like a line at a store or traffic congestion.

We are surrounded 24/7 by a barrage of man made, electronically reproduced sound.  How can anyone hear themselve's think?  (Many younger people don't even know how)  Do people notice bird songs or the way trees whisper anymore?

 
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
by earthymom on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 03:47:38 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
compliments of "Monsanto"! It all Makes sense though. The American work ethic is "Live to Work", rather than "Work to Live". No time to smell the flowers keeps those Corporatists rolling in genetically engineered dough!

by Angelgabriel on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 07:17:37 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! she hit the nail on the head...and i have to say...having grown up in the US (and lived all over) and now having been in the Arabian Gulf for the past three years...there is a differance. Despite the often politically charged atmosphere and adjacent wars...things are mellow. People have time for things...places I frequent...people know me :) I haven't eaten while driving for almost two years :D
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -- Thomas Paine
by girlwithgun on Sun Sep 10th, 2006 at 04:02:04 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
I usually think of it as the latest hidious manifestation of the class war that's been going on through the capitalist period and probably long before. "Empire vs. Earth Community" seems quite descriptive and apt as well.
Peacedog
by Peacedog (louisrue@charter.net) on Sat Sep 2nd, 2006 at 10:10:25 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
I usually think of it as the latest hidious manifestation of the class war that's been going on through the capitalist period and probably long before. "Empire vs. Earth Community" seems quite descriptive and apt as well.
Peacedog
by Peacedog (louisrue@charter.net) on Sat Sep 2nd, 2006 at 10:10:54 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
My jaw dropped when I read this nonsense from McGovern about Iran being peace loving and no threat to Israel. It runs in parallel to the attempt to portray Iranian President Ahmadinejad being misunderstod, he who cannot even bring himself to say "Israel," calling it instead the "Usurping entity."

Ahmadinejad is the man who said said in a speech denying the Holocaust to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. (Quoted on CNN):

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets. (It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel."

He delights in sponsoring an anti-Semitic cartoon contest in Tehran. His country supplied Hezbollah with its hellish missiles and is now resupplying them. He is overseeing the plans for Iran to acquire the atomic bomb. (To be tested on Tel Aviv, no doubt.)

So when I hear that Ahmadinejad is "misunderstood," and that Iran is a peace loving Middle Easter citizen, what comes to mind is the Chad Mitchell Trio classic of denial, The I WAS NOT A NAZI polka. (Apollogies to the overwhelming majority of today's Germans who have disavowed the Third Reich as the shameful horror it was, but, fear not, Ahmadinejad has picked up the Nazi flag and is waving it merrily.}

The "I WAS NOT A NAZI" polka

As you travel through De Schoenerr Deutschland,
A melody will greet your ears,
It's a melody that's been around the Deutschland
For fifteen or twenty years.

Each and every German dances to the strain
Of the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.
All without exception, join in the refrain
Of the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.
Goering was a crazy we wanted to deport,
Sing the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.
We all thought that Dachau was just a nice resort,
Sing the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.

The German is so cultured, he does not like to fight,
The peaceful life is what he most enjoys,
For years the German people were utterly convinced
I. G. Farben manufactured children's toys.

I never shot a Luger, or goosed a single step
To the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.

Was you not an S.S. Guard?
-I was not an S.S. Guard.
"I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.

Did you not love Ilsa Koch*?
-I did not love Ilsa Koch.
"I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.

Did you not despise the Jews?
-I did not--why some of my best friends....
"I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.

Did you not think Adolph great?
-I did n- Adolph who?
... Adolph WHO?
-Ja, Adolph who?
Fritz are you putting me on?
-Vas ist... "putting me on"?
Are you kidding me or something?
-No, I'm not kidding you. Adolph who?
Adolph HITLER!
-Should I know him? Is he a folksinger?
You don't remember.
-No, I don't remember. Who was he?

Well. He was a little man, very lean, very loud and brash.
-No....
Not too tall, never smiled, had a black moustache.
-I don't think so....
Had a girl, Eva Braun, hair as red as flame.
-Ja....
Papered walls many years, until his moment came.
-Ahh! He's the man, clapped his hand, went into a dance,
When the news came to him: we had conquered France.
He once said, as our flag proudly was unfurled:
"Today Germany, tomorrow the world!
Tomorrow the world!
Tomorrow the world!"

-I've never heard of him.
Neither have I.

To our Israeli allies, let us raise a toast,
Sing the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.
Sure there were some Nazis.
-Two or three at most,
Sing the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.

We tried to throw out Hitler, right from the very start,
That's what every history book should tell,
We hated Heinrich Himmler, and Martin Bormann, too,
We believe, as Sherman did, that war is hell,
Hell,
Hell,
Heil,
Seig Heil!
Seig Heil!
Seig Heil!
Seig --

... oops.

Germans are as gentle as flowers in the spring,
Sing the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka.
And Germans are a people who love to dance and sing,
Sing the "I Was Not A Nazi" --
WAIT A MINUTE!
You there.
You are not singing.
You do not like... to sing?
Sing.
Sing the "I Was Not A Nazi" Polka!
Seig Heil!

*Ilsa Koch was the German wife of the commandant of Buchenwald concentration camp (1939-42), notorious for her perversion and cruelty.
Falseness lasts an hour, and truth lasts till the end of time. -- Arabic proverb
by decampe (ka_the_appalling@yahoo.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 04:21:53 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
Israel is currently a bigger threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel.  That's one reason Iran may want to obtain "nuclear deterrence."

As Leslie points out, Iran has learned from history.  Among other lessons, the US, and it's ally Israel, are not "peace loving" (or they have a strange definition for "peace").  Also, the US is perfectly willing to arm and use other Mid-East countries to militarily secure its political/economic/oil goals.  When that country is no longer useful, or if it strays from the US agenda, that country will be discarded or worse -- receive a militarily imposed "democracy".  Iraq is a prime example of this.  Iran got a taste of this as recently as the 1950's.

