February 2007

Want Worldview News? Get the new Al Jazeera English Satellite News Channel. One time dish cost of about $200 from http://www.GlobeCastWorldTV.com .No monthly fees.And, read President Jimmy Carter's new book "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid"; Chomsky on Iran, Iraq, and the Rest of the World


Iraq and More: On the road to success!?   Maybe, if you consider so-called neo-con objectives. A dictator who openly challenged Israel and the US is gone. Whatever regime finally emerges in Iraq is likely to allow US oil companies access to Iraq oil;  the proxy regime has introduced legislation to allow foreign company "participation" in Iraq oil on extraordinarily lucrative terms. A regime that was trading oil in Euros instead of US dollars threatening the US economic house of cards is gone. (Iran is making the same threat, so watch out for intensifying US threats to "hit" Iran also.) (As long as nations continue to trade major commodities, as oil, only, or mainly, in US dollars,it allows the US to print dollars with huge deficit spending with little risk of a crash in US currency value. [ It's like a game of Monopoly where the banker is a player and can use the bank money as his own, all other players don't have a chance.] If, however, major volume world transactions occur in Euros, nations will shift away from the dollar exposing it to its true market weakness, (a consequence of wildly unbalanced trade deficits and deficit spending) and portending disaster for the US with a precipitous decline in the dollar value. [If the banker gets outrageously greedy, the other players can agree to trade in a currency not monopolized by the banker causing the banker to play by common rules.] [Obviously I am not an economist for all you savvy money people who might read this!]. This threat is greater than any hyped terrorism threat and is of the US making due to irresponsible economic and foreign policy, but has no "play" with the public in justifying our imperial war(s). All high-media-profile congressional "plans" for changed strategy in Iraq involving various drawdown scenarios, openly envision large residual US troop presence in Iraq (about 50% ,ie tens of thousands!) for years after 2008 (and yet they deny "permanent" US bases in Iraq-- even as large essentially permanent bases are currently under construction now). The huge defense spending  is making corporate neo-con supporters rich; the large expeditures ( and deficit) are a cover for Bush's recent statements that the new federal budget will "necessarily" limit (ie cut) (what "they" consider "unnecessary") social programs (a key  historic republican objective) in favor of increased "defense" spending.

So even though it has not been the expected  "cakewalk", the neo-con outlook is pretty good--right?. There have been some setbacks. The proxy-regime has not yet been able to secure the country enough to quell public and international outrage, and to allow dramatic increases in oil pumping and profits for foreign oil interests. Administration lies and criminal unconstitutional behavior in executing "the plan" is being exposed. The unexpected US and Iraq casualities, though probably only delaying the major objectives as above, are threatening the image and public viewed legacy of Bush and the  republican agenda. But isn't that only a "soft" setback? As with Reagan and Nixon, the historic image can be rewritten over time. And, there is a risk that the new proxy government can be swayed by Iran to drift from the above agenda. But can't that influence  be used as a casus belli (pretense) to attack the last of the triad of the "axis of evil"?

But Wait! Iran is a much larger military, political, and public support (ie lying) challenge. A US ex-president (Carter) has even written a top-selling book awakening some of the US public to the racist apartheid policies of Israel and unswaying US support of those plicies (although he does not discuss the annual billions of US dollars in aid --he started--and military hardware provided Israel). North Korea has developed nuclear weapons capability as a result of our threatening policy. Chavez and much of central and south America is belligerently refusing to kow-tow to traditional US domination (good for them). India and China are emerging economic power-houses on the horizon (and Russia is re-emergent)(unnecessarily at US expense); and, their influence in the resource rich African continent seems to be at the expense of long term US economic interests, because of our foreign policy of domination and militarism instead of mutual interest. And, Katrina has highlighted incompetencies in domestic social institutions. Even patriotic Americans imbued with previously unshakeable beliefs, that our intentions and actions are moral and altruistic, are beginning to question whether our actions managed by our leaders are truly in accordance with our historic public perception of (as distinguished from actual governmental implementation of) American value structures. Finally,  many high-flying politicians and corporate elite have been exposed for the society bleeding leeches they are, tarnishing the image of the rich and  powerful. So, any self-respecting neo-con who takes his blinders off might think the whole "thing" is unraveling!

Upon reflection, notice how little of this status evaluation has to do with the hyped war-on-terror, or Al Quaida. (That is an international police situation folks, not a war!) Also note that except for the domestic social program agenda, the Democratic agenda is very much similar. That is why you don't see the mainstrean Democratic leadership taking a hard-line to stop Bush in his tracks, which they can easily do by witholding funds. A bill introduced in the House (HR508) (by Lynn Woolsey,Maxine Waters, and Barbara Lee) truly cuts the war funding, brings the troops home NOW!,forbids any US oil industry participation in Iraq (ie removes the neo-con profit incentive), and supports Iraq reconstruction---- but you don't hear any media or mainstream Senators or Representatives (of any party) getting behind it. Want Change? Dump these trash politicians in 2008!

Congressional Supporters of War: You hear many congressmen saying that Bush lied to them or duped them into voting in favor of the Iraq war. Think. Either they are lying, or they are admitting to being incompetent and naive for not requiring the presentation of supporting evidence of imminent threat warranting an illegal war against UN Security Council voting. I expect our government representatives to be more resistant to knee-jerk human emotional responses to events like 9-11 ,to examine the facts, be reflective, to not be manipulated by partisan politics, and do what is just and in the best interests of the country. And this is key, there was good intelligence that there was no imminent WMD threat; and most likely not even any WMD; and the hyped congressional report that blames it all on bad intelligence is a whopping whitewash and coverup for all those involved. Therefore, I consider almost all the top contenders for 2008 unqualified for the office they seek.

