Obama's Contradiction: The Iran-USA Escalation

In May, the Islamic Republic of Iran brokered a deal to transport 1200 kilograms (approximately half) of its enriched Uranium fuel for storage in Turkey--a step to deter ongoing threats of new economic sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. The agreement, facilitated by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, requires the Turkish government to provide fuel to power a research reactor in Tehran.

The deal echoes a failed UN-backed deal, which called for Iran's low-enriched uranium to be transported to Russia and France for processing. It has been paralyzed for months--primarily due to Iran's lack of trust that reactor-grade fuel will be returned. The Islamic Republic demanded that the transaction occur on Iranian soil, at the same time. Western powers did not find this a valid request.

Despite the apparent de-escalation of Iran's nuclear aspirations, the United States and other Security Council members are not backing down from sanctions. The Iranian government does not plan to cease it's uranium enrichment, though it has vowed to both the international community and its own citizens that intentions are peaceful and civilian.

As we saw in last summer's botched election and ruthless crackdown on peaceful protestors, however, this theocratic regime is not a particularly honest or reliable authority.

That is not to say an escalation of diplomatic conflict is warranted. Especially if the outcome could be full-fledged war. Indeed, the position of President Barack Obama is highly questionable.

On April 20, the White House sent a letter to President Lula da Silva encouraging the deal, saying: "For us, Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile." The President did not say it would mean the end of proposed sanctions, but stressed that this deal would send a powerful message to the international community, saying "I would urge Brazil to impress upon Iran the opportunity presented by this offer to 'escrow' its uranium in Turkey while the nuclear fuel is being produced."

Shortly after President Obama's wishes were granted, the sanctions were approved by a unanimous Security Council vote. What does this mean and what are the implications?

The sanctions are intended to target the military leadership of Iran as well as the institutions responsible for uranium enrichment--isolating state-controlled banks from the global financial system and blacklisting petroleum companies. Whether or not the strategy will succeed is unknown. The Bill Clinton sanctions on Iraq brought about the crippling of the Iraqi economy, and is oft-cited as an underlying cause of the mass looting and poverty-induced crime that so destabilized the country post-invasion. The Iran sanctions appear to be more focused on leadership, but there is no telling what effect they might have, or if they will be expanded.

Though the mainstream media will not attempt to analyze the contradictory behavior of the reformer President, it is vital that we ask why he voiced such support for the Turkey-Brazil deal in the first place? Why would this success not be praised? It is a clear improvement from the recent past, but is met with further escalation.

Perhaps it is an issue of American hegemony--that the USA was not a part of the negotiations delegitimizes the agreement for many in the Washington establishment. If other states are able to accomplish diplomatic goals that Americans are not, does this undermine USA's position as the sole super-power? Is peace truly the priority of this escalation?

Resistance to Afghanistan War Grows

This logic makes sense to me!  
"When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after Al Qaida. That was our enemy. And Al Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they're more protected. And we're told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of Al Qaida left in Afghanistan... So we're now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of Al Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy."-- Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 3

Here is the final part of a Pakistani perspective. Regardless of how you believe, this is a thoughtful essay and important to think about.

Judgement Day for the Pure, Part III
by G, the Legend
The US of A: Can they be trusted?

o Everyone in the Muslim / Arab / Developing world loves to bash America. For most countries its enough that they’re rich, we’re poor, and they seem so much happier than us and that just can’t be fair at all. With Muslims and Islam in the mix, the picture gets murkier. Their policies to the Arab world vis a vis their unflinching support for Israel and turning a blind eye to all atrocities committed against Palestinians has been a gaping, open wound to all Muslims around the world. The fact that the US has become almost incapable of changing its tone and taking an objective view of ground realities has become inexcusable; the policy of choosing who to negotiate with is over, as organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah now have strong local, democratic support, largely due to the success of successive Israeli military campaigns in creating alienation, oppression and hatred amongst the people they rule over. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, as a response to the aggression of a repressive, inhuman military dictator in Iraq who was himself a recipient of US funding and support against Iran, just crystallizes the West’s image in the Muslim world as a power with double standards and worthless promises. The trust deficit of the US from a Muslim standpoint is too great; we cannot simply take their word for it that they won’t leave us high and dry the next time they want to sell things to India, but I doubt our political leaders have the stature or vision to stand up for Pakistani interests.

o The current problem of Talibanization in Pakistan has its roots in the oft repeated saga of American cold war support of the Afghan Mujahideen. While it’s true and we did fight the American’s war for them, the reality is that we did so on extremely favorable terms of payment and by means left entirely up to our own devising. The army received huge payments during the entire Soviet occupation, and the method of adapting an ideology to prey on the marginalized, poor, downtrodden and persecuted is a creation of Pakistani operational needs. This was not the only way to win that war, but we chose it wholeheartedly and kept at it many, many years after the war ended. The Americans are notoriously shortsighted, and the patchwork of American military bases and precarious diplomatic ties in every region shows just how much vision (or lack thereof) they exercise in conflict zones. However, our problems at this juncture, the growing polarization between rural and urban areas, the spread of jihadist, sectarian and extremist organizations across the country, and the lack of any social discourse on a contrary national ideology to fundamentalism, are entirely of our own making.