I do not advocate for the possession of weapons of mass destruction by any nation, government, or group.  However, were I the leader of a non-Arab country in the Middle East that is surrounded by those who covet my natural resources, I would consider it prudent to arm myself with weapons at least as good as my enemy's.

I understand Israel's obsession on possessing military might.  I understand Israel's opposition to it's neighbors' possession of military might.  And I understand Iran's need for military might.  So long as land and the "resources" buried under that land are required for the survival of the world's economy, violence and threats of violence will prevail.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
by earthymom on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 05:10:48 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------


by Angelgabriel on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 05:41:56 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
I'd vastly prefer that no nation in the Middle East had nukes, including Israel. With Iran likely to be nuclear weapon armed soon, the number of twitchy fingers on the trigger will be two too many. I can't imagine that a small nuclear war in that region (what an oxymoron) would stay regional. We've been damn close to a nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India as it is. One more such standoff, between Iran and Israel, would be scary indeed.
Falseness lasts an hour, and truth lasts till the end of time. -- Arabic proverb
by decampe (ka_the_appalling@yahoo.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 06:05:34 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmadinejad to Hitler and CNN to a real news source are all BS.

Germany invaded many countries. Iran has invaded no other country. The United States  has invaded numerous countries. Israel has invaded Lebanon several times. Iraq, when it was our client state, invaded Iran, intitiating the longest war in modern history.

Ahmadinejad is not the Iranian head of state.
From the CIA World Factbook:
chief of state: Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI (since 4 June 1989)
head of government: President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD (since 3 August 2005); First Vice President Parviz DAVUDI (since 11 September 2005)
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 12:04:51 AM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
and their "When Johnny Comes Marching Home"

When Johnny comes marching home again,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give him a hearty welcome then,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The men will cheer, the boys will shout,
The ladies they will all turn out,
And we'll all be there,
When Johnny comes marching home.

Where are your eyes that were so mild, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that were so mild, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your eyes that were so mild
When my poor heart you first beguiled
Why did ye run from me and the child
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.

When Johnny comes marching home again,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give him a hearty welcome then,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The men will cheer, the boys will shout,
The ladies they will all turn out,
And we'll all be there,
When Johnny comes marching home.

Where are your legs that used to run, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs that used to run, hurroo, hurroo
Where are your legs that used to run
When first you went to carry a gun
Indeed your dancing days are done
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye.

Ye haven't an arm, and ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, and ye haven't a leg, hurroo, hurroo
Ye haven't an arm, and ye haven't a leg
Ye're an armless, boneless, chickenless egg
And Ye'll have to put with a bowl to beg
Oh Johnny I hardly knew ye.

When Johnny comes marching home again,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We'll give him a hearty welcome then,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The men will cheer, the boys will shout,
The ladies they will all turn out,
And we'll all be there,
When Johnny comes marching home
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 08:56:53 AM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Hat-tip to Ken Silverstein:

  On the Internet, there is a dictum known as "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies," coined in 1990 by a man named Mike Godwin. This law holds that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Anyone who has spent time on political discussion boards can see that it's true; in any charged debate (abortion, Iraq, Israel, foreign policy), it's only a matter of time before someone compares his opponent to Hitler.

    It's commonly understood that once Godwin's Law is invoked, a conversation is dead-and that any person who invokes Nazis almost definitely has failed to make his point. It's what philosopher Leo Strauss, the great inspiration to neoconservatives like Rumsfeld, called Reductio ad Hitlerum - the absurd smearing of any opposing line of thought as "Hitleresque." He may not have been contributing to an online bulletin board, but Rumsfeld's invocation of Nazis and the G.O.P.'s sudden interest in fascism seem to be a perfect illustration of how deep this war's supporters must dig in order to justify a deadly folly.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090106N.shtml
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 12:31:00 PM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

As conversations grow indefinitly long the liklihood of every argument ever concieved approaches one. Furth the liklihood of arguments being repeated goes to one.


Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 02:45:18 PM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
But I was not the one who first invoked Hitler. It was a number of others on this forum who freely threw the word Nazi around when seeking analogies for Israel. It was in fact the Iranian president who began that imagery, which was extended on this site by those nastily referring to the Israelis as nazis and fascists.

The trouble, though, is that it is the world's anti-semitites who are raising and perpetuating the comparison by means of holocaust denying cartoon fests and the demonizing all Jews as fascists because they support Israel,

I'd prefer not to engage in such name calling, but I won't stand by while anti-semitic writers post their nasty charges.
Falseness lasts an hour, and truth lasts till the end of time. -- Arabic proverb
by decampe (ka_the_appalling@yahoo.com) on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 12:51:26 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think your reading comprehension is working properly. I have gone back through not all, but most of the heated discussions regarding Israel, Jewish holocaust, anti-semetic, AIPAC, the Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon, and Hizbollah's part in the comfrontation, and what I have seen and documented is that 99% of all postings you claim are speaking out about Israel and Jews are actually speaking out against radical Zionism and Israel's massive offensive.

Most of those threads have been hotly contested by pro-Jewish, Israeli, or pro-Zionist factions. There has been a lot of Anti-semetic talk and accusations thrown around, but it's not been from those protesting Israel's actions toward Lebanon, or Palestine. The people making the points AGAINST Israel with regard to the war have been attacked relentlessly and very loudly. The attackers have been very quick to blame anyone contesting the Bush supported - Olmert & Co. legitimacy of Israel's response to the capture of IDF soldiers and using the Anti-Semitism, or Nazi - Fascist cards freely and openly.

I feel this has all been done intentionally to try and silence the voices that are speaking out against war in the region, and Israel's over-the-top offensive. I also think these are the same voices that prop up the Neoconservative agenda in the U.S. to a great degree with few exceptions.

A lot of time has been wasted on this topic, and in trying to get a point through the thick skulls weilding the Anti-semitic rhetoric - that the war WAS over-the-top, and was more out of Israel's agression than solving the problems with Hizbollah in any peaceful or diplomatic manner.

