| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:15 am Post subject: Israel continues to push the agenda... |
| Israel continues to push the agenda...
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...7%5E663,00.html
Israel warns on weapons
14sep04
ISRAEL warned yesterday that Iran could be in a position to develop nuclear weapons without outside help within six months.
As the United Nations' nuclear watchdog prepared to meet to set a deadline for Iran to allay suspicions it is secretly making atomic weapons, Israeli military intelligence head General Aharon Zeevi said time was running out for the international community to deal with Tehran.
"The next six months will determine if Iran will achieve in the spring of 2005 a non-conventional capability in the sphere of nuclear research and development," he said. "This does not mean that it will have a bomb in 2005. It means that it will have all the means at its disposal to build a bomb." ...
[...]
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/anal...4/0409feith.php | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: 'A Clean Break' Discussion on C-SPAN |
| See the 'A Clean Break' discussion via the link near the bottom of the following URL:
http://www.irmep.org | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:07 pm Post subject: Israel instructs America to attack Iran and Syria |
| http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=0614
Israel instructs America to attack Iran and Syria
"The Insider" mailing list article, 30 September 2004.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with US congressmen yesterday to discuss which countries America should invade next.
Apparently still unaware that Iraq disarmed after the 1991 Gulf War under diplomatic pressure from the UN, Sharon stated that "Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq."
He described the situation in Iraq since the war "successful". In reality, post-war Iraq is in a state of crisis, facing a multitude of disastrous problems that grow worse with each passing each day. The country is in ruins, and the fighting never stops. So far today, ten hostages have been taken, and a series of explosions has killed dozens of children and over a hundred other civillians.
The Israeli regime also asked America to disarm Libya. Yet the US and UK claim that Libya has disarmed. Bush and Blair have both praised the Libyan dictator, and diplomatic relations between Libya and the US were resumed a few weeks ago. Sharon must know that it was all a pack of lies designed to make the politicians look less like hypocrites when the huge oil contracts were signed a few days later.
It's so kind of Sharon to help America decide who to attack next. But he truly not know what is going on in the Middle East? Or does he just assume that nobody else does?
Unfortunately, many people base their own opinions on what they hear the politicians say on TV.
SOURCES
Haaretz Daily (Il), "Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria", 30 September 2004.
[ http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=263941 ]
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.
...
BBC News (UK), "Blair insists Iraq war justified", 29 September 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3699510.stm ]
Tony Blair has insisted the Iraq war was justified despite his acceptance that no weapons of mass destruction were present.
...
BBC News, "Children massacred in Iraq bombs", 30 September 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3702710.stm ]
Dozens of children have been killed in co-ordinated bomb blasts in Baghdad.
Officials said at least 34 children were among 41 or more people killed when bombs were detonated near a water treatment plant as US troops passed by.
At least 130 more were injured, many from the crowds gathered to watch an opening ceremony at the plant.
...
BBC News, "'Ten hostages captured' in Iraq", 30 September 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3703422.stm ]
A militant group is claiming to have seized 10 new hostages in Iraq, according to footage shown on the Arabic television channel al-Jazeera.
...
BBC News (UK), "Reports 'predicted Iraq violence'", 29 September 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3699858.stm ]
US intelligence reports written before the Iraq war warned President George Bush that an invasion could lead to an insurgency, the New York Times reports.
The reports also predicted the war would increase sympathy in the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, officials who saw the reports say.
The classified reports were written in early 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, which advises the CIA.
...
BBC News (UK), "Blair hails new Libyan relations" , 25 March 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3566545.stm ]
Tony Blair says Libya's Muammar Gaddafi is willing to join Britain in the fight against terrorism.
After shaking hands with Colonel Gaddafi at the start of the historic talks, the prime minister said there was real hope for a "new relationship".
People should not forget the past, they should move beyond it, Mr Blair said.
...
BBC News, "Libya outlines oil contract plans", 6 September 2004.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3630986.stm ]
...
The country, which has recently mended international ties and has significant untapped oil reserves, is offering exploration rights on 15 sites.
Press reports estimate that as many as 20 international firms, including some from the US, took part in the meeting.
...
CBS News (US), "U.S. Eases Libya Sanctions", 23 April 2004.
[ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/25/world/main608562.shtml ]
(AP) President George W. Bush on Friday cleared the way for American companies to do business in Libya, easing nearly two decades of economic sanctions as a reward to Moammar Gadhafi for giving up weapons of mass destruction.
...
It also will permit American oil companies to resume commercial activities in Libya. Marathon, ConocoPhillips, Amerada Hess and Occidental all have assets in Libya but have been barred by the U.S. government from operating there since 1986. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject: U.S. official to Israel: We'll deal with Syria, |
| U.S. official to Israel: We'll deal with Syria,
Iran after Iraq war
By Aluf Benn and Sharon Sadeh, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service and
Agencies
U.S. Undersec'y of State John Bolton: Syria and Iran are next.
www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/263923.html
U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli
officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that
it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea
afterwards.
Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is
in Israel for meetings about preventing the spread of weapons of mass
destruction.
In a meeting with Bolton on Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that
Israel is concerned about the security threat posed by Iran. It's important
to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq, Sharon
said.
Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and
Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.
No uniform position in EU
The European Union has not yet succeeded in arriving at a uniform position
regarding Iraq, leaving the disagreements between the pro-war and anti-war
camps continuing virtually unabated.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said at Monday's emergency summit in
Brussels that the deliberations are about Europe itself as well as Iraq, and
rejected the need for military force.
Representatives from France and Belgium are also adamant in their opposition
to war, and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin praised Belgium for
helping stall the NATO deliberations.
On the other side, Britain, Spain and Italy remained consistent in their
support of the United States.