We need to accept that whatever the US does, its job has always been to supports its people’s global interests, not holding our hand and nursing us out of sickness; as a sovereign nation ourselves, if anyone we have been remiss in putting the priorities of Pakistan above the requirements of other countries, and it is our leaders who are to blame. It is us, the privileged, English speaking, big spending elite that has let this country down by being uncaring, un-patriotic spectators of a grand Tamasha. We are complicit in the looting of our national resources over the last 60 years because not once have we exerted influence or tried to be heard, mainly because we have benefited quite well from the injustice. The economics of neglect and apathy has been exceptionally generous to the rich in Pakistan, and that is why we find ourselves here today; in 4 provinces, those with means see a different, modern, progressive Pakistan, while the majority of our countrymen’s lives are so miserable that they can only see the world of salvation or death. We failed them by not demanding that they be fed, clothed and educated as is their right, we never gave them a chance to escape the dark specter of poverty as it snatched away children, tore apart families, shot up neighborhoods and reduced hundreds of thousands to starvation. These are the sins we pay for today, so please Pakistanis, don’t simply blame America. If you need someone to hate, look in the mirror. We have slipped and fallen, our halo is gone, our face is wrinkled and our skin is decaying; we can no longer cling to the names of Iqbal and Jinnah like talismans, hoping their spirit will guide us through the dark. We need to act now to save Pakistan from becoming a polarized, fractious, ethnic hodge-podge of a country, where our cities have curfews and rampant violence, and our villages grow terror and hatred rather than wheat and maize. If we are to live and prosper, we must act now; else we must recognize that tomorrow may never be the same again.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. 2

Judgement Day for the Pure, PART II
by G, the Legend

Politics: The security situation of the country is better known to insiders, this is simply a summary of speculation and analysis available in the world media and on your local TV channels. The real inside story may yet be far too real for us to handle. This is probably why most elected leaders have chosen this critical time to remain silent and meditate on what to buy with their recently increases salaries.

o It is an indictment of our political leaders that the passing of the Peace Accord / Surrender Agreement in Swat was done with a unanimous vote and without disagreement, with almost all major political parties on board. To give credit where it’s due, the only party that actually staged a walkout and has been on the case of this peace deal from the very beginning has been the MQM. This is while the ANP continues to extol the virtues of ‘peacemaking’ in spectacularly shortsighted fashion, while the PPP dishes out its daily dose of inane, nonsensical statements and political gaffes. The PML-N has done absolutely nothing to oppose this deal, and despite riding back to power on the coattails of the ‘people’, it seems content to wait around in the Punjab till this whole thing blows over. Maybe they’re planning to make Lahore the capital once the Taliban take over Islamabad, who knows; for now, I think its about time for Nawaz Sharif to make use of the immense political leverage he can gain in the West by coming out against the militants. Some recent anti-Taliban statements suggest that he may be positioning himself to the US as a better qualified, better supported and more legitimate leader for the country. Whether this plan works or not depends entirely on how bad Zardari lets things get, and how fast.

o What does Zardari really want? When I discussed the military’s thought process above, it was under the assumption that the PPP government was for a resolution of the Swat situation under peaceful means. Whether this is true or not is also another aspect up for debate. The PPP historically went into Karachi, its own city, with all guns blazing to cleanse it from the ethnic violence of the 90s, yet now it balks at the concept of establishing the writ of the government and prioritizing national security over shortsighted ‘peace’. Maybe I’m just cynical, but more talking and less shooting just doesn’t strike me as their administrative style. I guess the real question is who is really in charge? Are Zardari’s hands tied by the military, is he calling the shots or are both colluding to keep the Americans spinning? We won’t know for many years till its all over, and I can’t speculate any more based on my information than I already have; but if one thing is for certain, inaction, incompetence and insincerity on behalf of the incumbent government is a great part of why we are here today.

Pakistan Crisis: the Military, Politics, and Role of the USA Pt. I

Hey all, not sure sure if you've been following the situation in Pakistan (it's the big country sharing borders with Afghanistan, India, and Iran), but since the civilian government took power not long ago, instability has been on the rise. Taliban militants have gotten close to the capital, and this is worrisome not only to the global community, but to the people of Pakistan. Remember that this is a country with a nuclear arsenal, so the resolution of this crisis is of utmost importance. I will dedicate the next three entries to addressing this issue. Here is the first part of an essay by a friend of a friend:

Judgement Day for the Pure
by G, the Legend

As of today, the Swat Taliban have expanded the territory under their influence from North & South Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat to the adjacent district of Buner, and have made clear their intentions of continuing to push towards Mardan, Shangla and onwards. Wherever they go they bring with them their brand of hardcore ideology, a perversion if Islamic beliefs that reflect nothing but the bare essentials needed to subvert the local populace and wield power with an iron fist.