So please, let's just keep the blame game in the corner it belongs in shall we?

Anti Semitism does exist, I'm not disputing that at all, but in this case I feel the labelling is incorrectly applied in your attempt to denegrate liberal thinking folks, and those opposed to war in any form on this site by using tired and worn out tactics.  

by Angelgabriel on Sun Sep 3rd, 2006 at 06:37:49 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Many Israeli policies resemble S. Africa under the Apartheid system more than Nazi policies.  

Both are hideous/attrocious.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
by earthymom on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 12:20:22 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
is to the Israel haters claiming the mantle of liberalism. As a life long liberal, active against every US conflict from the Vietnam War on, vocal against Nixon and Reagan and the monster we have in the White House now, as someone who has dedicated my life to working for the betterment of the poor and the suffering, I am sick to death of being vilified as a neo-con because I believe in Israel.

The formation of Israel has been the fervent hope of countless generations of Jews who have spoken of "Next year in Jerusalem" since biblical times, for centuries before Christianity and Islam were even born. Their hopes, the hopes of Holocaust survivors, of refugees from persecution in far corners of the world was Israel.

I am convinced there are solutions that will allow Israel to exist in peace and security AND allow the Palestinians a peaceful and prosperous state of their own. There is an excellent discussion thread right now on the www.inthesetimes.com website (on the Hezbollah and Iran thread) debating just such possibilities.

But the Ant-Semitism here has been rampant and virulent and if you don't see it it is because you are not sensitive to it. (I don't intend to do a recap of it but it is visible to anyone who reviews the threads on this subject here.)
Falseness lasts an hour, and truth lasts till the end of time. -- Arabic proverb
by decampe (ka_the_appalling@yahoo.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 12:28:47 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that tossing "anti-semite" out at anyone who sees Israeli politics for what it is -- violent aggression -- is all you really have to counter the facts presented to you.  We talk about Israel -- it's you "anti-semite" slingers that always bring up Jewish People.  Many of us on this blog know how to seperate a government from it's little people.  Kind of like we hope that people of the world don't hate us little americans for what this cabal does.
"Live Simply ... that others may Simply Live."
by Irie on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 05:53:42 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 07:48:51 AM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Oft Evil Will Shall Evil Mar - Theoden
by Not An American (naa-truthout@hotmail.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 08:15:35 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------


by Angelgabriel on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 02:01:20 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
to a comment of mine.  If you, Mr. Lawrence Welsch, PhD are calling me anti-semetic, you are more dense than I thought before.  I am, solidly and entirely, an equal-opportunity disliker.   I dislike anyone who is evil or a bombastic ass, no matter the package they're wrapped in.  I care for people with the same lack of boundaries.
"Live Simply ... that others may Simply Live."
by Irie on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 06:40:47 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

much less anti-semitic. Irie, to paraphrase what was said in the "Men only" thread. I didn't call you anti-semitic. Your perception of what I said was that I called you anti-semitic. I do not know why.


Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 07:40:32 PM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
(I don't care what you call me) but look at the above comments we are talking about.   There are NOT many people on here even mentioning "Jews" but there are damn sure people who are anti-Israeli-violent-undeniable-aggression, whereupon we regularly get the same "anti-semetic" nonsense slung at us.  Quite a few of us have said that (in our own words) on this thread.  You are agreeing more and more with the r-wingers on TO, Lar, and it's deeply troubling me.  You know how I worry about you.
"Live Simply ... that others may Simply Live."
by Irie on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 08:23:01 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
It is the Jewish state that has repressed, kidnapped, tortured and killed Arabs, and treated them as sub-human, not the Jewish people, just as it is the U.S. state that attacks and kills Arabs, and not the American people.
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 09:30:44 AM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0903-22.htm

Talking about all of this is difficult. The holocaust and its legacy require deep respect and sensitivity. Those who are not Jewish or a member of another group targeted for extermination by the Nazis cannot imagine the holocaust's traumatic impact and meaning. But the often-delivered charge, "If you criticize Israel, you must be anti-Semitic" is unfair. And unfortunately, it has been used as the "great silencer." I can criticize my own country's errors out of concern for justice. And I can criticize another country's errors, even Israel's, for the same reason and with the same motive. We do a disservice to the prospects for peace and justice in the Middle East if we silence debate or refrain from engaging in it.

I respect Israel's right to exist and to defend itself but I don't believe those rights give it carte blanche to humiliate, oppress, and violate other people. I believe the root cause of much of the current conflict is Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands since the six day war in 1967. In the words of Uri Avnery, leader of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom, "Either the settlements and an endless war, or the return of the occupied territories and peace."

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
by earthymom on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 12:57:11 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
keep this issue in plain site in order to stir conflict again decampe. Please read what Irie, NAA, Earthymom, and I are saying and please let it sink in. The contesting of Israel has been done primarily against the Government and the radical Zionist backing including AIPAC, NOT JEWISH PEOPLE!

Larry, maybe you should pay close attention to this point as well considering you are still smoldering from the last big go around. Get over it, both of you!

Yes, there are solutions to allow Israel to live in peace with it's Palestinian and Lebanese neighbors, but they certainly aren't solutions that keep Palestinians in forced concentration conditions, or solutions that bomb a country to the stoneage.

The really big question is "Will Israel, Hizbollah, and Hamas ALL be able to change their policies in mutually acceptable manners and create a win-win-win situation whereby all can BECOME peaceful neighbors? Personally speaking, I don't think that AIPAC, Likud Knesset, the Neoconservative U.S. Administration, and ultra-conservative supporters will allow it to happen. There is a much bigger picture playing at a theatre somewhere else.

Only when these factions can meet on equal ground will a change toward a lasting peace be possible.

by Angelgabriel on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 02:25:32 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

This is rhetorical flourish. We all write to see what we have written, just as you do. We all write to make points, raise issues and to keep them alive. Instead of telling people to Get over it, both of you! (whatever it is); please make your point.

