Before a friend told me about Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, I was starting to get depressed and feel hopeless (start of the 2nd Bush erection, oh, I mean selection).  DN! consistently, intelligently and thoroughly SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER.  No sound bites.  No hype.  No Rose Garden imbedded reporters.

I agree that if more Americans would tune in to DN! the possibilities for real change would increase.  Many don’t even know how to find it (I didn’t).  If you have community TV stations near you, call them and ask if they carry Democracy Now! and if not, request it.  You can also go online and read it (democracynow.org), and you can ask for email service (free) from them informing you of the content of the day’s program.  But the best way, I think, is watching it on TV.  They have great visuals and exciting music and the most intelligent people in the world, to whom they give TIME to express complex
ideas and educate us.

Kudos to Amy and Juan and the entire dedicated Democracy Now! staff.

Today’s program (Thurs/May 10) had an incredible example of speaking truth to power with Jeremy Scahill’s report to congress on Blackwater.  Check it out!

Re: #69239 by Ernest Canning on 5/10 at 5:43 pm

“With respect to the issue of competent journalism, it is to be found at Democracy Now.org”

Thanks for mentioning this, Ernest. I agree completely. Amy Goodman has no equal among American TV and radio journalists. If the standard for quality journalism in the US were measured against Amy, or if half of Americans watched Democracy Now, the world would become a far different, better place.
If you love truth, justice, and liberty, please watch and support Democracy Now.

Re comment #69128 by Eyeball Kid.  It is refreshing to see someone admit error, something all of us, given our human limitations, need to be prepared to do.  With respect to the issue of competent journalism, it is to be found at Democracy Now.org.  You can retrieve their Monday thru Friday, one hour broadcasts any time on the net, even go back into their archives for earlier broadcasts.  Michael Moore aptly described Amy Goodman as a “national treasure.”  If you find the time to start watching Democracy Now! I think you will concur.

I strongly believe that the answer to our present malaise lies in the Latin phrase, Scieter est Potentia—knowledge is power.  That is why, whenever possible, I encourage others to seek out Democracy Now!

In addition to H.R. 1234 submitted by Kucinich, also check out this other Kucinich resolution submitted last month:

H.RES.333
Title: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Read the full text at this link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333:

The link for HR 1234 is:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1234:

Re: #68895 by Eyeball Kid on 5/08 at 10:12 pm

Not true. Your assertion is true regarding the core of the Democratic party, but there is dissent. There are several Democrats who advocate a complete withdrawal from Iraq. This recent article represents the position of Kucinich:

“Kucinich Reveals Dem Funding Bill Includes Privatization of Iraq Oil & Carte Blanche to Invade Iran

June Caldwell
May 6, 2007

In a meeting with the West Los Angeles Democratic Club on Saturday, May 5, Presidential candidate and Ohio Congress Representative Dennis Kucinich revealed that the Democrats in Congress had made some secret concessions to the Republicans in the initial Bill to continue funding the Iraq War that was vetoed, and in a subsequent version that is currently being negotiated. They include:

>  Privatization of Iraq’s Oil – in the original Bill, but not shared with the public. A rule was created that said this clause could not be removed during debate on House floor.

>Bush could invade Iran without approval of Congress. A clause that would require him to get approval from Congress first was removed.

>Timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq to be removed from Bill (in post-veto version).

The clause that Iraq must privatize ownership of its oil was in the original Bill presented by Congress, although it was not mentioned publicly. It was stated as a benchmark to be met by Iraq, and if it was not met, the US would withdraw troops and refuse to offer peacekeeping troops to help rebuild the country. That means the Iraqis would not own their own oil, but instead International oil companies, primarily US oil companies, would instead divide ownership of the oil.

This seems to reaffirm the worst possible scenario that the war in Iraq not only was built upon lies, but was solely for the purpose of destroying their country so the big US oil companies can own their oil…...
Kucinich went on to explain that last November, the citizens of the US voted for a ‘change of direction in Iraq’ but as of yet have only gotten a bait and switch.”

Some other Democrats that come to mind who have similarly-rational views on Iraq are Clay, Filner, Woolsey, Lee, Waters, and McGovern, and there’s likely a few more.

re comment #68895 by Eyeball Kid.  I am not certain just what your definition of a “national” Democrat, but I am certain that you are just flat-out wrong if you include Dennis Kucinich (and may also be wrong if you include Senator Gravel).  Go to Kucinich.us.  Read up on H.R. 1234.  He proposes an immediate cut-off of “all” funds, use of the existing funds exclusively for troop withdrawal with U.S. troops to be replaced with a Muslim peacekeeping force under the auspices of the U.N., the withdrawal of “all” U.S. contractors—including the Blackwater mercenaries—with a concommittant return of Iraq’s economy, including its oil, to the Iraqi people. 

Your statement that “not one Democrat is calling for an appropriations bill that stops the funding of military bases” is fundamentally at odds with the truth.  H.R. 1234 contains no “appropriations” for Iraq other than reparations for the damage we have inflicted.  It even goes so far as to tell the World Bank and the IMF to forget saddling Iraq with structural readjustment loans that would permit the multi-nationals to regain control of Iraq’s economy after we force them to leave.

It would be helpful if individuals, like yourself, would conduct just a modicum of research before making broad statements that fly in the face of the facts.

re comment #68803 by David.  While some of the points you make are valid, I would respectfully disagree with your position that Mr. Kucinich represents only 2% of the Democratic electorate.  If you polled individuals, issue by issue, you would find that the vast majority actually support the positions taken by Mr. Kucinich and do not support the actual positions of the corporatists—Clinton/Obama/Edwards. 

The problem is that the conglomerated corporate media do not present candidates to the American people on the basis of where they stand on “issues” that truly matter.  They seek to marginalize the candidacies of individuals like Mr. Kucinich by evading so much as a mention; by limiting “coverage” to “horse race” questions about the so-called “leading candidates”—that is candidates who are acceptable to the military-industrial complex.  While the data needed to make an informed electoral decision is accessible, far too many Americans, including the so-called leaders of MoveOn.org have secuumbed to playing the role of passive consumers rather than engaging as active citizenship.

What we deal with is what Noam Chomsky aptly describes in “Failed States” as a “democracy deficit.”  For example, only 4% of those who voted for Reagan in 1984 said they did so because he was a conservative.  By a 3 - 2 margin, voters favored tax increases devoted to New Deal programs.  There was near unanimous opposition to cuts Social Security, and the “public preferred cuts in military spending to cuts in health programs by about 2 to 1.”  Chomsky also points out that a majority of Bush supporters not only support the Kyoto protocol but mistakenly believed that Bush does too.  In other words, individuals routinely vote for candidates whose policies are 180 degrees from what the voter truly desires.

When I speak of the grass roots, I am referring not to the DLC or even the leadership of MoveOn but of where the vast majority of Americans are on the “issues.”  If progressives could find a way past the veil thrown over the Kucinich candidacy so as to reveal where he and the corporatist charletons really stand on issues that matter, Kucinich would win in a landslide.  But, admittedly, that is a big “IF.”

Re: #68776 by Ernest Canning on 5/08 at 7:36 am

I understand that the Democratic base is broad, and I did mention the “out of Iraq caucus”. But the Democrats are an official political party, run by the DNC, and supported by a majority of the party’s base. I think you are mistaken by grouping “the vast majority of the grass roots Democrats” in with the out of Iraq caucus and Kucinich. Kucinich can’t get more than 2% support in Democrat polls, and supposedly-progressive MoveOn.org backs Obama, who is the quintessential product of the system. MoveOn represents the ideas of a large segment of the grassroots Democrat base, and MoveOn not only went against Kucinich, but went against the out of Iraq caucus on the recent war supplemental bill, causing a split between MoveOn and peace groups like United for Peace & Justice. My point is that a large segment of the grassroots, progressive base consists of people who want change but still support the status quo in their actions. The number of Democrats who really own up to the problems and advocate real, systemic change, is small…. probably only slightly more than the 2% who support Kucinich.
There’s a big difference between working tirelessly to bring some of the troops home, continue a low-profile occupation of Iraq, and put a more kind face on the status quo, and working tirelessly to give Iraq back to its people, repair the damage, bring to justice those who orchestrated the attack, and make fundamental, systemic changes to end the imperialism, warfare, and gross profiteering that characterize the current system. Unfortunately, a lot of the grassroots Democrats, and most Democrats in Congress, are in the former category.

Incidentally, the Republicans are no different. A small percentage of Republicans are progressive as well, represented by the likes of the Cato Institute, and Rep. Ron Paul.

re comment #68737 by David.  I think your use of the word “Democrats” is over-broad.  There is no question but that a majority of Congressional Democrats are perpetuating a sham effort to end the war for purposes of political gain even as they seek to force the Iraqis to pass an energy law that would fork over the oil on the cheap, you are overlooking the fact that there is a significant faction of the Democratic Party—the Out of Iraq Caucus, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel—who are working tirelessly to put an end to this imperial war of aggression.  So are the vast majority of the grass roots Democrats. 

If we are to ever escape the present malaise, it is critical that this distinction be brought home to the American electorate, who must begin acting more as active citizens as opposed to passive consumers, seeking out where the “individual” candidate stands on issues that truly matter rather than accepting the spin of the corporate punditry which would limit choice from amongst the so-called “leading candidates”—that is chosing from amongst those candidates that the military-industrial complex deem acceptable—the corporatist wing of the Democratic party whom you so aptly describe as “sell-outs.”