“Time is running out,” said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The United
Nations "set out very clearly that this was the final opportunity for Iraq to
comply," Straw said. "That involves hard decisions for everyone across
Europe. It is only by fighting tyranny that we are able to enjoy the freedoms
that we do."
_________________
I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding.
~̣¿ó~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find this article at:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mshahidalam1.html
Israel's Proxy War?
by M. Shahid Alam
It has been apparent to all but the purblind ? a defect in understanding assiduously cultivated by America?s mass media ? that the war United States is ready to wage against Iraq has almost nothing to do with its security.
In an age when the people believe that their voices must be heard, the United States must sell its wars the way corporations sell their products. In the past, the people were asked to lay down their lives for visions of glory; now, governments appeal to their self-interest. The first Gulf War had to be fought to protect American jobs. If Saddam Hussain stayed in Kuwait, he would raise the price of oil, and Americans would lose their jobs.
The argument this time is different. It had to be weightier than any fear of losing jobs. This new war seeks regime-change; it involves greater risks. American forces must invade Iraq, defeat the Iraqi army, occupy Baghdad, and stay around, even indefinitely. Americans understand that "regime-change" is serious business. They would not back this war unless Iraq threatened American lives. That explains why the war against Iraq had to supersede the war against terrorism, and why Saddam replaced Osama as the new icon of America?s loathing.
This substitution was quite easily executed. Most Americans take the President at his word when he talks about foreign enemies; this trust comes more easily when a Republican occupies the White House. George Bush told Americans that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, and he had to be stopped before he could transfer them to Al-Qaida. (Why hadn?t he done this already?) For many Americans, it was an open and shut case. Saddam had to be removed.
The flaws in this argument did not matter. If Saddam hadn?t used WMDs during the first Gulf War ? when his army was being pummeled ? why would he use them now? The CIA warned that a war, or the threat of it, would increase the risk of Iraq using WMDs. Others, like Scott Ritter, a former chief weapons inspector for the UN, pointed out that Iraq did not have any WMDs that mattered. More than 90 percent had been destroyed by inspectors; if any escaped, they would be past their shelf life. At least initially, few Americans gave any credence to these doubts, though that has been slowly changing.
Why then is United States straining to go to war against Iraq?
The most popular theory on the left is that this war is about oil. According to one version of this theory, the White House, a captive of oil interests, wants to corner Iraq?s oil for American oil corporations. I do not find this credible. The power brokers in United States would not allow a single industry lobby, even a powerful one, to drag the country into a war which could hurt all of them, and perhaps badly, if the war plans went awry and produced a spike in oil prices. At the least, it is doubtful if oil interests, on their own, can account for the unobstructed rush to a mad war.
There is another oil theory. It argues that the American economy needs cheaper oil; this will save tens of billion dollars. Once Saddam has been removed, and Iraq?s oil supply restored to levels that existed before the first Gulf War, the oil prices will come down substantially. It is hard to reconcile this theory with a US-imposed sanctions regime that has drastically curtailed Iraq?s oil output for the past twelve years. If there were concerns that Saddam might use the oil revenues for a military build-up, that could be addressed by an inspections regime and selective economic sanctions.
There is also a third oil theory, one offered recently.[1] It maintains that this war preempts the Euro threat to the hegemony of the dollar. By pegging oil to the dollar, OPEC has been a key player in the arrangements that have maintained the dollar as the currency of international reserve. In October 2000, Saddam Hussein offered the first challenge to this system by switching Iraq?s dollar reserves to Euro. If OPEC follows Iraq?s lead it could spell trouble for the dollar. This can only be stopped by dismantling the OPEC, and this demands war against Iraq.
An OPEC challenge to the dollar sounds seems na?ve at best. This is hardly the kind of revolutionary action we can expect from an OPEC packed with client states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE; the oil price hike of 1974 could only occur in the backdrop of the Cold War. A precipitate dethronement of the dollar could produce consequences for United States and the world economy which would make the East Asian financial crisis of 1997 look like a storm in a teacup. Not even the EU would push for such results. On the other hand, there is a small chance that the war itself might validate this theory ? if it convinced OPEC that the war aims to dismantle the oil cartel.
If it isn?t oil, then, is this civilizational war, a war of the Christian West against Islam? This conjecture flies in the face of some obvious facts. First, this is America?s war. It is opposed by two key Western allies, France and Germany; and apart from Britain and Israel, the support of other Western countries lacks depth. More to the point, the overwhelming majority of Westerners outside the United States oppose this war. In United States itself, the anti-war sentiment has grown rapidly, and the most recent polls indicate a majority against the war if it happens without the support of the United Nations.
Is it then America?s war against Islamists? Even that is doubtful. Apart from the right-wing Christian extremists, led by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, nearly all Christian denominations have come out against the war. Everyone would agree that Al-Qaida constitutes the most serious Islamist threat to United States; they had proved it on September 11, 2001. And yet, we are ready to push this threat aside in order to wage war against one of the most decidedly secular of Arab states, one that spent ten years waging war against ?fundamentalist? Iran? Why not Wahhabi Saudi Arabia which supplied 16 of the 19 hijackers of September 11. Why not Shiite Iran? Their turn too will come, one hears neoconservative voices, to be followed by Syria, Egypt and Pakistan.
Why then is United States ready to wage this war against Iraq, ostensibly against its own best interests? Most sensible people agree that this is a war whose consequences cannot be controlled, or even foreseen. It may destabilize friendly regimes, bringing radical Islamists to power in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It may disrupt oil supplies, causing a price hike at a time when the global economy already weak and vulnerable to shocks. It may force Saddam to use his chemical and biological weapons ? if he has them ? leading United States to nuke Baghdad or Basra. It may fuel global terrorism for years to come, leading to attacks on American interests globally.