The Pakistani Taliban are different from the Afghan Taliban in the respect that these fighters have no need to justify their existence by relying on an ideological position, such as the expulsion of US & NATO forces from Afghanistan on religious grounds; rather they are simply opportunists taking advantage of a socio-economic meltdown and gross government mismanagement to make as many gains as they can before consolidating their position. All they are really doing is making use of the disenchantment of the poor by offering them money and weapons to take on the status quo. They are preaching ‘empowerment’ and ‘virtue’ derived through the barrel of a gun, and they are taking areas under their control to a system of anarchy, barbarism and ignorance, matched only by the 7 years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. Can we afford to let wide swathes of our land be occupied and governed by terrorist organizations that would rather enslave or kill us than enter the political mainstream? Will we let our next generation be brainwashed into becoming the tools of hate-mongers and extremists? These questions need to be answered with facts, not conjecture, rhetoric or bombast, as our nation to know the truth. If you feel the need to be informed, search no further, just read on:

Wait, Global Terrorist State, What!! How on Earth Did We Get Here?

Many Pakistanis who left the country in the last decade would be surprised to see just how far we have fallen in so short a time. Under the heavy cover of Musharraf’s 10 years in office, the Pakistani people rarely knew what deals were struck with militant groups in the North in exchange for peace or what resources were shared with the Americans in exchange for a free flow of easy money into our system. With civilians in power our policy making has been exposed as shortsighted in the least and a shambles at best. We pretend we can sign ‘peace’ agreements with terrorists who strike at the hearts of our cities, attacking innocent civilians, infrastructure and security installations with gusto and proudly taking responsibility for their actions. Our military and intelligence establishment thinks it can play both sides, funding and propping up militant leaders who have been useful in the past as well as trying to sell the idea to the Americans that we have accepted the idea of ‘Pakistan’s War’. Truly, sieving truth from all the garbled information is difficult, but it’s always good to start with what we know:

* Military: Despite the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan over 2 decades ago, the Pakistan army has continued to fund militant groups both in Pakistan and along the border areas of Balochistan and Afghanistan. Part of this policy is a legacy issue from the Zia regime, but today there are known links of the Pakistan Army to militant groups like those run by Mullah (Col.) Nazir on the Pak-Afghan border, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar along the Baloch-Afghan border and Jalaluddin Haqqani in the area close to disputed Kashmir. These groups have served Pakistan’s security interests in the past by taking on the armed struggle for liberation in Kashmir, reducing India’s influence in Afghanistan to prevent the opening of ‘two fronts’ in the event of a conflict, and working with the army against even more dangerous groups like Baitullah Mehsud’s network of Taliban that is decidedly anti-government. They have been on our payroll for decades, and the big question is whether the army has the will to take the tough decisions Pakistan finds itself faced with. The return of Pakistan to democratic rule (not democracy by far) has seen a complete turnaround in public statements and the PR policy of the Pakistan government. Whatever the government’s actions, under Musharraf we had a fixed public position on terrorism:

o Pakistan doesn’t fund or support any kind of militants or terrorist groups
o All Taliban are foreigners and have no indigenous support
o Differentiate between Pakistani tribal militant groups who fight for economic gain and self interest, and fundamentalist Jihadi/Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
o Osama bin Laden is NOT in Pakistan
o The military and civilian government is in complete agreement and unity over the fact that Pakistanis are FOR Peace, Democracy and ‘Enlightened Moderation’

As a result of this unified policy, the Republicans were kind enough to fund our nation’s economy for a good 7 years before the global economic collapse. Under civilian government, our arguments radically changed, becoming akin to a daily airing of years of dirty laundry:

*
o Taliban are Pakistanis, extremists are Pakistanis, and so the army can’t fight ‘its own people’. Ironic?
o ‘Rogue’ elements of the ISI exist not under Pakistani government control (who can apparently carry off attacks on Mumbai hotels and embassies in Kabul)
o The Pakistan army ‘surrendered’ and ‘lost’ to 6,000-8,000 militants in Swat, forcing our hand on the peace deal
o ‘Osama is our muslim brother and is welcome in our areas anytime’ (a widely reported quote from the Swat Taliban spokesperson)

This is a startling change in our public discourse. Where once we battled Uzbek, Tajik, Arab and Chechnyan Taliban on our borders, less than a year later it seems they are all made up of Pakistani militant leaders who are better established in those areas than our own army. Did all of this happen magically while we weren’t looking? On one hand, while these revelations show the incompetence of the incumbent government in handling national security matters in the media, it is also a reflection of how populist politics results in shortsighted and ultimately costly decisions for Pakistan. I don’t believe for a second that our army can’t totally eradicate the Pakistani Taliban if it wanted to…after all, these are the same militant leaders that have been funded and nurtured by our security establishment for over 20 years. It is a known fact that these organizations count amongst their numbers several former army personnel. If we don’t have the ability to carry out an operation on our own territory, 60 miles from the capital city, then I’m assuming we just bought our nukes right off a shelf in Beijing. It is obvious governments cannot be telling the truth, and that such a huge change cannot happen in less than a year. As to what it does mean, I boil it down to three options, as follows:

* The Pakistan Army does not have the will to fight Pakistani Taliban groups, because:
o It is waiting for its security concerns to be recognized by the West, and assurances/arrangements be made to protect Pakistan before turning on the Pakistani Taliban support network, OR

o It is creating a situation where the US views a civilian government as a liability, and is more than happy to accept a military ruler as state head as long as the job gets done, OR

o This last one is the scariest: It could just be that the military cannot make up its mind. 20 years and many ideologues later, perhaps building the support within the nation’s security and intelligence establishment to take on groups viewed for some time as a virtual extension of Pakistan’s last resort security policy isn’t as easy as giving out orders. An internal split between our national interests and the ulterior motives of select security personnel/agencies represents the gravest danger to our nation imaginable. Why? Because it means we can’t trust the army, the Americans can’t trust us, and then the line between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq begins to go even blurrier in the minds of the foreign geo-strategist. If, at any point, the world begins to actually listen to the Indian argument (let us send Indian troops to Taliban areas with your blessing, we’ll ‘secure’ everything), it could be the end of an entire nation.

