U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan

Ce billet decrit l'eventuelle reactivation d'une pipeline de petrole de Kirkuk a Haifa en Israel qui etait encore active jusqu'a 1948.


By Amiram Cohen
The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.
The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan's consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel."

Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.)

Iraqi oil is now being transported via Turkey to a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. The transit fee collected by Turkey is an important source of revenue for the country. This line has been damaged by sabotage twice in recent weeks and is presently out of service.

In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.

Sources in Jerusalem suggest that the American hints about the alternative pipeline are part of an attempt to apply pressure on Turkey.

Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis (1.5 million barrels per day) to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.

During his visit to Washington in about two weeks, Paritzky also plans to discuss the possibility of U.S. and international assistance for joint Israeli-Palestinian projects in the areas of energy and infrastructure, natural gas, desalination and electricity.

Hope you are enjoying your summer too!

The leak designed to save Alberto Gonzales

Glenn Greenwald

Sunday July 29, 2007 08:21 EST

(updated below - updated again)

Anonymous sources seeking to protect Alberto Gonzales have leaked to the NYT the claim that what triggered the 2004 DOJ dispute over the NSA program "involved computer searches through massive electronic databases" -- i.e, "data mining" of the "records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans." The Post has amplified the leak.

The claim, passed on by anonymous pro-Bush sources, is rather obviously intended to exonerate Alberto Gonzales by claiming that he told the truth when he said that the 2004 DOJ dispute did not involve the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program (because, instead, the dispute concerned "data mining"). Like the well-trained followers that they are, authoritarian Bush supporters are already seizing this leak to proclaim Alberto Gonzales vindicated.

For multiple reasons -- many of them obvious -- these stories accomplish no such thing. Can reporters covering the Gonzales story please do something other than write down the claims of pro-Gonzales sources and just use your brains a little bit:

(1) Anonymous Liberal points out the painfully obvious:

Let me start by pointing out what seems to be a flaw in this argument. For this defense to even arguably work, it has to be true that Comey and Goldsmith's objections were limited to data-mining activities and in no way pertained to any of the activities the President confirmed in December of 2005. But this graf from the Post piece seems to undercut that claim:

One source familiar with the NSA program said yesterday that there were widespread concerns inside the intelligence community in 2003 and 2004 over how much Internet and telephone data mining could occur, as well as about the NSA's direct intercepts of communications without court approval.

The Times article makes the same fatal point:

A half-dozen officials and former officials interviewed for this article would speak only on the condition of anonymity, in part because unauthorized disclosures about the classified program are already the subject of a criminal investigation. Some of the officials said the 2004 dispute involved other issues in addition to the data mining, but would not provide details.

This leak would be arguably exculpatory for Gonzales only if it reported that data mining was the only source of the Comey/Ashcroft objections, not merely one of the sources. But both articles explicitly state that there were other grounds for those objections besides data mining, leaving open -- rather than resolving -- the only relevant questions: did those objections, contrary to Gonzales' sworn testimony, relate to the "TSP's" warrantless eavesdropping?

These articles are expressly unable to answer that question, the only one that matters. Therefore, it proves nothing as to whether Gonzales lied when he testified that the Ashcroft/Comey objections had nothing to do with the "TSP." That is just basic, obvious logic.

(2) In January, 2006, Gen. Michael Hayden -- the NSA Director during the implementation of the "TSP" and the current CIA Director -- gave a press briefing at the National Press Club in which he emphatically denied that the NSA had been engaging in the type of "data mining" which this morning's articles describe. During his opening remarks, Hayden said:

Let me talk for a few minutes also about what this program is not. It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about.

This is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda.

He then made clear that the NSA could not and would not engage in such data mining because of the "ethical" and "practical" considerations involved:

QUESTION: Are you spying on or intercepting our communications, e-mails and telephone conversations of those of us who are organizing The World Can't Wait to Drive Out the Bush Regime?

GEN. HAYDEN: You know, I tried to make this as clear as I could in prepared remarks. I said this isn't a drift net, all right? I said we're not there sucking up coms and then using some of these magically alleged keyword searches -- "Did he say 'jihad'?

Let's get --" I mean, that is not -- do you know how much time Americans spend on the phone in international calls alone, okay? In 2003, our citizenry was on the phone in international calls alone for 200 billion minutes, okay? I mean, beyond the ethical considerations involved here, there are some practical considerations about being a drift net. This is targeted, this is focused. This is about al Qaeda.

And again:

We are not out there -- and again, let me use a phrase I used in the comments -- this isn't a drift net out there where we're soaking up everyone's communications. We are going after very specific communications that our professional judgment tells us we have reason to believe are those associated with people who want to kill Americans. That's what we're doing.

Gen. Hayden's emphatic denial that they were engaged in "data mining" was not confined to that date nor to any specific program. The denials were general denials -- they were not engaged in data mining because of "the ethical considerations involved here, there are some practical considerations." In fact, the whole point of his briefing was to insist that what they were doing was in response to the President's October, 2001 request that they expand their surveillance activities and that the program they designed had full, unanimous, unequivocal approval from NSA lawyers from the start -- something obviously inconsistent with this denial of data mining due to its "ethical considerations":

In early October 2001, I gathered key members of the NSA workforce in our conference room and I introduced our new operational authority to them. With the historic culture of NSA being what it was and is, I had to do this personally. I told them what we were going to do and why. I also told them that we were going to carry out this program and not go one step further. NSA's legal and operational leadership then went into the details of this new task. . . .

And so even though I knew the program had been reviewed by the White House and by DOJ, by the Department of Justice, I asked the three most senior and experienced lawyers in NSA: Our enemy in the global war on terrorism doesn't divide the United States from the rest of the world, the global telecommunications system doesn't make that distinction either, our laws do and should; how did these activities square with these facts?

They reported back to me. They supported the lawfulness of this program. Supported, not acquiesced. This was very important to me. A veteran NSA lawyer, one of the three I asked, told me that a correspondent had suggested to him recently that all of the lawyers connected with this program have been very careful from the outset because they knew there would be a day of reckoning. The NSA lawyer replied to him that that had not been the case. NSA had been so careful, he said -- and I'm using his words now here -- NSA had been so careful because in this very focused, limited program, NSA had to ensure that it dealt with privacy interests in an appropriate manner.

There is no way to read Gen. Hayden's briefing and reconcile it with the claim that the DOJ mutiny was triggered primarily, let alone exclusively, by some massive, sprawling data mining program. The whole point of Gen. Hayden's briefing was to assure Americans that no such program ever existed.

(3) The program to which Comey and Ashcroft objected was not one which was cancelled altogether, but rather modified to accommodate their objections. In other words, the program to which they objected continued to operate after they objected, merely with operational and legal changes necessary to satisfy them that it was legal. Comey made that repeatedly clear in his testimony:

We had the president's direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality.

And so we then set out to do that. And we did that. . . . Director Mueller carried to me the president's direction that we do what the Department of Justice wanted done to put this on a sound legal footing.

If it were really the data mining program to which they objected, that would mean that the data mining program continued to operate, which would make Gen. Hayden's emphatic statements absolute falsehoods. Put simply, the activities to which Comey objected continued in revised fashion. Thus, if it were really the "data mining" program to which he objected, then Gen. Hayden's 2006 denial that they engage in "data mining" would be false.

(4) Whatever else is true, the claims in the NYT and the Post are completely irreconcilable with the testimony of FBI Director Robert Mueller regarding the Comey/Ashcroft objections:

"I had an understanding that the discussion was on a N.S.A. program," Mr. Mueller said in answer to a question from Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas, in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Asked whether he was referring to the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or T.S.P., he replied, "The discussion was on a national N.S.A. program that has been much discussed, yes."

By definition, Mueller testified that the DOJ conflict was not about some separate data mining program -- at least not only -- because, according to Mueller, it was about "a national N.S.A. program that has been "much discussed". The only NSA program that has been "much discussed" is warrantless eavesdropping, not data mining.

Mueller obviously knew exactly why he was being asked these questions and his answers made clear that Gonzales -- by claiming that the DOJ objections had nothing to do with the "TSP" -- was lying. Mueller's testimony is completely inconsistent with the attempt by the NYT and Post to exonerate Gonzales by suggesting that the only DOJ objections were over "data mining," not warrantless eavesdropping.

(5) Even if "data mining" activities were part of what triggered the DOJ objections, that would not, as Big Tent Democrat points out, mean that Gonzales told the truth, since the claim from Bush followers from the beginning has been that the TSP included data mining, and indeed, that this was the reason why FISA warrants were obsolete. That is the same point which Sen. Feingold -- who has reviewed the classified information -- seems to be making in the NYT article: that Judiciary Committee members "considered the eavesdropping and data mining so closely tied that they were part of a single program."

All of this merely underscores, rather than eliminates, the urgent need for Congress to find out what exactly the administration was doing in 2004 that prompted the entire top level of the DOJ to threaten to resign if it continued. Now that the administration has leaked its own data mining activities, there is no reason to do anything other than subpoena Comey and Ashcroft and ask if their objections were in any way related to warrantless eavesdropping or confined exclusively to "data mining." The Judiciary Committee has previously subpoenaed documents reflecting what the DOJ's real concerns were, and the White House has no justification for withholding them.

* * * * *

What we have here, yet again, is the administration completely manipulating the NYT by selectively leaking previously "super-top-secret" information when doing so helps them politically. This, as always, is followed by the newspaper -- desperate for "scoops" -- outrageously granting anonymity to administration officials to do nothing other than disseminate pro-government propaganda, and turning its front pages over to the administration's claims with very little critical analysis or real scrutiny.

It is obviously "news" that the administration was data mining and that this prompted strenuous objections, or at least it is news that anonymous administration officials claim this was so. So there is nothing objectionable per se about reporting this (though, given that these are plainly pro-administration leaks, it is inexcusable to grant them anonymity).

But, and this is the critical point, the leaked report, for so many reasons -- see above -- cannot begin to exonerate Alberto Gonzales or prove that he told the truth. Yet there is the NYT dutifully claiming that this leak "helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation," while the Post proclaims that "the report of a data mining component to the dispute suggests that Gonzales's testimony could be correct."

According to the administration, these are spying activities that ceased three years ago. According to the Bush DOJ's emphatic conclusion, these spying activities were patently illegal -- so illegal that they all threatened to resign if they continued. Putting those two premises together, why is it that we do not know what these activities are? What possible excuse exists now for continuing to keep them concealed? Now that the administration has leaked its own allegedly defunct and illegal program, there should a full airing of what they were doing that prompted the DOJ mutiny.

UPDATE: Here is a snapshot of the United States from 2000-present. The Bush administration whispers something to "journalists." They repeat it uncritically on their front page. Other "journalists" read it. They believe it uncritically and then repeat it. With nothing else required, it becomes "fact" (that is the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and Iraqi WMD Process, repeated over and over and over).

Hence, Time's Karen Tumulty this morning recites the storyline of the NYT and pronounces:

This distinction -- one that Senators have not generally made when discussing the two programs --probably means that Gonzales did not commit perjury in last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And presto, just like that -- from the administration's anonymous lips to the American public, making a pit stop with leading journalists only to be amplified and bolstered but never examined or investigated -- Alberto Gonzales is vindicated.

Equally revealing, several regular Swampland commenters objected to her gullible ingestion of the NYT leak and "caution[ed] against taking the NYT story on its face." To her credit, Tumulty notes that warning in an update, but this is how our country's political press works. The administration secretly decrees. Their selected journalist passes it along, soaking up the rewards of their "scoop." Other journalists believe it and disseminate it. And all administration problems are solved, painlessly fading away.

UPDATE II: Marty Lederman -- in the "P.S." section of a long post analyzing the legal implications of "data mining" -- again makes a point that I have also emphasized several times this week and will likely keep emphasizing. Namely, whatever one's views are on how strong of a perjury charge one can mount here against Gonzales for this specific testimony -- and I have gone back and forth on that question several times this week -- that is but a mere sideshow in the NSA scandal.

The NSA scandal is not now and never has been about perjury. It is about highly illegal spying activities by our government on American citizens.

The scandal arose because the Bush administration spied on Americans illegally for many years and concealed its criminality. It did so (a) by eavesdropping on the telephone calls of Americans without warrants even though FISA makes it a felony to do that, and (b) by engaging in the even-worse though still unknown spying activities which caused Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller et al. to threaten to quit if it did not cease.

