|
Mind Foods
Reparations
and 3/5 Compromise Research
Archives
Dr. MLK, Jr
|
Unbossed and unbought news and information you can use Vol. 15 No. 4…Dedicated to the Dialogue on Race…Jan. 27, 2012
Iran and the Terrorism Game By Glenn Greenwald
In the few venues which denounced as "Terrorism" the
ongoing assassinations of Iranian scientists, there was intense
The prime argument against calling these scientists killings "Terrorism" is that targeted killings, as opposed to indiscriminate ones, cannot qualify. After Andrew Sullivan wrote a post entitled "The Terrorism We Support" and rhetorically asked: "is not the group or nation responsible for the murder of civilians in another country terrorists?", and then separately criticized the New York Times for failing to describe these killings as Terrorism, numerous readers objected to the use of this term on the ground that a targeted killing cannot be Terrorism. Similarly, after I noted yesterday that Kevin Drum had denounced as "Terrorism" a right-wing blogger's 2007 suggestion that Iran's scientists be murdered and asked if he still applies that term to whoever is actually doing it now, he wrote a post (either coincidentally on his own or in response) strongly implying that this is Terrorism; thereafter, commenter after commenter at Mother Jones vehemently disagreed, on the same ground, with Drum's suggestion that this is Terrorism (many agreed the term did apply). Meanwhile, Jason Pontin, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Technology Review, actually claimed that my use of the term Terrorism to describe these scientist killings is "what turns sober, hardnosed people from the Left" (he's apparently been elected the spokesman for "sober hardnosed people" turning away from the Left), and then proceeded to insist over and over that these are merely targeted killings, not Terrorism. Part of the problem here is the pretense that Terrorism has some sort of fixed, definitive meaning. It does not. As Professor Remi Brulin has so exhaustively documented, the meaning of the term has constantly morphed depending upon the momentary interests of those nations (usually the US and Israel) most aggressively wielding it. It's a term of political propaganda, impoverished of any objective meaning, and thus susceptible to limitless manipulation. Even the formal definition incorporated into US law is incredibly vague; one could debate forever without resolution whether targeted killings of scientists fall within its scope, and that's by design. The less fixed the term is, the more flexibility there is in deciding what acts of violence are and are not included in its scope. (Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/12-2)
The Real Reason the US Is Targeting Iran (Excerpts) By Junious Ricardo Stanton
I've been admonishing folks for years not to go for the okey-doke and spin coming out of the mouths of the politicians, pundits and media about why the US is always going to war. Usually the reasons given by politicians and regurgitated by media are some noble sounding words about humanitarian intervention like the reasons Clinton gave about the US going into Somalia or Obama said about attacking Libya. The most popular pretext is a purported attack on US interests or property like they said about Mexico's attack on some US soldiers which started the Mexican American War, the "attack" on the USS Maine which was used to launch the Spanish American War, the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam or 9-11 which is the pretext for the ongoing War on Terror. None of those incidents happened the way the government said they did. The last excuse they use is: they need to do a preemptive attack on some weaker nation to prevent some future attack or catastrophe like they said about Saddam Hussein's WMD, which we now know he didn't have. All three reasons are lies and horse dung. The real reasons for modern wars as I recently wrote are: the coveting and expropriation of other people's resources such as gold, oil, water, uranium, coltan etc, currency domination (keeping the US dollar as the world's reserve currency for example), controlling trade and markets and lastly making the bankers rich which encompasses all of the above. Most US politicians like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum who have never tasted battle and had no intention of serving in the military are beating the drums for intervention in Syria and Iran. While various elite cliques and their stooges in government want to take out both Syria and Iran, the real prize is Iran. Why? Because Iran has massive reserves of oil and natural gas but it also is not part of the Rothschild global banking hydra. Iran like Iraq before it also has the audacity to try to sell its oil in its own bourse (global exchange) using various currencies other than the US dollar. That's the real reason Iran is in the US cross hairs. From the standpoint of US elites this is the ultimate no-no! Iran opened its bourse in 2011 and its daily operation poses a direct threat to US dollar global hegemony. "Iran holds the fourth largest oil reserves in the world and the second largest gas reserves. The two main oil trading bourses in the world are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in London. Oil is of course priced in dollars. However, Iran has established an oil exchange, known as the International Oil Bourse (IOB). It is located on Kish Island, just off the coast of Iran, and is designated as a free trade zone by the Iranian government. It was created by cooperation with Iranian ministries, the Iran Mercantile Exchange and other state and private institutions in 2005. The IOB is intended as an oil exchange for petroleum, petrochemicals and gas in various currencies other than the US dollar, primarily the euro and Iranian rial and a basket of other major (non-U.S.) currencies" The US fears other OPEC nations will shun the dollar and begin trading their oil and other commodities in currencies other than the US dollar. This would mean the end of the US as a global economic player, except for its military. At a time when the US dollar is as vulnerable as it has ever been, Iran is piling on the pressure with their oil exchange. The thing that will kill the US dollar as the world's reserve currency faster than the debt ceiling or a US debt default is if oil producers and consumers trade oil in other currencies. To challenge US dollar and Western banking hegemony means war. (Read entire article at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChatAfriK/message/35146)
Charlottesville Resolution Opposing War on Iran (Excerpts) By David Swanson