These anomalies quickly melt away if we are willing to entertain a seldom-aired hypothesis. This may not be America?s war at all, much less a war of the West against Islam or Islamists. Instead, could this be Israel?s war against the Arabs fought through a proxy, the only proxy that can take on the Arabs? This will most likely provoke derisive skepticism. Could the world?s only superpower be persuaded to fight Israel?s war? Is it even possible? Could the tail wag this great dog?
Consider first Israel?s motives. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan do not threaten the United States; but they are a threat to Israel?s hegemonic ambitions over the region. This conflict between Israel and her neighbors was written into the Zionist script. A Jewish state could only be inserted into Palestine by resort to a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. After such inauspicious beginnings, Israel could only sustain itself by keeping its neighbors weak, divided, and disoriented. It has since waged wars against Egypt in 1956; against Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967; against Iraq in 1981; against Lebanon, since 1982; and against Palestinians continuously since 1948.
Israel?s contradictions have deepened since the mounting of the second Intifada. When the Palestinians rejected the Bantustans offered at Oslo, Israel chose Ariel Sharon, a war criminal, to ratchet its war against Palestinian civilians. Faced with Apaches, F-16s, tanks and artillery, in desperation, the Palestinians turned increasingly to suicide bombings. Sharon?s brutal war was not working, and Israel?s losses began to catch up with Palestinian casualties. In April 2002, Israeli tanks reoccupied the Palestinian towns, destroyed Palestinian civilian infrastructure, increasingly placing Palestinians under curfews, sieges, destroying their workshops, stores, hospitals, orchards and farms. This was the new strategy of slow ethnic cleansing through starvation.
This slow ethnic cleansing is only a stopgap. The most serious threat which Palestinians pose is demographic: their growing population could soon turn the Jews into a minority inside greater Israel. Since the Palestinians won?t live under an Israeli apartheid, the Likud, with growing popular support, is turning to Israel?s second option. If the apartheid plan were to fail, Israel would engage in large-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, more massive than the ones implemented in 1948 and 1967.
But Israel cannot do this alone. This ethnic cleansing can only be implemented in the shadow of a major war against the Arabs, a war to Balkanize the region, a war to bring about regime-change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, a war that only United States can wage. Israel needs United States to wage a proxy war on behalf of Israel.
It should be clear that Israel has the motive; but does it also possess the capability to pull this off? Is it possible for a small power to use a great power ? the only superpower, in this case ? to wage its own wars. Historically, great powers have often waged wars through lesser proxies; but that does not mean that this relationship can never get inverted.
What makes this eminently possible is the way an indirect democracy ? in particular, democracy in United States ? works. The demos elect candidates picked by powerful lobbies, ethnic, industry and labor lobbies; once elected, the officials work for the lobbies. By far the most powerful political lobby in this country works for Israel, led by American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC). There is scarcely a member of the Congress whose election campaigns have not been funded by AIPAC; several are funded quite heavily.[2] The power of the pro-Israel lobby in United States, however, does not start or end with AIPAC. The result of this massive power is a Congress packed with Israeli yes-men. No member of the Congress has dared to contradict Israeli interests and remained in office. Just last year, two members of Congress, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKenny, were defeated by pro-Israeli money because they had stepped out of line.
Consider some of the achievements of the pro-Israeli lobby over the years. First, an estimate of the cost of Israel to US taxpayers. Since 1985, without debate or demurral, the Congress has sheepishly voted an annual foreign aid package of $3 billion to Israel, nearly two thirds of this in outright grants, and constituting one-third of all US foreign assistance. When estimated in 2001 constant dollars, the total foreign aid to Israel since 1967 adds up to $143 billion.[3] That amounts to a transfer of $28,600 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
The official aid is only a small part of the cost of Israel to the US economy. We need to account for loan guarantees and write-offs, bribes paid to Egypt and Jordan in support of our Israeli policy, subsidies to Israel?s military R&D, boost in oil prices (attributed to US support for Israel in the 1967 war), losses due to trade sanctions imposed on Israel?s enemies, etc. When Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington, added up all these costs, he concluded that since 1973 Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion.[4] In per capita terms, this amounts to $320,000 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
The US record on vetoes cast in UN Security Council constitutes another major achievement of the pro-Israel lobby. The US has cast 73 vetoes out of the 248 cast by all permanent members of the Security Council. On 38 occasions, these vetoes were cast to shield Israel from any criticism directed against its violation of human rights of Palestinians or the territorial rights of its neighbors. On another 25 occasions, US abstained from such a vote.[5] This does not include the votes cast by United States ? along with Israel, Tuvalu and Nauru ? against UN General Assembly resolutions criticizing Israeli violations of human rights or Security Council resolutions. It would be difficult to maintain that the strategic interests of United States always demanded such a consistent voting record on Palestine.
I am aware that the notion of an Israeli proxy war against Iraq will be greeted with skepticism by not a few. I hope to have established that Israel possess in abundance both the motive and capability for such a war. There is some evidence that it has demonstrated this capability in the past also. In the words of Lloyd George, then Prime Minister of Britain, the Zionist leaders promised that if the Allies supported the creation of "a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied Cause. They kept their word."[6] It is doubtful if Zionist influence now is weaker than it was in 1917.
This is not to argue that the pro-Israeli lobby is the only reason for the projected US war against Iraq. At present, there are several forces in United States that are pushing for this war. Prominent among these indigenous forces are the oil corporations, the arms manufacturers, the aerospace industry, and the right-wing Christian evangelists. However, it is doubtful if these indigenous groups, on their own, could have pushed United States so decisively towards the present catastrophic confrontation with the Islamic world. Certainly, the intellectual justifications for this hazardous confrontation have come almost entirely from the pro-Israeli lobby. And their intellectual input may have been vital.