This is where the focus should be, and my concern from the start about the Gonzales perjury focus is that it would overshadow that far more important issue. We cannot spend the next 18 months in a mind-numbing semantic debate over what the "TSP" means or does not mean in the administration's misleading testimony and public statements. That is far afield from the real criminality here and it will obscure it. As Lederman says:

The focus now, in other words, should be on the substance of the NSA and FBI conduct, on DOJ's justifications therefore, and on the breakdown in the separation of powers -- and not the parsing of the Attorney General's testimony, which has never been useful for anyone in Congress anyway.

What was the administration doing prior to 2004 that was so illegal that the entire top level of the DOJ threatened to quit over it? It's nice that the Senate Judiciary Committee wants a criminal investigation concerning Gonzales' perjury. But the real criminal investigation that is needed here -- and that has been needed for quite some time -- is an investigation over the underlying surveillance crimes -- both warrantless eavesdropping and whatever else it was that they were doing that caused the DOJ mutiny on the ground that it was against the law.

Has Abbas Committed Treason?

C'est le commentaire pro-islamiste d'un copain palestinien chretien:

A Comment by Tony Sayegh

Here are two, not mutually exclusive, definitions of treason:

1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign and/or reneging on an oath of loyalty, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely cooperating with and acting to give aid and comfort to its enemies.

2) The offense of attempting to overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power; disloyalty; treachery.

Let us examine the recent actions of Mahmoud Abbas to see if they meet these definitions. I am not a legal expert, but I will use common sense and available information in making a determination.

Collaboration With the Enemy

As reported in Haaretz(1) “… there has been another significant development in the ties between Israel and the PA, although it has been kept under wraps from the media. For the first time in years, the Shin Bet is making use of intelligence it receives from the PA's security organizations, information it uses against terrorists in the West Bank.”

This is clearly an act of treason, since Abbas is the head of the PA whose security organizations are supplying intelligence to Israel’s intelligence, which is used to abduct and kill Palestinians in the West Bank. The same used to also take place in the Gaza Strip, before Abbas’ collaborating forces were routed there.

Another act of active collaboration with the enemy is the reliance on the enemy (Israel) and the U.S., which is hostile to the Palestinian interests, for weapons which Abbas’ forces use against the Palestinian people. Large shipments of weapons to Abbas’ forces, again from the U.S. and Israel, were previously sent to the Gaza Strip which were intended for use to overthrow the democratically elected Palestinian government. This is as clear an example of treason as one can imagine.

Waging War Against the Palestinian People

Abbas has actively engaged in and authorized many actions which harm and seriously injure the approximately 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. An example of that is his urging of the enemy to keep the main outlet of the Strip to Egypt, the Rafah crossing, closed. This, while knowing that over 6,000 Palestinians, many of them old and sick, have been stuck in the Egyptian desert for the past 45 days, with no money, food or shelter and unable to return to their homes in Gaza. Over 30 of these Palestinians have already died while waiting. Again, quoting Haaretz(1) “… [Israel] has acceded to Abbas' secret request, not to allow the opening of the Rafah crossing in the southern Gaza Strip.”

It goes beyond that; Abbas’ representatives in the UN have been actively blocking a Security Council initiative to alleviate the Palestinian suffering in Gaza(2), “The Palestinian delegation to the United Nations is blocking a Security Council initiative aimed at expressing the organization's concern over the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.” This action was so unbelievable that Haaretz (2) had this quote, "“This situation is absurd," a Western diplomat told Haaretz. "It is obvious that it is in the Palestinian delegation's best interest to conceal the fact that Hamas is in control of the Gaza Strip," he said.”

Another nefarious action by Abbas that seriously injures Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and contributes to their starvation and suffering, is the active participation of Abbas in the total financial, trade and economic blockade of the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. This is simply an active participation in an act of collective punishment and genocide against his own people. Besides treason, this is a war crime.

All people under occupation have the universal right to resist that occupation by all means available, including armed resistance. The Abbas “government” has declared armed resistance to the occupation illegal and Abbas’ forces have been arresting all those even suspected of resisting. Worse still, Abbas is setting up military tribunals to “try” those arrested Palestinians, and potentially sentence them to death. This is active collaboration with the enemy and seriously harming the national interest.

The Palestinian Right of Return and Israel as a “Jewish State”

This goes to the heart of the Palestinian national struggle and is the key issue not only for the Palestinians in the occupied areas but also for the Palestinians who are Israeli citizens (about 1.5 millions) and the Palestinians in the Diaspora (about 5 millions).

Abbas as the head of the PA does not speak for the last two categories of Palestinians (about 6.5 millions). However, he is on record as accepting Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state.” This is a betrayal of and disloyalty to the Palestinians who stayed in what became Israel in 1948. It is a betrayal because Abbas is condemning them to live in an Apartheid state that treats them as second-class citizens in their own homes and usurped country.

For the approximately 6 million Palestinian refugees, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 on the Question of Palestine which, "resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return..."

This historic right of return belongs to the Palestinian refugees, whom Abbas does not represent. Yet Abbas’ position on the right of return is basically the same as Israel’s. Last week he stated that no one can force Israel to accept the right of return; hence to reach an agreement with Israel, which is acceptable to it, the Palestinians would have to forfeit their right of return. This is an act of total betrayal, disloyalty and treachery towards the millions of Palestinian refugees who have not authorized Abbas to give up their rights.

Summing Up

There are many more examples of betrayal, treachery and collaboration with the enemy of which Abbas stands accused. As I said before I am not a legal expert; but based on the evidence provided here, it appears that there is solid ground for a Palestinian tribunal to examine the evidence and to try Mahmoud Abbas according to Palestinian law. I realize that this may not be easy or practical, given the occupied status of the West Bank and the protection Abbas gets from Israel and the U.S. If it is not possible to try him in person, then he should be tried in absentia. This is a duty of all Palestinians determined to keep the Palestinian national struggle alive. It is an obligation to stop this threat to liquidate Palestinian rights and it is the most serious threat the Palestinians have faced in almost 60 years.

References

(1) Fatah and Israel / Allies, Inc., By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz, July 28, 2007.
(2) Fatah-led delegation to block UN initiative over Gaza crisis, By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz, July 27, 2007.

Vive la justice a la sauce americaine

A federal judge in Boston has ordered the US government to pay out more than $100m (£50m) in the case of four wrongly convicted men.

The four were convicted in 1965 of the murder of gangster Edward Teddy Deegan.

They spent decades in prison after the FBI withheld evidence of their innocence. Two died in jail.

The two survivors, and the families of the other two, successfully sued the federal government for malicious prosecution.

The lawyers of Peter Limone, now 73, and of Joseph Salvati, 74, said the two men had waited a lifetime for this moment.

They and their now deceased friends Louis Greco and Henry Tameleo were accused and convicted of killing Deegan in a small alley during a robbery in Boston.

Mr Limone and Mr Salvati were then exonerated in 2001, after FBI memos dating back to the murder surfaced showing the men had been framed.

'Collateral damage'

In this latest case, lawyers for Mr Salvati, Mr Limone and the families of the two others argued that Boston FBI agents knew that mob hitman Joseph Barboza had lied when he named the four as Deegan's killers.

Mr Barboza, they said, was trying to protect a fellow FBI informant, Vincent Flemmi, who was involved in the Deegan murder.

And the lawyers said the four men were seen as acceptable collateral damage at a time when the FBI was trying to take the Mafia down through the use of criminal informants.

During the lengthy civil trial, the government had argued that the federal authorities could not be held responsible for the results of a state prosecution.

But US district judge Nancy Gertner, who ruled on the case, said it took 30 years to uncover the injustice, and that the government's position was, in a word, "absurd".

The Bush-Saudi Connection

In Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden, two French intelligence analysts, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, claim that the Clinton and Bush administrations impeded investigations of bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist group in order to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia and to maintain the stability of the oil market. "As the late John O’Neill told one of the authors [Brisard] of this book, ‘All of the answers, all of the clues allowing us to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia.'"

cliquez sur le lien pour lire la suite

Americans as viewed by the French

J'essaie de decrypter, voire dechiffrer, les differences culturelles entre la France et les USA, et j'ai trouve le texte suivant avec des portions differentes:


*When I say 'American', *

*do you think 'fat and stupid'?*


By Tamara Laszlo



I am a young French professional who lives in London. As a student, I lived in Spain and in the United States for a year each. These two successive experiences had a long-lasting impact on me – I realized how much influence national cultures had on the way people thought and viewed the world.



In this article I would like to write about one particular issue that affects me – how strong stereotypes about Americans and America are compared to other nations'. My problem with this is that when my fellow countrymen – the French – criticize the Americans in a stereotypical way, I feel offended because I know those are caricatures, not the complex truth.



I will try to present you with an account of the stereotypes I had before going to the US for the first time, what I found there, and then explore some differences in French and American values. I will finish with a comparison of perceptions of Spaniards and Americans in France, and how much stronger the American stereotypes are,



*Expectations*



Before going to the United States for the first time – I was 15 years old, and I left with six other French students and a teacher, and we all stayed with host families – I had a very vague idea of Americans, and the main thing I thought I would find there were beaches and smiling people with beautiful bodies (I was going to Florida). I was attracted to the country – the open landscapes, the fact that everything looked bigger and brighter.



*My American experience*



When I arrived, I was immediately blown away: everything was bigger! I particularly loved the roads – so straight and so wide! At first, it was difficult to understand the language. I had an excuse: French schools and universities insist on teaching almost exclusively British English and British culture and history. American English is viewed as a 'distorted', 'run-down' version of the 'purer', and essentially 'more civilized' British English (most French people will tell you that the Americans have no culture whatsoever).



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




I also discovered *new ways of living and different values*: at my new home, I was showed all the rooms when I arrived (this contrasts with the French culture where many rooms are considered private, so either they show you extremely quickly, or they don't show you certain rooms at all), and I was allowed to help myself whenever I was hungry (in the American culture, I found that personal needs and choices are less group-dependent). In France you constantly attend to hosts and eat with them. They are rarely allowed to go through the closets, because it would be an invasion of privacy.
Basically, they are guests, not members of the family.

I also noticed that religion is much more important in the US. The second day after my arrival, I joined my host family to go to church. I met some of the other French students there, who had come with their host families. I think none of us was a Protestant, but we all wanted to go in order to discover an important part of our host families' lives. We joined the youngsters' group, with very loud Christian rock music and a stage, where we participated in a game along with everyone else. However, after an hour of extremely loud music, not understanding much of what was being said, and with jet lag weighing in, we all had big headaches. We decided to go on the porch outside for a bit of fresh air. After five minutes, the mother of my host family arrived, visibly upset, and scolded us: she said we were extremely disrespectful. She didn't give us a chance to explain anything. We were all taken home in silent cars, because the families wouldn't speak to us. Fortunately, the rest of the stay was fine, but that incident left quite an impression on me.

Looking back on it, I think the families were shocked by the answers we gave to their question - they had asked us about our religious orientation before going to church. We were all either atheists or non-practicing Catholics.
And then I think they were influenced by the French stereotypes ('immoral'
and 'godless'). Every time I told an American that I didn't believe in God (that time and other times later in my life), they looked at me with a blank stare, as if they did not understand what I was saying. And then they acted like they wanted to avoid the subject altogether, as if this was too much to cope with. I think that many Americans think that not believing in god equals having no moral sense. This is a fundamental difference between the French and the American cultures – religion doesn't play such an obvious role in France, and atheists are considered 'normal' people.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* *

*Recommended book of the month*

A great - and funny - book about the French-American cultural divide:

NADEAU, Jean-Benoit, and Julie Barlow, *Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong*. Naperville, IL, USA: SourceBooks, 2003.



The French drink, smoke and eat more fat than anyone in the world, yet they live longer and have fewer heart problems than the English and the Americans. They work 35-hour weeks and take seven weeks' paid holiday each year, yet they are the world's fourth-biggest economic power. So how do they do it? From a distance modern France looks like a riddle. It is both rigidly authoritarian, yet incredibly inventive; traditional (even archaic) yet modern; lacking clout on the international stage yet still hugely influential. But with the observations, anecdotes and analysis of the authors, who spent nearly three years living in France, it begins to makes sense. 'Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong' is a journey into the French heart, mind and soul. This book reveals French ideas about land, food, privacy and language and weaves together the threads of French society, uncovering the essence of life in France and giving, for the first time, a complete picture of the French.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



When I was 21, I had the opportunity to study in Virginia on an exchange student program for my senior year. I loved it, although I discovered even more deep seething differences between France and the United States.