There is strong evidence that Israel has been able to make peace with Jordan and Egypt. There is strong evidence that Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization were very close to forming an agreement. To lay the blame on one side and not both is to misplace where the blame should be placed. But to suggest that the blame lies on Israel's shoulders alone is misplaced. Get over it.

I am less concerned about Israel's ability to reach agreement than I am with the stirring of hatreds and passions by the Wahabi faction of Sunnis and the Iran's Shiite movement which are both fighting each other as well as their common enemy Israel. The Palestinians refugees in the the refugee camps in Lebanon have lived there for fifty years; the time has come for them to be adopted into their new homeland. The past is over.

What has been pointed out to me is that many, not even a majority, but many of the posts that attack Israel's actions go one step further and are anti-semitic; denying the holocaust; making up conspiracy theories; making false implications of Jewish control of the US government; etc. This is sometimes done directly and other times done by linking to pages that are blatently anti-semitic.

Yes, some people are more sensitive to anti-semitism than others. Several times this had to be pointed out to me directly to see that this was not a rare occaisional reference; but rather a common theme of many, not a majority, of the posts.

Now that I see the theme, I see it for what it is. My awareness has been raised.


Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 04:17:42 PM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
The Wahabis are almost entirely a Saudi minority phenomena and their government is supported by the US government.  The last thing Bush wants is "destabilization" in Saudi Arabia.  So long as a strong, rich, minority keeps the rest of the population, including the large Shia population of Saudi Arabia, in line, Wahabi power will be enabled (in part with the help of weapons and training of Saudi military officers at places like the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio)by the US.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
by earthymom on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 07:19:06 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Very true. The Wahabis have also gained a great deal of influence in first Saudi Arabia, by legitimizing the monarchy, and second the world through their publication and distribution of text books used in many Moslem schools of the world. The text books teach hatred towards all others. This sect of Islam is where bin Laden learned his ideology and their teachings are what he based al Queida on.

The sect is faced with the problem of extinction due to ideas and is battling for its very life. The ideas come from trade and oil wealth, which is the same tools that the Wahabis use to fund their text book publishing and spread their ideology of hatred. They are faced with the problem of either taking over everything, the Pinky goal in Pinky and the Brain, or losing the war of ideas. This is exactly the same problem that Christian fundamentalists in the US are battling.

A great complicating factor is energy and the role that oil currently plays in energy. Control of oil resources was one of the major forces that WW II is about and is critical to today's economy. The very trade that enables the exchange of ideas that is destroying Wahabis as well as every other fundamentalist extremist religion is made possible by the ready supply of oil. Every nation's prosperity from Singapore to Russia including the US, Europe and Africa is dependent on this lubricant. Also most food production is based on fertilizers that depend on oil to be manufactured. I haven't even mentioned the problem of global warming.

Another driving force is population and population control. Without education (which really spreads ideas) and education for women in particular, population just explodes to the level of the supply of food to support it. This guarentees a ready force for more oil. It also is a basic problem for the major religions of the world in that they almost universally argue for more children - particularly extremist Christianity and extremist Islam.


Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 06:46:18 AM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
Too much time has been wasted on this tired story already. Create peace - full stop, period, fini, alto.
By the way, when did you change your name to decampe? Never mind, don't answer that it doesn't matter.
I think you must be spending too much time on other sites and confusing TO comments with what you read somewhere else.

by Angelgabriel on Mon Sep 4th, 2006 at 08:03:32 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
If disagreeing with an Israeli government is antisemitism, then Israel is full of millions of antisemites.

Zhu Bajie
Zhu Bajie
by zhubajie (zhubajie12001@yahoo.com) on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 08:10:26 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
I find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld has read anything by Strauss.  

Zhu Bajie
Zhu Bajie
by zhubajie (zhubajie12001@yahoo.com) on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 08:07:49 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Iran wasn't an "elected" government. The CIA didn't help topple it. These are twists of the facts. NGC and History channel (academic channels with no political axe to grind) have specials on it. They give the truth. So, so, so many things have changed all over the world since 1980 and even since 1988, to say that we are simply repeating the same mistakes is ridiculus.

Please stop believing very "expert" with a  credential on the interent because he gives a story with "facts" behind it.

by Shakell (shaun_kelley85@yahoo.com) on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 06:50:18 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------

Encyclopędia Britannica is not any expert.

Following the war, a loose coalition of nationalists, clerics, and noncommunist left-wing parties, known as the National Front, coalesced under Mohammad Mosaddeq, a career politician and lawyer who wished to reduce the powers of the monarchy and the clergy in Iran. Most important, the National Front, angered by years of foreign exploitation, wanted to regain control of Iran's natural resources, and, when Mosaddeq became prime minister in 1951, he immediately nationalized the country's oil industry. Britain, the main benefactor of Iranian oil concessions, imposed an economic embargo on Iran and pressed the International Court of Justice to consider the matter. The court, however, decided not to intervene, thereby tacitly lending its support to Iran.

Within Iran, Mosaddeq's social democratic policies, as well as the growth of the communist Tudeh Party, weakened the always-tenuous support of his few allies among Iran's religious class, whose ability to generate public support was important to Mosaddeq's government. In August 1953, following a round of political skirmishing, Mosaddeq's quarrels with the shah came to a head, and the Iranian monarch fled the country. Almost immediately, despite still-strong public support, the Mosaddeq government buckled during a coup funded by the CIA. Within a week of his departure, Mohammad Reza Shah returned to Iran and appointed a new prime minister.

1. "Iran." Encyclopędia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopędia Britannica Premium Service. 29 Aug. 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-32187>.

Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 04:27:33 AM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
Uh...I see what you've got here, how does that dispel my assertion that the government wasn't "elected" as the original post claims?

And a CIA coup, in which we find ourselves dealing with a modern day theocracy since 79...how does that have to do with overthrowing the government. Ayatollah came to power, nuff said. How are these things the Americas fault...please, I don't want to get barraged with truths that have allegations inserted in the holes to make a story that "claims" we are always the perpetrator, and that we always have it coming, and that we only fight ourselves.