Re: #68390 by Anthony Smith on 5/05 at 1:15 pm & #68717 by PaulMagillSmith on 5/07 at 9:17 pm

Sorry Anthony & Paul, but I’m gonna refute some of it. (Although I’m NOT calling you idiots.)

Ritter’s article does not represent “extensive knowledge of the origins of the civil unrest in Iraq”. Extensive knowledge, yes, but very misleading regarding the origins of the unrest.
I agree that Ritter’s rationale for labeling the public as “idiots” for not understanding Iraqi history is unwarranted. Further, I think Ritter is being a bit hypocritical, and makes an argument that’s largely irrelevant to justification for the US occupation of Iraq.
I wrote about these issues in earlier posts, so I won’t repeat.

However, I think some of Ritter’s assertions are correct, including his 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. The intent to attack and occupy Iraq was certainly bipartisan, and remains so to this day. Congress wasn’t “misled” any more than Bush was, and Democrats continue to support the occupation while orchestrating a political ruse to pacify the public. I’m not defending the repugnant Republicans, but at least they’re remaining true to form. The Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to play both sides.
With the exception of several Representatives who make up the “out of Iraq caucus”, Democrats are pushing for a non-specific, limited withdrawal of troops, maintenance of permanent bases and tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, including no limit to the number of mercenaries and other contractors, and passage of the US-written oil law that seeks to rob Iraq of its oil wealth and permanently divide the country along sectarian lines. Furthermore, Democrats have done nothing to shed light on why US troops are really in Iraq, nothing to challenge the Bush policy of supporting a puppet Shia regime that’s selling out its own people, while at the same time covertly funding Sunni terrorist groups to undermine Shia political groups (in Iraq and Iran) to insure that real democracy never happens, nothing to reverse the Military Commissions Act and other legislation that codifies torture and illegal rendition and imprisonment, and nothing to prevent an unauthorized Bush attack against Iran.
I’ve had many recent face-to-face meetings with US Senators and Representatives to discuss the Iraq war, and I can assure you that the Democratic majority is not seeking a legal and justice-based, permanent resolution to the Iraq conflict. Rather, they’re attempting to hold onto public support, while maintaining as much of the military occupation as possible. Democrats are generally as evasive as Republicans when pressed to discuss and justify their positions on Iraq.
Since when has either party valued the lives of US servicemen? In the eyes of US leaders, members of the US military are cannon fodder, and have been for a long time. There is no limit to the number of lives that will be sacrificed to protect the interests of the Anglo-American capitalist elite. So many members of the military, even those who have lived through hell, have so much of their identity and esteem invested in their service that they can’t bring themselves to face the real reasons why they fight and kill, and die and suffer. I think Ritter is in this group. It’s tragic, because every generation that continues to support the crusade, pretending that the cause is noble, perpetuates the cyle of aggression and violence, and leaves it to their children to contend with.
Neither the Democrats or Republicans represent solutions, as they are all products of the current system that necessitates perpetual conquest. When the US citizenry decides that this isn’t fun anymore, the solution will read a lot like the Declaration of Independence.

Re: #68563 by Bukko in Australia on 5/07 at 1:59 am

I agree that people are stuck with limited choices, and can only do so much to curb energy use. Anyone who makes a sincere effort, and gets informed enough to raise the consciousness of the community, is a big help, even if still dependent on this unsustainable energy system.
I didn’t intend to bag electric cars; rather, to point out that they’re not a panacea for our energy and environmental ills. A new electric car would be a big improvement over most other vehicles on the road today, but a new Civic would be an equal improvement. Because so many people have bought into electric car myths and other bogus ‘solutions’, including hydrogen and ethanol, not nearly enough is being invested in real innovation, and far too few citizens are taking personal responsibility to reduce their energy use, because they’re convinced that the powers that be have everything under control.
Also, I don’t disagree that there’s an ongoing conspiracy against energy efficient cars. However, the movie grossly misrepresents the nature of the conspiracy. To focus only on the electric car is to get so close to one tree that you have no awareness of the forest. The conspiracy is against any reduction of energy or natural resource consumption, because the economic and monetary systems, and their prime beneficiaries, will not tolerate a prolonged contraction. Until the citizenry understands this, real solutions are not possible.

Well said:

#68390 by Anthony Smith on 5/05 at 1:15 pm

Your logic, reasoning, and facts are irrefutable.

Not sure how the discussion on Ritter went into electric cars, but I’ve learned some things.
David, I was skimming your stuff (three-part postings are a lot to get through, mate) and I wanted to disagree with your bagging of electric cars. You make sense, though. I’m impressed with anyone who cites Engdahl. I haven’t read his book, just what he has put out online, but he seems amazingly well-informed in his essays. Ditto for peak oil, which is the lesser-known monster that’s going to wreak as much havoc on our Western lifestyles as global warming.

Because it’s not a perfect world, though, people can only do the best they can. One of the reasons I settled in Melbourne when I left the U.S. was because it has a city-wide system of street trams and longer-distance trains that run on electricity. The juice comes from burning some of the dirtiest coal in the Western world, but I still figure that’s better than driving a petrol car to work every day. And we bought a Prius to replace the V-8 Mustang and V-6 Fiero GT we had in the U.S. Not the perfect car, but better than most other choices.

If all of us would go for the wisest possible alternatives, that would show there’s a market for them, and chances are that even better green products would follow. That’s if we don’t die in a collapse of civilisations beforehand, of course.

(part 2)

As coincidence would have it, 24% is about the efficiency of a new high-efficiency, gasoline-powered auto, such as a new Honda Civic, at normal cruise speeds.
A modern direct-injection turbo-diesel is near 35% efficient, and VW is reportedly nearing production of a 70 mpg car using this technology, coupled with a new exhaust particulate filter developed by Corning that removes more than 95% of the exhaust particulates.

In terms of net energy efficiency, electric cars are similar to gasoline-powered cars, and significantly less efficient than diesel.

Environmental impact is a more difficult comparison. While the new power plants fueled by natural gas are almost zero-emission, except for CO2 of course, coal-fired plants are still an environmental nightmare, with little improvement on the horizon. The emissions from coal-fired plants will likely get worse, as most of the US Anthracite coal is gone, and thus the quality and purity of available coal is declining. This means even more mercury, uranium, sulfur, and other toxic materials spewed into the air, in addition to increasing CO2 emissions. Carbon-sequestration is still decades away, and the technology is not yet proven large-scale, and thus doesn’t factor into the current reality.

Because of the heavy reliance on coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power, but especially because of coal, it’s an impossibility that the exhaust average from US electricity generation is environmentally better than the exhaust coming from my 2006 ULEV Honda Civic. I’d bet it’s far worse, although I haven’t ever seen any credible accounting of the pollution from US power plants.

Proponents of electric cars often make amazing claims regarding the amounts of fuel and emissions that would be saved by converting the US auto fleet to all electric, but the claims are bogus. It’s not valid to compare a new all-electric fleet to the existing US auto fleet, since much of the existing fleet is toxic-gas-belching dinosaurs. A fair comparison would be a new all-electric fleet vs a new all-Honda-Civic fleet, in order to compare the efficiency of electric vs gasoline automobiles. In such a comparison, efficiency is virtually the same. The same type of comparison using new diesel technology favors the diesel over the electric by a significant margin. But you won’t find these honest comparisons being made by electric car cheerleaders.

Even looking 20 years into the future, it’s doubtful that 10% of US electricity will be from solar and wind. Most of the new US power plants under construction or planned are natural gas powered, and so the average plant efficiency will rise slightly over time. But as North American natural gas extraction peaks in another decade or so, coal will most likely take up the slack from then on, giving back the efficiency gains.

Even if you consider a person who has a photo-voltaic roof on their house, and generates enough surplus power to charge an electric car every day, there is still no net benefit to them having an electric car. Sure, their car will use no fossil fuels (except the fuel used to manufacture the car and all of it’s materials). But if instead they purchased a car with that new VW diesel technology, and sold their surplus power to the grid, thereby reducing the output of power plants by contributing solar PV electricity, then the net effect would be less energy used, and less pollution, due to the greater efficiency of the diesel over the electric car.

As a society, we don’t want to consider the stark realities of natural limits. We know that we’re going to kill almost every living thing on the planet by the end of this century, and likely much sooner, but we also intend to keep doing what we’re doing, consoled by the irrational belief that some unknown factor will alter the course, without anything from us. Time will tell, but the trend indicates continued irrationality and denial, and some tough times ahead for humanity as a result.

(part 1)
Re: #68231 by Ernest Canning on 5/04 at 2:54 pm

Haven’t seen the movie, but have read many reviews, and had discussions with friends who’ve seen it. Being a long-time car & motorcycle enthusiast and racer, and a GM-certified class A mechanic at a Chevy dealer years ago, I’m interested in anything automotive.
The more I learned about the content, the less interest I had. In scientific content, the movie is weak. It’s based mostly upon emotion and anecdotal evidence, designed to convince people who lack the mechanical and scientific understanding of the technology necessary to separate fact from fiction.
It’s true that GM intentionally killed the EV1. But the concept was a lead balloon from the start, and GM engineers knew it. GM was forced to produce the EV1 cars due to CARB laws, in order to continue selling cars in California. Otherwise, the car never would’ve been produced beyond the concept stage. When the CARB laws were changed, GM pulled the plug on the project (as did Honda and Toyota too). My guess is they crushed the cars because they were junk; they didn’t want the liability of battery fires (which was a problem with the 2nd-generation battery in the car), fuss from the $20k cost of battery-pack replacement, and PR damage from the less-than-impressive range, efficiency, and performance. The best feature of the car was the very low aerodynamic drag coefficient of .19, helping the car achieve good highway efficiency.