For example, in the homework we had to hand in, I was asked to state my opinion – without referencing other people's opinions, like I had to do France. In France, I was supposed to think of all the arguments supporting a point of view (the questions are generally not open-ended), and then of all the arguments supporting the opposite point of view, and then choose which side I wanted to be on. This contrasted with the American method of just stating your personal point of view. To me, it showed how communitarian France was, because my place relative to others in society was something I had to be constantly aware of. In addition, the fact that I was too young to have a valid point of view made France appear very hierarchical.

Another striking difference was that in France, I had to write most of my essays in the 'we' form (e.g., 'We should…'), while in the US, the teachers only asked for my personal opinion (e.g., 'I would…'), and didn't understand why I used the 'we' form.

Another deep difference that I noticed between French and American cultures was the strong emphasis on problem-solving in the news or in my courses. In France there is nothing wrong with discussing an idea for a long time without getting to a solution, since it is assumed that finding solutions requires time.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




*Back to France*



What struck me most when I returned to France after my stay in the US was that people were unreceptive to what I wanted to tell them about the United States. For comparison purposes, let me tell you about French people's attitudes when I went back to France from Spain.



The year before my study-abroad year in the US, I had spent a year studying in *Spain*. I went back to France for a month in between Spain and the US.
When people asked me about Spain, they always had a smile on their face.
Everything positive I said was met with an approving nod or a cheerful comment, as if they already knew that Spain was a great country and that I had enjoyed it.



The reaction was very different when I talked about the United States – people obviously expected me to say that I did not like it there. When I said that I loved my stay in the US, people often looked surprised and uncomfortable as they asked why. I could see that they were confused because what I was telling them didn't match what they had always been told. But then, they just restated their opinion about Americans and the US, as if what I had said could not fit into their view of the world. I felt like I kept on hitting against a wall of stereotypes: Americans had to either belong to the fat and stupid category (think of TV and McDonald's), or to the imperialist bullies one (think of guns and money).

* *

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

* *

*Website link of the month*

An excellent website (written primarily for the Americans, but anyone can enjoy it) about the French:

http://www.understandfrance.org/France/Intercultural.html#ancre788171



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Just to be clear, I have not seen a gun once in the United States – although I know they are there – nor eaten more than once at Mc Donald's – although some people do eat there –, I never met people that were obsessed with money (certainly no more than in France), or who watched TV all day (the TV was on all day, but they didn't watch it more than the French I know). And I certainly don't think that Americans are stupid.



What I tried to tell my French friends was that some things were better for me in the US: I met really friendly people in the US. In France, when you just move in from another region or from another country, very often it is difficult to meet people or to make friends. People don't trust you until they feel they can – and that can take an awfully long time. In the US I felt that it was more or less the same for close friends, but at least people talked to you in order to get to know you, and then it was easier to make casual friends (that could become longer-lasting friends).

Dead farmers got subsidies

Ils sont vraiment bourres au departement de l'agriculture:

WASHINGTON — The Agriculture Department sent $1.1 billion in farm payments to more than 170,000 dead people over a seven-year period, congressional investigators say.

The findings by the Government Accountability Office were released Monday as the House prepared to debate and pass farm legislation this week that would govern subsidies and the department's programs for the next five years.

GAO auditors reviewed payments from 1999 through 2005 and found that the department has not been conducting the necessary checks to ensure that subsidy payments are proper.

Of the identified payments to deceased farmers' estates or businesses, 40 percent went to those who had been dead more than three years, and 19 percent went to those who had been dead for seven or more years.

The report was requested by Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "It's unconscionable that the Department of Agriculture would think that a dead person was actively engaged in the business of farming," Grassley said.

Iraq oil exports to U.S. second lowest in near 4 yrs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq's crude oil shipments to the United States in May fell to the second lowest monthly level in almost four years, the U.S. Energy Department said on Monday.

Iraq exported 341,000 barrels of crude oil a day to the U.S. market in May, down 39 percent from the month before.

The Energy Department said it was Iraq's second smallest volume of crude sent to the United States since September 2003, a few months after American forces removed Saddam Hussein from power.

The United States imported an average 553,000 barrels of oil a day last year from Iraq, making it America's sixth largest foreign oil supplier.

But shipments are down so far this year as Iraq's oil sector has been hit by insurgent attacks, disrupting oil production and exports.

Iraq's oil production averages about 2.1 million barrels a day, down from daily output of 2.5 million barrels before the war and much less than the 3 million barrels a day the Bush administration had hoped Iraq would be pumping by now.

Corporate Corruption and the Bush Justice Department

BY	Scott Horton
PUBLISHED	July 24, 2007
Today Attorney General Gonzales appears to testify under oath once more before Congress. Let’s see if his memory has cleared up any. But in the meantime, the questions he urgently needs to answer–under oath–are multiplying. And here are a few from the last press cycle. The Bush Administration’s Justice Department has been marked by politically managed prosecutions of white collar crime through its Public Integrity Section, as we know from the Siegelman and Thompson cases, among others. But what about other types of white collar crime? In the lead-up to the 2004 election, corporate corruption was figuring as a potentially enormously embarrassing issue. Enron Corporation and Enron service providers (notably Arthur Andersen) figured as the largest single group of campaign donors to Bush’s political operations, and Enron senior management had unparalleled access to both Bush and Vice President Cheney. When a whistleblower recently exposed the list of energy executives who met with—and essentially wrote—the national energy policy which had been delegated to Cheney, sure enough, Enron was right at the top. By early 2003, Bush’s senior political advisor, Karl Rove, was reportedly deeply concerned that the corporate corruption issue would hurt Bush in the upcoming re-election campaign. He then settled on a strategy favoring some token prosecutions. Indeed, he decided that the prosecutions would figure as a campaign element. Rove’s key sensitivity was in Texas, of course. But he picked a case in Alabama. The target was HealthSouth and its CEO Richard Scrushy. A prosecution was ordered up and directed through U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and timing was viewed as critical. In fact, timing was to be attuned carefully to the campaign. Here’s just one example. A former Justice Department attorney insists that we pay attention to the fact that Scrushy was indicted by a Birmingham grand jury on October 31, 2003, pushed through just in advance of a November 2, 2003 campaign fundraiser that the Bush-Cheney campaign organized at the Birmingham Sheraton, at which Bush talked about his commitment to action against corporate corruption. You might think this is pure coincidence. And if you do, you’re extremely gullible. Action and political rhetoric have been seamlessly merged. And the magician who managed this entire process? Karl Rove, of course. But the grotesquely politicized management of the prosecution of HealthSouth and Scrushy is but one example of a phenomenon that covered the nation. Another, no less shocking one appeared yesterday in the McClatchy Newspapers and it comes out of Virginia. McClatchy reported Monday that while Justice has chased Democrats with zeal, its appetite for taking on corporate fraud is was suddenly and dramatically deflated . The prime example? DOJ has just dropped indictments for a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary, General Reinsurance, and a related company, Reciprocal of America, despite what prosecutors and investigators on the case insist was strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Both companies were involved in the reinsurance business, whereby companies take on other insurance companies’ additional risk to profit from increased premiums. But they failed to retain the surpluses required by law which would ensure each company’s ability to pay claims. This shortcut was hidden, prosecutors and investigators said, by fraudulent accounting, and the end result of the crime was felt deeply by General Reinsurance and Reciprocal clients: In the Reciprocal of America case, the fallout [of the fraud] was clear. More than 80,000 lawyers, doctors and hospitals in 30 states lost their malpractice coverage. As they couldn’t expect new insurers to cover them for past cases, some who were sued have claimed losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Readers won’t be surprised that the career prosecutor pursuing the case was relieved of his duties at an advanced stage of the investigation, and his replacement subsequently terminated pursuit of “Gen Re.” And speculation abounds as to the reason why the prosecution did not move forward—some believe that killing the case was an easy legal call, while others wonder if undue sympathies towards corporate America were to blame. Has anyone examined corporate and related campaign contributions to the GOP? The great tragedy of the ongoing political prosecution and U.S. Attorneys scandals at the DOJ is that now observers are forced to question incidents—like the decision to not indict Gen Re and Reciprocal—that were hitherto regarded as mainstream, internal decisions for true DOJ professionals to make. Politics has been allowed to trump everything. Professional prosecutors appear in the frontlines, but increasingly they do not call the shots–but they are pressured to lie about who is calling the shots and how.

Si vous n'etes pas offense c'est parce-que vous ne pretez pas attention

“We know things are bad. Worse than bad. They’re crazy”

Meme aux USA, on parle souvent de revolution, mais elles font simplement partie de l'imagination des gens.

Mike Whitney

July 22, 2007


Americans don’t believe in revolution anymore. It has become a meaningless event in the distant past. But we need a revolution and we need it now. We need to remove the present administration and restore the people’s confidence in government.

The Bush administration is not a government at all. We all know that. It is a crime family—an oligarchy of racketeers. They have no moral authority, no legitimacy, no right to govern. They’re criminals.

Who doesn’t know this?

And, yet, our congressmen and senators refuse to do their jobs. They’ve "taken impeachment off the table". They have agreed that Bush is above the law. Fine. Then we’ll have to persuade them that they’re wrong or find another way. But Bush has to go. How else can we re-establish democracy in America? How else can we reinstate the legitimate power of congress?


Every day we read about some new attack on our freedom. Every day our constitution is further trashed. This week Bush banned public demonstrations against the war. Last month he issued an executive order that makes himself dictator if another terrorist attack takes place inside the US. The month before that the Congress passed a law that makes it easier for Bush to declare martial law and militarize the country.

We’re not asleep. We know what’s going on. We know they won’t stop until someone stops them. Why would they? They love power.

Look at Iraq. The millions of protestors in the streets had absolutely no effect. The congress had no effect. World opinion had no effect. The United Nations had no effect.

So what happened?

They were stopped in Iraq by men with guns. End of story.

Will it be different at home? I hope so, but who knows?

Leftists, liberals and Libertarians are great at pointing out the details of Bush’s attack on the Bill of Rights---but to what end? For more recriminations and hand-wringing?

We don't need that. We know the problem and we know the solution---Bush must go.

I could be wrong, but I think that revolution is coming---and it’s coming sooner than you think. The American people have been hoodwinked and intimidated for a long time, but we’re reaching a tipping point where public outrage will overpower fear. And that’s what revolution is---organized rage directed at the government. That’s why they want to keep us apart, and spy on us, and follow our every movement. They want absolute power. It’s their dream. It is the dream of evil men everywhere. But it will fail---because everything they’ve tried so far has failed. And because the culture of freedom is stronger than the cynical schemes of demagogues.

We need to see we’re not alone. We need to understand that 70% of the American people feel just like us. They’re mad. Mad at the war, mad at congress, mad at Bush. And we need to stay mad---mad as hell until things change. And they’ll only change if we work together.

But first we have to get mad.

Peter Finch points the way in his prophetic movie "Network":

What Comes After The U.S. Empire?

Introductory Speech at the TRANSCEND International Meeting - 6-12 June 2007, Vienna, Austria

By Johan Galtung

07/20/07 "ICH" -- - I first want to say a few words about the current G8 meeting, and then talk about major conflicts in the world. This will cover much of the world situation, a reflection on global capitalism, and the US Empire and its imminent demise and what will happen after that.

The G8 meeting is actually an act of sabotage, and in my view a deliberate one. It sabotages and undermines the UN. In 1975, the meeting was established as a small forum for intimate meetings between 3 leaders from each participating country. However, from a purely economic agenda it has become much more, incorporating a lot of UN agenda items (security issues and global warming etc.) and thereby actually hijacking the subjects of global importance to about 8 countries only. Russia, which was invited under Yeltsin, is the black sheep in the community. Also, not inviting Chindia is a guarantee for sabotage, as is talking about Africa without having even one African representative present. The good news is that there were 100'000 demonstrators, and the bad news is that there were some violent idiots.

If the nonviolent majority could practice the technique of 20 nonviolent encircling every violent one in a nonviolent way, incapacitating their capacity for violence, it would be an enormous feat. There is, however another piece of what I would call bad news; the 100'000 without constructive, positive ideas. I've gone through the whole rigmarole of the slogans. Personally, I don't like the slogans against globalization; there is no way in the world to stop globalization because it is driven by things we all love: communication and transportation. We are not going to turn that backwards. A good slogan would be "another globalization is possible" and spelling out that better globalization as opposed to the economically exploitative process we know.