Obama Myth: The Revised Blueprint for Change

When it became clear that Barack Obama would win the presidency, I was watching an appearance by Ralph Nader who was explaining what he believed would happen early on in the first term. He predicted that the supporters would say: "Give him a chance." There is much to be changed, and it will take time. The first hundred days go by... not a whole lot of change, but hey, he's workin on it... right?

Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)

For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":

1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it

2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it

3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check

4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check

5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style

6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy

7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie

8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba

Got any more? Let's hear!

[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger.  Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem.  President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]

WTF?? Part 3, Guest Blogger: Hanadi Riyad

I asked a former classmate of mine to write an essay on her views on the the Gaza incursion.  Hanadi is from the region, which makes this situation all the more immediate for her--my hope is that some of this urgency will be conveyed to my readers.

Without further ado, Hanadi Riyad:

"Cast Lead and ME Shift"

As I was thinking of what to write exactly for this short essay, I elected to write from my own personal perspective as based on my daily life and observations as a Middle Easterner. I decided that it is very important for us to realize what a lot of analysts are neglecting to discuss: the reverberating impact of the Israeli invasion of Gaza on the region and the shifts of political roles and landscapes it caused in the Middle East. The on-going blockade aside, the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza, otherwise known as "operation Cast Lead," was a turning point in Middle Eastern politics and public opinion. On the bright side, Palestinians were made to feel less abandoned by the people and citizens of the world. On the dark side, the international community's failure to respond proportionately to the Zionist aggression against Gaza enhanced the Palestinian people's feelings of separation and alienation from the official international system and its ultra-statist institutions. It also widened the gap between the Palestinian and Arab public and their leaders and "representatives."

The numerous public and civil protests against the Israeli aggressions against Gazans first came as a surprise to everybody in the Middle East; they displayed an unfamiliar feeling of human solidarity with the people of the world. In 1948, the Palestinian people were officially abandoned by both the international powers and their people. The feelings of guilt that plagued the people of Europe over the Holocaust presented the perfect chance for the colonial powers to present Zionist Jews with Palestine as compensation. This is the first time since then that the world has witnessed that number of protests against Israel. In France, Spain, the US, Russia, and many other European countries, protestors showed the increasing disenchantment with the Israeli state and its Zionist "cause." I think some of those protests were also driven by the sense of guilt some people, especially Europeans, are feeling over their governments' complicity in the extermination of the Palestinian people and support of the Israeli occupation. The frequent use of the word "holocaust" to describe the latest atrocity against Gaza indicates the people of the world's awareness of the connection between the Holocaust and the Israeli extermination of Palestinians.

However, what did not come as a surprise to anybody in the Middle East was the lack of action on the part of the international powers; some of the blatantly biased and pro-Israeli stances many governments took on the Gaza invasion produced a feeling of repulsion and disgust with those governments. Indeed, the famous and atrocious statement made by the EU presidency spokesperson Potuznik, calling the ground op "defensive," is one example of such a stance. Only either total ignorance of Middle Eastern politics or total inhumanity could have compelled that Czech official to say something as biased as that. I mean, even Olmert and Peres called the op "offensive." What is really significant though is the resulting public disrespect for the UN amongst the Middle Eastern public; this was mainly produced by the Israeli disregard of the UN cease-fire resolution passed on 8 January and its constant targeting of the UN schools where civilians had taken refuge. Not only the sanctity of educational institutions was violated, but also the authority of the UN was dismissed and attacked. There is this conviction now that the UN has backed Israel for too long now that it cannot stand in its face anymore. Only armed resistance is capable of that.  

The gap between the Arab regimes and the Arab public has been there since the artificial states of the Middle East were formed by the colonial powers at the time; now, it's wider than ever. The way that Arab governments split into two camps, the "moderate" or "pro-Israeli" and the "radical" or "pro-Palestinian" was predictable. However, never an embassy of an Arab state was attacked in another Arab country. Egyptian embassies all over the Arab world were attacked vigorously and repeatedly by protesters against the Egyptian refusal to open Rafah crossing into Gaza. While people threw shoes at Egyptians embassies, a lot of Cuban and Turkish embassies were thrown with flowers and roses. For the first time in my life, I heard Arab opposition leaders call, loudly and clearly, for coups and revolutions against various conspiring Arab regimes. Of course, these would be the ones that have the same interest as Israel and the US to terminate the Palestinian resistance and keep their regional hegemony intact, such as Saudi Arabia.