Even with 2007 battery technology, electric cars offer no efficiency or environmental improvement over internal combustion engine technology. I know that’s a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people, but it’s scientific fact.
Space here limits the explanation, but in essence one must examine the energy input beginning at the source, and calculate efficiency and losses through the end use. And then one must compare apples to apples.

Since 70% of US electricity comes from coal, natural gas, and oil, it’s reasonable to consider the power for the electric car to be fossil-fuel-derived. (While the 19% nuclear and 5% hydro don’t emit CO2, there are other significant environmental liabilities that are difficult to apply to this example, so I’ll leave it alone for now.)
Coal-fired power plants are about 35% efficient on average, providing about 50% of US electricity, and the most high-tech new natural gas fueled plants are up to 60% efficient, with older gas plants closer to 40% efficient. For an overall average, 40% efficiency is realistic, from fuel to generator output. Average transmission & distribution loss is about 7.5% in the US, reducing the efficiency to about 37% at your house. When you plug in your electric car, the charging process is about 90% efficient, losing 10% of the energy due to the AC-to-DC conversion and heat losses. The modern battery-electric car is about 72% efficient using stored power in the batteries to drive the car (the battery is about 90% efficient during discharge, and the inverter/motor is about 80% efficient at converting the electricity into mechanical drive, for a combined 72% efficiency for the car). Thus, the 37% efficiency at your house electric panel is reduced to 33% going into the battery, and then the car can convert 72% of that into motor power, for a net efficiency of about 24%, from source fuel to car motor shaft.
There’s a decent synopsis of this calculation on howstuffworks.com, but they omitted the transmission & distribution losses, which changes the net efficiency calculation by about 2%.

(continued)

To David and Skruff:  You would both do well to get ahold of the DVD documentary, “Who killed the electric car?”

Re:#68090 by Skruff on 5/04 at 5:41 am

Hydrogen gas doesn’t naturally exist, and the process of making hydrogen gas from water, and storing and transporting it, consumes more energy than is released by burning the hydrogen. The EROEI is a negative.
Certainly hydrogen gas burns as a fuel, but it only makes sense when you ignore the energy inputs.
Your attitude is comical, because it is the defenders of hydrogen who are attempting to maintain the status quo of big energy monopolies. Hydrogen gas merely represents the energy source used to make it, and each time energy is converted from one form to another, there are losses. Thus, the exercise is less efficient than simply using the original energy source.
If there were a surplus of solar and wind energy, then hydrogen might present an option for transportation fuel. But that surplus will likely never be.
Additionally, when the losses due to the migration of hydrogen through tank and pipeline walls is factored in, the net energy loss grows.
If you care about truth and knowledge, you’ve got some research to do.

(part 3)
World uranium production is predicted to peak in about 40 years, with shortages possibly beginning in only 10 to 20 years, since annual demand is already greater than annual mine output, causing the cost advantage of nuclear power to quickly disappear, and making investment in future nuclear power plants questionable.
US ethanol production is already consuming nearly half of the annual US corn crop, providing about 2% of US auto fuel. Corn is the most energy-intensive crop possible for ethanol production, with a negative EROEI ratio. Thus, more fossil fuel energy is used to make the ethanol than is contained in the ethanol, making the entire exercise insane. Additionally, as natural gas peaks and begins to limit the use of nitrogen fertilizer (which is made from natural gas), upon which the world’s food supply is dependent, use of food crops for transportation fuel will become impossible. It’s estimated that to replace current world fossil fuel use with ethanol would require 7 times the total arable land on Earth, assuming no food or forests are needed.

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source. It’s an energy carrier, just like a battery. Thus, it offers nothing to the energy equation. Hydrogen made from electric power could provide transportation fuel, but even current electricity consumption is unsustainable past another decade or two, and a national hydrogen fuel infrastructure would cost $trillions. It isn’t going to happen.

The bottom line is that humanity is nearing the limits of the planet’s ability to sustain life. We’ve quickly consumed millions of years worth of stored, fossilized sunlight, and are now at the peak of energy availability. The human population is far past the number that can be sustained long-term without fossil fuels, and thus the population must decline as fossil fuel availability declines. Even if some miraculous invention solves the energy problem, all of the other environmental and resource constraints remain.

The US has led the industrial revolution, disproportionately consumed energy and natural resources, and become the dominant economic and military power. As the native Americans could see centuries ago, this was done with a penchant to destroy the nature that provides for all life on the planet, and soon the consequences of our actions will begin to be revealed. Our government has chosen to engage in resource wars so that our lifestyle can continue unabated, while others bear the brunt of future shortages. The wars have barely begun. In fact, if the US continues on the current path, there will be increasingly-intense warfare for the next century, with obviously a high liklihood for nuclear war when the US, Russia, and China begin fighting for access to the remaining oil, a decade or two from now.

For the US, the energy problem is compounded by the fact that the monetary & economic systems require perpetual growth. Since economic activity and energy use are linked, the US economy and currency cannot survive curtailment of energy use. The Bush/Cheney strategy of warfare-supported expansion is the only possibility in the eyes of bankers and industrialists, as loss of their power and fortune is not an option. Voluntary reduction of energy use by the US would mean voluntary economic deflation, resulting in either draconian taxation and reduction of social spending, or eventual debt default and loss of economic hegemony. We’re not willing to pay our debts and become ecologically responsible, so warfare is our only way forward.
Is this the kind of people we are, us Americans? Is our wastefulness and greed so ingrained that we’ll continue to lead the destruction of plant and animal life, and soon the destruction of human life?
If Americans have the character they claim to, when will it manifest? Is the American morality just another part of the sham?

(part 2)
For the present Iraq situation, keep in mind that this is a long-term plan, thus a decade of chaos in Iraq is of little importance. The US knows that eventually it will get a new puppet dictatorship, and so chaos at the moment is actually a good thing. As long as Iraq doesn’t settle on a stable anti-US regime, the US can continue to use the chaos as cover for covert op’s, and steer the nation back into US servitude. Seymour Hersh recently reported on the recent US policy shift, back to covert funding of Sunni terrorist groups via the Saudis, in order to undermine the formation of a Shia government in Iraq, and to destabilize the regime in Iran. In essence, the US is backing the Shia al-Maliki government in Iraq to push the US-written oil law, while at the same time covertly funding Sunni groups to insure that the Shia majority doesn’t ever get a democracy.

In the end, the American public is to blame for all of this. We’re a bunch of addicts, without concern for how we continue the high, and secure the next fix. The US is an aggressive, predatory society, consuming natural resources and plundering the planet on an unprecedented scale, with no concern for the sustainability of the behavior. Now, as humanity reaches the limits of natural resource availability, and nears annihilation of the eco-system, the US response is to escalate aggression in order to maintain the lifestyle, at the increased expense of everyone else. The US, as a nation, is anti-life, and is certainly the driving force behind the sadistic push to kill everything on the planet.

Although the press and government are silent on the issue, the world is presently at or very near the peak of oil production, after which production will begin to irreversibly decline. Peak oil theory was first made public in 1949 by geologist Dr. M. King Hubbert, who exactly predicted the peak of US domestic oil production in 1970. In the mid 1950’s he predicted the world would peak in 1995, about a decade premature. A current poll of the top dozen independent oil experts would place the all-time peak somewhere between 2005 and 2011, with about half of them believing we’re already at or past the peak, and the other half believing it’ll be between 2008 and 2011. Among those who think we’re already at the peak are Matthew Simmons, who was on the secret Cheney energy task force and briefs Congress on energy issues, Texas oil guru/billionaire T. Boone Pickens, geologist Dr. Colin Campbell, former Princeton professor and Shell geologist Kenneth Deffeyes, BP geologist R. Herrera, E.T. Westervelt of the US Army Corps of Engineers, and senior expert of the Iranian National Oil Company Samsan Bakhtiari. The only denial of this consensus comes from the US, British, and Saudi governments, Exxon-Mobil, and OPEC, who all have an obvious interest in perpetuating the world’s oil addiction. Of the 98 oil-producing countries, more than 60 are already in terminal decline, with many more on the precipice. Iraq stands alone, as the only country with the vast majority of easily-recoverable oil still in the ground. What a coincidence!

Contrary to the propaganda, there are no substitutes for oil. North American natural gas production is also peaking, and importation of LNG in sufficient quantity to offset declining oil imports will be expensive and technologically prohibitive. Canadian and US tar sands and oil shale, while containing massive amounts of oil, require energy-intensive extraction and processing methods to produce usable oil, with a very low EROEI (energy return on energy invested)ratio, meaning that we burn almost as much energy in the process as we get out of the final product.
Although the world coal production peak is 50 years away, the environmental impact of coal, due to the lack of carbon-sequestration technology for large-scale deployment, will limit use to near present levels.
(continued)

(part 1)
Re:#67923 by Skruff on 5/03 at 6:26 am & #67815 by Lee on 5/02 at 5:17 pm

There’s millions of Americans who are in the direct employ of the companies that make up the ‘military-industrial complex’. My father spent 30 years designing military helicopters for Boeing, and I had an uncle who worked for Sunoco and another who worked for Bechtel.

Americans are in denial about how much our entire society is geared toward insatiable consumption of natural resources, warfare, and expansion of empire. I highly recommend a book by F. William Engdahl, “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order” (1993). This book is shocking to most people who read it; you’ll never see history the same. The role oil has played in American foreign and domestic policy for the past century is grossly under-estimated, and this impeccably-scholarly book fully exposes the role of oil as a weapon, and the role of the powerful Anglo-American interests that control it.