So, having said that, we have dark days in front of us. We have impending climate and economic disaster and on top of that a political military issue, the so-called Shield. There isn't hardly a person in the world who believes it is against Iran. It is a part of a policy started in 1996, counter-posing against each other, on the one hand NATO and AMPO (the US-JAPAN arrangement), and on the other hand the SCO countries, the biggest alliance in human history: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with 6 full members and 3 observers. The 6 members are China, Russia and four of the former Central Asian republics, excluding Turkmenistan. The three observers are India, Pakistan and Iran. Together, it's about 50% of humanity, confronting a relatively small country called the United States of America, with only 300'000'000, not a very impressive size these days.

I have said this, knowing that of the 10 points of the Project for the New American Century--written by people who are still in power, although there is an erosion among them--point number 7 is to change regime in China. I am of the opinion that whatever be the method, that the Chinese will rather do the change of regime themselves, and are not enthusiastic about being encircled. It is the major conflict confrontation of the world today, between NATO/AMPO and SCO, and since it is the major one, it is also the one least talked about. The Shield has to neutralize missiles from Russia and China. I think Putin understood it correctly in Munich, and sees it in the light of the cancellation of the ABM treaty, which was a cornerstone of the peaceful development during the Cold War. It was canceled unilaterally by the United States, The anti-missile capacities in the Czech Republic and Poland come on top of the US and NATO breaking the promises made to Gorbachev at the end of the Cold War: that the Soviet Union would withdraw from Eastern Europe, including Eastern Germany, and the United States would not follow suit, whereupon the United States had filled almost every base opportunity, and enrolled practically speaking all the countries in NATO. That has heightened the tension immensely. Whether it will dominate the Heiligendamm [G8 meeting] meeting, I don't know, but I would imagine that it could be quite important. The guess is that the US would do anything they can in order to bribe the citizens of the villages selected in Poland and the Czech Republic with high amounts of money in order not to demonstrate against. So, G8 spells only bad news, as introduction to the six conflicts:

1. Economic Contradiction: Global Capitalism

Let me just say a word about global capitalism. The two antidotes to the market mechanism that have been effective have been, on the one hand, a welfare state, and on the other hand, protectionism. Microcredit, you can forget about it, these are small drops in the bucket, giving relief to some small groups. The countries that practice it most, Bangladesh and Bolivia, are still at the bottom, economically speaking. The combination of selective protectionism and welfare state, that is the real stuff. The way Japan did it, the way Taiwan did it, the way South Korea did it, the way Hong Kong did it, the way Singapore did it, the way Malaysia did it, with considerable success. You find in the whole of the East Asia/South East Asia conglomerate countries that have been doing exactly this. That is important, and the neo-liberal free market syndrome is of course against that. They are doing everything they can to eliminate the two factors. That means that the global market place becomes a vertical assembly line for the transportation of capital from the bottom to the top. And this works with three mechanisms: monetization, privatization and globalization, border-free market, of which globalization is the least important. The most important is monetization, setting a monetary price on everything. It is the most important because it means that those who have no money have no chance, and they are about 1'000'000'000. Their option, that is very clear, is to join the ranks of the dying; 125'000 dying every day with 25'000 starving and 100'000 dying from preventable and curable diseases, for which cures exist, but they are monetized. User's fees in Africa are a disaster. All of this is known today! Adam Smith warned against unmitigated markets; David Ricardo warned against unmitigated labor markets in periods with high labor supply, saying that it would have lasting unemployment as a result, and extreme poverty among the labor.

From global capitalism as it is operating today, we can expect no solution to these problems. So let me then add the kind of approach that I, as one person, would advocate; taming capitalism, by introducing at the same time about 14 other types of economies. In other words, it is a little bit like the thinking about energy: we don't say an unconditional no to hydrocarbons, but we introduce 6, 7, 8 other methods. The energy profile becomes complex. Time does not permit me to get into all 14, I'll not do it, some of you have the manuscript and the book A Life-Sustaining Economy is close to completion. The point I am arguing is a pluralistic economy. There is no single formula that covers all the alternatives, and the pluralistic profile must be adjusted to the preconditions in space and time.

2. Military Contradiction: Terrorism and State Terrorism

Number two on this list is the military contradiction between terrorism and state terrorism. The USA state contradiction on terrorism has now entered military intervention number 73 since the Second World War; Number 73 being what they are doing in Lebanon right now: killing Palestinians. There are 470'000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, almost half a million, scattered in camps from the north to the south. We now know the number of the people who were driven out of the territory that became the Jewish state during the Naqba, the Catastrophe: the number of Palestinians driven out was 711'000, very far from 'a couple of thousand'. It is a very major number for a small nation. Some of them, not necessarily in that period, found their way to Lebanon. This is number 73 and the number of people killed in overt Pentagon-driven military action after the Second World War is now between 13 and 17 million. The number of people killed in covert action is at least 6 million. The number of people killed by structural violence could be 125'000 people per day, but for that the USA is not alone responsible. What the USA is responsible for is giving the military cover for that economic system. You can go through the total amount of interventions, 243, since Thomas Jefferson started, and you will find that almost without exception the interventions are triggered by some political action that sounds like or might lead to redistribution of wealth and power somewhere in the world. So, you get this endless pairing: intervening when the Sandinistas are in power but not when Somoza is in power, intervening when Chavez is in power but not when, for instance, Jimenez is in power. Both of them were darlings of the International Monetary Fund, a solid pillar of exploitation.

Iraq

Right now the major arena is Iraq, the coming arena may be Iran. One particularly gifted journalist, Andreas Zumach, has written an article saying that for the Iran war everything is prepared. It is totally wrong to assume that because the US has problems in Iraq it will not attack Iran. I will also say that it is totally wrong to assume that the US is losing in Iraq. You will only assume that if you assume that the major goal of the United States is a cohesive Iraq entity that has some semblance to parliamentary democracy. If you look at the real goals, oil and military bases, they may ever be winning. There could be an oil law, the chances that it could be passed are not that small. And it is the Paul Bremer concept they are working on that essentially presupposes that the oil resources are put on the global market, bought up by the 5 big companies, with 100% repatriation of profit.

It is sometimes pointed out that the US Empire is not colonial. That is correct. They had colonies in the past, after they in 1898 stepped into the Spanish empire and acquired some major indigenous problems. One interesting thing about colonialism, however, is that it gave colonizers some paternalistic sense of responsibility that you can forget about when it comes to what's going on under imperialism.

Let me just add one point to that. I find the idea of pulling out of Iraq one of the most cowardly, dishonorable ideas I can imagine, so let me immediately formulate an alternative. Shed the uniform, and start helping the Iraqi people you have brutalized. Compensate, apologize, you have a lot of infrastructure at your disposal, you US army could still do a decent job. And one of the worst proposals in addition to that is to say "Just go to your bases and stay there". Those bases are for the coming war with SCO, that's why they are there. Have a look at the analysis of the length of the runways and you will see the purpose behind them.

Let me come back for a second to the idea of pulling out, which in my mind is such a bad idea that we could expect it from the US. What it means is that you pull out so that you don't suffer any humiliating defeat. You make yourself unavailable for defeat. I can understand the reason, it is not difficult. The 30th April 1975, the humiliating defeat in Vietnam became a major trauma. To avoid that situation is the priority of course, pulling out better than to continue killing, but, I just think one should call a spade a spade, and no way I see cut and run as peaceful action. We shouldn't, I would say, contaminate the concept of peace with cowardice, trying to "save face" after having killed 750'000 so far. Multiply that by 10 for the bereaved--the persons who feel the loss of a friend, a spouse, a brother, a sister, a child, a parent, a colleague, a neighbor--multiply 750'000 by 10 and you have an estimate of the hatred that has been created. Add to that the 4 million who are displaced, some of them among the 7,5 million I just mentioned; and add to that the psychosis induced in the high number of US military who have been to Iraq; and add to that the about 25'000 wounded who have come back to the US and you may probably add 10% of them dying. The definition of a person of the US army personnel killed in the war is that he dies in Iraq, that means "Put them on the plane get them to Walter Ried as quickly as possible, don't let them die in Iraq". I am not saying that to get somewhere closer to realism when discussing this enormity.

Why don't the USA with some allies win? Because they are against an enemy that is unconquerable, and why is that? Because of "asymmetric warfare" is too sterile. Of course they are using "improvised explosive" devices against these sophisticated things that the US army used. But they have two more arms at their disposal: time and space.

An unlimited time perspective. There is no point called "capitulation" in their rules, that can just be forgotten, it belonged to the old days. We are dealing with a type of warfare where what used to be called the weaker party has any amount of time at its disposal. These people are trained in fighting a government empire for 400, 500 years, like the Serbs were fighting the Turks for 500 years. The Orthodox, among the three Christianities, have a time perspective very similar to the Islamic one. I don't think you will find 500 years patience in Washington, maybe not even 5 months for that matter.

And, they have space, there are 57 members of the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference. 56 of them are states, number 57 are the 160 million or so Muslims in India. Most of the borders of the 56 countries are drawn by the West; they are borders that make no sense to Islam at all. That doesn't mean there are no fault lines inside Islam. More important than Shia-Sunni is probably Arab-non-Arab. The non-Arab countries are in the majority, of the 56 only 22 are Arab. Of the 1.350.000.000 Muslims, 300.000.000 are Arab. If the Arabs feel that the religion is essentially theirs, then they are in a minority position. That is becoming something interesting, and of course the US plays on those fault lines. It seemed to work as long as they were dealing with Khomeini, he is a Shia, the "bad" Islam. But, bin Laden, a Wahab, was a Sunni, and didn't look much more attractive than Khomeini. So something went wrong somehow with that Harvard University distinction.

Harvard University, by the way, is the university that by far has contributed most economists to the neo-liberal attack on humanity. Like Jeffrey Sachs, a major person in the destruction of Bolivia and of Russia, and now proceeding to the whole world. He has changed his rhetoric, even humanized the rhetoric. But if we look at the measures, they look very much like what he did to Bolivia and Russia.

Having said that, if you have time and space on your side, then you are dealing with enormous resources. In principle, the whole Islamic world is on the other side. This constitutes the "Clash of Civilizations" that Samuel Huntington's publisher stole from Bernard Lewis, a far more important intellectual, professor at Princeton University, and a major advisor to Cheney. One of those who, more than anybody else, has whispered in Cheney's ears "Attack Iraq!". Everybody is blaming Samuel Huntington, best read the book, you'll find almost nothing about civilization. Read Bernard Lewis, and you will find quite a lot, particularly about Islam.

It is a complete mistake to talk about this as a civilizational-religious clash only. It's economic, military, political, it's the full house. The more one says the "clash of civilizations", the more is one inclined to forget the economic, political, military interests hidden underneath. It must be wonderful for Washington to have all this clash-of-civilization-talk and establish 14 military bases, and then try to put your paw on all the oil. "Keep them discussing civilization". And this of courseis why we need the concept of imperialism, because it is holistic, one reason why the concept does not have a very high standing in the USA. The war of state terrorism against terrorism is an elitist warfare against peoples warfare. The people's war is close to unbeatable, but it may take time. That holds for Iraq and it holds for Afghanistan. Anybody who knows a little bit of the history of Afghanistan and the British attacks in 1838 and 1878 and the Soviet attack in 1978, also know how it ended; with humiliating defeats. The one in 1878 ended even with the massacre in the British embassy in Kabul in 1883. I think they would have wished for good life insurances for those people.

How is it possible to enter a thing when so much knowledge would indicate otherwise, with all these negative indicators? Is it permissible to be that ignorant of history? To deny entirely a whole lot of facts that nevertheless somehow play a role? I myself think we give much too much credit to facts, but some facts are quite useful. It tells a lot to have a President who has both ignorance and denial fitted into his mental framework, but I would warn strongly against associating the calamity with Bush alone.