Anyone ever had falling out with friends in their lives? High school buddies, coworkers?

Imagine that on a global scale, and substitute countries as "bickering, gossiping people".

One day your best friends, next you hate each other.

Happens to countries too.

You don't speak to your friend because he made you angry over something stupid...countries break ties or try to influence each other for stupid things.

Way the world works. If you're unhappy with it, then leave the planet.
There is a better way, but it takes TIME to change.
Peaceful DEMOCRACIES will ensure that instead of coming to power and ruling nations like Saddam did...that he would have been rotting in Pelican Bay for the last thirty years. (yes, I know we helped Saddam in the past...refer to my bickering high school student analogy)

Understand the significance of this: Evil dictators and theocrats who come to power and do awful things...would be petty criminals in the judicial and criminal system of America. Timothy McVey, David Koresh etc. etc.

Please no crazy rants about our president being a criminal. He's innocent until proven guilty, it is a basic American right. You wouldn't like it if due process was denied to you...don't deny it to the president for god sake.
Also Gitmo, we've been through it a million times. Smart, informed advocates and opponents of the administration are handling it. Lawyers and congressional committees are handling it. So please, spare me.

Bring me something that doesn't sound like the moon landing was filmed in a studio in Burbank.

 

by Shakell (shaun_kelley85@yahoo.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 12:02:49 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

The Britannica article clearly says Almost immediately, despite still-strong public support, the Mosaddeq government buckled during a coup funded by the CIA. Much of what the CIA does is to fund others to carry out the dirty work. In me a CIA funded coup and a CIA coup are the same thing. Most people refer to this as the coup arranged by the CIA in Iran.

Elected is an interesting question. To my knowledge Mosaddeq was generally considered to be elected in the same sense that Tony Blair was elected, i.e. members of an elected parlament selected him and he was then annointed by the Monarch. I don't know who all elected and was allowed to vote for MPs and all that. But then was President Bush elected? Not from where I sit. The US does not hold elections where anyone can easily run for president. The process is pretty dam difficult to get on the ballot in all fifty states. Most people do not even get an opportunity to vote in primaries. I shake my head in wonder when people speak of elections in this country.

So the bottom line is the guy had as much support as Bush did at the height of Bush's popularity.


Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 02:18:47 PM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
I like this, thank you very much. Good point.

I will say have a little more faith in the transparency of our democracy, and the elctoral college is tied to the popular vote.
Yes, today you must ahve influence and money to be president...it was always that way. But, many presidents of the 20th century came from very humble beginnings.

by Shakell (shaun_kelley85@yahoo.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 03:12:49 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

The following should more than satisfy your need for a reliable source that Mosaddeq was elected when the coup was funded by the CIA.

Mosaddeq also spelled Masaddiq , or Mossadegh Iranian political leader who nationalized the huge British oil holdings in Iran and, as premier in 1951-53, almost succeeded in deposing the shah.

The son of an Iranian public official, Mosaddeq grew up as a member of Iran's ruling elite. He received a Doctor of Law degree from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland and then returned to Iran in 1914 and was appointed governor-general of the important Fars province. He remained in the government following the rise to power of Reza Khan in 1921 and served as minister of finance and then briefly as minister of foreign affairs. Mosaddeq was elected to the Majles (parliament) in 1923. When Reza Khan was elected shah (as Reza Shah Pahlavi) in 1925, however, Mosaddeq opposed the move and was compelled to retire to private life.

Mosaddeq reentered public service in 1944, following Reza Shah's forced abdication in 1941, and was elected again to the Majles. An outspoken advocate of nationalism, he soon played a leading part in successfully opposing the grant to the Soviet Union of an oil concession for northern Iran similar to an existing British concession in southern Iran. He built considerable political strength, based largely on his call to nationalize the concession and installations in Iran of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (see British Petroleum Company PLC). In March 1951 the Majles passed his oil-nationalization act, and his power had grown so great that the shah, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, was virtually forced to appoint him premier.

The nationalization resulted in a deepening crisis in Iran, both politically and economically. Mosaddeq and his National Front Party continued to gain power but alienated many supporters, particularly among the ruling elite and in the Western nations. The British soon withdrew completely from the Iranian oil market, and economic problems increased when Mosaddeq could not readily find alternate oil markets.

A continuing struggle for control of the Iranian government developed between Mosaddeq and the shah. In August 1953, when the shah attempted to dismiss the premier, mobs of Mosaddeq followers took to the streets and forced the shah to leave the country. Within a few days, however, Mosaddeq's opponents, with U.S. support, overthrew his regime and restored the shah to power. Mosaddeq was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for treason and, after he had served his sentence, was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life. The Iranian oil-production facilities remained under the control of the Iranian government.

"Mosaddeq, Mohammad." Encyclopędia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopędia Britannica Premium Service. 30 Aug. 2006
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053867.


Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 09:18:37 AM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
The Shah was not overthrown in 1979 by a democracy movement.  But he was put in power in the 1950's with the help of the CIA.  The Shah, by the way, was considered by Amnesty International to be the worst violator of human rights in the World.

Yeah, we've always supported democracy in the Middle East -- HA, HA.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
by earthymom on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 05:55:59 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for proving my point for the most part...in reply to your democracy in the middle east opinion...look at my latest post in the same thread.

by Shakell (shaun_kelley85@yahoo.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 12:05:55 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
"NGC and History channel (academic channels with no political axe to grind) have specials on it."

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; the second step is don't rely on what the TV tells you.

Zhu Bajie
Zhu Bajie
by zhubajie (zhubajie12001@yahoo.com) on Tue Sep 5th, 2006 at 08:45:20 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
There is a very intersring book by Richard Dryfuss on what happend and led up to the events in Iran in 1979...in fact it is part of the syllabus for some of the graduate courses of terrorism and revolution at the American Military University (so not a random source).