These are only my views and I do not presume to represent neither all Middle Easterners nor the majority's opinion. This is how I see things standing right now in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Israeli ground op in Gaza.

WTF?? Part 2: What is Hamas?

For Part 2 of our series on the Israel/Palestine conflict entitled "WTF??" we will address the question: What is Hamas?

In my research, I have come to fully realize the extent to which American media distorts what Hamas really is. Check out this segment from the Fox News Network:



So let us analyze what how this interview describes the Hamas group. For one, the "expert" who describes to us Hamas and its motivations is a man who works for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies-- a neoconservative think-tank dedicated to "promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that threaten democracy." This is a very pro-Iraq War group that strongly supports the policies of Israel's ruling party.

Anyways, from the FOX interview, we gather a few assumptions:
1. Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to the "destruction of Israel"
2. It was founded in 1987, and began suicide attacks in the 1990s
3. Hamas has established "major social services program" as a public relations "booster"
4. They were elected democratically-- gaining 62% of the vote
5. Compared to the governments of Hitler, Mao, Mussollini
6. Part of a global terror network-- at the center of which is Iran (and according to the neoconservative dude, nothing fundamental can be done as long as the current Iranian regime is in power... hmm, I wonder what that means??)
7. The caption at the bottom of the screen states: "Hamas wants Israel Gone, Palestinian State in its Place"
8. If Israel leaves without destroying Hamas, it will be seen as a "humiliation"

OKAY, enough of FOX, now I'd like you to see an interview done with Eric Margolis-- author of the book American Raj, a study that seeks to answer why there exists Middle East hostility towards the West (addressing historical, political and religious factors). Margolis was a journalist in the region for many years. Check out the interview, and then we will discuss:



Let's review:
1. Western media distorts what Hamas really is
2. It is a "national liberation movement" ... an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
3. Founded in opposition to the the corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Liberation Organization
4. Israel, in fact, quietly supported Hamas as a means to disrupt Palestinian unity
5. Has Hamas used "terrorist" tactics?
-they HAVE targeted civilians
-they HAVE used suicide bombers
-Why can't we call them "terrorists"?
-Well, the argument is that if Hamas had the same sophisticated weaponry that Israel uses, they would do the same... suicide bombers are the poor man's cruise missile
-But what about the civilians being targets? Margolis says that Hamas is morally wrong in this, and I agree. Civilians should never be the targets!
-But many of these attacks are "revenge" attacks... in retaliation for the attacks on Palestinians

6. The Palestinians have suffered 10-40 times more dead than the Israelis (but this doesn't excuse any attacks on civilians)
7. Hamas is a socio-religious movement, preaching "resistence to Western and Israeli dominance" ... and they remain hardliners against corruption
8. Provides many social services... schools, sewage, street-cleaning, etc... THIS is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of Hamas.... making them respected and admired by their people
9. The armed resistance wing
-claim to be defending the "rights of 5-7 million displaced, homeless Palestinian refugees"
-won't recognize Israel until Israel recognizes the rights of those 5-7 million

10. Hamas is NOT a "threat" to the "existence of Israel"
-at most, they have 3,000 poorly trained gunmen
-basically, they are totally overpowered by Israeli forces ... they are like 'fish in a barrel'

11. The fearmongering by the Western media and Israeli government has made it nearly impossible for meaningful negotiation
12. Anti-semitism is infecting the Arab world like never before... it is as a result of the Israeli bombings and incursions

**Clearly this issue is more complex and dynamic than one FOX interview may suggest... and don't just take Margolis's word for it. Do some reading on your own and learn the history behind this conflict. What is Hamas? Why does this conflict exist (it hasn't been around forever, you know.)? What is "terrorism"?

Tomorrow evening, a guest blogger will be sharing her very personal views on the situation. Please stay tuned.

WTF?? Part 1: The Crimes of Israel... can you even imagine?

Welcome to Part 1 of a new Israel-Palestine segment I call "WTF??"... The point is to try and be more responsible citizens of the world by understanding what is really going on in the region.

As I prepare for a major post on the situation, I just want to show you some of the atrocities that have been going on.  

Have you ever heard of white phosphorous?   Well it's a nasty chemical weapon that is dispersed via smoke screen, and incinerates anyone who gets caught in its way... and no, kids aren't immune.

Politics aside for now... I want you to watch these videos and try to appreciate the human side of this conflict.  If you have any thoughts, please share.

Goodbye Señor Bush, Hello Ambiguous Future

As an eleven year old, I wasn't much into politics. I had a faint grasp that Clinton got into trouble over something with a lady (not his wife), that we had bombed someplace far away (which my family watched on the news... in night vision), and that Bush beat Gore after some confusion in Florida. Yes, George W. Bush claimed the presidency before I became politically aware; and for millions of young Americans like myself, this is truly significant.

Tomorrow we say goodbye to the man who played a crucial role in shaping the views of so many in this country. After 9/11, I remember the leadership the President showed... I remember how much support he had. Bush was confident and on message-- he assumed the role of valiant leader during a time when so many were confused and afraid... including myself.