The US empire is resting on a deep structure and a deep culture. Let me take the deep culture first. There is both Chosenness, the vision of past and present glory, and a strong sense of trauma. There is Dualism, Manichaeism, and the sense that Armageddon will solve it. But, this is no Republican monopoly. It is found in both corporate parties, with some fringes that feel some uneasiness. And, of course, of those, the Republicans have suffered the humiliation of losing the elections. But the two parties re-cohered, voted for the "surge", voted for 100 billion more money, adding some clauses. In other words, we are faced with a Republican Democrat entity, a Repucrat, Repurat, whatever we want to call it; a single-party coalition with two wings. That was the bad news, the good news are the 50% who don't vote. Somewhere in those 50% there is a solution, not as one person. In other words, there is good news and bad news.

How does a person like Andreas Zumach, very well informed, think that the war against Iran will be? It could be based on a provocation, constructed, fake and false. Like Racak in Kosovo. A Finnish forensic specialist has now released her report which was silenced by Joschka Fischer at a critical moment, and the report on Racak is very clear: there was a gun-powder slam, but, the slam was on their hands and not on the neck. In other words, it was on those who had been shooting, not on the executed victims. Killing had been done in an ordinary manner and they then assembled the corpses and lay them out. They need a US ambassador to make that, it bears the stamp of William Walker. The total number of killed in Kosovo was not 150'000, but 8'000 over the years, 5'000 Albanians and 3'000 Serbs. I am just saying that because we have been treated to lies, and if there is the war against Iran it will be initiated by lies. To propagate those lies we have the corporate press, meaning press owned by the corporation. Information is easily arranged.

From the plans that have emerged it looks as if the 100'000 targets have been identified in Iran. These targets include not only some nuclear arrangements, but the total military infrastructure of the country, that means any kind of center of command, naval points, air bases, anything that has to do with missiles. But that would only amount to one half of the 100'000 targets, the other targets would be anything that has to do with civilian infrastructure in the sense of railroads, airports, roads of course, sewerage, bridges, canals or watering, electric power plants, anything that keeps the civilian population going. Starting at 5 am some morning, 100'000 targets, in association with Israel. As far as I understand the Iranian counterattack will be considerable. I don't know, but I could guess there could be dirty bombs inside the US, ignited by remote control. Only an idiot will use missiles. They will of course use totally different methods. So I mention it as an example of what we may be facing.

Afghanistan

In March I was invited to give a talk for three ministries in the UK, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry or Department of Defense, and the Department for International Development (DFID). It was organized by the latter. I was a little surprised when I was asked to give the keynote address, and in the chair was the former Foreign Minister. The keynote was about Afghanistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. And since I have just been mentioning Afghanistan, let me say some words about what I saw as possible solutions. The basic point I have just made: you can forget any possibility of winning. You may have a lull, and God bless you when it comes to what happens after the lull: Osama bin Laden. You can also forget calling your enemy Taliban, Talib means "student", it's a highly anti-student type of word, you can forget about that too. We are essentially dealing with the Afghan people. I remember a discussion I had myself in that meeting, with an Afghan general. He gave a talk about how many small weapons he had confiscated, 90'000, and how his forces were fighting. And I said to him "General, tell me a little bit more about that fighting", and he looked at me and said, "Of course it doesn't work. I cannot ask my Afghan troops to kill Afghans, it makes no sense for them. The Russians, no problem." He didn't say, but he was thinking "Americans, no problem", but that was not politically correct at such a conference in London. I will never forget how the twinkle in his eyes met with the twinkle in mine, twinkle meets twinkle, and we understood each other perfectly.

The 5 points that would give a solution to Afghanistan would be the following from the TRANSCEND mediation in Peshawar in February 2001.

1. Make a Coalition Government with the Taliban. 100% Taliban is intolerable. But the Taliban has a moral fiber, which most others don't have. If you eliminate them you will get heroin and corruption and not much more. They are needed.

2. Afghanistan is the material from which a Federation is made, not a unitary state, even if the Northern Alliance based on Tadjiks and Pashtuns with Kabul in the middle, count for half. There are at least ten others. To call potential Prime Ministers "warlords" is an insult. You have to be very much removed from reality to believe that by insulting them you can eliminate them or make them your friends.

3. A Central Asian Community surrounding Afghanistan with the countries that contribute to the national mosaic that is Afghanistan, the Pashtuns from Pakistan, the Tadjiks from Tadjikistan and the Dari-speaking from Iran, and so on and so forth, would make a lot of sense. That will include Kashmir, and Pakistan, and Iran. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has almost realized it. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization does not publish much, but moves in very, very clever, slow, movements. It moves so slowly that the journalists do not discover it, because it would have to move from day to day in order for a jour-nal to record it.

4. Make Basic Needs the leading line of the Government policy. That means food, education, health, clothing, whatever is needed for the somatic human being, shared by all, and available to men and women alike. That last problem can only be solved on a Quranic basis, and is being solved in a number of Islamic countries. One of the most interesting solutions was by Saddam Hussein, number 3 of the 14 good things he did. He told the Iraqi women, "From tomorrow on you decide whether to wear the hijaab or not. Only you. And if anybody tries to change your view come to me." Now, to come to Saddam Hussein was not a very appetizing invitation, so this was definitely under threat, but it worked. It created a very, very vibrant group of women in Iraqi society. That of courseis now all disappearing.

5. Security, provided by cooperation between the UN Security Council and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The UN Security Council has a veto nucleus of 4 Christian powers, and one Confucian. It has no legitimacy whatsoever in the Muslim world, that has to be understood. To believe that one can organize a UNSC-sponsored security operation in a country that hates the UN, not only because of the composition of the Security Council, but for having killed 1 million through the Iraq sanctions, is naive. And they gave a very clear expression for their hatred by killing the Secretary-General's representative in the Iraq UN building. It doesn't help much to call the people who did it "extremists". In the war we had against the German occupation in Norway, the people who did violent acts were extremists, and most people were sitting on the fence, applauding. But, don't be confused, don't call the fence-sitters moderates. They were waiting for the wind to blow a little bit more clearly and then jumped down taking a clear stand.

With those 5 points, I think one could arrive at something. It is not for us to impose any solution on anybody, and TRANSCEND in this case was essentially the Canadians. I was an adjunct. One of them was an Afghan Canadian, Seddiq Veera, of considerable diplomatic acumen. When that report was read in front of the working groups, a former Cabinet Member said "This is the best I've ever seen, the only problem is it has no chance... Why, because," he added, "the Americans will attack us in October 2001, because they want to control pipelines, and they want bases." So I asked him, "How do you know that?". And he said, "Would you mind coming to my room this evening?" The room was very dark, and had a considerable amount of electronics, and quite good assistants who were very discrete, and he presented quite a lot of very interesting pictures. "When the Americans attack in October, they will put their military bases exactly here", he took a map and put his finger exactly where a major base is today. You will of course remember that this was to be exact seven months before 9/11.

But having said that, the question comes up: "How does one move a plan like those 5 points?" Well, the reports from the conference, with the keynote address, is there, circulated to all kinds of governmental circles, not only in England. I don't know, but we need a better dissemination technique. The corporate press will do their best to deny us that access, because we are uncontrollable, unpredictable. And I think they want it to remain like that, and so do we.

3. Nations and States Contradiction: 200 States, 2000 Nations

Let me go on to number three, very briefly, 200 states, 2000 nations. In Kosova they are now practicing the principle of self-determination. They are not practicing it in Republica Srpska, they are not practicing it in Transdniestria, they are not practicing it for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. They are practicing it where they want to practice it. What TRANSCEND tries to do is to open the space between independence and unitary states. And we have a lot of research done and a lot of experience when it comes to the range of in between points. And the three best known points are of course federation, confederation and devolution. Those are in-between parts. We did not have any success so far in Sri Lanka. The parties are not convinced that they can win, but they are convinced that they can deprive the other side from winning. Not quite the same, but almost equally good. If both of them want to deprive the other side of winning it can go on for a considerable amount of time, because you won't even have the mechanism of victory or capitulation which sets some full stop, for some period. They needed of course the cease-fire agreement brokered by the Norwegian government in order to arm and re-deploy, and both parties make use of it. During that period, there was not a single serious effort to solve the conflict; certainly not by the Norwegian government, nor by the others. A very sad picture. And I'm afraid that whatever beautiful peace-building efforts one can make, it has limited impact. There has to be a solution. The good news from my own experience: the moment you do have a solution, it is incredible how much bad sentiment and behavior can evaporate quickly because the solution is there.

4. Cultural Contradiction: Islam vs Christianity

Number four, the cultural one. Imagine that you take the TRANSCEND 5 point diagram and you simply say Islam hates Christianity, wants to kick it out, and Christianity hates Islam, wants to kick it out. That formula is called intolerance. We are against that. There is the neither/nor possibility they may both conclude that there is something crazy in both religions. Let us turn to Buddhism, or let's become secular. Secularism, I think, can partly be traced back to the 30 years war in Europe (1618 – 48). I don't have the historical evidence, but I have at least the hypothesis that a high number of people came to the conclusion that if these are two Christianities that both define themselves as the only correct one, and that's the way they treat each other, there must be something basically wrong in the whole Christian message. At the time, they did not have alternative religion, so they turned to secularism.

Secularism supported itself as science, and they fell into a very deep dark hole. Science, as you know, is based on data as the ultimate arbiter between hypotheses. But, data come from the past. In opting for science you give the past practically speaking 100 percent of the power. I have been struggling almost all my life to develop epistemology that does not take that dramatic position, but maneuvering even-handedly between past and future. It means that you give the potential, the negatively non-existing, as much praise as the positively existing. The moment secularism allies itself with science, it allies itself with the past. It is very easy to understand why they do it: because they are Christians, maybe Jews, maybe Muslims, and God created the world, and if God is perfection then His work must also be perfection. To talk about an alternative future is to challenge the creation. Any alternative future from a science point of view is speculation. From that point of view Darwinism and intelligent design are very very similar. The driving forces are in the past. What could be a true global future of this relation? We should draw on the potential of future wishes, of the dreams and the wishes and the values as an equally important part of the intellectual enterprise, and here I am not with Noam Chomsky. Brilliant, he is a digger for facts, and I dig him too. But he is chemically free from any concrete, constructive and creative future. There isn't one single idea except "writing a letter to your Congressman". And he has proven again and again and again how futile that exercise is. He is called the major intellectual in the world.

So, having said that, I am very much attracted by a statement by an Iranian, and that statement by an Iranian is as follows. I will read it to you in English. It is the 14th Century Persian Sufi poet Hafiz and his ultimate words about the distinction and struggle between Christianity and Islam:

"I have learned so much from God that I can no longer call myself a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew. The truth has shed so much of itself in me that I can no longer call myself a man, a woman...".

The latter is going a little bit too far, I'm not sure I can follow him into that!

"...An angel or even a pure soul, love has befriended Hafiz so completely, has turned to passion, freed me of every concept and image my mind has ever loved... man/woman, thing."

And that is what I for reasons of time will say about number 5 on the list:

5. Sufism

It comes straight out of the Axis of Evil. Ahmadinejad wrote a letter of 18 pages to Bush, a little bit repetitive at times, but a fascinating letter. What an indictment of the Western civilization that they are not even able to answer that letter. Nobody is of course expecting any answer from George Bush, but he has a couple of people: couldn't Condi try her hand at it for instance? I mean, she is a bright woman. Why not?

A quote from Daoism:

"Sharing the suffering of others, the life and joy of others. Use the good fortune of others as your own good fortune. View the losses of others as yours."

This is "we-ness", this is swinging in harmony, two persons, or, humanity swinging in harmony, sensing each other's delight and suffering. Compare that with the profoundly egoistic lex talionis: "Do unto others as you want others to do unto you." Why is it so profoundly egoistic? Because it ends up with my ego, somebody should do something good to me, but I'm so smart that I know that the best way to get that is to be nice to that person, you get much more from him with that method. If you treat him badly you might get nothing or worse. A light-year away from the Daoism of creating we's. This is the kind of thing that I find fascinating in connection with religion: it is not neither/nor, it is not the compromise, it is not one dominating over the other. Better, try to take the both/and, pick up the gems from all of them, make them coalesce, cohere somehow! A fascinating challenge, a little bit ahead of its time, or then maybe not. Maybe a lot of people think that way, it only has to be released, perhaps, in public space.

6. The US Empire

Let me introduce number 6, with a quotation from the South African Nobel Prize winner in literature J.M. Coetzee. Absolutely brilliant. The essay he wrote and published in 1974, when he was 34 years old, was about South Africa and the Vietnam War. He wrote a statement about the USA, putting it in the working of a specialist in a U.S. think tank in California, southern part. The project he is working on is how to break the wild of the Vietcong, and substitute for Vietcong goals goals that are compatible with the sincere US love for the Vietnamese people. He writes:

"If the Vietnamese had come singing towards us through the hails of bullets, we would have knelt down and embraced them."