And while the US is not absolved of contributions to process...he does point more fingers specifically at Carter himself (as opposed to the CIA) and the UK intelligence agencies.

it is not the end all document on the events... but interesting none the less.

personally I think the Shah sucked and I think Khomenni sucked...but I am less erudite that most...and usually more opinionated.
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -- Thomas Paine
by girlwithgun on Sun Sep 10th, 2006 at 04:30:33 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Either Israel gets its way or the world gets a mushroom cloud.

by booboo on Mon Aug 28th, 2006 at 11:55:18 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
First, see my comment above. Second please tell  me how you possibly imagine that Israel would ever use a nuke as an offensive weapon? What planet are you from anyway?
A sheep is lost when it makes a wolf its defender. -- Arabic proverb
by decampe (ka_the_appalling@yahoo.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 04:16:09 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
then Israel would tell the world that they have them, but they don't. They were developed in secrecy, and Israel doesn't state that they have them as a deterrence. Why not?
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 09:09:44 AM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

Everyone assumes Israel as the bomb. Until Israel successfully tests the bomb, even Israel should not have confidence that they have one.

So for the sake of argument lets posit that Israel doesn't have the bomb. Would anyone believe Israel's word? Israel is not about to let anybody go looking for it. Certainly no one believed Hussein, so who would believe Israel. In the Palestinian / Arab world lack of finding one is jus proof the west is working against them.

Now lets assume Israel has built the bomb, but hasn't yet tested it. Why should Israel say Israel has the bomb. Won't that just complicate matters.

For the short time Israel is doing the right thing. Keep em guessing and don't say anything. Quite simply Israel doesn't say Israel has the bomb, because there is nothing to be gained.


Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 12:24:15 PM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
(now that I've thought and read about it)--that's the way Israel does things, and it doesn't want to be formally accused of violating the NPT. So they have the deterrence without actually admitting that they have the bomb--actually, by expert estimates, 100-200 of them.

Israel plays the same kind of thing with the U.S. on its defense. There is no mutual defense treaty with the U.S., but our politicos always vow to defend Israel anyhow so who needs it, when a treaty would require defined borders, anathema to Israel.

 On the nukes (1999):
  By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them.  The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons.  Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests.  They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers.  Using "bomb in the basement" nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 06:26:58 PM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Israel has no good reason to disclose having the bomb and plenty not too.


Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 09:10:46 PM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 11:36:52 PM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
ImPeach Geo Bush & Dick Cheney !!!
IMPEACH THEM ALREADY !!!!

by ezdidit (ezdidit@aol.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 08:53:18 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ten Reasons To Impeach the President -- And One Reason Why Democratic Leaders Are Wrong To Be Afraid To Do It

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Dave Lindorff, Co-Author of "The Case for Impeachment"

As prospects grow for a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, and perhaps even the Senate, this November, the idea of impeachment is gaining attention. Yet even as polls show increasing numbers of Americans supporting the idea of removing Bush from office before the end of his term, Democratic Party leaders keep backing away.

This is not simply bad politics. It is cowardly, wrong and dangerous.

Let's look at the facts.

President Bush has committed grave offenses against the Constitution and against the people of the United States. Among these offenses are:

  1. Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S. -- a war that has needlessly killed 2500 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing between 50-100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

  2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war.

  3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror.

  4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

  5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

  6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

  7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission -- actions that come perilously close to treason.

  8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

  9. Abuse of power, undermining of the constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress -- actions which if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

  10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post-war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

Each one of these offenses (and it is not meant to be a complete list) would be sufficient on its own to require the president's removal from office, and in some cases, where an actual statutory crime can be charged, his subsequent indictment and trial. Together they cry out for impeachment and removal.

There are those, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who argue against impeachment, claiming that it would be a diversion from the "important agenda" of the Democratic Party. Aside from the fact that there is not much "there" in the so-called agenda of the so-called opposition, the reality is that the Democratic Party, should it manage to win a majority in House and Senate in November, will be unable to accomplish a single thing with President Bush in the White House, since the president has already claimed that he has the power to violate and ignore 750 acts and laws passed by a Congress led by his own party. Before the Democrats can count on a single bill of theirs becoming the law of the land, they will have to remove this usurper from office. Even ardent conservatives should be afraid of leaving stand actions that, if unchallenged, will set a precedent for all future presidents, Republican and Democrat, making American presidents into tyrants answerable to no one.

There are those who fear that impeaching Bush would mean turning over the White House to Vice President Dick Cheney. This is nonsense. The vice president has long been known to be the real president, and any constitutional crimes that are exposed in the course of impeachment hearings will quickly be traced also to Cheney's office. The vice president, however, does not have the president's Constitutional immunity from prosecution, and would likely be indicted and forced to resign long before Bush's impeachment got to a Senate trial. Nor would impeaching Bush mean turning the White House over to Rep. Dennis Hastert. Besides the fact that Hastert is reportedly facing his own legal troubles, impeachment is not even going to occur unless the Democrats take over the House in November first, and that would make the next person in line after Cheney none other than Democrat Pelosi.

There are people, especially in the media, who say impeachment is a bad idea both because it would allegedly cause a "constitutional crisis" and because it would lead to public anger at Democrats who promoted another divisive political battle. This is both unprincipled and absurd. First of all, impeachment is no constitutional crisis: the Founders thought it so important that they included impeachment of the president in the same Article II of the Constitution that defines the president's powers. If anything, we are facing a constitutional crisis right now. Impeachment is an integral part of the governing process. Secondly, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor impeachment -- certainly more than ever favored impeachment of either Clinton or Nixon. People have had it with the sanctimoniousness, the dishonesty, the staggering incompetence and the nasty political dirty tricks of this administration. Third, they want an opposition that will stand on principle. But finally and most importantly, the crimes of this president and this administration are so grievous that it is shameful to even talk about practicalities and political advantage. The president simply must be impeached, because as the Willie Sutton of Constitutional violators, he is putting the Republic and the Constitution at grave risk. The only principled and valid discussion about strategy is about how best to achieve impeachment, not about whether to seek impeachment.

