Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts

7/16/10

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

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



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

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

Read on...

Peacenik goes back and forth on this issue. Peacenik recently read something about Europe not allowing the U.S. or Israel to attack Iran. On the other hand there are lots and lots of influential Americans who would love to attack Iran. Is Iran a threat to the U.S.? No. Was Iraq a threat to the U.S.? No. Was Afghanistan a threat to the U.S.? No. Can Europe influence U.S. foreign policy? No. Will Iran be attacked?

7/13/10

Scary Anti-Iran Talk Is Escalating -- And Weapons May Be Moving Into Position for Attack

Though Iran does not have nuclear capability, the U.S. and Israel are espousing a doctrine of "pre-emption."



Crazy talk about the Middle East seems to be escalating, backed up by some pretty ominous military deployments. We'll start with the department of scary statements:

First up, Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, speaking June 21 at Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv on why Israel should launch a pre-emptive strike at Iran: “I am of the opinion that, since there is an ongoing war, since the threat is permanent, since the intention of the enemy in this case is to annihilate you, the right doctrine is one of presumption and not retaliation.”

Second up, Uzi Arad, Israeli prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s national security advisor, speaking before the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem June 22 on his belief that the “international community” would support an Israeli strike at Iran: “I don’t see anyone who questions the legality of this or the legitimacy.”

Read on...

Will Iran be attacked? Would the Peace Prize winning Obama authorize an attack? Peacenik doesn't know. But with the world economy going down the toilet, leaders everywhere will be looking to divert attention. An attack on Iran would not surprise Peacenik.


10/5/09

World War Three Anybody?

Unfortunately, Kunstler lays out a very plausible future. Can the tensions in the Middle East just keep festering without something different happening? Peacenik doesn't think so.

And something different won't be peace and friendship and brotherhood. The outcome of an attack on Iran is probably just as Kunstler imagines it or worse. Yet U.S. senators and media types and some generals openly cheer and campaign for an attack. Does U.S. society have a deathwish? Or is the future already so distopian that this future, World War, is a preferable outcome? Maybe swine flu should mutate and depopulate huge chunks of the earth. Maybe that is a preferable outcome.

By James Howard Kunstler

When Alan Greenspan predicted three percent economic growth showing up in the reported figures for the third quarter of 2009, did he mean executive compensation packages? Maybe the lesson here is: don't ask a crackhead to predict the future supply of crack. Greenspan's greatest success may be to drive economics into such disrepute that it will be cut loose from the universities and only be taught by mail order or internet subscription from the same outfits that offer PhD's in astrology. That is, before the universities themselves go broke.
The predicament that the USA finds itself will not be "solved" at the scale of operation that we're accustomed to, and we should just stop wasting precious time and dwindling resources in the idle hope that it will be. The failure to recognize this dynamic is the most impressive part of the meltdown. The only thing that the federal government is likely to prove in the process is the ineffectiveness of its actions as applied to any of the raging current problems from the killing burden of hyper-debt to the brushfires of geopolitics. Congress will only make the health care system more complex. Both congress and President Obama will do everything possible to keep housing prices unaffordable -- in a quixotic effort to protect the collateral of the big banks. Capital will continue to vanish in the black hole of default.

Read on...

6/10/09

Do You Really Think Arabs in the Middle East Clapped for Obama's Speech?

Right wing pundits and politicians hated Obama's Cairo speech. That may be the only reason to recommend it. Peacenik thought Obama would wind down the Iraqi occupation. Peacenik thought Obama would wind down the Afghanistan occupation. Peacenik thought Obama would close Guantanamo. Peacenik thought Obama would stop torture by U.S. soldiers and agents. Was Peacenik naive. Did Peacenik forget a question mark there? Peacenik thinks Peacenik was optimistic. Overly optimistic. Now, Peacenik thinks Obama is going to change very little. The US is stuck in the Middle East. Inertia. Imperialism. Pride. Oil. Foolishness.

Just like the US couldn't imagine the consequences of not being in Vietnam, the U.S. is incapable of imagining not being in the Middle East. But the day will come. The empire is collapsing. The empire has collaspsed. You know it. Peacenik knows it. Obama will know it.

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted June 9, 2009.

What do words of peace and cooperation mean from us when we torture -- yes, we still torture -- Muslims?

Did they play Barack Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in the prison corridors of Abu Ghraib, Bagram air base, Guantanamo or the dozens of secret sites where we hold thousands of Muslims around the world? Did it echo off the walls of the crowded morgues filled with the mutilated bodies of the Muslim dead in Baghdad or Kabul? Was it broadcast from the tops of minarets in the villages and towns decimated by U.S. iron fragmentation bombs? Was it heard in the squalid refugee camps of Gaza, where 1.5 million Palestinians live in the world’s largest ghetto?

What do words of peace and cooperation mean from us when we torture—yes, we still torture—only Muslims? What do these words mean when we sanction Israel’s brutal air assaults on Lebanon and Gaza, assaults that demolished thousands of homes and left hundreds dead and injured? How does it look for Obama to call for democracy and human rights from Egypt, where we lavishly fund and support the despotic regime of Hosni Mubarak, one of the longest-reigning dictators in the Middle East?

Read on...

11/17/08

How Did We Ever Let This Guy Get Away with Being a War President?

By Gary Brecher, eXiled Online. Posted November 17, 2008.

Only a fool like Bush could pick an anti-American Arab country, add an invading army, and expect a nice fluffy democracy soufflé.

What George W. Bush loved best about his job was being a war president. Playing war, that is, as opposed to making war like a grown-up. Remember him strutting onto that carrier in his little flight jacket? You never saw Eisenhower, a real general, playing out his martial fantasies this way. You can take the drink out of the drunk, but you can't take the swagger out of a fool.