Notes:
[1]http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/07/arpubwc020703.htm
[2]http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm
[3]http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html
[4]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
[5]http://middleeastinfo.org/print.php?sid=63
[6]Lilienthal, Alfred M., "What price Israel" (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953): 20-21.
M. Shahid Alam is Professor of Economics at Northeastern University. His last book, "Poverty from the Wealth of Nations," was published by Palgrave in 2000.
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:55 pm; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject: JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda in |
| JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda in Israel Today:
HISTORY MADE AS MORE THAN A MILLION MARCH FOR PEACE:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12646938&method=full&siteid=50143
Kurdish Leaders Enraged by 'Undemocratic' American Plan to Occupy Iraq:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
The JINSA Zionist extremist cabal (of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Elliott Abrams, and John Bolton) has hijacked the Bush regime and is pushing US to its coming war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) for greater Israel and oil (Robert Fisk of the London Independent mentions in the following article that Dick Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put the other JINSA Zionist extremists into power in the current Bush regime):
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Included below is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article from "The Nation" magazine which Mr. Fisk mentions in his article referenced above:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
The Men From JINSA and CSP
by JASON VEST
[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]
This Zionist extremist agenda of JINSA (which is pushing for the US to attack Iraq and then Iran, Syria and North Korea) is confirmed by what JINSAN John Bolton mentioned in Israel today (according to what is mentioned in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper article which can be accessed via the following URL):
We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war - John Bolton:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/17/we-ll-deal-with-syria-iran-after-iraq-war-john-bolton.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists at Pentagon to Control Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/04/radical-jinsa-zionists-at-pentagon-to-control-iraq.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists (in Bush Regime) Pushing US to War for Israel and Oil:
Recent polling is showing that 59 percent of the US public would like the UN weapons inspectors to continue with their work in Iraq (instead of having the US launch an invasion of Iraq for greater Israel and oil), and 2/3 of the US public are against the coming invasion of Iraq (if it is to occur without UN approval). I have the Constitutional right as an American patriot to expose Israel firsters (in the US government) who are associated with the JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist cabal of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Dick Cheney (who was on the board of directors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put fellow JINSA Zionist extremists Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle into power in the current Bush regime as conveyed by Robert Fisk in his London Independent newspaper articles which are referenced below).
This JINSA cabal (which has basically hijacked the current Bush regime) is pushing US to initiate a war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) which has the potential to inflame the Middle East (as well as increase the risk of US experiencing further tragic terrorism). The Israel firster perspective may suit Likudite cronies in Israel (like General Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu as so eloquently conveyed by Mr. Fisk in his most recent article for the London Independent which is referenced first below), but it is not in the best interest of America:
Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
Cabinet Rallies to Blair as War Revolt Looms:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=379088
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
JINSA Zionist Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' before Bush Presidency:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Washington's Zionist Chicken Hawks to Reshape Mid East for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/10/25/washington-s-zionist-hawks-to-reshape-mid-east-for-israel.php
JINSA Zionist Extremist Richard Perle Does Not Speak for the Majority of Americans:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/05/every-patriotic-american-needs-to-access-this.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php
Israeli sources say war imminent; Iran and Syria next:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/15/israeli-sources-say-war-imminent-iran-and-syria-next.php
The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php
TOO MANY SMOKING GUNS TO IGNORE: ISRAEL, US JEWS, IRAQ:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/28/too-many-smoking-guns-to-ignore-israel-us-jews-iraq.php
UN REMARKS by Foreign Affairs Ministers of Syria and France (especially comments by Syria about US/UN double standard in not enforcing paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Israeli weapons of mass destruction as well):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/14/un-remarks-by-foreign-affairs-ministers-of-syria-and-france.php
Iraqi Ambassador: UN/US Double Standard with Israeli Nuclear Weapons:
The UN (US) double standard for Israel with paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Iraq (which calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as mentioned below by the Iraqi UN Ambassador) is completely unjust (especially when it comes to Israeli weapons of mass destruction):
Iraq Turns Spotlight on Israel at U.N. Arms Body:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/iraq-turns-spotlight-on-israel-at-u-n-arms-body.php
The Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php
We'll give UN inspectors more time, says Blair:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=378501
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
The following also appeared in the Daily Mirror in the UK:
HYSTERICAL? WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN
WHEN the Daily Mirror launched its campaign against the war on Iraq we were dismissed as lefty peaceniks, just opposing military action for the sake of it.
As the campaign continued the abuse intensified - we were accused of being 'hysterical, of "cynically chasing new readers, of over-reacting".
The crescendo of negativity reached a nadir with our BLOOD ON HIS HANDS front page, powerfully illustrating John Pilger's ferocious attack on Tony Blair for the impending slaughter of Iraqi civilians.
This was crass, offensive and way too personal, our critics said. Yet it was the exact same phrase Mr Blair used to denigrate the 1.5 million people who protested in London on Saturday.
What is now absolutely clear is that the Daily Mirror is right about this war. And Tony Blair is wrong. The Prime Minister is not a stupid man so he must realise in his astute head that he is beaten logically, politically and democratically.
The only support he has in this country is from a few lapdogs in the Cabinet - take a bow, John Prescott - the Tory leadership and newspapers owned by George W Bush admirers living in America.
Those one and a half million people who marched on Saturday are not the only ones who feel war would be wrong, needless and a total disaster. Each of them represents many more.
It was the biggest demonstration this country has ever seen. It rivalled the magnificent anti-Vietnam marches in the United States in the 70s.
In the past, protesters have been sneered at as long-haired hippies. That couldn't be said about Saturday's demonstrators. Young and old, working, middle, and upper class... Countless thousands of ordinary people united on one fundamental principle - war against Iraq at this time is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is because Mr Blair knows he has lost the argument that he is lashing out. He claims to have scaled the moral high ground and accuses those who oppose his views of being as guilty as Saddam of murdering his victims.