Gas may appear cheap in comparison to the rest of the world, but that’s not an accurate comparison. There’s a reason US oil companies have access to so much cheap oil: the US military. Were we to figure the true cost per gallon of the military resources to maintain control over the Middle East & Caspian region, North Africa, and the Americas, we’re paying far more than we think. Add in the actual US government subsidies to the oil industry, which were just increased last year, the virtual tax-free status of US oil companies, and the long-term free oil leases awarded to US oil companies in US waters, and the cost to US tax-payers goes higher still. The true cost is certainly higher than what Europeans are paying.

When it comes to the Middle East and the role of oil in recent times, the elephant in the room that’s ignored is ‘peak oil’. Cheney’s first year as VP was spent on his secret energy task force, as oil industry insiders have known since the 1950’s that world oil production would peak near the beginning of the 21st century, and Cheney deemed it imperative to come up with a plan to address it head-on; time was running out. The resulting plan was predictable: grab as much military control over oil reserves as possible, starting with Afghanistan & Iraq. Long-time CIA asset Osama Bin-Laden rose to the occasion, and Cheney got the ‘lucky break’ he needed to implement the plan.
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the Cheney task force was studying oil-field maps in Iraq, and making lists of ‘suitors’ for oil field development contracts. Cheney fought all the way to the US Supreme Court to keep the remainder of the task force documents secret. Remember the infamous ‘duck hunting’ trip Cheney took with Justice Scalia as the Court was writing their decision? Cheney had to keep the task force secret, because it would otherwise expose the real reason for the Iraq invasion.
Saddam, despite once being a CIA-backed dictator, had become uncooperative, beginning in the late 1980’s, leading to the first gulf war. By 2000, international sentiment was tiring of the US-backed sanctions, and Iraq was signing long term oil production contracts with Russia, China, and France, knowing that the UN would soon end the sanctions and thus US military control over Iraq. Saddam hated the US regime, especially the Bush family, and so there was no chance for the US to get in on the deals via the usual economic & diplomatic strong-arm tactics.
(continued)

There is technology that has been suppressed that will end any need for oil, electric cars and bio-diesel, and water powered cars..Prison for all those suppressors..

The we’re-fighting-them-over-there-so-we-don’t-have-to-fight-them-over-here argument has raised it’s grotesque head again. (If I was an Iraqi, I’d definitely take umbrage with that statement.)

The new rendition/argument of the we-can’t-leave bunch has turned positively ghoulish - to wit; if we leave, al-Qaeda will follow ‘us’ over here. I have no idea who ‘us’ is, but what that statement translates to is if al-Qaeda can’t kill Americans in Iraq, al-Qaeda is going to have to come here to kill them/us.  Can we assume that to be the chicken-hawk version of supporting the troops?

Re: #67791 by WykydRed on 5/02 at 2:59 pm

Much of this I agree with, and although I don’t know of your personal experience, the rest I generally understand.
The violence in Iraq is horrific, but wasn’t necessarily destined to happen when Saddam’s reign ended. There’s an element to it that’s virtually absent from the news and public debate. Because of US efforts to limit Western press coverage to the US side exclusively, little is understood about the extent to which the Iraqi on Iraqi violence is directly related to the US occupation. Politically, Iraq is split according to allegiance to the US occupation, with the al-Maliki government and and some other Shia groups, along with some Kurd groups, at least losely allied with the US occupation, and pushing for passage of the US-written oil law. This US-backed coalition holds about 100 of the 275 seats in parliament. On the other side are the nationalists, holding 175 seats, including most Sunni groups, and some Shia and Kurd groups, held together by the goals of ending the US occupation asap and preventing passage of the oil law. The nationalists have held together remarkably well despite the violence, and this coalition is proof that most of the various sects and other groups can coexist. It’s important to understand that each of the three primary groups consist of many more sub-groups, some extreme but most moderate. Thus, some Shia groups are loyal to the US, and some are nationalist, and the same with the Sunni & Kurds as well. The dividing line for the majority of the violence is the US relationship, not ethnic or religious affiliation. Many of the attacks are conducted by the al-Maliki government against nationalist leaders or groups in order to break down the nationalist resistance, and many of the Sunni attacks are retaliatory, against Iraqis loyal to the occupation. Because most Sunnis are on the nationalist side, and the leadership of the US-backed side is predominantly Shia, most of the violence is Sunni v Shia. But the Sunni are not attacking nationalist Shia groups, and vice versa, at least not yet.
It’s an extremely complicated situation, and is grossly mis-characterized by the Western press, since the truth is a powerful argument for immediate withdrawal by the US, while the propaganda, that the violence is purely sectarian, provides rationale for staying.

Iraq is similar to Bosnia (where I lived for 2 years as a human rights investigator for the UN) in demonstrating how efficiently foreign intervention triggers fears, polarizes the population, and begins a runaway cycle of violence that is difficult to stop. As has happened in Bosnia, Iraq is near the point at which the damage will be irreversible.
The big difference between Bosnia and Iraq is the presence in Iraq of a foreign superpower occupation force, and the goal of the occupation: military control of an oil region.

Agreed, impeachment isn’t nearly enough. The US needs the largest-scale war crimes trial ever. Is it any wonder the US has shunned the International Criminal Court?

I think your anger is justified, yet you don’t help anyone if it consumes you. Not everyone is an evil bastard, in any country. The evil bastards easily form packs and have no hesitation killing whomever necessary, while the good people border on pacifism and isolate themselves. It’s about time the good people seek eachother out and combine forces, and take a stand. We are stronger if coming from a place of compassion and conviction rather than from anger. Get over the anger and start something positive, and then you’ll no longer see your soul as black. As you do this, you will attract more good people to yourself, and the potential grows.

“As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he” - James Allen

bOTH PARTIES REALLY DON’T WANT TO END THE WAR AS THEY ARE MAKING MASSIVE PROFITS..they are making money while our ill-advised servicemen are pawns for their bank accounts..We need a new president like mike gravel who will make it a felony for continuing the illegal war and hold all those hundreds if not thousands of war liars and profiters to jail for decades, and some hanging..

#67815 by Lee on 5/02 at 5:17 pm: “...I was about to put oil down as a reason too. I can tell you I struggled over this one. The question here is: How stupid or smart is the administration…?”

Its true that all anyone needed to do including the USA was to  place an order and pay on delivery to get as much oil as they wanted. But the US has now become like a junkie who must raid the local store if he wants anything. In using the military to prop up the value of the US$, the US$ has ended up on a slippery slope instead.

Disrupting the flow of oil and increasing the price was a strategy in itself but not only for the benefit of the oil corporations. It puts a brake on economic development in countries like China and India. That is another strategy altogether and is one of global domination at any cost.

Conversely, though, it has played into Russia’s hands and they not only have a much greater profit from their own oil and gas exports but they too have a whip hand over the EU and much greater influence with China and India who they now also supply.

Slowing economic growth or disrupting production in major manufacturing suppliers like China means that common imports will cost more in the USA. That only adds to inflation and increasing interest rates and thus to more bankruptcies and foreclosures on home loans.

In seeking grandeur and “noblesse oblige” in the world by military and economic domination, the Bush administration’s USA has chosen a wrong path. A domestic economic recession will be the inevitable cost at the very least. Supporting a huge military complex for the sake of bullying others will no longer be possible.

Skruff said, “It’s the oil baby!”

I was about to put oil down as a reason too. I can tell you I struggled over this one. The question here is: How stupid or smart is the administration?

I will first address the issue with the premise that the administration has a brain, hence, why we didn’t go in for the oil.

A declaration of war, invading Iraq and the removal of Saddam disrupts the flow of oil. An unstable Iraq is not good for the price of oil, and that is what we have done.

The price per barrel is much higher today than it was before the war. I realize there are other externalities that cause fluctuations, but I believe uncertainty of stabilization in Iraq has had a large effect on the price.

Was the administration so naive that they thought they could roll in with tanks and steal the oil? The extraction of oil is a complex process and the pipelines are fragile.

No Iraqi would allow the US to take their oil. They would set fire to the wells and blow up the pipeline first. Many military factions in Iraq already have.

The other side, that I really don’t want to believe, is that the purpose of the war was to disrupt the flow and cut off supply, hence, increase price. The oil companies benefit. So war wasn’t to help secure an energy source for the US, but rather to increase ExxonMobil’s cash flow.

Do you think it would have been easier to just pass a bill in Congress that would eliminate taxes on oil companies and provide subsidies, rather than go to war? Maybe not.

Lastly, the increase in the price oil has become part of the call to action to find other sources of energy. Pollution and global warming have also spurred the movement, but the invasion helped.

I’m going to keep this really simple.

Planes did not cause the Twin Towers to fall.

There was no WMD in Iraq before the US went in.

How did I know? I’ll let you in on a little secret. Israel is on the tip of the spear, when it come to terrorism. The country cannot afford to be wrong. Every country around them is still determined to wipe them off the map as was Saddam.

Israel will feel any threat long before the US. Saddam was building nuclear capabilities. Israel destroyed the French-build nuclear plant in 1981.

Three logical reasons why we went into Iraq are:
(1) Bush wanted to avenge Saddam’s attempt to assassinate his dad.
(2) To fuel the military industrial complex.
(3) Cheney likes to fight wars and make Halliburton rich.

There is no winning or losing in war. When people die, everyone loses.

We have two choices:
(1) Stay in Iraq forever and turn it into a police state run by the US.
(2) Get out now.