Compare Bush's eight years to Clinton's, and you see how much he loved to play the soldier. No one expected that from a Republican: Reagan and Bush senior were cautious about betting America's chips. Liberals used to make fun of Reagan for picking on tiny helpless nations that couldn't fight back. Now they are remembering with pure nostalgia Reagan's invasion of Grenada, air raids on Libya, and even our 1984 withdrawal from Beirut.

Peacenik thinks this article is almost funny if the consequences weren't so bad. And the economic collapse is tied to all the money wasted in Iraq.

11/27/07

Imbecilic email still making the rounds

punditman says:

Recently, I received the following forwarded email, which has a kind of innocent jingoism about it:

"Someone in Pakistan advertised in a newspaper an offer of reward to anyone who kills a Canadian -- any Canadian. In response, an Australian dentist wrote the following editorial to help define what a Canadian is:

A Canadian can be English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. A Canadian can be Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, Arab, Pakistani or Afghan.

A Canadian may also be a Cree, Metis, Mohawk, Blackfoot, Sioux, or one of the many other tribes known as native Canadians. A Canadian's religious beliefs range from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or none. In fact, there are more Muslims in Canada than in Afghanistan. The key difference is that in Canada they are free to worship as each of them chooses. Whether they have a religion or no religion, each Canadian ultimately answers only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

A Canadian lives in one of the most prosperous lands in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which recognize the right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.


A Canadian is generous and Canadians have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return. Canadians welcome the best of everything, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services and the best minds. But they also welcome the least - the oppressed, the outcast and the rejected.


These are the people who built Canada. You can try to kill a Canadian if you must as other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world have tried but in doing so you could just be killing a relative or a neighbor. This is because Canadians are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, can be a Canadian.
"

Nice thoughts. Too bad it is hokum. A dead giveaway that this is recycled gibberish is the claim that there are more Muslims in Canada than in Afghanistan. What imbecilic nonsense! In fact, 1.9% of the population in Canada is Muslim compared to 99% in Afghanistan and yet both countries have roughly the same population: 33,390,141 and 31,889,923 respectively (source: CIA World Fact Book--ironically). Add to that the American spelling of "neighbor." Then again, the pro war folks rarely do their homework.

A quick google search reveals a strikingly similar five-year-old email, but in fact it was talking about Americans, not Canadians. See the following link (scroll down to the part entitled "An American"):
http://www.saw.co.za/newsletters/archive/sawmail_150402.html#adhoc

It is possible the whole thing is just some internet urban myth -- was there such an ad in a Pakistan newspaper? Did an Australian dentist write an editorial? Where was it published? Who knows?

The tone of the “original” piece equates America with all things bright and beautiful, while the copy-cat version merely substitutes Americans with Canadians.

The same basic email appears on David Kilgour's personal website, he being the former Liberal Member of Parliament for the Alberta riding of Edmonton Southeast: http://www.david-kilgour.com/2007/Nov_21_2007_06.htm

More Muslims in Canada than Afghanistan? Sloppy, David, sloppy!

The whole thing just smacks of cheap flag-waving, which politicians thrive upon.

The Australian dentist who supposedly wrote this editorial undoubtedly did so at least five years ago. That was when the post-911 sympathy-for-America phenomenon was at its peak -- before the Bush administration set to work to unravel it. Since then, the seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ongoing turmoil throughout much of the Middle East and a constant stream of scandals and malfeasance -- from torture, to rendition, to the new cooked-up lies about Iran's nuclear program -- have used up that "compassion capital" several times over.

T
hus I remain suspicious of the agenda of the person who first “Canadianized” this forwarded email because no Aussie dentist ever wrote any such thing about Canadians. That much is true.

It always pays to do a little background research -- for what it's worth.

10/10/07

Oil, Israel, and America: The Root Cause of the Crisis

by Scott Ritter

There is no shortage of examples of historical points of friction between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States to draw upon in order to illustrate the genesis of the current level of tension. One can point to the Islamic revolution that cast aside America’s staunch ally, Reza Shah Pahlevi, the period of reactionary exportation of Islamic “revolution” that followed, the take over of the US Embassy and subsequent holding of Americans hostage (replete with a failed rescue mission), the Iranian use of proxies to confront American military involvement in Lebanon, inclusive of the bombing of the Marine barracks and US Embassy compounds, America’s support of Saddam Hussein during the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, the ‘hot’ conflict between Iran and the United States in the late 1980s, or Iran’s ongoing support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon. The list could continue.

With the exception of the current situation in Lebanon, most of these “friction points” are dated, going back nearly three decades past. And when one examines the ‘root’ causes of these past points of friction, we find that there is no simple ‘black and white’ causal relationship which places Iran firmly in the wrong. Much of the early animosity between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States was derived from the resentment most Iranians felt over American support for a brutal, repressive regime. This resentment, coupled with an uncompromising approach taken by the United States towards maintaining cordial relations with a post-Shah Iran, manifested itself in the furtherance of anti-American activity in Iran, which in turn hardened the posture of the US government against Iran, leading to a cycle of devolution that ultimately resulted in the severance of all ties between the two nations.

The animosity between the United States and Iran was further exacerbated by the US support for Saddam Hussein during the bloody 8-year war between Iran and Iraq.

Keep Reading...


Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).

6/1/07

Seymour Hersh on U.S. funding Lebanon and Gaza violence

punditman says...

Award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh explains the US "redirection" policy in the middle east, the explosive repercussions and how the press just gobbles it up.