Huge New US Bioweapons Development: Bush allocates a huge $43 billion for a new US bioweapons lab campus ostensively as a defensive measure, when really an illegal new WMD development project.

North Korea;Iran Nuclear: North Korea (DPRK) agrees to get rid of its nuclear weapons (eventually) in exchange for economic aid (mainly energy).Initially it will suspend activities that will limit its existing warheads to between 3-12. That is good. It will bargain with the eventual destruction of those production facilities for years in getting further energy aid and the abandoned 2 light water nuclear reactors previously agreed by the other 5 countries to build until the Bush administration reneged and stopped the project.This will extend to decades as their economy improves and reconciliation with South Korea becomes conceivable. However, the ultimate destruction of all of its existing nuclear weapons will never occur, just as the 5 nuclear powers have "agreed" to move to eventual denuclearization under the nuclear NPT treaty. At any point this rational approach could be derailed by a return to stupid hardline demands by the US.

Iran is in compliance with its nuclear NPT obligations and rights, and the UN Security Council Resolution UNSCR1737 demanding it halt all nuclear enrichment activity has no legal basis. Rather, it is a US prodded illegal resolution and undermines the credibility of the UN as an enforcer of international laws and treaties. However,there is a serious concern that the enrichment technology for making nuclear power plant fuel is also the same technology for making nuclear bomb fuel. Once the technology is mastered , only the NPT treaty commitment and IAEA inspections assure that civilian reactor fuel making is not enhanced to high enrichment and diverted to bomb making. Of course that assurance is not guaranteed and most advanced countries with civilian nuclear power reactors have access to the materials for making bombs. This is becoming a recognized flaw in the NPT, but currently there is no legal basis for stopping any sovereign nation from pursuing enrichment ostensively for civilian power reactor use. It has been proposed that a possible solution would be setting up several civilian nuclear fuel enrichment centers which would "guarantee" civilian nuclear fuel access to other countries without enrichment capability. Enrichment technology would be restricted to only these internationally recognized enrichment centers.Used fuel from the reactors would similarly be returned to silimar collection/reprocessing centers to prevent the recovery of plutonium for bomb use from being diverted. In theory this sounds reasonable,but it requires new treaty making and agreements by all sovereign countries.And that is highly unlikely because the enrichment/reprocessing centers would be the big powers and they could (would) use the required fuel supply politically. You only have to consider the recent Russian gas supply problems to EU countries or past OPEC supply reductions.And no sensible emergent country in the developing world would agree to be so willingly dependent on the US given its horrendous self-interest driven foreign policy record. Russia which has generally good relations with Iran,has proposed it could provide the Iranian enrichment possibly with a dedicated enrichment factory on Russian soil.But considering that Russia has a contract with Iran to supply the Iranian Bushehr reactor with fuel supply and "disposal" for the plant's life, and has still been dragging out the plant completion years, and refused to deliver the initial fuel now made for the last 2+ years to the plant site, and recently has generated a phony excuse to once again delay fuel delivery scheduled for next month as part of the on-going political fray over Iran, only goes to emphasize the irresponsibility of Iran ever agreeing to have a substantial eventual part of its energy supply so dependent on a foreign country, even one with historically good relations. Expect Iran to accelerate its industrial enrichment program possibly in an effort to make Bushehr fuel itself if Russia backs out of its commitment.(That will delay Bushehr startup years.) If Russia backs out of Bushehr, possibly Iran could make a nuclear fuel supply deal with China as part of a much larger blunderbus energy deal (China is hungry for oil!) and future nuclear plant supply and possibly transfer of technology to build its own plants. But China will be very reluctant to incur the wrath of the US and Europeans so it would require a mega-deal from Iran. Like DPRK, I expect this to take several years to play out with the West realizing its weak position and Iran eventually becoming a country with civilian nuclear power and its own fuel enriching capability.I don't think the US (or Israel) is dumb enough to militarily attack Iran,but I do not totally rule it out. If they do, I expect Iran to withdraw from NPT and IAEA and go underground to develop nuclear WMD for sure. They will learn from Iraq and DPRK (and India and Pakistan and Israel).If not attacked, I believe Iran will be content to have nuclear WMD capability (like Japan) without actually having any warheads.

Kofi Annan Turns over UN to Ban Ki Moon Too soon to fairly evaluate the new UN head. But so far his timid demeanor and less fluent English, and most importantly what he says, makes him appear to be a "US patsy". If so, that portends big UN probl;ems for years.

No Need to "Grow" Army   Doomsayer    Christian Fascism     Israel:Apartheid By Any Other Name    Brezinski: Bush Seeking Pretext to Attack Iran   Media Silent on Brezinski Warning    Prominent Jews Call For Open Debate On Israel     Iran: Democrats Won't Save Us     Bush: Lying, Punk President   US Hypocritical Iran War Preparations (Part 1)   US Hypocritical Iran War Prepartaions (Part 2)   US Hypocritical Iran War Preparations (Part 3)   Chomsky:Iraq is all About US Domination Policy   No Use Blaming Iran for Lost Iraq      Let Dems Push For Restoring Habeas Corpus     Buildup to nuking Iran    Successes With Momentum: Cuba & Venezuela    US Empire: A Bi-Partisan History    Fake Intelligence on Iraq Revealed  Chomsky on Iran, Iraq, and the Rest of the World  UN Report:Occupied Gaza Like Apartheid South Africa    US Troops Following Illegal Orders Are Also Culpable in War Crimes    Lt. Watada: American Hero     Sheehan: Iraqis are People Too   US Redemption Demands Bush Impeachment   US Supports Terrorists in Iran