Why is there no middle ground? The middle ground is getting out later. If and once we leave, there will be a civil war, be it tomorrow or 10 years from now. The people will decide, probably through the shedding of blood, who will rule what part of the land. We already see it happening.

The puppet government and so called Iraq army that exist today will fall apart. Everyone will take sides, in the name of cultural, religious and most of all self-preservation.

Iraq as we know it today will no longer exist. It will be divided into religious factions. Terrorists will create training camps throughout the land.

Our general military is ill equipped to fight the new threat. Large standing armies are not suited to fight terrorism. It’s like using a tank to kill a fly. You use intelligence and small wet teams. Therefore, we will need to go in from time to time to “eliminate the threat”.

The answer to Iraq is get out now and get out fast.

I applaud Mr. Ritter’s efforts in trying to educate the ill informed mob we know as the United States of America. Although it is true that even I admittedly did not understand the full implications involved in finding any peaceful solution concerning Iraq, I did understand from the beginning how we ended up there, having been manipulated by this administration with false and doctored intelligence which then led to preemptive invasion, scofflaw to the Geneva Conventions and any human decency. This article only furthers my beliefs we should never have involved ourselves in Iraq in the first place and by doing so we have created far more enemies and problems than we could have possibly imagined. On the other hand perhaps our “leadership” knew the facts all along, especially since the idea of perpetual warfare has become a reality with the so called war on terror. War is very profitable to the few who understand their interests are inimical to our own and the idea of perpetual war must have them drooling at this point like a pack of wolves around a recent, bloody kill! Perhaps in retrospect we should begin looking at our own history in the same light Mr. Ritter is looking at Iraq’s. Then we would realize that since the creation of the military industrial complex(and before), this nation has been engaged in war after war after war. War is a business like any other beyond the cost in human blood, misery and taxes. It is very profitable to defense contractors and energy corporations who today in fact control this nation and manipulate its media. That puts most of us between a rock and a hard place, particular the poor, ill informed, typical family guy who might be working two jobs and has little time to acquaint himself with the history of Islamic fundamentalism while worrying about putting food on the table and paying his mortgage and taxes. Meanwhile perhaps the only source he has time to look at, say FOX News for example is telling him how great things are, that terror is everywhere and only the president can keep us safe. What I guess I’m trying to say here is that perhaps we really shouldn’t be pointing the finger of blame at the average citizen since much of what he knows comes directly from corporations, the same guys who profit from war. When we examine the careful and subtle manipulations that have been going on for decades in this nation, are we really talking about the average, misled citizen as being an idiot or the man behind the curtain pulling the strings who feeds us this rhetorical crap over and over?

“Way back here in Maine, we have a community of Somalians In Lewiston.  My old neighborhood in Brooklyn is packed full of Saudis, and Woster Massachusetts (where I do a lot of business) has a large mosque for the community of Indonesians.”

So Skruff, maybe Muslim is the new Italian! (They weren’t too popular at first, but at least they gave the Irish someone to look down on.) That’s going to mean a whole new range of restaurants to go to. Halal, y’all!

#66675 by WykydRed on 4/27 at 1:28 am:
+(
I’m sorry. I thought I was speaking to intelligent people ...
)+   

I’m sorry too, because I was hoping our dialogue would continue.  I like your provocative attitude.  But provocation, by its very nature, is easily misunderstood.  I’m sure you know this already, so I don’t understand why you feel it necessary to withdraw and insult. 

FACE the reality of the carnage in Iraq.  It is TOO LATE to undo the damage.  The women of Iraq are ALREADY a lost cause.  We destroyed their country and we destroyed them.  Continuing the occupation is not going to help them or save them or bring them back to life.  The blood on our hands will not wash off.

We have to get beyond this urge to “Save” others.  It is megalomania to regard ourselves as the “Saviors of the World”.  It is closer to the truth to say that we are the destroyers and the world’s worst criminals—but that too gives us more attention than we deserve. 

Our ONLY recourse is to slink away in shame and spend the next hundred years sobbing with contrition.  We need to be big enough to admit that people in other countries are not OUR problem.  Our patronizing attitude is SICK. 

Here, I am not making assumptions (erroneous or otherwise) about you, WykydRed; I am simply using your message as a springboard for diving into my own feelings. 

#66675 by WykydRed on 4/27 at 1:28 am:
+(
So how do we get people to CARE what the differences in the factions are?
)+   

Why even try?  We Americans need to start caring about ourselves and our own interests and the genocidal machinations of our OWN regime.  Playing god to the rest of the world is insane.  I don’t HAVE to know intimate details about the Muslim religion to know that butchering other countries and murdering hundreds of thousands of people is WRONG!

Re:#66618 & #66675 by WykydRed

Interesting that you repeatedly confirm your blanket prejudice, and then in the recent post make the claim that “I thought I was speaking to intelligent people who could read that I was quoting all the things I’ve heard OTHER people say about Muslims….”

Yeah, I could see that you were stating things you’ve heard from others, and I could also see that you converted those things you’ve seen and heard into blanket judgements about the Middle East:

“Maybe the simple matter of why no one really gives a hoot about Islam or the factions or a new wall or all the grievances or all the deaths is that secretly, a whole lot of us are pretty happy that people who treat women like hateful garbage soiling their communities are dying in droves.”

Your argument seems to be that because these ‘things’ that Middle Eastern men do to women can be verified on video and from witnesses, your prejudice is matter-of-factly rational. And because some Middle Eastern men do these horrible things (which I didn’t dispute), and because some extremist Muslim clerics attempt to encourage these acts via law (which I didn’t dispute), you conclude that the culture is vile. And you clearly state that you, not “others”, think it’s good that Muslims are dying in droves because of their vile nature.

Your effort to stereotype me is astray also, as I’m not a “Christian”, I don’t give a damn about being politically correct, and I love my country of birth, the United States. I do have some relatively unique international experience, most of which exposed me to the worst of humanity. I don’t base my writings on what I’ve seen on video or heard from “others”. And I understand the psychology of prejudice, and have seen first-hand the horrors it can trigger from within humankind.

I’d rather you own up to what you’ve written and reconsider, but instead you make excuses in an attempt to deflect the relevant critique. So it would be no loss to Truthdig if you take your ball and go home. I know there’s plenty of blogs that will welcome your prejudice with open arms.

It really is ignorance, rather than your assertion that your harsh judgement of Islamic culture is objective and justifiable. History is relevant. The same as many ignorant Americans now see Muslims, it was once Native Americans that were inferior savages that deserved to die, then it was Africans, then the Germans & Japanese, and then the Vietnamese. In every case, those that had the guts to defy the popular hatred and fear found that these people, despite sometimes stark cultural differences, are no different than us at their core. The same is true with this prejudice today.

“Once upon a time in Iran” - a pilgrimage to Karbala - video documentary

There is a better link here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6922232052494018462 and a torrent link here (699mb) and some pics http://www.islamictorrents.net/details.php?id=9310

“Once upon a time in Iran” - a pilgrimage to Karbala - video documentary (76 min) -  http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/1248/59/

Once Upon a Time in Iran is a road movie featuring pilgrims and presidents: a journey to the spiritual heartlands of the Iranian people and a tale of martyrdom that defines their view of aggressors and the outside world:-

“A documentary by British Channel 4 about Iran and Shia’a in general and the martyrdom of Imam Husain (the grandson of the prophet Mohammed) and how the concept of martyrdom will shape the future of the Iranians’ lives if the US thought to start a war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The documentary is about Iranians traveling from Iran to Karbalaa in Iraq in a pilgrimage. As they travel they remember when they came first to fight against Saddam after the revolution and how their brothers were martyred and left behind.

The documentary shows their desire to be martyrs when the chance occurs. Showing some speeches from Dr. Ahmedinejad and rare scenes of Azaa recited by the nightingale of Imam Khomaini (Sadiq Ahangaran).”

Sorry to hear how you feel about Muslims, Wykyd. I’m no fan of organised religion. I agree that it’s the cause of a lot of needless death, whatever the creed. Even Buddhists are killing people of other faiths, like the Sinhalese now vs. the Hindu Tamils in Ceylon and the Shinto Japanese in WW II against the world.

But as David said, you’re basing your hatred on the behaviour of a subset of Muslims. There are a lot of honour-killing types in the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia and even in migrant communities in Western Europe. But there are also 200 million Muslims in Indonesia who are more tolerant. Not let it all hang out like Americans, but not all sharia either. In Oz, I see women in headscarves walking around freely, and I know women of Lebanese descent who dress as any other Aussie. I’d never say Islam is a religion of peace—definitely PC BS!—but it’s not ALL oppression of women.

I literally wipe Muslim’s arses, because I’m a registered nurse. My hospital’s service area includes the Brunswick suburb of Melbourne, where many Muslims live, so I get some as patients. They’re no better, no worse than any other sick people. Some annoy me, some I admire, but their religion has nothing to do with it. Their behaviour does.

Do you know any Muslims? Not easy to do in the U.S. because they’re not all that commonplace. If you meet any, you’ll find that there are jerks among them, and there are stand-up types too. Hate them if they’re assholes, but not for the brand of superstition passed down from their parents.

#66485 by WykydRed on 4/26 at 6:00 am
+(
Maybe the simple matter of why no one really gives a hoot about Islam or the factions or a new wall or all the grievances or all the deaths is that secretly, a whole lot of us are pretty happy that people who treat women like hateful garbage soiling their communities are dying in droves. I’ll be honest with you, as a woman, I am totally disgusted by such aforementioned treatment of women, and I’ve seen it for myself. So I have no pity for men who do these things and die. Maybe I’m not alone in this. I know women aren’t the only one who would say this. I hear it from returning Marines all the time. And they don’t like it either.