Had the Prime Minister talked to the demonstrators, he would have found hardly any who supported the Iraqi tyrant - and the Mirror has no time for those who do.
Being against Saddam - or any other terrible regime - is a moral position to take. Sending in bombers to obliterate them, wiping out thousands of innocents in the process, is not part of most people's definition of morality.
If this sounds like hysteria, the Daily Mirror doesn't mind. If it takes obsessional, hysterical, head-banging to get over the message that this war must not happen, so be it. The option - though you wouldn't know this to listen to Mr Blair - is not between waging war and being obliterated by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. There is a real, workable alternative - to control him through tough use of UN weapons inspectors. Which is the alternative backed by most countries and the vast majority of people in Britain.
Having lost the argument, it is Tony Blair who is plunging down the road of hysteria. Playing the morality card is not just offensive and ridiculous, but dangerous.
Where would it end? Having taken out Saddam, where would the US-British axis turn to next? Which other objectionable, tyrannical regimes would become targets for our bombs and invasion forces?
Will they be sent in to remove Zimbabwe's President Mugabe for driving his people into starvation? How about the terrible anti-human-rights record of the Chinese government - would we take on their immense population? Or what about the attitude of the Saudis to women and human rights? Or Israel's defiance of UN resolutions? It all smacks of one rule for Iraq and another for everyone else.
We should be told if we have just heard the Blair Doctrine - coming second-hand from the dangerous men who run today's White House - which will become our foreign and military policy at the start of the 21st century.
The world has one omnipotent power, whose military spending outstrips every other nation put together. That country, unlike those in Europe, has hardly suffered from attack. Yet this White House wants to bombard Iraq and then who-knows-where next. And it wishes to take the United Kingdom along on its coat-tails, a conspirator to mass slaughter.
If we are talking morality, perhaps Tony Blair could explain the morality in rigging reports of "evidence" to justify military invasion? Both America and the British government have done that in the past few days. Or maybe the Prime Minister could debate morality with some of the fundamentalists who threaten this country because they believe we live an immoral lifestyle.
Morality is the last refuge of a discredited politician. The final desperate hiding place of those who have lost the argument but refuse to accept defeat.
Tony Blair should ask himself if he is Prime Minister of a nation so steeped in immorality that one and a half million of its people will march to support their views.
Or whether the people of this country are desperately worried at the prospect of being dragged into a divisive, dangerous and murderous war.
There will not be blood on the hands of those who seek peace with strength. And we don't want there to be on Tony Blair's, either.
The Mirror will go on shouting that loudly, clearly, and if necessarily hysterically, until Mr Blair listens. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:52 pm Post subject: What Does the Bush Imperial Maffia Really Want? |
| What Does the Bush Imperial Maffia Really Want?
by William Blum
Which is the more remarkable -- that the United States can openly
announce to the world its determination to invade a sovereign nation and
overthrow its government in the absence of any attack or threat of attack
from the intended target? Or that for an entire year the world has been
striving to figure out what the superpower's real intentions are?
There are of course those who accept at face value Washington's stated
motivations of "liberating" the people of Iraq from a dictatorship and
bestowing upon them a full measure of democracy, freedom and other eternal
joys fit for American schoolbooks. In light of a century of
well-documented US foreign policy which reveals a virtually complete absence
of such motivations, along with repeated opposite consequences, we can
dispense with this attempt by Washington to win hearts and mindless.
Presented here are some reflections about several of the causes that make
the hearts of the imperial mafia beat faster in regard to Iraq, which may be
helpful in arguing the anti-war point of view:
Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases and
communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a
command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of
the Middle East.
Idealism: remaking the world in what the true believers see as America's
image, with free enterprise and Judeo-Christianity as core elements; here is
Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise
Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just
let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we
don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this
thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do
very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Oil: the sine qua non of Middle East policy, yesterday, today and
tomorrow; to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and
Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its
independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the
dollar with the Euro as its official currency; oil-dependent Europe may think
twice next time about being so uppity.
Globalization: Once relative security over the land, people and
institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march
into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely
by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the
international financial extortionists.
Arms industry: As with each of America's endless wars, military
manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their
generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further
warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons.
Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters
of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who,
along with the rest of the powerful Israeli lobby, have advocated smashing
Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military
buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel could use
the opportunity to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question
-- transferring them to Jordan, (liberated) Iraq, and anywhere else that
expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. Iraq's abundant water
could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel.
Written by William Blum, author of "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower" -- www.killinghope.org
The JINSA Zionist extremist cabal (of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Elliott Abrams, and John Bolton) has hijacked the Bush regime and is pushing US to its coming war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) for greater Israel and oil (Robert Fisk of the London Independent mentions in the following article that Dick Cheney was on the board of advisors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put the other JINSA Zionist extremists into power in the current Bush regime):
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Included below is that "Men from JINSA and CSP" article from "The Nation" magazine which Mr. Fisk mentions in his article referenced above:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
The Men From JINSA and CSP
by JASON VEST
[from the September 2, 2002 issue of "The Nation" magazine in the USA]
This Zionist extremist agenda of JINSA (which is pushing for the US to attack Iraq and then Iran, Syria and North Korea) is confirmed by what JINSAN John Bolton mentioned in Israel today (according to what is mentioned in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper article which can be accessed via the following URL):
JINSA Zionist Extremist John Bolton Confirms JINSA Agenda in Israel Today:
We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war - John Bolton:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/17/we-ll-deal-with-syria-iran-after-iraq-war-john-bolton.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists at Pentagon to Control Iraq:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/04/radical-jinsa-zionists-at-pentagon-to-control-iraq.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists (in Bush Regime) Pushing US to War for Israel and Oil:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Recent polling is showing that 59 percent of the US public would like the UN weapons inspectors to continue with their work in Iraq (instead of having the US launch an invasion of Iraq for greater Israel and oil), and 2/3 of the US public are against the coming invasion of Iraq (if it is to occur without UN approval). I have the Constitutional right as an American patriot to expose Israel firsters (in the US government) who are associated with the JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist extremist cabal of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Dick Cheney (who was on the board of directors for JINSA before becoming Vice President and helped put fellow JINSA Zionist extremists Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle into power in the current Bush regime as conveyed by Robert Fisk in his London Independent newspaper articles which are referenced below).