No one should imagine that a successful impeachment of President Bush would usher in some wonderful new world of honest and progressive government. The Democratic Party long ago lost its soul and its right to call itself a party of the people. But if the American people, in the course of this 2006 election year, force the Democratic Party to do that which their leaders are afraid to do -- to impeach this criminal president -- there is a chance that those same people will also push the Democratic Party to do other things that it has not done in decades: namely, to act in the interests of ordinary working people instead of the same moneyed interests that own the party of Lincoln.

Dave Lindorff

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Dave Lindorff, a long-time Salon contributor, is co-author with Barbara
Olshansky, of  The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing
President George W. Bush from Office, (St. Martin's Press, May 2006).

by ezdidit (ezdidit@aol.com) on Tue Aug 29th, 2006 at 09:26:37 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld, for his part, never refers to any such clash. He consistently says: ". . . there's a tendency when you call this a global war on terror to think of it as a war of big militaries -- armies, navies, and air forces -- against armies, navies and air forces, and it is not. It is a totally different thing, and it is not something that the Army is going to be able to prevail and -- or the Navy and have a signing ceremony on the USS Missouri at the end of World War II. It is going to be something that's going to take time. It's going to be a long struggle. It's a struggle basically within the Muslim faith of a small minority of violent extremists against the overhelming majority of Muslims who are not violent extremists, and we need to find ways to empower and strengthen those moderates who are determined to not have their faith hijacked by these violent extremists."

This is their Global War on Terror? A struggle within the Muslim faith? Like much of what Rummy says, it makes no sense. Proof? It is never reported by the corporate media--that's how crazy it is. Even they won't repeat it.

Regarding "the US just keeps digging itself a bigger hole" here's one of Rumsfeld's "Rules," which he has obviously forgotten: "First law of holes: If you get in one, stop digging."
http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 08:41:32 AM EDT http://warisaracket.org/

------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Leslie,

As I don't wish to have my comment privileges rescinded, I'll just cordially suggest that the idea of Iran or any other Islamofascist, terror promoting nation, resenting "...the international community's limp and useless response to the violations of the rules of war..." is so ludicrous, so pathetic, so utterly assinine and such an affront to the intelligence of anyone with an idea above a duck, that you should be ashamed to have even thought of putting it on paper. These are the people who happily detonate their own women and children; wear no military uniforms to distinguish themselves from non-combattants (quite deliberately, of course); hide among civilians; fight from behind civilian shields; breathlessly exhibit the corpses of children, all the while being wholly responsible for their deaths; behead their captives; lie, distort and misrepresent; seek the extinction of the nation of Israel; and believe it to be their right and duty to rule the world. I realize that moral equivalence is a leftist mainstay, but when the hypocrisy is this blatant it just can't help triggering the laugh-out-loud response.

by OLDPUPPYMAX on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 03:43:43 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
We change the world, that's what.  And we can't delay any longer,  being that  by  the end of this century the North and South Poles will be the only habitable places left on earth, on account of global warming and this perpetual war on terror. It all begins with bringing the toops home now and impeaching President George Bush.  Ready everyone?  

by booboo on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 05:00:01 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
agree that the US of A has produced a lot more terror than Iran ever thought of? We're talking large bombs here, and white phosphorous, and cluster bombs, all used on civilians in Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Iraq and (by proxy) Lebanon. And that's just recently, without going back to the extensive bombing, napalming and agent-oranging of Vietnamese civilians. That's not terror in your book? Then throw that book away--it's invalid.

They wear no uniforms when they defend themselves against Americans, British and Zionist soldiers? Not fair, is it. I bet if your country were to be invaded you would find a uniform somewhere to shoot or blow up the invaders, just to keep everything according to the rules of Queensb-- I mean war.

As far as civilian deaths go, old man, the US Air Force holds the record there. Uncontested. The USAF has no rival, not even close, when it comes to bombing cities and villages and towns and killing civilians, all around the world. Think Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima--but there are thousands of other examples.

The Iranians want to rule the world? You've accomplished the unexplainable--you've confused Iran with the U.S.

Our military deploys well over half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependents, and civilian contractors in other nations. To dominate the oceans and seas of the world, we are creating some thirteen naval task forces built around aircraft carriers whose names sum up our martial heritage -- Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, and Ronald Reagan. We operate numerous secret bases outside our territory to monitor what the people of the world, including our own citizens, are saying, faxing, or e-mailing to one another. . . Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 06:47:20 PM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
And if they had aircraft, missiles, ships, bombs, and a client army to fight for them, they would be doing some real significant terrorism, just like the big guys who have invaded them and are on their side of their fence.

Old Puppy, it is just your misfortune that you are too old to put your patriotic ass where your patriotic mouth is, and back your rant with action, like a true patriot.

Your country needs dedicated believers like you, and here you are trading words with us idiots who do not understand the threat.

Paper Patriots!

by sirius99 (Aiman) on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 10:44:25 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Field command officers and the Joint Chiefs must stop the military action.

by ezdidit (ezdidit@aol.com) on Thu Aug 31st, 2006 at 10:47:13 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------
The last chairman of the joint chiefs, Richard Myers, was a Rumsfeld butt-kisser (got a nice part-time job with General Dynamics) and so is the current one, Peter Pace. The few officers who speak honestly either are removed  or wait until they're safely out. When a few of the many war crimes get enough attention that the military has to do something, a low ranker is selected for the fall. He or she is just an average troop corrupted by the system, but the system can't be at fault.