W. told me to stand with the country. He assured me that this great nation would prevail and defeat evil. I believed and defended him for many years. But George Bush did not teach me how to be a patriot-- he did not teach me the inspirational power of our ideals. Instead, he showed me that in times of terror, we must fear and act with that fear in our hearts. No, Bush will never be known as the man who reassured us, once again, that "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror..."

George Bush, along with nearly every member of the Congress, taught me that the United States could do whatever it wanted. That our government is free to spy on Americans. To torture. I was duped, and became cynical. Bush's words brought American arrogance to center stage, and his blunt style made this country a laughing-stock. He is an embarrassment to liberty and to the Republic... forever a stain on the American tale.

But in this final night of his presidency, perhaps it is time to put a hold on the character assassination; perhaps a moment of self-reflection is in order. Let's start with a question: Who is truly responsible for the last 8 years? The blame-game is fun, but not so much in a democracy-- for in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

It was ultimately American apathy, disillusionment, and ignorance that brought us Bush. Our inability to understand clear threats to the democratic fabric, and unwillingness to demand the best possible representatives has put us in a truly unfortunate position--one where the very essence of our ideals are slipping away.

But perhaps we are beginning to wake up... Obama did win an astonishing victory. He seems too good to be true, and maybe there is more truth to this statement than people would like to admit. Americans have, at the very least, denounced the ways of the Bush Administration, which is a start. But the complicit Democrats have escaped the wrath of voters, and will one day have to be reckoned with.

It is clear that Americans are ready for a new day, and tomorrow the next chapter of our story begins. The new President must help lead us out of the darkness that we have brought upon ourselves, but as he has said time and time again: this movement is about what we can do ourselves. President Bush is no more responsible for the economic crisis than a weatherman is for the weather, and a President Obama will not be able to fix the world. We must demand receptive and honest lawmakers. We must fight for reform and for our vital causes. We must rethink what place corporate America has in government, and what place America has in this world. And, indeed, we must develop the tools of the Internet so that we may enter an age of unprecedented civilian involvement in government.

President-elect Obama has taken serious strides, but America must be wary. Simply electing new people will not be enough. The restoration of responsible citizenship is the only way for us to survive.

With optimism and resolve.

How to Break a Terrorist

I just watched a good interview on the Daily Show with a guy named Matthew Alexander who wrote the book "How to Break a Terrorist." This guy was an interrogator for the U.S. military and has been a part of hundreds of hundreds of interrogations, but now he is speaking out against the torture techniques.

Basically, he is saying that the best way to extract information from a prisoner is not to demonize them--by treating them like animals and putting them in pain (both psychological and physical)--but to understand them. Alexander is advocating that by coming to terms with insurgents, you can work to establish an agreement with the goal of helping Iraq in the best way possible.

In fact, he explains that the insurgents aren't ideologues like Al Qaeda; they are mostly regular people who fight for community or for money--suggesting that they would be much more than willing to cooperate if you build a bond of trust.

Alexander says that these methods are proven in many interrogations, but that the Department of Defense does not wish to concede that point--going as far as trying to stop the book from being published. He says to Jon Stewart: "I never saw coercive methods pay off..."--but rather rapport building and relationships yielded the results.

I think it's time that we find a better way. Isn't it obvious? We as a civilization are more advanced than any that has preceded us. Of course there is another way. We know what is right, so let's just do it.

Here is the interview:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Matthew Alexander

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Here's a Question: I'd like to hear your thoughts

The terms "enemy" and "evil" are used quite often by government (and citizens) to characterize certain rogue elements and sovereign states.  During World War II, Nazi Germany was our (America's) enemy; the Cold War pitted us against the Soviet Union.  Today the world is a much different place, so perhaps some distinctions ought to be made to better understand it.

Some questions for readers: Who are our enemies today and why?  What is an enemy by today's standards versus those of the past?  Is this terminology the best way to approach

 international relations?  Is there a such thing as good and evil, and if so, what characterizes each?

Give your feedback on the discussion board, and after I get enough points of view, I'll draw some conclusions and post an analysis.

Please contribute (anonymously if you wish)!

Drudge: "BORING"

Immediately after watching the second hum-drum presidential debate last night, I checked out Drudge Report to see if Matt Drudge felt the same way; sure enough, the headline simply read: "BORING."

Why in one of the most turbulent and terrifying times in this country's history can our presidential hopefuls be so uninspiring? It is clear that the public debate format has been carefully crafted in order to keep the candidates within their safe zones, but that is not what we need right now.  We need rules and moderators who will push the candidates and call them out.  We need to break the barrier of generality, and delve into the heart of such important affairs.  But most of all, we need a different perspective.

Yes, I'm back to the third party rant, but after seeing these establishment candidates "duke it out" once again, I do not believe anyone would disagree that there must be another side to these issues.  Independents and third party candidates provide much needed insight, and keep the others on their toes.  It is truly tragic that the rules of the system prevent such a dynamic.  Don't Americans want more choice?  Or does it just not matter?

More Voices, More Choices!

The Bailout Passed, but Check this Out!

Yes, the new bailout passed in the Senate, and tomorrow it goes to the House for a vote. My uncle brought my attention to this petition ... basically a bunch of the nation's leading economists came together to say that the bailout is a terrible idea: that is, it will disrupt the markets long term, it is unfair to the taxpayers, and it's really shady (they say ambiguous). Essentially what I said before (I think), but this time from experts!