This JINSA cabal (which has basically hijacked the current Bush regime) is pushing US to initiate a war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) which has the potential to inflame the Middle East (as well as increase the risk of US experiencing further tragic terrorism). The Israel firster perspective may suit Likudite cronies in Israel (like General Sharon and Mr. Netanyahu as so eloquently conveyed by Mr. Fisk in his most recent article for the London Independent which is referenced first below), but it is not in the best interest of America:
Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
Cabinet Rallies to Blair as War Revolt Looms:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=379088
Zionist JINSA Group in Bush Regime Pushing Iraq Attack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
JINSA Zionist Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' before Bush Presidency:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Washington's Zionist Chicken Hawks to Reshape Mid East for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/10/25/washington-s-zionist-hawks-to-reshape-mid-east-for-israel.php
JINSA Zionist Extremist Richard Perle Does Not Speak for the Majority of Americans:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/05/every-patriotic-american-needs-to-access-this.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php
Israeli sources say war imminent; Iran and Syria next:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/15/israeli-sources-say-war-imminent-iran-and-syria-next.php
The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php
TOO MANY SMOKING GUNS TO IGNORE: ISRAEL, US JEWS, IRAQ:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/28/too-many-smoking-guns-to-ignore-israel-us-jews-iraq.php
UN REMARKS by Foreign Affairs Ministers of Syria and France (especially comments by Syria about US/UN double standard in not enforcing paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Israeli weapons of mass destruction as well):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/14/un-remarks-by-foreign-affairs-ministers-of-syria-and-france.php
Iraqi Ambassador: UN/US Double Standard with Israeli Nuclear Weapons:
The UN (US) double standard for Israel with paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 against Iraq (which calls for the Middle East to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as mentioned below by the Iraqi UN Ambassador) is completely unjust (especially when it comes to Israeli weapons of mass destruction):
Iraq Turns Spotlight on Israel at U.N. Arms Body:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/iraq-turns-spotlight-on-israel-at-u-n-arms-body.php
The Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php
We'll give UN inspectors more time, says Blair:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=378501
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
HISTORY MADE AS MORE THAN A MILLION MARCH FOR PEACE:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12646938&method=full&siteid=50143
Kurdish Leaders Enraged by 'Undemocratic' American Plan to Occupy Iraq:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060
The following also appeared in the Daily Mirror in the UK:
HYSTERICAL? WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN
WHEN the Daily Mirror launched its campaign against the war on Iraq we were dismissed as lefty peaceniks, just opposing military action for the sake of it.
As the campaign continued the abuse intensified - we were accused of being 'hysterical, of "cynically chasing new readers, of over-reacting".
The crescendo of negativity reached a nadir with our BLOOD ON HIS HANDS front page, powerfully illustrating John Pilger's ferocious attack on Tony Blair for the impending slaughter of Iraqi civilians.
This was crass, offensive and way too personal, our critics said. Yet it was the exact same phrase Mr Blair used to denigrate the 1.5 million people who protested in London on Saturday.
What is now absolutely clear is that the Daily Mirror is right about this war. And Tony Blair is wrong. The Prime Minister is not a stupid man so he must realise in his astute head that he is beaten logically, politically and democratically.
The only support he has in this country is from a few lapdogs in the Cabinet - take a bow, John Prescott - the Tory leadership and newspapers owned by George W Bush admirers living in America.
Those one and a half million people who marched on Saturday are not the only ones who feel war would be wrong, needless and a total disaster. Each of them represents many more.
It was the biggest demonstration this country has ever seen. It rivalled the magnificent anti-Vietnam marches in the United States in the 70s.
In the past, protesters have been sneered at as long-haired hippies. That couldn't be said about Saturday's demonstrators. Young and old, working, middle, and upper class... Countless thousands of ordinary people united on one fundamental principle - war against Iraq at this time is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is because Mr Blair knows he has lost the argument that he is lashing out. He claims to have scaled the moral high ground and accuses those who oppose his views of being as guilty as Saddam of murdering his victims.
Had the Prime Minister talked to the demonstrators, he would have found hardly any who supported the Iraqi tyrant - and the Mirror has no time for those who do.
Being against Saddam - or any other terrible regime - is a moral position to take. Sending in bombers to obliterate them, wiping out thousands of innocents in the process, is not part of most people's definition of morality.
If this sounds like hysteria, the Daily Mirror doesn't mind. If it takes obsessional, hysterical, head-banging to get over the message that this war must not happen, so be it. The option - though you wouldn't know this to listen to Mr Blair - is not between waging war and being obliterated by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. There is a real, workable alternative - to control him through tough use of UN weapons inspectors. Which is the alternative backed by most countries and the vast majority of people in Britain.
Having lost the argument, it is Tony Blair who is plunging down the road of hysteria. Playing the morality card is not just offensive and ridiculous, but dangerous.
Where would it end? Having taken out Saddam, where would the US-British axis turn to next? Which other objectionable, tyrannical regimes would become targets for our bombs and invasion forces?