When we say, “Hey, people have a right to their cultural heritage and can live any way they want!” I wonder what our secret selves are thinking?

Please don’t set me on fire. I wouldn’t enjoy it. Just think first, THEN type. (That wasn’t for Bukko or Paul or any of the lovely people.)
)+

There’s one very important thing that you’re missing, WykydRed, and that is that U.S.I. war-making has been catastrophic for WOMEN in the region, the very women you pretend to champion!  In Iraq, the U.S.I. has set back women’s rights fifty years.  See:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2209866,00.html
+(
... under the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi women were among the most liberated in the Arab world

It feels like we’ve gone back 50 years.
)+

For more articles, see:

http://www.freeforum101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2631&mforum=times

In Afghanistan in the 1978, the April Revolution brought gains for women: girls were allowed to attend school and receive health care, women were allowed to take off the chador.  The U.S.I. attacked and destroyed that revolution.  Where were you?  I guess you assumed that the bombs fell only on misogynists.

Your post shows how easy it is for the War System to PLAY feminists and other idealists who think they know what is best for people far away. 

You need to start asking what is best for us here at HOME.  Being up to our necks in blood is not something we should wish upon OURSELVES.  Being trillions of dollars in debt is not something we should inflict on our children. 

The problem is NOT that Americans have been trained to fear and hate people in other countries.  It is that we have stopped caring about OURSELVES and our OWN interests.  That is WHY we agree to be stripped of our freedom and herded like sheep.  That is why we agree to have our sons and daughters fed to the meat-grinder in Iraq.  We have turned ourselves into well-fed slaves.

This is not about saving what little is left of Iraq and Palestine.  This is about saving what little is left of our OWN soul.  Every bomb we drop on others is a bomb we drop on our own Constitution. 

It is impossinble to dehumanize others without also dehumanizing a large part of ourselves.  And losing our humanity, we lose our own will to live.  Politically correctness is naive, but as George Kennan once wrote, indiscriminate cynicism is equally naive and sophmoric.

#66495 by rabid viola on 4/26 at 6:39 am:
+(
The fledgling government there is teetering on the brink of fanatic-inspired civil war, the Iran/Syria sponsored terrorists are whetting their knives in anticipation of America pulling out (which it always does when a thing gets unpopular).  The time to prevent this stupid war is OVER. We sat still (the United Sheep of America) and let it happen. Shouldn?t we then take responsibility for the results, at least, and remain there until the country has stabilized somewhat, and the government has police power established?
)+

The notion that Americans are fighting “Iran/Syria sponsored terrorists” is another lie brought to us by the war profiteers who lied us into Iraq.  Much of our information about Iran is war propaganda, carefully crafted to exploit our fears, our stereotypes, and, especially, our misguided idealism.  War is the ultimate form of terrorism, terror from the air, and Iran is NOT the country that seeks global war!

The following excellent first-hand account shatters stereotypes about Iran and helps us to see just how little we Americans know about the world we are destroying:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449880&in_page_id=1770∈_a_source=

Here’s corroboration:

http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=8947
+(
Middle-class Iranians are more interested in Hindu spiritual gurus and cult-figures like Rajneesh, Sai Baba, Mahesh Yogi, Satya Sai Baba, and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar than in Islamic clerics. Many are yoga enthusiasts and vegetarians.
)+
—Praful Bidwai, “Iran Won’t Be Bullied”, 5 May 2006

Similar articles can be found at http://www.freeforum101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10503&mforum=times#10503

We Americans can’t even govern OURSELVES, and do not even know what our OWN government has been doing for the last fifty years, so what makes us think that we are qualified to rule or instruct people on the other side of the planet, people we know nothing about, people we have already murdered in huge numbers? 

Gary Leupp in Counterpunch aptly compares staying in Iraq to “rape marriage”, a barbaric custom whereby the rapist tries to “make things right” by marrying his victim. 

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10032003.html

I don’t know if some people might call this patriotic but is this really what US armed forces are in Iraq for? If so, there never will be any kind of re-construction never mind democracy. Perhaps your congressman/woman can explain?

Hard day at the local store! Buying groceries was never so risky in the USA!!!:-

“You beaut! ....get that f***er off! (rocket launcher) ......I let that f***ker off, dude ......he got thirty rounds!” “Cease fire, cease fire!” “Waa-hoooo!” “...(Laughing) ...we *f**ked those people ......all that shit down there!” “You see those two people .....I f***ing ripped through them!”  “I shot that dude in the white car ......and it ran into the fuckin’ building! ....... (Laughing)...more, more ......did you get that on recorder - or what?”

Flanndawg Massacre -  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b83_1173818870  - “1/5 Marines in Ramadi (same regiment as was in Iwo Jima in WW2). Taking sniper and small arms fire from buldings across street and down “flanndawg”. Marine squad split up on two   roofs…...”. So they say!?!?

Re: #66485 by WykydRed

While I agree that we should not fear voicing our opinions, no matter how ignorant they may be, the rest of the argument is really sad, and profoundly prejudiced.
The judgements you make upon the whole of the Middle East are based upon the character of a small minority of Middle Easterners, or Muslims in general. With your logic, all Americans deserve to die for the attitudes of the many evangelists who preach hate and ignorance to tens of millions of cheering American idiots, and the rampant pedophilia in American society, including within the Catholic Church, and the murders, rapes, and robberies that occur by the thousands every week in the US. And most significant, you suggest that all Americans deserve to die for our national religion, defined by unfettered greed and materialism, which has produced our current leadership, and has murdered millions around the globe, and oppressed and impoverished billions more.
From a historical perspective, Muslims have been significantly less brutal and intolerant than the Romans, Spanish, British, or European-Americans, and Islam, while not as historically peaceful as Buddhism, has certainly been less aggressive and more tolerant than Christianity.
As for women’s rights, it wasn’t that long ago that women were considered property in the US, with no voting rights, domestic abuse ignored, divorce rare, and little opportunity for higher education or lucrative careers. I don’t defend the oppression of women, whether under the guise of Islam or otherwise, but it’s certainly not unique to the Middle East. In fact, Iraq and Iran have had some of the best women’s higher-education statistics in the world, and the brutality and mutilation of women is as rare as the same level of vile behavior in the US or elsewhere. I’d bet that Iraq has far fewer per-capita rapes than in the US.
Culture in the Middle East is slow to change, which has been both a benefit and a curse for the people. In many ways their culture still seems to be in the dark ages, but two thousand years ago was very much like it is today, while most Europeans were living in caves and eating eachother. The best chance for the Middle East to embrace a modern appreciation for women is to show them the best that the West has to offer, not the worst. For the past century, to today, we’ve offered mostly the worst.
The prejudice that you offer is pure ignorance, but is common in the US. It’s what motivates our foreign policy, and justifies our imperialism. It’s what allows Americans to feel good about their exploitation of the planet. It’s sociopathic, self-destructive, and dishonest.
It’s why any compassionate, open-minded American who lives abroad for years and really gets to know the world’s people, feels, upon return to the US, like this place is afflicted with mass mental illness, like a delusional fog that never lifts.
I sincerely support your willingness to state your opinion, if it was done in the interest of truth-seeking. If that’s the case, then I hope you will reflect upon what you’ve written, and decide to expand your horizons.

(continued)

The problem is, we get the fears we keep silent about so as not to sound prejudicial in our faces all the time. Despite people trying to hide them from us. Women get set on fire because an errant breeze blows a tiny bit of their hems and a tiny bit of skin gets exposed. Women and girls are grabbed off the street and are beaten, kicked, punched and rushed for “virginity checks”. They’re killed by their own families if they aren’t. Girls have their sexuality scraped away with glass by women who should know better, but they do it because if a girl should ever get one, tiny hint that sex might be good, they’re sluts, turn their backs on Allah and everything “good and decent” so they have to die. Women and girls are raped by men so it’s the women who are buried up to their necks in sand and stoned to death, which takes a village all day to do, but they don’t seem to mind doing it because that filthy whore DARED to allow herself to be raped by eight or nine full grown men who kicked her and beat her and threatened to set her on fire. These people set little girls on fire for going to school. Their own holy men give long lectures in bored voices about how to beat your wife and if they die, well heck, that’s just Allah’s way of telling you you were doing the right thing because your woman was obviously guilty.

There isn’t a civilized country in the world that thinks any of that is fine and dandy. And to put it in another perspective, how many people can you find that say it’s fine with them that priests rape kids and there should be more of it going on?

Islamic families in Britain and America are finding that the law will in fact arrest any and all family members and may just execute anyone involved in “honor deaths”, so they annoy, harass, threaten and totally mentally debilitate girls who leave home, throw off the veil and want to do something so wanton as go to college into suicide because if you do it right, suicide is not against the law.

If there were good reason for this war, such as solid, actual proof that Saddam was going to bomb people with biological weapons, or that the Arab Emitriates were planning to really step up supporting terrorists and blow up theaters or malls, the government would have hopped on that stuff right away and put all the evidence out in the open. But I really don’t think it would matter if all the involved governments came right out in the open and said, “listen folks, the truth of the matter is, Saddam was going to writea book on all the deals we had made and with whom about what, so we had to stop him, because the oil producing countries were cheering him on and they wanted certain demands from us and if they didn’t get them, they were going to raise oil to a price where our buddies at Halliburton couldn’t rake in billions in war-profiteering dollars and we got into office because they spent money to help us get all those voting machines rigged.”