If they can come singing through the hails of bullets. A good way of putting it. Yes, if only it's exactly what happens. The idea that we can bomb the people into submission, and make them love us, is insane. When the Germans were "bombed into submission", it actually strengthened the Nazi party. What then happened to the Germans was something else. At a certain point they realized that their whole project was doomed, the whole Nazi project was wrong wrong wrong. They were not taught a lesson by being bombed. "If only they would come singing through the hail of bullets, we would go down on our knees and embrace them." The perception of their own project came from the inside. What Coetzee leads up to is psychosis, diagnosis maybe a combination of narcissism, megalomania and paranoia, maybe with elements of a fantastic detachment from reality. But we are not dealing with psychopaths, we are dealing with socio-paths. Maybe lovely individuals, but with an image of the world totally devoid of any humanitarian reality when those attacked refuse to do what Reagan said when he was entering a helicopter, in connection with Nicaragua. "Mr. President, what do you want them to do?" "All I want them to do is to say 'Uncle'", meaning "I submit."

It doesn't work like that with a deep culture and a deep structure at work. US political science and US economics have no concept of history, and, it seems, only two concepts of structure, hierarchy and anarchy. If you come from a Nordic country, or from the European Union, you have no problem what equity is about, even if I had to make up the word "equiarchy", to add to hierarchy, polyarchy and anarchy. Their only approach to equity was and is the signed agreement, contract, regardless of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th level consequences. Similarly, solution to them means settlement, a signed document, and I would argue it isn't good enough, solution is deeper.

So how is the US Empire performing these days? There are 15 contradictions at the end in the hypothesis made in the year 2000. Let me say what the basic theory is about. An Empire is a transborder arrangement that combines economic, military, political and cultural power. It's an enormous power display that obviously brings with it contradictions. Contradictions are problems you cannot solve unless you change the system, but you can coexist with a couple of contradictions. When the contradictions start multiplying, synchronizing and synergizing, they become serious.

For the Empire people hit by an Empire start understanding that they have a common cause: get rid of the Empire – like colonialism, like slavery.

I can now pick up some of them, such as the amount of Euros passing the Dollars in circulation last December, Toyota passing GM in January, and you have the number of patents in the world with the US proportion sinking in comparison with other countries passing the US in one domain after the other. There is all of this happening, and much much more.

Let me point to a key factor. It hasn't happened yet. But, many Europeans have felt bothered, and the moment they meet people in the Iraqi resistance movement and they compare notes, a sense of a common cause may start arising. If I now take all of these 15 points, some of them also inside the US, and Americans also sense that they are better off without the US Empire, the moment that common cause factor comes about, the US Empire is doomed. That is what happened to the Soviet Union. My prediction made in 1980 was that the wall would fall before 1990 and that the Soviet Empire would follow and they performed on time. The prediction of the US Empire is by 24 October 2020, the UN day and also my 90th anniversary, and you are all invited to celebrate. And let us combine it with a TRANSCEND meeting, but we need to make a jump, because they are now in odd years.

What comes after the U.S. Empire?

A. The European Union as Successor

And then what? Three possibilities. 1) A Successor Country or Countries, 2) A Regionalizing World, 3) Another Globalization. Let me say a couple of words on all three. And you will take note, of course, that the end of an Empire is the most natural thing in the world. Empires come and go, it's been like that all the time. No empire lasts forever. However, this one happens to be so brutal, so killing, so intervening, doing so much damage that you would expect it to be more short-lived than many of the others. It didn't have the decorum and the sense of responsibility sometimes exercised by the English and the French, to a large extent by the Spanish, to a minor extent also by the Dutch, much less by the Portuguese and the Belgians. You will of coursealso remember that the Portuguese in Brazil, with the US, were hanging onto slavery more than any other. So there is a tradition here.

But leaving that point aside, I think China is one of the least likely successor candidates. On my list, candidate number one is the European Union. You need a sense of universalism, China has nothing of that. They are still convinced that it is surrounded by barbarians. They are willing to buy quite a lot. The annual global income is 54 trillion dollars, and China's reserves are more than one trillion. The US currency reserves right now amount to 47 billion, which is nothing. That means when you want 100 billion for more fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to take more loans. That they get those loans is something still a little bit strange, but they do pay something in return, namely access to the US markets. So, having said that, a likely successor is the European Union, very universalist, with the 11 major colonial powers all members, and all concerned about their part of the world. And they are willing to say "I'll not protest if you do something in your part if you'll not protest when I do something in my part". It is European political common market. There is much more to the European Union, but this is one important aspect.

We had a conference on peace studies in Hull in England one week ago, about democracy and peace. And I launched the idea of the European Union as a successor, after 19 reasons why the hypothesis of "democratic peace" is false, even a fraud, but I leave out all of that. The point I'm making is simply that the European Union has the deep culture and the deep structure it takes to become an empire. There were protests to the effect that there was no such plan also from Members of the European Parliament. Back then, a German from the European Commission raised his hand and said: "I'll tell you one thing, I work in the European Commission, but occasionally I go over to the Council of Ministers and whenever I am in the building, so many of the people walking around are in uniform, they suddenly disappear into some room, and it is very clear that the doors are closed." There is of course also the Tindemans plan, and the Tindemans plan is exactly what they need for that successor purpose. So let me proceed to what I think is most likely, regionalization.

B. Regionalization

We have 4 regions or maybe 5, EU, AU, SAARC and ASEAN. Number 5 is the G8, it's not contiguous, but it doesn't have to be contiguous to be a region. And we have 4 regions that are coming, and they have one thing in common: they are not going to ask Washington for permission.

The first one is the Estados Unidos de America Latina y el Caribe, the United States of Latin America and the Caribbean. The common currency will be a Bolivar. Nine of the countries met in La Paz in December and drew up the basic plans for the Charter. A basic pattern of thinking is what they call a "social economy" and about that one I will just say one or two lines. When sanctions came to Cuba in 1960, or 1961 rather, the only trading possibility was with the Soviet Union, meaning sugar in return for shoddily manufactured goods. The Soviet Union collapsed, so did the trade, and Washington was already looking forward to the collapse of Cuba. What did they do then? First of all they switched to organic agriculture to be self-sufficient. In industrial products, they have enormous shortages, but they have some trade possibilities. And then you would immediately say that it was obvious, but not everybody thought about it. "We have human material, let us process that human material to as high a level as possible." That started university education to an extent unknown in most other countries, with a science and training center outside Havana for the training of doctors, dentists, engineers, social workers, educators, teachers of all trades. Thousands and thousands of them, ready to go to Latin America. But they didn't have the money till Chavez. He had the money, and a messianic complex. He is the Messiah with a budget. Imagine Jesus Christ with an oil budget? You see the triangular theme? Chavez pays Cuba for providing the manpower for lifting the bottom level of those 9 countries, starting with the slums, and they pay Chavez a certain allegiance to the Estados Unidos, which is evolving everyday today. Venezuela then, a couple of weeks ago left the World Bank and the IMF. You cannot leave it unless you have paid all your debts and Venezuela paid them some time ago. The other countries cannot leave because they haven't paid their debts, so Venezuela is going to pay their debts for them. The Messiah with a budget. The difficulty of it is, that Messianism might go to his head and make his populist democracy, as opposed to the usual Latin American elitist democracy, similar to people's democracy in Eastern Europe, as opposed to any democracy. As it is obvious I like his policies, I would hate to see that happen.

The second one is an Islamic community from Morocco to Mindanao. 1'300'000'000 Muslims crossing almost 1'300'000'000 Hindus, from Nepal to Sri Lanka, like two highways, but at the same level. A major potential for a major conflict, making small riots in India look microscopic. I use that as an exercise for diplomats and say, "Please come up with 5 solutions for this one".

Third, an East Asia Community, without Japan and with India, possibly combined with SCO.

And fourth, possibly, Putin could pull it off, but he may not be the man for it, is a Russian Union with a Chechnya having as much autonomy as the Netherlands in the European Union. Today widely off the mark. Tomorrow? Maybe. It would be widely in Russia's interest. The problem is that Putin came to power by being anti-Chechen. So, let us see. Maybe somebody can come to power by being pro-Chechen.

In a regional world we do not have any guarantee for peace. As a matter of fact, the country that will benefit most from the decline and fall of the US Empire will be the US Republic. They may start sleeping well at night, and they might use their enormous natural and human resources for innovative projects and their capacity for cooperation, all of that, for better purposes, and make a decent country out of the USA.

C. Another Globalization

That means of course a stronger UN with globalization through the United Nations. I was advisor to the Commission for Global Governance. They had a lot of good ideas whose time had not come, so let me just say the three that for me are most important.

Abolish the veto power. They may meet, in the G8, but put their agenda on the UN agenda, and if they don't like what they come up with, outvote them by expanding the Security Council to 54 members like the Economic and Social Council, and see to it that all parts of the world are there. That's point one.

Point two, democratize the United Nations. They can mobilize an enormous amount of initiatives through a democratic United Nations. Maybe with one representative for each 1 million inhabitants, some say for each 10 million.

And, point three, take the United Nations out of the United States and put it somewhere else. Put it in a more friendly environment. This can all be done within a span from 5 to 20 years. If democracy is such a good idea, then why not practice it?

My own book on The Decline and Fall of the US Empire--And Then What? is scheduled for next Spring. The book on alternative economics is also for next year, and so is the book on deep culture. Books, books, books, what matters more is peace, peace.

So let me end by simply saying that I was asked to say something on the state of the world. I've done that. And, if anybody can come up with ideas on how to speed up constructive, creative, concrete development, please don't hesitate!

Thank you.
Johan Galtung, Dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies; Founder, TRANSCEND, a peace and development network ( www.transcend.org )

15 contradictions of the US

ECONOMIC

1. Between growth and distribution: overproduction, 1.4 billion below 1 dollar a day, 100'000 die a day from preventable and curable diseases and 25'000 from hunger;

2. Between productive and finance economy: currency, stocks, bonds, overvalued, crashes, unemployment, contract jobs, not positions;

3. Between production/distribution/consumption and nature: ecocrisis, depletion/pollution, global warming;

MILITARY

4. Between US state terrorism and terrorism: blowback;

5. Between US and allies: except UK-Germany-Japan, allies will say "enough";

6. Between US Eurasia hegemony and Rus-Chindia triangle with 40% of humanity;

7. Between US-led NATO and the EU army: a Tindemans follow-up;

POLITICAL

8. Between USA and the UN: the UN ultimately hitting back;

9. Between USA and the EU: vying for Orthodox/Muslims support;

CULTURAL

10. Between US Judeo-Christianity and Islam: the UNSC nucleus has four Christian, and none of 56 Muslim countries;

11. Between US and the oldest civilizations: Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Aztec, Inca, Maya;

12. Between US and EU elite cultures: France, Germany etc.

SOCIAL

13. Between state-corporate elites and working classes of unemployed and contract workers; the middle classes?

14. Between older generation and youth: Seattle, Washington, Praha, Genova and ever younger youth. The middle generation?

15. Between myth and realities: the US dream and US reality.

Catching DEBKAfile in the Lying Act

Do you see any difference between these two photos?


Google Search Produced This Photo in 5 Seconds
The photo was uploaded to WIKIPEDIA on 03-29-2006 and was taken in Iraq with no reference whatsoever to Iran.



This is the caption of this same photo produced by DEBKAfile:

"Iran-made armor-piercing Explosively-Formed Penetrator-EFP"

DEBKAfile posted the photo in their story NATO encounters Iran-made armor-piercing EFP road bombs in Afghanistan like those Tehran sends to Iraq and Hizballah in Lebanon.

This is typical of the lies and disinformation DEBKAfile is known for.