But those in power will do what they want. If they want to go to war against a random country for trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, they will. If they want to give $700 billion to their Wall Street friends and co-workers, they will. If those from within commit crimes, the investigations (if any) will be insufficient and false. This is the age-old story of government.

PS: Obama, McCain, and Biden all voted for the bailout ... I think we all know why.

PPS: Palin showed up to vote, but was told she couldn't.

The Conclusion: Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003 part 7

For those of you who have been following this paper, thanks! It took a long time and a lot of research. If you'd like to read the whole thing, or to look at my Works Cited, go HERE. Also, I'd like to know how people liked the essay. Was it interesting enough? Did it help broaden your understanding in any way? Give it a rating and a comment if you want! Well here it is... the conclusion:

...With respect to the United States’ position towards Iran and its affairs with Iraq, the situation is quite complex. The neoconservative mission to establish regime change in Iran is certainly coming to odds against the idea that Iran is going to be a prolonged and even vital part of the future of Iraq. It seems as though the neoconservatives did not anticipate that the regime change in Iraq would drastically change the regional situation and make Iran more of a necessary force. Whether or not this fact will put a hold on the agenda is another matter.

It seems that Iran would not have much of a purpose to support insurgency efforts directed at undermining the Iranian-backed Iraqi government, no matter what U.S. officials may say—there is no solid evidence, and it is not a reasonable assumption. It is true that Iranian weapons are being used by people outside the “circle of Iranian and U.S. allies, but that doesn’t prove people’s loyalities. Saying that al-Sadr is loyal to Iran because his militias had some Iranian missiles is equivalent to saying that … [he] is loyal to the Soviet Union because they had some AK-47s.”[41]

But even if the Iranians were supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents, on what basis does the United States have the right to criticize? The U.S. preemptively invaded a sovereign nation, and is now an occupying force—Noam Chomsky says that in that situation, “you can’t have a serious discussion on whether or not someone else is interfering.”[42] It is a matter of imperial arrogance that drives this policy—the neoconservative belief in a new Middle East that is pro-United States. As a neighboring country, Iran certainly has more at stake in the future stability of the region—and that is a fact that should be respected. Iran will continue to be a vital presence in the future of Iraq, and the United States can either maintain its drumbeat towards another war, or it can turn to Iran for help in re-stabilizing the region that it so disrupted.

Not Ready

By this point it should be quite clear to voters that Sarah Palin is severely out of touch with the issues. Her record of fighting the pork-barrel spending of Congress has been grossly exaggerated, her statements regarding the War on Terror suggest that she simply does not understand what is going on in the world, and the fact that she had no idea of what the Bush Doctrine is proves it.

Sarah Palin did take on the Republican machine in Alaska, which is certainly commendable, but we should be more cautious when it comes to deciding the person who could very well be in control of the country's nuclear launch codes. Have you heard some of the things this lady has said? That the war in Iraq is a "task that is from God" ... "that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Umm... that's some scary stuff.



Here is a fundamentalist Christian who believes that by fighting 'terrorists' in Iraq, we are serving the will of a supreme being... and she is seriously a candidate for the second most powerful job in the world? What will happen if President McCain dies in office? What course will she take if we are attacked again on her watch? A person so out of touch and with such radical views has no place in our government... I thought we had learned our lesson!

UPDATE: The McCain people believe that women will vote for gender; that they will turn their backs on values just to get a woman in the White House. I think McCain is in for a big surprise from the gals of the USA come Nov. 4. Hopefully.

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 6

Okay, here is part 6 of my paper on the Iran-Iraq-U.S. situation post 2003. This is actually the first half of the conclusion... so only one more part to go! Oh yeah, and if you want to catch up on the previous installment (or just want them available for reference) check'em out: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5.  Also, if you just want to read the whole thing (plus the Works Cited), go here.

....The fall of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime in 2003 marked a new era in the relationship of Iran and Iraq. A once conflicted and even hateful affiliation as a result of territorial disputes, diplomatic breakdown, and aggression, has become something entirely new. Iran is now a key player in the inner-dynamics of Iraqi politics, and is being looked upon as a key stabilizing force. In fact, the stabilization of Iraq is in the best interests of Iran—especially if the resulting Iraqi leadership is friendly to Iran.

Iraqi fears of an overly influential Iran are also at play. Certain secular forces are concerned that an Iranian-style theocracy will be harbored within the walls of Iraqi government, and some Sunnis are also worried that a Shiite “crescent” is being created in the region. Though Iranian influence within Iraqi politics is undeniable, it is worthy to note that Iraqi groups maintain their independence from Iran. Muqtada al-Sadr, for example, said in an interview that he told Ayatollah Khamenei (the Iranian Supreme Leader) “we share the same ideology, but that politically and militarily, I would not be an extension of Iran, and that there were negative things that Iran was doing in Iraq.”[40]

It is important to remember that while Iranians and Iraqis may share ideology, they are still ethnically diverse. From different lineages and with different languages, it is difficult for me to imagine that Iraqis would be willing to be controlled by Iran—there is still a strong sense of nationalism among Iraqis that I believe would prevent an Iranian-based, theocratic government in Iraq. That is not to say that Iran’s influence is irrelevant, because it most certainly is not. As we saw in the Basra situation, Iran holds a considerable amount of sway over the various forces in Iraq.