Maybe the simple matter of why no one really gives a hoot about Islam or the factions or a new wall or all the grievances or all the deaths is that secretly, a whole lot of us are pretty happy that people who treat women like hateful garbage soiling their communities are dying in droves. I’ll be honest with you, as a woman, I am totally disgusted by such aforementioned treatment of women, and I’ve seen it for myself. So I have no pity for men who do these things and die. Maybe I’m not alone in this. I know women aren’t the only one who would say this. I hear it from returning Marines all the time. And they don’t like it either.

When we say, “Hey, people have a right to their cultural heritage and can live any way they want!” I wonder what our secret selves are thinking?

Please don’t set me on fire. I wouldn’t enjoy it. Just think first, THEN type. (That wasn’t for Bukko or Paul or any of the lovely people.)

Okay, Bukko, this post is yours and Paul’s fault. <insert giggling here> Actually, it will be two posts. Sorry about that.

Your posts made me think. Which led me to re-read this wonderful interview and Scott’s own views. To quote,

  “The task of holding Congress to account is a daunting one, and can be accomplished only if the citizenry that forms the respective constituencies of our ignorant congressional representatives are themselves able to operate at an intellectual capacity above that of those they are holding to account.”

Ta da! There it is. “only if the citizenry are able to operate at an intellectual capacity”. So I’m going to try to do that while trying to ... I don’t know, in some sense verbalize what might be underlying reasons for our complete ennui about this whole Iraq debacle.

We’ve all been hornswaggled all along, and most of us know that. We know it’s about the oil that we know this world is running out of swiftly. We know it’s about the American ruling class building another Roman Empire. We know all that stuff. But WHY is America and Britain and Australia and everyone getting away so easily with this war?

Three words to consider: Politically Correct Bullshit.

Scott Ritter knows we don’t really know diddly about all the factions. We really don’t know diddly about the Koran. We know we’re told that Islam is “the most peaceful religion in the world” all the time and we know it’s all crap. As much crap as every other religion. It’s all just words made up by men so other men can use them, twist them and fabricate more words that don’t make any sense either, but if they shout them loudly enough, people will be terrified to speak out against anyone purporting them. Frankly, the world would be a better place without religion. But I really don’t think it’s a clash of religions, any more than I believe the Israel/Palestine thing is about religious differences.

The truth is guys—and this is for Scott too—we don’t WANT to know what the differences between the factions are because we don’t care. There. I said it. I’m an stupid, uneducated heathen.

We used to be able to openly hate people. Doesn’t matter why, really, we just came up with more reasons to hate them when the others didn’t make sense. And the simple fact is, though there are far less people now that care about someone’s skin color or accent or “strange” cultural quirks, there ARE still people who hate other people, they just don’t say it out loud. So why don’t we care about the Iraqis and how many are dying? Why does it seem so logical to keep fighting so that America can install a puppet over there, put in bases and make nicey-nicey as long as the oil is flowing?

Because we’ve heard more than enough about “Arab” and “Islamic” ways of life to disgust us to the point where killing them off is a silently accepted reason to breathe easier. We can’t say it out in the open, because that would make other people look at us in disgust and verbally attack us for being so “politically incorrect”. We’re heathens and barbarians and racists, even though most people couldn’t tell you the difference between the words “racist” and “bigoted”. We’re pre-prejudiced against anyone Islamic because of their skin color.

Wrong! If you could in fact get people to just speak the truth in their hearts, every country with women in it would say they hate the entire culture because of the way they treat their women. They’re vile and base and most of them are fags (I hear that all the time), and pretty much anyone can tell you the famous Arab quote, “Women are for children, boys are for pleasure.” And while the PC will insist that is just SO wrong to keep perpetuating, everyone believes it, and I’ve heard all of that in whispering tones from a LOT of people.

Wykyd, I got your point. I was just being sardonic, mate.

The trouble with the Repugs and hypoChristians is that they do not have enough understanding of their fellow human beings to know how to deal with them. All they can conceive is “Obey or kill.” I think it’s a mental defect, a stunting of the part of the brain that contains empathy. (The defect also exists in fundamentalist Muslims, doctrinaire communists and other cults with rigid mindsets.)

Unfortunately, the Americans who think this way have the ability to kill millions of people with one push of a button. It’s the absolute corruption of absolute power referred to in Lord Acton’s quote. Americans have the military power to kill everyone on Earth, so they feel they can throw their weight around. And I know, because I was an American for 47 years before I emigrated here.

I posted early on this blog and have read every entry since then. I’m very impressed by the quality & insight contained within most (most but not all) of the posts. Some are vile & base, others loud (in all caps even) and almost incomprehensible as if written by someone quite mad, yet others posted by people ‘mad as hell’, but quite apropo & lucid. Especially noteworthy are some of the more recent posts by:
#66325 by David
#66302 by bogi666
#66293 by WykydRed
#66215 by Bukko in Australia   and
#66554 by al_bedo

I sense in these posts my opinion of most Americans (my family has lived in America for 371 years BTW) as ignorant, self-centered, self-aggrandizing, complacent, un-patriotic, propagandized foolish people, must be revised. There ARE actually some concerned patriotic citizens in this country, with intellectual capacity to appreciate the reality of our dire predicament. The depression I’ve felt about being without allies is somewhat assuaged, but I am also realistic enough to know we have quite a fight on our hands in the near (and far) future. In the 18th century a few good people (mostly men but not all) changed the course of human history, and so it will be in the 21st. The wrong people have affected this century so far, but THE FIGHT IS NOW JOINED.

That the good, honorable, really righteous (nothing to do with religion here), truth seeking & speaking, (not so common) common people of the Earth will eventually win the day I have little doubt, because opposition to tyranny always accumulates the best karma.

The signs are already visible that BushCo is on the run, but we must keep whipping this dog until it is completely out of the yard. Actually they are just the tip of the iceberg and are only lackeys for a more devious insidious (more powerful) threat to liberty as we understand it should be… (see http://www.physics911.net/nuclearfalseflag  and http://judicial-inc.biz/Nuclear_attacks_on_america.htm )

As we are to the Bushies, the Bush cabal are to his controlers; just as Dylan wrote/sang, “...only a pawn in the game.”

The Republicans may be the cheerleaders for this war, but the Democrats are complicit. There’s really only one political party in the US, split into two teams to keep the public entertained.
This is really America’s war, as much as the public wants to blame government and not accept their own culpability. We all love the system that brings us our lifestyle, refusing to look at the fact that it’s fueled by robbery and murder on a global scale. Our economic system cannot exist without perpetual growth, and since we’ve long ago reached the limits of domestic resources, increasingly we must plunder abroad. Considering that Americans still don’t get it, and that world oil production has just peaked for all time and will soon begin to descend, the era of warfare for natural resources has barely begun.
And although we love our military, that does the plundering for us, the truth is that their service is nothing but tragic. It’s been a long time since the US has fought a Constitutional war, to defend against attack, and every war since has been nothing but mass murder. Amid the Bush/Cheney cries that those who oppose the war are betraying the troops, like everything else that comes from their lips, the opposite is true. The US military has betrayed the people. In these times, warfare from the US is as simple as a corrupt White House and a professional military that will attack and kill wherever they are told, regardless of the cause. Any honor or heroism we try to cover that with is just more lies. The individual soldier cannot escape the most fundamental truth: that the moral justification to kill is within them alone; it is always a matter of personal choice. In this regard, the US military has proven to be as weak and morally vacuous as the public that has allowed this present reality to form.
Since the same military that will kill in any other country will certainly kill here, there cannot be any good outcome. Short of a full-blown military mutiny, the US will destroy itself.

Regarding the $20 billion in cash ‘missing’ from Iraq: Why is that a surprise? Before these wars began, there was $trillions missing from government accounts, mostly from the Defense Dept, and Americans have no concern. The GAO has refused to certify government books for many years now, because there’s so much money missing.

Ritter didn’t even scratch the surface of ‘idiot America’.

Don’t get excited. It was a quote from someone else about how, not only America, but everyone else sees war today. It was simply a statement that the Bushies seem to have taken to heart, and said, “oh well, what the hell. We have things locked down, let’s go kill some people and get the oil.”

They wanted money to fill their pockets, not just the pockets of their friends, so they bought two elections, perform all these atrocities, put other Facists into positions in government who will uphold the American Reich, then go kill even more people because they really seem to believe that they will suffer no repercussions. And none of them will.

The worst America can think of to “punish” these hypichristian fanatics who only care about money and will kill any and everyone to get what they want is ... “Make them step down.” They’ve lied, they’ve killed Americans uselessly, they’ve killed Iraqis and Kurds and anyone who wouldn’t jump on their wagon, they’ve arrested Americans in the dead of night and sent them away to be tortured, they’ve removed the need for police and FBI to need search warrants and they can now break into your house any time they like without any reason at all (which has been done hundreds of times by cops who couldn’t WAIT to try out their new legal bullying), and the FBI even have carte blanch in England and Ireland to arrest anyone they like without reason, white or brown, and they use it every day ... and all we can do is say, “Step down. You did a bad job.”

So how can anyone at this point expect, demand or try to fix the actions of the American Regime? We didn’t teach fanatics that it’s easier to kill people than to rule them, we just showed them that it’s okay to do so and not worry about repercussions. We just gave them the excuse to openly not give a damn. Everyone wants to “fix” the “Iraq situation”. We can’t. They have justifications now to kill each other, just like America had for invading Iraq. Now that killing lots of people is acceptable, I wonder where it’s all going now that the stop gaps are gone is all I meant.