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 20, 2007

Email this article to a friend Print this article

The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war. A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq. The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq: "I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people." In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act. The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to "block the property" and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of "Certain Persons" involved in antiwar activities. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America, including civil society organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians. The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants. The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces. Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated. The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement. Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there has been no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution.. Broader implications The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals" when in fact they they are the criminals. This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a "national emergency". The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. The executive order combined with the existing anti-terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a reporting the truth regarding the US-led war, etc. In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack). On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its "National Intelligence Estimate" which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which, according to the terms of NSPD 51, would immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government and the instatement of martial law under the authority of the president and the vice-president. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? June 2007) NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval. The implementation of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement. "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government...." Were NSPD 51 to be invoked, Vice President Dick Cheney, who constitutes the real power behind the Executive, would essentially assume de facto dictatorial powers, circumventing both the US Congress and the Judiciary, while continuing to use President George W. Bush as a proxy figurehead. NSPD 51, while bypassing the Constitution, nonetheless, envisages very precise procedures which guarantee the powers of Vice President Dick Cheney in relation to "Continuity of Goverment" functions under Martial Law: "This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions." (NSPD 51, op cit.) The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a "Catastrophic emergency" as envisaged under NSPD 51. It repeals democracy. It goes one step further in "criminalizing" all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and "Homeland Security" agenda. ANNEX TEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER July 17, 2007 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order: Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. Sec. 3. For purposes of this order: (a) the term "person" means an individual or entity; (b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and (c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States. Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order. Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order. Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken. Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order. Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, July 17, 2007. Below is the text of the Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act [There has been no response by the US congress or commentary by individual Senators or Representatives.] Office of the Press Secretary July 17, 2007 Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act White House News Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. I issued this order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. My new order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315 by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person designated pursuant to this order, or to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of my order. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued. GEORGE W. BUSH The White House, July 17, 2007.

Resume

Resimay
Deer Sir,

I waunt to apply for the secritary job what I saw in the paper. I can Type real quik and do sum a counting.

I think I am good on the fone and I no I am a peeple person, Peeple really seam to like me.

I no my spellin is not to good. We can discus wat you want to pay me and wat you think that I am werth.

I can start rite away. Thank you in advanse fore yore anser.

hopifuly Yore best aplicant so ferr.


Sinseerly,

Peggy May Starlings


PS : Because my resimay is kinda short - below is a pickture of me.
.
.
.

Employer's response:......

Dear Peggy May,

It's OK honey, we've got spell check.

Expats blast cash offer for Iran Jews to immigrate to Israel

An Iranian Jewish boy at a synagogue in Tehran.






"An Iranian Jewish organization announced over the weekend that it rejected an initiative to promote Iran's Jewish community to immigrate to Israel using cash incentives. "[The money is]inappropriate and politically immature," the group said in a statement that was carried by Western and Iranian news outlets.

It added Iran's Jewish community has remained loyal to the Islamic Republic and that their "Jewish Iranian identity is not a commodity that passes from the hands of one merchant to another in return for money."

The statment addressed an offer by expatriate Iranian Jews offering a sum of $10,000 to each individual to immigrate to Israel.

The $10,000 offer doubled the existing $5,000 allocated each Jewish Iranian upon arrival to Israel by the Ministry of Absorption and the Jewish Agency.

Iran's Jewish community has decreased from 80,000 before the Islamic revolution, to about 20,000 today.

It is represented in parliament by a Jewish lawmaker and is the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside of Israel."

Earth to Bush: "The Chaos in Iraq You Now Decry was Caused By You!"

Walter C. Uhler

Posted 13 July 2007

Having watched our pathetic president's July 12th news conference concerning the "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report," I felt the urge to applaud Helen Thomas for verbally assaulting George W. Bush for the war criminal and mass murderer that he is. God bless her for asking: "Mr. President, you started this war, this war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point…Don't you accept - don't you understand, we brought the Al Qaida into Iraq?"

Bush, of course, lied to Ms. Thomas when he claimed Saddam Hussein "chose the course" compelling Bush's invasion by ignoring the warning from the UN Security Council: "Disclose, disarm or face serious consequences."

But, "disclose, disarm" what? As virtually every individual on planet earth now knows, Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction to disarm or disclose. More significantly, had it actually been left to the UN Security Council to enforce its resolution - which is to say, had the Bush administration not violated a legally binding international treaty, the UN Charter -Saddam Hussein probably would be alive today and still ruling Iraq, like it or not.

Bush might "firmly believe that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power," but that's hardly a justification for committing the worst of all war crimes, unprovoked naked aggression. Moreover, were the world's population forced to choose between Hussein and Bush, it's likely that many more millions throughout the world would agree that the world would be better off without George W. Bush in power.

(Imagine our horror, were we to ever find that the world possessed sufficient military power to successfully force its will upon us! Who, then, would be appealing to international law and the protections due to sovereign states?)

But Bush's lie to Helen Thomas was not the only lie he told during his press conference. Look at the lie he embedded in his discussions about pre-invasion troop strength with General Tommy Franks: "During our discussions in the run-up to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein after he ignored the Security Council resolutions, my primary question to General Franks was: Do you have what it takes to succeed?"

In fact, Saddam Hussein complied with the Security Council Resolution 1441, which afforded Iraq "'a final opportunity to comply' with its disarmament obligations, and accordingly it set up an enhanced inspection regime." [Christine Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, p. 271] As international law scholar Christine Gray has concluded: "The determination of a material breach after Resolution 1441 was unilateral in the sense that it was made by the USA, the UK and Australia rather than by the Security Council." [Ibid, p. 277]

And, thus, it was the war mongering Bush regime that cut the inspections short, lest UN weapons inspectors demonstrate that Iraq possessed no WMD - or lest the weather in Iraq would become too hot for invading troops.

Bush's third lie at the press conference was his biggest - and he stumbled while defending it. When Bush asserted, "the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th," one reporter called him to task. "What evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombing taking place in Iraq…And also, are you saying sir, that Al Qaida in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden himself?"

After asserting "Al Qaida in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden," Bush was forced to retreat. "And the guys who had perpetuated (sic!) the attacks on America - obviously the guys on the airplane are dead. And the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity - like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Unfortunately, Bush did not retreat to the entire truth.

Had he been entirely honest, Bush would have asserted that U.S. intelligence still has no evidence of operational ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida prior to 9/11, that his administration - especially Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney -- despicably seized upon already discredited shards of evidence to make such a connection and that he and Cheney continue trying to establish a link in order to persuade the American public that the invasion of Iraq was necessary in order to combat international terrorism.

Had he been entirely honest, Bush would have mentioned the intelligence reports, which concluded: (1) the U.S. invasion of Iraq inspired numerous otherwise middle class Muslims to become jihadists and (2) the U.S. invasion of Iraq is creating more al Qaida terrorists than the U.S. is killing in Iraq.

Had he been entirely honest, Bush would have noted that only 15 percent of the average daily attacks in Iraq are launched by al Qaida. Some 70 percent come from Sunni insurgents who are determined to rid their country of a foreign invader and occupier. Shiites militias launch the remaining 15 percent.

Thus, had Bush been entirely honest, he would not have claimed "the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th."

Nevertheless, after devoting much of his news conference to either exaggerating the progress described in the "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" or resurrecting old lies to defend his indefensible illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, Bush brandished the astonishing chutzpa to complain about both the chaos in Iraq created by al Qaida and the "tragic escalation of sectarian violence, sparked by [al Qaida's] bombing of the golden mosque in Samarra."

Chutzpa? Yes! Experts had predicted such chaos and sectarian violence long before Bush ordered the invasion. Thus, Mr. President, precisely because "you started this war," which "brought the Al Qaida into Iraq," you alone are ultimately responsible for all the chaos, death, destruction, dislocation and sectarian violence committed in its wake. It's a verdict fairly screamed from virtually all points on planet earth and one you'll never escape.

Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).

waltuhler@aol.com

Pentagon: US Troops Shot 429 Iraqi Civilians at Checkpoints

By Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

Wednesday 11 July 2007

Washington - U.S. soldiers have killed or wounded 429 Iraqi civilians at checkpoints or near patrols and convoys during the past year, according to military statistics compiled in Iraq and obtained by McClatchy Newspapers.

The statistics are the first official accounting of civilian shootings since the war began, and while they seem small compared with the thousands who've died in Iraq's violence, they show the difficulty that the U.S. has in fulfilling its vow to protect civilians.

The numbers cover what the military calls escalation-of-force incidents, in which American troops fire at civilians who've come too close or have approached checkpoints too quickly. In the months since U.S. commanders have dispatched more troops to the field ostensibly to secure Iraqi communities the number of Iraqis killed and injured in such incidents has spiked, the statistics show.

Pentagon officials have declined repeatedly to reveal the numbers of civilian deaths and injuries caused by American troops. The escalation-of-force statistics, however, were part of a recent briefing given to Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq. A person familiar with the briefing provided the statistics to McClatchy.

They cover 3,200 incidents since July 2006 in which U.S. troops fired warning shots at Iraqi civilians. Such incidents led to injury or death 36 times a month on average more than once a day.

No similar numbers were available for previous periods. U.S. officials say the number of such incidents is declining.

Still, the pattern of increased civilian injuries and deaths during periods of heightened American military activities was obvious in the 12 months of escalation-of-force statistics made available to McClatchy.

Last August, for example, 26 Iraqi civilians were killed or injured in such incidents. The number rose to 41 the following month, as the U.S. began moving troops into some of Baghdad's most troubled neighborhoods as part of Operation Forward Together, last year's Baghdad security plan.

In February, the first month of the current troop buildup, 46 Iraqi civilians were killed or injured, the highest monthly toll for the past year. Last July, the U.S. killed or injured 22 civilians, the lowest month of the year.

The statistics don't include instances of American soldiers killing civilians during raids, arrests or in the midst of battle with armed groups, and it remains unclear how the U.S. military tracks such information. Often rotating units use their own systems, and there have been several incidents of soldiers not reporting the deaths of civilians, most notably the November 2005 shooting of 24 civilians in the northern Iraqi town of Haditha.

Civilian casualties have been controversial in Iraq since the beginning of the war, when several bloody checkpoint incidents drew attention to the dangers to Iraqi civilians from military roadblocks. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki complained last year about damages inflicted by American actions, and some U.S. officials have said they think that such deaths helped fuel support for the insurgency.

In a June 2006 interview with McClatchy, Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who was then the No. 2 commander in Iraq, said: "We have people who were on the fence or supported us who in the last two years or three years have in fact decided to strike out against us. And you have to ask: Why is that? And I would argue in many instances we are our own worst enemy."

Chiarelli, who became the senior military aide to Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier this year, ordered investigations last year into all escalation-of-force incidents that led to serious injuries, death or property damage higher than $10,000. Before that, investigations had varied within military units rotating into Iraq. It's unclear whether those investigations continue.

Sarah Holewinski, the executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, a Washington group that advocates for civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the military needed to investigate each incident, not simply keep a tally.

"They say they are reducing the number of causalities. But they have not backed up their claim," Holewinski said. "What steps did the military take before the escalation-of-force incident? What are they doing to reduce the number? What happens afterward to the family?"

U.S. soldiers traditionally have used hand signals or signs to tell civilians to stop. If that doesn't work, they fire warning shots. If the vehicles still are moving too close, they're authorized to kill.

Iraqi civilians have complained that makeshift checkpoints, coupled with unpredictable patrols and convoys, make it difficult to know when troops are in their communities and how they should interact with them. And they say their immediate reaction to any gunshot warning shot or not is to flee, not stop.

A Government Accountability Office report in May found that the military has disbursed nearly $31 million in condolence payments to families in Iraq and Afghanistan for deaths, injuries or property damage. The maximum payment is $2,500 per person or injury, indicating that the payouts covered at least 12,400 incidents.

Interim Assessment of the Highly Successful Destruction of Iraq Due

July 12, 2007

Once again, they take us for complete idiots. "A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, speeding up the Bush administration’s reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday," reports NBC News, the corporate media propaganda outlet owned and operated by General Electric, makers of cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, B-52 bombers, AWACS, and the NAVSTAR spy satellite system, the sort of stuff used up in record numbers inside Iraq and Afghanistan, thus ensuring mega-profits for the merchants of death and destruction.

In fact, the "U.S.-backed government in Baghdad," that is to say the U.S. puppet government in Baghdad, is doing precisely what it was cobbled together to do under the dog and pony show of purple finger democracy—absolutely nothing short of avoid car bombs and assassination attempts.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure any of this out. After Bush Senior attacked Iraq in 1991, methodically destroying the country’s power, communications, water, sewage treatment and health facilities, more than a decade of sanctions were imposed to make sure these critical services were not rebuilt and restored, thus resulting in the premeditated murder of around a million Iraqis, half of them helpless children. Bush the Lesser, of rather his coterie of neocons, have done the same this time around, albeit without sanctions but through occupation instead, an occupation promised to last for decades to come, as admitted by General David Petraeus, commander of Multi-National Force in Iraq (or rather the diminished coalition of the bribed). "Northern Ireland, I think, taught you that very well. My counterparts in your [British] forces really understand this kind of operation… It took a long time, decades," Petraeus told the BBC.