State of Affairs

Did you know that if you and I had a conversation that was critical of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq, that we could be labelled as "conspirators" according to an Executive Order dated July 17, 2007?  Our assets can be frozen, our homes can be seized, and we can be rendered as "non-persons" by the U.S. government.  Habeas Corpus has been thrown out the window; we are a nation that tortures; the U.S. government defied international law, and illegally invaded a sovereign nation based on a false premise -- oh yeah, and they are listening in on your conversations --and cutting health care for kids... and the media is totally complicit.

I hope you are upset.  

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 5

The next part on my essay dealing with the geo-political aspects of the relationship between Iran, Iraq, and the U.S.A. post 2003 (see the others in the recent archives):

Though much emphasis has been put on some of the more friendly aspects of Iranian-Iraqi relations, there are those Iraqis who oppose Iranian influence. The underlying fear is that Iran will take advantage of Iraq in its weakened state—attempting to instill its own theocratic government. In July 2004, “Iraqi interim Defense Minister Hazem Sha’alan proclaimed that Iran remained his country’s ‘first enemy’, supporting ‘terrorism and bringing enemies into Iraq … Iran interferes in order to kill democracy.’”[34] Sha’alan added that the Iranians “are fighting us because we want to build freedom and democracy, and they want to build an Islamic dictatorship and have turbaned clerics to rule in Iraq.”[35] In addition to this fear, “King Abdullah II of Jordan warned that repercussions of Iran’s influence in Iraq could be felt throughout the region and could lead to a ‘crescent’ of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching through Iraq and into Syria, Lebanon and the Gulf, altering the traditional balance of power between Shiites and Sunnis and posing new challenges to the interests of the U.S. and its allies.”[36]

Accusations of Iran sending over a million citizens across the border into Iraq in order to vote in the Iraqi elections have also been made. King Abdullah commented, “I’m sure there’s a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome. It is in Iran’s vested interest to have an Islamic Republic of Iraq … and therefore the involvement you’re getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran.”[37] Similar concerns from some of Iraq’s Sunnis have been voiced—accusing Iran of “actively seeking to create a Shiite satellite regime through intelligence operations, financial support and propaganda campaigns.”[38]

Though Iran favors a Shia-led, independent, and democratic Iraq, it would be foolish to ignore their caution to the enormous threat that the United States poses to them. Naser Chaderchi, head of Iraq’s National Democratic Party, said:

The Iranians believe that if there is stability in Iraq, the Americans would consider moving against Iran next. I don’t think the Iranians want to create uncontrollable chaos in Iraq, though. They want a manageable chaos, and they share this approach with other neighboring states.[39]

However, I am curious to know if this viewpoint has changed since Iran has gained considerably more influence within Iraq. If leading elements of the United States government are beginning to suggest that Iran has a crucial role in the stabilization of Iraq, then perhaps the Iranian fear of invasion is moot.

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 4

Okay, hopefully you are all caught up.  Here's the next installment of "Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003":

Though it seems as though Petraeus and Crocker want Iran to act as a stabilizing force in the Iraq conflict, their allegations against Iran must not be forgotten. In particular, the accusations that Iran is escalating the violence in Iraq via “special groups,” which are fabricated concepts according to Professor Sabah, who says that they “are a construction.” He explains that the administration is attempting to convey that the Iraqi people are not the ones resisting, but that there are “different … ‘elements’—good and bad … They are trying to faction the Iraqi people into so many different elements that there are no people anymore, and … [therefore] no resistance.”[30]

Since there is a clear antagonism in the rhetoric against Iran (save for the acknowledgements in the peacekeeping role Iran played in Basra), we must take a closer look at what “groups” Iran is supporting versus what groups the U.S. is supporting. Raed Jarrar suggests that U.S. officials are distorting Iran’s role inside Iraq:

The Administration is trying to say that the U.S. is supporting some groups and Iran is supporting some other groups, and these groups are fighting in some type of ‘proxy’ war … this is absolutely not what’s happening in Iraq … What is happening on the ground is that Iran and the United States are supporting the same parties … The Administration is trying … to say that ‘our role in Iraq is exactly the opposite [of] Iran, and therefore, this might justify an attack.[31]

Contrary to governmental claims, “there is no reason why Iran would have any connection to Al Qaeda … [or] ‘special groups’” because of its overwhelming influence throughout Iran (plus, Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization).[32] It seems as though elements within the United States government are deliberately skewing facts and misleading in order to advance an agenda of regime change in Iran. This is, according to Real News analyst Aijaz Ahmad, because of the “pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. Congress that is pressing for that kind of blame on Iran.” Furthermore, in the week leading up to the testimonies, violence escalated dramatically, and instead of letting blame fall on the failure of the surge, the administration is instead blaming Iran—saying that the U.S. troops must stay because of the external threat of Iran.[33]