Sorry if I confused anyone. But I really liked the comments that came out of it!

#66185 by wykydred on 4/24 at 6:22 pm: “...It’s easier to kill a million people than govern them….”

Qin Shi Huangdi, First Emperor of China, a ruler from the western state of Qin who united and subjugated the Warring States and formed China in 221 B.C. killed at least a million people.

Mao Tse Tung’s “great leap forward” policies in the new Communist China in the 1950’s resulted in a famine which killed many more millions.

That was only a decade after the “man-made famine” in India which also killed millions. Humans are easily replaceable - they breed just like rabbits, so why worry?

After the eco-system collapse from climate change and nuclear warfare, the forthcoming famine on the North American continent should kill a few more million people.

Just keep going ahead with those nuclear missiles and biological and chemical weapons in the “global war on terror” and see how good a result you can get in apocalypse terms!!!

As the U.S. is discovering, (and Nazi Germany discovered in the past) the trouble with killing that million people is that then you have to kill two million of their brothers and uncles and neighbours who are upset about the people you’ve killed.

Then you have to kill 10 million people from other countries who are upset about the first few million you’ve killed. And you wind up killing the odd million or so from your own country who are upset about the killing.

Killing, killing, killing, until the only people left are you and that other guy with the gun over there. Better get him quick before he gets you!

“Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has asked for construction to end on a concrete wall around a Sunni enclave in the capital, Baghdad.
Mr Maliki said there were other ways to protect the Adhamiya neighbourhood, which is surrounded by Shia districts.

The US military, which are behind the project, has said the purpose of the wall is to prevent violence between Sunni and Shia militants. But Iraqi politicians have warned it will increase sectarian tensions.

Speaking in Cairo after meeting Arab league officials, Mr Maliki said: “I asked yesterday that it be stopped and that alternatives be found to protect the area.”

The prime minister said he feared the wall may have unintended consequences, in an apparent parallel to the former Berlin Wall that divided the German capital.

“I fear this wall might have repercussions which remind us of other walls, which we reject,” he said…....”  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6582225.stm

THE MUSLIMS NEED A PLACE TO LIVE - COME BE A GUEST TO WORK FOR US SO YOU CAN WRITELAWS THAT CLEAR AWAY GAYS LAWS - THUS KEEPING THEM FROM CUTTING HEADS OFF - MAKING THEM FEEL IMPORTANT - AMERICANS CAN BE WHO THEY ARE’ RETARDED SHEEP NOT IDIOTS - NOT WOLVES - THE BETTER SERVANT IN A HOUSE OF MUSLIM GUESTS - IT DOES’NT WORK INTO THE PLAN - WE WON’T GET TO DRINK THAT PAIL OF WATER THAT JILL TRIPPED JACK OVER TO GET HIM TO FALL DOWN ON HER - WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

I read smoke and mirrors also - with a “twist” to the “point”.
Any country can FIND reason for “civil” war -
they can be inflamed and urged. Not 6 years ago I recall ONE country so political afar that repeated recommendations of splitting this particular country into red and blue sections of the population.  Add some massive air bombs and the death of wives and children of one of these colored DIVISIONS and wow -
think what a group of people INTENT on creating total chaos could do.

I read alot on the shite/sunni population when we first ATTACKED.  BOTH sides were appalled at the death and distortion of “liberation” - and commented that NEVER before had there been such a great divide. That MANY families mixed between the two sects and that had changed with the u.s. invasion and now even married couples found issues where there were none before.  Creating civil war under the virtue of “religion” is as old as time.  If a putrid DICTATOR could have two sectors of society live in harmony - what the hell did the liberators do to makes things THIS much WORSE?  A hoax - hatred and division ARE THE AGENDA and OIL is the issue.
Evaluate our media - read the headlines.  When tainted dog food leads the headlines for 3 weeks while we have a war, our leaders are found corrupt and they get away with their “mistakes”, middle class america is evaporating and the decider is stomping his foot and scooping the national coiffure.  It’s way too sad to see this type of article when we fail to actually TALK and REPORT from the very people who could speak the truth.
We are seeing the blood and gore of todays insurgents, but never did we see the blood and gore that FORMED these insurgents - the attack by the U.S. in 2003.

The quibbling over Mr. Ritter’s article on the Byzantine complexity of Shia and Sunni religious squabbles is just that, quibbling. If he had gone into the same detail about the complexity of Christian religious wars, perhaps most of his readers would have understood how human foolishness pervades the entire religious spectrum. The problem is our propensity to believe rubbish to the point of being willing to die for it. Yogi Berra said it well:    “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know.  It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”

When Ritter spoke out against the Iraq invasion in 2002, I appreciated his effort. Yet, this article is ridiculous. While the history may be accurate, it is irrelevant; more smoke-and-mirrors.

Underlying the historical account is the assertion that sectarian divisions among Iraqis is the cause of the conflict. That is a lie. The US military is the cause of the conflict.

The vast majority of the violence in Iraq touted as “civil war” is actually between groups supporting the US occupation and nationalist groups that oppose the occupation. The nationalist side, consisting of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd groups, and many factions within each group, and holding almost two-thirds of the seats in parliament, is remarkably united, at least politically. They want the US out, and mainly Sunni groups on the nationalist side are directing attacks against the al-Maliki govt, which holds the other one-third-plus seats in parliament. The Maliki government has actively side-lined the nationalist groups, and often launches attacks against them, using Iraqi military and police units, and sometimes using the US military. At the same time the US supports the Maliki government and pretends to be supporting a democratic process (that would logically lead to a Shia-controlled government), the US assists with attacks against nationalist groups that are essential elements of political stability, and worse, funds Sunni terror groups (Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection”) to de-stabilize Iraq (and Iran) and prevent a Shia-controlled democracy from taking root. In essence, the US policy is to incite violence and chaos until the people are worn out and give in to their new US-puppet government. Democracy is not acceptable to the US, because democracy in Iraq will have nothing to do with the US.

Lest we forget, the US brought Saddam to power in Iraq. Saddam only became a problem when he stopped obeying his US-based handlers and nationalized Iraqi oil. The death and suffering in Iraq at the hands of Saddam and/or the US military is immense in scope and duration, and the vast majority of Iraqis are not inclined to allow another puppet dictator.

The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is for oil and empire, and became imperative when changing international sentiment indicated the imminent end to the UN sanction regime against Iraq, and Saddam began signing long-term oil production agreements with Russia, China, and France, freezing out the US and Britain. Cheney’s secret energy task force, motivated by ‘peak-oil’, looked at the options, and made the case for taking Iraq. Since the US economic system must perpetually expand in order to survive, curtailment of energy consumption is deemed to be not an option, and so the Iraq policy became a ‘no-brainer’.

But the truth that’s relevant to the US occupation of Iraq is that the invasion was illegal, according to international law and the US Constitution. There was no imminent threat to the US posed by Iraq, and anyone who wanted the truth in 2002 knew so. The invasion is a mass robbery. By law, the killing of Iraqis by US troops is murder, not defense. Were the US to have signed on to the ICC, there is little doubt that there would already be indictments against US leaders for war crimes.

Thus, the only honest question is: when will the US cease its illegal conduct, bring to justice those who perpetrated it, and begin to repair the damage. To discuss the history of Islam in an effort to address the US occupation is an insult to Iraq, and an insult to anyone who values truth, justice, and rule-of-law.

I have no illusion that the US will suddenly become honorable. Our society is fully invested in empire and the resultant ever-expanding plunder. I suspect that Ritter doesn’t focus on the stark truths of the matter because he built a career in support of the empire. He would impress me much more by sincerely addressing that. Yes, most Americans are idiots, but their idiocy enables careers like yours, Scott.

Iraq is NOT a young nation! It, and surrounding nations are amongst the oldest human civilisations on Earth. It has merely been having a few bad years - first with Saddam, the US puppet, and then with the two US invasions and the US-led sanctions which have collectively killed millions of its citizens.

Another of the more reprehensible actions by the international community was carried out after WW1 when the victors re-drew national boundaries in West Asia (“middle east” to some) to dis-enfranchise local populations for their own selfish benefit. Nothing has been quite right since.

Additionally, nothing the US has ever done in the region was for anything other than its own benefit despite all protestations to the contrary. That is especially so viz-a-viz the US’s relationship with its other puppet state and covert possessor of WMD’s, the fake state of Israel which was maliciously usurped from the Christian and Moslem citizens of Palestine (see http://poetryforpalestine.spaces.live.com/ ).

Really good read. Thanks! I am from germany and just found this site.
I was thinking that i knew quite something about the story in iraq but i must admit that this was really nothing but a lie to myself! Really great articel with important insights in history which i didnt even know roughly. Keep on going. I think its not only me that could use some more information on whats going on down there.

He makes me crazy when he says he won’t go into any “conspiracy” theories. 9/11 is the foundation for every atrocity bush has perpetrated on us and the world!

Either you agree with the “official” story or you don’t!

How Scott Ritter can say he supports a new investigation when he believes the “official” story of the 19 hijackers, the “heroes” on Flt 93, etc. boggles my mind.

And it makes me crazy when he and others like Richard Clarke dismiss it because they say “the gov’t could never be that competent” to pull it off.

It wasn’t the “government”, I believe it was Blackwater or some entity like Blackwater who pulled it off with the support and knowledge of bush, cheney, etc.

Scott, develop some balls like Rosie O’Donnell has!
Or is selling your book more important to you than finding the truth?