Apparently, when he attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Petraeus’ instructors did not bother to teach history, as history is replete with examples of such "operations" terminating in dismal failure due to the fact the occupied—or "liberated," if you’re a neocon—resent the persistent presence of foreign troops, especially trigger-happy yahoo and gang banger foreign troops brought up on Duke Nukem video games. Resistance is a natural. Call it Red Dawn, Iraqi style.

"The interim assessment, which will be presented on Capitol Hill on Thursday, finds the Iraqi government has failed to pass long-promised laws that Washington has called key to national cohesion and economic recovery, such as legislation that would fairly divide Iraq’s oil resources," adds Forbes. "The report also will point toward signs of hope throughout Iraq, such as a drop in sectarian killings in Baghdad and opposition to al-Qaida by tribal sheiks in Anbar province."

"The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq’s oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil," reported Greg Palast back in March, 2005. "The industry-favored plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq’s oil fields…. The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Mr. Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department."

No doubt the "interim report" on "progress" in Iraq, due to arrive tomorrow, will not make mention of this "policy battle" between thieves. Instead, we will be told once again that the damn Iraqis are screw-ups, never mind the neocons decimated their country and "al-Qaida… tribal sheiks," at least some of them doubling as SAS operatives in wigs and Arab garb, are busy blowing up mosques and markets, per plan, and the fact they are unloved and certainly unwanted bothers them not. It will, of course, sketch out in bold lines the plan to "fairly divide Iraq’s oil resources," undoubtedly with the assistance of a few transnational oil corporations.

As James Paul writes for the Global Policy Forum, back in 2003 "Coalition governments were extremely interested in oil and that intense negotiations were going on, even while the initial fighting was still under way, to parcel out Iraq’s major oil fields. The main decisions were being taken in Washington. Key players—in the UK, Australia, France and elsewhere—saw Washington as the ultimate arbiter of Iraq’s oil resources," decisions revealed in an official diplomatic cable. "Since the time of the meeting, as Coalition forces have faced a powerful insurgency, the participants’ expectations of quick deals have proved illusory. Still, the document is extraordinarily valuable as a clue to what is happening at present. It provides indispensable and very precious evidence about how governments and companies have been thinking about the division of Iraqi oil in the post-war period. We see that oil companies and high political figures have been involved in intense secret negotiations, that participation in the Coalition was seen to be a key claim on future oil contracts, and that the United States government—not Iraqis—was seen to be the ultimate arbiter of Iraq’s oil resources," Paul explains.

As we know, or should if we read history, the 1916 Sykes-Picot Accord was as much about stealing oil as creating a Zionist state in the Middle East, the latter a pet project of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, known fondly in Israel as HaNadiv HaYdu’a, the "Famous Benefactor," for spending over $50 million on settlements, a foothold that would eventually usher in the state of Israel.

It can be stated with a fair degree of accuracy the invasion of Iraq was not simply about Israel’s "security," or rather maintaining its hegemonic designs on the neighborhood, a pet project of the rabid Jabotinsky dual loyalists surrounding Bush—a fact admitted by Bush insider, Philip Zelikow—but is also about oil, or rather the effort to keep an appreciable amount of oil out of circulation and thus drive up prices. As James Paul notes, attacking Iraq—and possibly Iran soon enough—was also intended to break up OPEC, an organization hated by neocons, considering it has made a few Arabs wealthy.

Arabs, according to the neocon way of looking at things, should be relegated to hewers of wood and drawers of water, as stated by Moshe Dayan and other Zionists, or at best provide color to tourist designations.

As for the transnational oil corporations, they really don’t care who rules the roost—Israelis, Arab sheiks, or anybody who may be bought off at reasonable cost—so long as they dictate the supply and price and dominate the market, as transnational corporations, essentially fascist organizations, are wont.

Shopping aux USA

SHOPPERS in a US convenience store stepped over a woman dying from stab wounds with one stopping only to take a picture on a mobile phone.

The incident captured on surveillance video in a Kansas convenience store on June 23 of this year shows 27-year-old LaShanda Calloway lying bleeding after being stabbed in a robbery that she was innocently caught up in, AP reports.

It took about two minutes for someone to call police to report the crime while five shoppers stepped over the prone woman, police said.

After finally being attended to Ms Calloway died at a hospital from her injuries.

Police at this stage have refused to release the video, saying it is part of their investigation.

"It was tragic to watch," police spokesman Gordon Bassham said.

"The fact that people were more interested in taking a picture with a cell phone and shopping for snacks rather than helping this innocent young woman is, frankly, revolting."

"The lack of concern for humanity over this young woman's life is deeply troubling," Mr Bassham said.

Mr Bassham said the district attorney's office would have to decide whether any of the shoppers could be charged but ti was uncertain what law, if any, would be applicable..

A state statute for failure to render aid specifically refers only to victims of a car accident.

Two suspects have been arrested in the stabbing. Cherish M McCullough, 19, has been charged with first-degree murder.

Another suspect, who turned himself in a few days later, had not yet been charged today, according to the Sedgwick County prosecutor's office.

Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams told US paper, The Wichita Eagle, which highlighted the incident after it had gained little media coverage that the callousness on display from the shoppers was "appalling"

"I could continue shopping and not render aid and then take time out to take a picture? That's crazy. What happened to our respect for life?"

The Day the Rule of Law Died

July 2, 2007


Let’s get something straight right away. Valerie Plame is the victim. A woman who dedicated her entire life to protecting this country from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction deserved better than this. A woman who served a NOC (non-official cover), meaning she would be killed and our government would have disowned her if she was caught, deserved better than this. Scooter Libby is a traitor to this country. He essentially committed treason against this country by deliberately lying to a special prosecutor investigating the outing of a covert CIA operative. Scooter Libby is not the victim. It is disgusting for President Bush to continue to portray him as one; today commuting his jail sentence; defecating on the rule of law as we know it.

You remember the rule of law, don’t you? It was that critical concept that so many republicans bemoaned during the partisan impeachment debacle of Bill Clinton. Suddenly, less than a decade later, it apparently means nothing at all. When this leak occurred, we were assured by President Bush that he would take care of anyone involved with the leak of Plame and that they would no longer work in his administration. Now we know what he meant. Karl Rove, exposed as being involved, is still working for Bush and the man convicted by a jury of his peers receives a get out of jail free card. That is how George Bush takes care of felonious activity in his administration; he rewards it.


The best argument the hypocritical Libby supporters can muster is that there was “no underlying crime.” This is a hollow argument of course because the prosecutor was unable to pursue anyone as a proper suspect because of the lies of Lewis Libby. That is why it is illegal to lie to a prosecutor under oath. That is why it is illegal to obstruct justice, because by doing so, justice itself is prevented. Someone or multiple persons deliberatively leaked the identity of Valerie Plame and because Libby lied, those people are never held accountable. Thus the prosecutor correctly went after the liar; the traitor. Convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced by a republican judge, Libby deserved the sentence he received. He tried twice to defer his jail time while his appeal went forward but two more republican judges said no. George Bush apparently does not care about any of that though, as long as his boy gets off.


Don’t fall for this specious argument that Lewis Libby has “suffered enough.” Bush tried to split hairs today by not granting a full pardon but rather commuting the jail time portion of the sentence. He did this for two reasons. One, it allows his base to pretend that Libby was somehow still screwed by not receiving a full pardon, and more importantly, it allows Bush to pretend that Libby still is somehow paying for his actions. Nonsense. The remaining portions of the sentence for Libby are that he cannot continue in public service, which was probably not going to happen once Dick Cheney rode off into the sunset on his Halliburton paid horse in less than two years. Secondly, he will probably be disbarred, which he deserves. What affect that has on Libby would probably be minimal. Lastly, he faces two years of probation and a $250,000 fine, which he will not have to pay himself. Wow. Tough break for Scooter.


Bush though went further today in justifying his spitting in the face of justice. As a justification for the commutation, he had the audacity to say that Libby and his family and children have suffered immensely. Excuse me? What about Valerie Plame and her family? What about her 25 plus years of service ruined by your administration Mr. Bush? How vile is it to portray the traitor as the victim, while the real victim, Valerie Plame has still not received an apology from this administration?


Make no mistake America at whom the President spits; he spits at you. He pretends to agree with the conviction in the same statement where he tramples all over it. This president is known as being a miser with pardons and commutations but suddenly he feels this particular one is too harsh? No my friends, this was a reward to a loyal foot soldier in taking one for the team. Valerie Plame’s husband had written an op-ed piece telling the truth about a lie told by Bush in the state of the union address about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain nuclear materials from the Niger. Keep that in mind America because it was these lies that were behind the Iraq War. Suddenly, it was revealed to the press that Plame, who was a covert CIA agent, had sent her husband to the Niger and not the Office of the Vice President; in an attempt to discredit her husband. This of course was also a lie. The primary person behind all of these machinations was Dick Cheney, at the behest of George Bush himself. Someone that powerful though never takes the fall. Instead he sent out his Chief of Staff to take the fall. After years of investigations and trials, Cheney’s boss rewards Libby for taking the bullet.


Perhaps it is even more sinister than that. Because it is fairly apparent that Libby was actually protecting Cheney and Bush and their role in the illegal outing of Valerie Plame, today’s commutation appears far more ominous. President Bush has now commuted the sentence of a man convicted of obstructing justice in a case that leads back to the same man that commuted the sentence. This essentially covers up his own illegal activities and now provides no incentive for Libby to ever tell the truth! Either way, today’s activities rewards the betrayal of this country. George Bush has now decided that he will put his own personal politics before the rule of law, the judicial branch of government, and treason against the United States of America.


Remember this well America. Next year you will vote for a president and it is important that you know where that man or woman stands on this dark day in American history. People like Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, as well as nearly every GOP candidate are in support of this subversion of justice. This is indeed a dark day for America. A day when traitors are rewarded and treason is celebrated. A day when the betrayal of a nation is supported by people who like to pretend they believe in law and order. Scooter Libby lied under oath and obstructed justice and today he was rewarded for it. The rule of law is now dead. Smothered by a president who is corrupt to his core; representing a party that has lost any credibility it once had. Remember this well.



Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 39-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess. Anthony Wade?s Archive: http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm Email Anthony: takebacktheus@gmail.com

Petit Jesus

Work in Progress: Formulating the Antidote to Sectarian Division and "Creative Destruction"

By Tony Sayegh

It is well-known by now that nothing unfolding in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and now Palestine is happening by chance or as a result of decisions made on the fly. We know that the document "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" , which was prepared in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu, outlined some of the policies now being implemented by Usrael in Iraq and soon in Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, if given a chance.

Also the document by Oded Yinon "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties", published in 1982, was very explicit in formulating an essential element of the strategy being followed now:

"....The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel's satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation."

As an essential element of the resistance to such a scheme to fragment and to dominate the Arab and Muslim worlds, counter-strategies are needed. It is very disheartening to see the success of this Israeli strategy in Iraq where sectarian fires have been successfully lit. Whereas in 1920 all Iraqis, Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Kurd fought the British invaders, today they are more interested in fighting each other. This did not happen by itself; the sectarian fires were started and are kept going by the Usraeli occupation.

The Arab and Muslim Middle East has so many ethnic and religious groupings which have managed to co-exist and thrive together for centuries, before this plague of Zionism and neo-colonial Usraeli presence was visited upon it. As a part of counter strategies, we need to develop our own strategies that stress the elements of cohesiveness, the shared history, culture and future of all living in the region and who suffer and will be suffering as a result of Zio-American policies of forced disintegration.

This is a rich area for research and development, especially for sociologists, anthropologists, historians, religious scholars and various social scientists. I happen not to be in any one of these groups, but I realize the need for a comprehensive strategy that rises to the level of this challenge.

Therefore, I would like to elicit ideas from all of the visitors to this blog. Please contribute and share your thoughts in the comment section. I would like to incorporate these ideas in this work in progress. With your help and contribution this could become a worthwhile effort. I thank you in advance.