Gregory Foster wrote:
Having taught for two decades at the National Defense University in Washington, I have grown mind- numbingly accustomed to hearing the future generals and admirals who are our students disparage what they are convinced is the decadence of American society. Ironically, they cluelessly mistake their own pronounced moral arrogance for the true moral superiority expected of them.
  I also have listened time and again to their complaints about having to unnecessarily endure ethics and leadership instruction at their advanced level of experience and achievement. They consider themselves ethically pure, gifted even, yet they see no contradiction in the gross ethical failings of their superiors, whom they venerate and are about to emulate.
  The U.S. military deserves blame as an institution for sustaining a culture that condones, if not encourages, undisciplined, dehumanizing, sadistic, even murderous behavior by at least some of its troops. It deserves even more blame for rewarding and promoting officers to elevated ranks who evince a cowardly lack of integrity and accountability, as well as a disgusting penchant for finger-pointing they would decry in their political overlords - that is, if they themselves hadn't been completely politicized.
  When was the last time we witnessed a senior military officer willingly accept blame for a catastrophe that occurred on his watch (Beirut, Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, Abu Ghraib), or one who resigned on principle? The answer lies in the deafening silence we hear.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0310-29.htm

One example--General Ricardo Sanchez:

  Sanchez held the top military position in Iraq during what was arguably one of the most critical periods of the war--the year after the fall of the Hussein regime, and the time the insurgency took root and began its counterattack. Highlights during his tenure as commander in Iraq include the killing of Uday and Qusay Hussein, and the capture of Saddam Hussein.
  He was in command when the abuse of prisoners occurred most notably at Abu Ghraib prison. Some have been highly critical of the U.S. military's failure to hold generals accountable, putting the blame of Abu Ghraib and other abuse only on a few individuls of the lowest rank.
  Sanchez was succeeded as commander of allied ground forces in Iraq by a four-star general: former Army Vice Chief of Staff George Casey.
  American Army Colonel (Retired) Andrew Bacevich sums up what many think of the general: "Historians will remember Sanchez as the William Westmoreland of the Iraq War--the general who misunderstood the conflict he faced and thereby played into the enemy's hands.
  L. Paul Bremer was the leader of the Coaltion Provisional Authority in Iraq. There was almost a complete failure to communicate between Bremer the top civilian, and Sanchez the military leader. "It was very clear they hated each other. They lived in the same palace and didn't talk to each other." This disunity in leadership has been cited as one of the major failures of the first year of the Iraq War.
  Sanchez was commander of coalition forces during the period when abuse of prisoners occurred at Abu Ghraib and at other locations. On May 5, 2006 Sanchez denied ever authorizing interrogators "go to the outer limits". Sanchez said he had told interrogators: "...we should be conducting our interrogations to the limits of our authority." Sanchez called the ACLU: "...a bunch of sensationalist liars, I mean lawyers, that will distort any and all information that they get to draw attention to their positions."
  Sanchez was relieved of his role as commander in Iraq, but tapped by his bosses at the Pentagon for promotion to a four star command. The Senate refused to approve the appointment because of the Abu Ghraib scandal.
  Lieutenant General Sanchez is currently continuing his tenure in the military as commander of V Corps in Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Sanchez
=
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 12:07:09 AM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

THE REQUEST
It's March, 2005, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has called the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, into his office.

Rumsfeld: "Pete, I'd like you to do something for me. You know my deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, is a great guy. He got these wars going--he's kind of the architect of them. But obviously they're not going too well and Wolfy is starting to chafe a little, and I don't need that, so we've decided to slide him over to the World Bank where he can watch our interests over there on the economic side. I'd like you to organize a tribute to Paul next month and say some nice things about him.

Pace (after a slight pause): No problem, sir, will do.

THE BACKGROUND
During that slight pause, a few thoughts slipped through Pace's mind: (1) Wolfowitz is nuttier than a fruit cake--I wouldn't follow him to the men's room. (2) I've now got the number two military job in the country and I'd sure like to be number one. I've made it this far by looking out for myself. The short time that I was in combat I survived by sending my troops out to be killed rather than endangering myself, and then when other Marines were dying in Vietnam, I was a White House social aide. (3) So what the hey, I'll do it.

THE TRIBUTE
The Pentagon  transcript reads: "Pace called Wolfowitz a 'man of great intellect.' He said the deputy works hard and encourages collegiality. 'You are, in fact, a facilitator and a person who values the judgment of others. And for that, we thank you,' Pace said. The general said the deputy is also a man of great courage. 'Those of us who wear the uniform understand courage on the battlefield, but there's another very distinct form of courage, and that is intellectual courage,' Pace said."

THE RESULT
General Pace, like his predecessor General Myers, is pretty much in Rummy's pocket.
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 12:18:10 PM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------
and keeps on gnawing, and gnawing.

"Rainbow Family men get 6 months in jail for stealing food from garbage can"

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap09-01-195859.asp?t=apnew&vts=9120062018

In 1936 Germany, it began with Gypsies, another defenseless peolple.  Today, Rainbow people.

Hello!  Anyone out there?

by sirius99 (Aiman) on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 10:28:20 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------
We've made "progress"--Jean Valjean got ninetenn years for stealing bread for his family in Les Miserables.

I got pulled over by a deputy sheriff a couple of years back. I was heading in the general direction of a Rainbow Gathering in my VW bus and the deputy said (only after he saw that I was just an old fart in a bus): "You were doing only 48 in a 65 zone and obstructing traffic (he was the only one behind me) but I'll let you go this time."

This is sick. One, only one, example of a perverse  police/court system. Ask a defense lawyer how it is--and then forswear lawyer jokes.
-
"War is a racket . . . the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."---Smedley Butler
by Don on Fri Sep 1st, 2006 at 11:15:55 PM EDT http://warisaracket.org/
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
by earthymom on Sat Sep 2nd, 2006 at 05:12:53 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------
I was at a Grateful Dead show in Atlanta.  It was a good show, people were flying, and happy -- not at all aggressive or troublesome.   When we got ready to leave, we were walking down a ramp lined with cops dressed in all black fucking riot gear and all I could think of was nazi stormtroopers (and why are they here? I wondered -- I hadn't seen even one single altercation within the Dead family).  The cops were so hostile and menacing, some of the group started mooing as we walked along.  SO many people, who had just been inside laughing, dancing, doing the good kind of s