Will they be sent in to remove Zimbabwe's President Mugabe for driving his people into starvation? How about the terrible anti-human-rights record of the Chinese government - would we take on their immense population? Or what about the attitude of the Saudis to women and human rights? Or Israel's defiance of UN resolutions? It all smacks of one rule for Iraq and another for everyone else.
We should be told if we have just heard the Blair Doctrine - coming second-hand from the dangerous men who run today's White House - which will become our foreign and military policy at the start of the 21st century.
The world has one omnipotent power, whose military spending outstrips every other nation put together. That country, unlike those in Europe, has hardly suffered from attack. Yet this White House wants to bombard Iraq and then who-knows-where next. And it wishes to take the United Kingdom along on its coat-tails, a conspirator to mass slaughter.
If we are talking morality, perhaps Tony Blair could explain the morality in rigging reports of "evidence" to justify military invasion? Both America and the British government have done that in the past few days. Or maybe the Prime Minister could debate morality with some of the fundamentalists who threaten this country because they believe we live an immoral lifestyle.
Morality is the last refuge of a discredited politician. The final desperate hiding place of those who have lost the argument but refuse to accept defeat.
Tony Blair should ask himself if he is Prime Minister of a nation so steeped in immorality that one and a half million of its people will march to support their views.
Or whether the people of this country are desperately worried at the prospect of being dragged into a divisive, dangerous and murderous war.
There will not be blood on the hands of those who seek peace with strength. And we don't want there to be on Tony Blair's, either.
The Mirror will go on shouting that loudly, clearly, and if necessarily hysterically, until Mr Blair listens. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:52 pm Post subject: US Foreign Policy Dangerously Slanted Toward Israel |
| February 15, 2005
The Ties That Blind
US Foreign Policy Dangerously Slanted Toward Israel
By BILL CHRISTISON
Former CIA analyst
Editors' Note: The following talk in Santa Fe, NM was given on February 12, 2005. Bill was one of three speakers, and his wife Kathy was another. (An article including her talk will be forthcoming.) The event, organized by the Santa Fe Chapter of Veterans for Peace, was an evening of talks and discussion along with videos, pictures, and graphics displays on "Palestine/Israel: Human Rights and Policy Perspectives."
We've already mentioned that Kathy and I have helped to rebuild Palestinian houses. These were houses destroyed by the Israeli government -- acts of destruction to which our own government in Washington never raised any objection. Helping to rebuild them was our small act of rebellion, on the ground in Palestine, against Israeli and U.S. policies. I'd like now to connect this small act to our broader and even more rebellious views on U.S. foreign policies in general.
To keep the discussion on the Israel-Palestine issue, the first point I want to make is that practically all U.S. foreign policies -- including those that concern areas other than Palestine -- are very significantly affected by U.S. actions and policies on Palestine itself. I believe it is a fact that a majority of the six and a half billion people in the world today literally hate most major U.S. foreign policies and that, while there are a number of reasons behind this hatred, one of the important reasons is the past 80 to 100 years of U.S. actions with respect to Palestine. When Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali were recently in town, Chomsky commented that five years ago much of the world regarded the United States as a rogue state and the greatest threat to their existence. He then went on to say: "Since then, the situation has become far worse. It's now not much of the world . . . but most of the world. . . . George Bush has . . . succeeded in a few years in making the United States the most feared and often hated country in the world." Tariq Ali later made it clear that he agreed.
This is a tragedy. The U.S. government seems to be deliberately enmeshing itself ever more deeply in international crises of its own making, particularly in the Middle East. President Bush will almost certainly continue aggressive policies resulting in even more hatred against the United States. New wars are likely, and the U.S. will probably be the aggressor.
Let's take a minute and ask ourselves precisely what are these policies that the U.S. seems bent on pursuing and that I believe should be changed if we want to see any peace and stability in the world in years to come? The U.S. policy to dominate global oil markets is an obvious one. The U.S. drive for empire and global political domination is another. Then there are the immoral wars against "terrorism" as self-servingly defined by Washington and its allies. There are also the policies of killing thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq that the U.S. refuses even to count; as well as the policies implementing the injustices of a U.S. version of economic globalization that has widened the gap between rich and poor in many nations. And then too there are the ever-expanding and wasteful military expenditures of the U.S.; more new American military bases almost everywhere; the continuing U.S. support for authoritarian governments in the Arab world, Central Asia, and elsewhere; and the new nuclear weapons that a blatantly hypocritical U.S. government wants to produce while futilely trying at the same time to prevent unfriendly nations and non-state entities from obtaining nukes, and while Washington adamantly refuses to negotiate seriously on reducing and eliminating our own nukes. That's a pretty long list. But please note: neither democracy, nor freedom for the rest of the world, nor concern for human rights is among these real policies of the U.S.
Please note also -- despite Israeli and U.S. governmental propaganda to the contrary, something else needs to be on this list: that is, Washington's massive support for the Israeli government's policies toward Palestine, and the U.S.-Israeli special relationship. These are key U.S. policies in encouraging the U.S. to wage aggressive war against Iraq and soon perhaps Iran, but they are also key U.S. policies that encourage future terrorism against the U.S. and its allies. Furthermore, it is known throughout the world that the U.S. has acquiesced for decades in Israel's obtaining and expanding its own nuclear weapons, while at the same time the U.S. is trying to stop other nations, particularly in the Middle East, from doing the same. Controversial though the subject of the Israeli-U.S. relationship may be, it is important that we face it directly.
Specifically, what we need to debate most seriously is the one U.S. policy goal that above all else needs changing -- empire-building and global domination, first and foremost in the Middle East and Central Asia. And that will bring us back once again, and very shortly, to the Israeli-U.S. relationship.
Ending the current drive of the U.S. for greater empire and domination would be the best possible way to improve the chances for future peace in the world and to reduce the global hatred of the U.S. that seems to be intensifying everywhere. I believe most strongly that it will NOT be possible to reduce this global hatred except by changing U.S. foreign policies from top to bottom. Today the U.S. government, largely controlled by an elite of corporate and military-industrial interests that are opposed to meaningful democracy, is actually damaging the security of the United States as well as the entire world.
The policies we should work to change include all the various means employed by the U.S. to extend and strengthen its global domination. Specifically, we should end right now the occupation of Iraq, give up any control over events there, and pay the full price for having the U.N. take over the problem. Then we should forego our veto power in the Security Council on any question involving Iraq. Next, we should eliminate any and all plans for military action against, and future domination of, Iran, Syria, other areas of the Middle East, and other parts of the globe that we wish to dominate, like North Korea. We should also drastically cut the ever-rising military expenditures of the U.S., the rising military presence of the U.S. in many parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, and we should end the pursuit of a "made in the USA" version of economic globalization that many peoples of the world see as a weapon in our drive for global political domination.
We should also slash rather than expand the money we spend on intelligence and covert actions. Since September 11, these activities have made up a growing proportion of total U.S. global policies. Should not questions be raised by Americans themselves about the ignoble image of the U.S. this trend presents to the world? Do we lack so much confidence in our own diplomatic and overt policies -- our alleged support for democracy, for example -- that we have to rely increasingly on covert actions to implement them? Should not the use of covert actions by the U.S. be cut rather than increased? Don't such actions usually wind up being a cause rather than a cure of more terrorism against us? Yet more and more covert activity is what the groups now running the U.S want. Why?
And last but not least -- in fact this issue I'm about to raise is extraordinarily important even though it is also a tough, tough one to deal with -- I think all of us who want more peace in the world should work to weaken and discredit the alliance between the Bush administration and the religious fundamentalist Christian right in this country. I for one want more separation of church and state in the U.S. rather than less. I do not want to see a strengthening of any views that regard Christianity or Judaism as a "better" religion than Islam or Buddhism or any other religion. I also do not want to see any beliefs such as those known today as "Christian Zionism" achieve any influence over U.S. foreign policies. The entire issue of religion and politics needs much more intense discussion that we can give it tonight. Many moderate churches are already involved in such discussions, and we should encourage more discussions. This is one area where I think change could come sooner than we think. I hope so.
But aside from this religious issue, I know that many of my suggestions will sound like pie-in-the-sky to some of you -- utterly impossible to implement. It is necessary, however, that we sweep into the dustbin every one of the foreign policies I've talked about. These are policies that have been pursued for many years, with maximum intensity under the Bush administration, but with almost equal intensity at least since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bipolar world in the early 1990s. These policies of global domination are not supported by just the Republican Party or just the Democratic Party. They are the policies of the wealthy and anti-democratic corporate groups that dominate both of our major political parties.
The fact that only 5 percent of the world's population resides in the U.S. means that we simply cannot dominate the rest of the world for long. The very effort of the U.S. to seek global domination is anti-democratic in the eyes of most of the world's peoples, who do not want to be dominated by the U.S. In addition, the drive for global domination will over time impoverish many average people here in the U.S., who see their hopes for better healthcare and education, and for lifetime living wages, fading farther and farther into a future they will never live to see. Yet once again, this is what the groups now ruling the U.S. seem to want.
To put it bluntly, U.S. foreign policies for far too long have been simply immoral, and the U.S. has been responsible for allowing, encouraging, and enabling far too much torture and far too many deaths, deaths totaling in the millions -- in areas from Indochina to East Timor in the Far East; to Chile and Haiti and Central America in our own hemisphere; to the Balkans, Turkey, and South Africa; to Palestine; to Lebanon; to Iran, and now to Afghanistan and Iraq. Global hatred of the U.S. is not the "hatred of our freedoms" that George Bush touts, but a very legitimate hatred of actions and policies that are predatory and murderous. The new U.S doctrine of preemptive war simply makes it all worse.
Let's take another look now at how the special status of Israel in U.S. politics relates to the U.S. drive for global domination. After decades of growing ties between the two countries, Israel is now so closely linked to the United States in concrete ways that it is actually a part of the U.S. military-industrial complex. Israel sells military equipment, with our knowledge, to countries to which the U.S. is restricted by law from selling -- for instance, to China. So many arms and types of arms are produced in the U.S. for Israel that it has become quite easy for Israel's lobbyists in Washington to go to individual congressmen and point out to them how many jobs in a given district depend on this arms industry and on not withholding arms from Israel. In this way, Israel becomes a direct factor in pressing the U.S. to continue its drive for empire and global domination, in expanding the U.S. military-industrial complex, and in keeping congressmen and other politicians in office -- politicians who serve first and foremost the ruling elite of the country.
Those of us who live here in New Mexico should be particularly concerned about this issue. In the National Laboratories of Los Alamos and Sandia, we have in our own back yard two very important pieces of the U.S. military-industrial complex, major contributors to U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities. Are there any links between these National Labs and Israel's nuclear weapons programs? Do the labs contribute in any way to Israel's nuclear programs, or Israel to U.S. programs? Are there any exchanges among nuclear specialists of the two nations? Or joint programs? Is it in the best interest of the world that the United States, very possibly encouraged by Israel, is expanding its nuclear weapons programs at this time? It seems to me these are appropriate questions to be asking our political leaders, especially when our own government is threatening the nuclear programs of certain other governments, which are quite appalled at the hypocrisy they believe they see in these U.S. actions.
My time's up, and I'm going to stop right here. Thank you
Bill Christison was director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He has written extensively in recent years on the problems of U.S. foreign policy. He can be reached at: christison@counterpunch.org
http://www.counterpunch.org/christison02162005.html | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