The City Council of
Charlottesville, Virginia, home of Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe,
RESOLUTION Calling on Congress and the President to Redirect Military Spending to Domestic Priorities WHEREAS, the severity of the ongoing economic crisis has created budget shortfalls at all levels of government and requires us to re-examine our national spending priorities; and WHEREAS, every dollar spent on the military produces fewer jobs than spending the same dollar on education, healthcare, clean energy, or even tax cuts for household consumption; and WHEREAS, U.S. military spending has approximately doubled in the past decade, in real dollars and as a percentage of federal discretionary spending, and well over half of federal discretionary spending is now spent on the military, and we are spending more money on the military now than during the Cold War, the Vietnam War, or the Korean War; and WHEREAS, the U.S. military budget could be cut by 80% and remain the largest in the world; and WHEREAS, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform proposed major reductions in military spending in both its Co-Chairs' proposal in November 2010 and its final report in December 2010; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, with the support of Charlottesville's then Mayor Dave Norris, passed a resolution in June 2011 calling on Congress to redirect spending to domestic priorities; and WHEREAS, the people of the United States, in numerous opinion polls, favor redirecting spending to domestic priorities and withdrawing the U.S. military from Afghanistan; and WHEREAS, the United States has armed forces stationed at approximately 1,000 foreign bases in approximately 150 foreign countries; and WHEREAS, the United States is the wealthiest nation on earth but trails many other nations in life expectancy, infant mortality, education level, housing, and environmental sustainability, as well as non-military aid to foreign nations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, calls on the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President to end foreign ground and drone wars, refrain from entering new military ventures in Iran, and reduce base military spending in order to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, re-train and re-employ those losing jobs in the process of conversion to non-military industries, rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal and state governments, and develop a new economy based upon renewable, sustainable energy. The story behind this resolution begins with a conference held in September, 2011, in Charlottesville at which experts from around the country presented their views on the growth of the Military Industrial Complex. The proceedings of that conference were published as a book on Martin Luther King Day, the day prior to passage of the resolution. They can be found at http://MIC50.org. The resolution was passed on the 51st anniversary of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning of the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex. To read Swanson's complete article, which includes a time line on the resolution, log on to http://warisacrime.org/content/charlottesville-va-city-council-passes-resolution-opposing-war-iran. India to Pay Gold for Iran Oil
India has
reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it buys, in a move aimed
at protecting Delhi from US- The report, by the Israeli-based news website DEBKAfile, states that Iran and India are negotiating backup alternatives with China and Russia, should the US and EU find a way to block the gold payment mechanism. Delhi's move is seen as surprising, as earlier India and Iran said they would switch to yen and rupees. China, another major importer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi's lead, the report adds. India and China need to switch from the dollar in bilateral trade, since the US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions. The sanctions would ban any bank involved in oil trade with Iran from dealing with US and European counterparts. Both India and China, two major buyers of Iranian oil accounting for 22 and 13 percent of its total export respectively, have refused to join such sanctions. This means they have to establish a reliable way of paying for crude, independently of the parts of the global financial system controlled by New York and London. Delhi's current plan is to effect payments through two state-owned banks, India's UCO Bank and Turkey's Halk Bankasi, Turkey being another country refusing to join the sanction spree. The US issued sanctions against Iran in December, aiming to put pressure on the Islamic Republic and make its controversial nuclear program more transparent. The EU joined the initiative on Monday, banning new oil contracts with Iran, but allowing current ones to be fulfilled. Australia on Tuesday became the latest country to voice plans for such an embargo, although the move would be more symbolic than practical, considering the country's small share in Iran's oil export. Japan and South Korea, two other major buyers of Iranian crude, are in talks with Washington over the issue, although both Seoul and Tokyo are worried that stopping their imports could hurt their economies. Iran, which is highly dependent on its sales of oil, is reacting to the sanction campaign nervously. Tehran says it will not yield to pressure, and threatens to block the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil tanker route in the Persian Gulf. German political analyst Christoph R. Horstel told RT that amid the economic crisis the embargo on Iranian oil imports could backfire on the EU, while Iran "will do quite well even under the embargo." "All the present faithful customers to Iran oil are set to continue buying this oil, and they will find a way, rest assured," he said. "This is the signal I get from Tehran." "I was personally present when the deputy economics minister of Iran was talking to a foreign society in Berlin," he added. "And the gentleman said very openly to the shocked audience 'OK. You don't want to buy our goods. Well, the Chinese do." Review: The United States of Fear By Derek Bolton
Tom Engelhardt's
most recent work, The United Sates of Fear, offers a sobering analysis of US
policy in the post 9/11
Engelhardt believes that the United States has entered its own "Soviet Era," having followed slowly in the former superpower's footsteps since its demise in 1991. In contrast to what many analysts and members of the intelligence community have argued will be a slow decline leading to a soft landing for the world's sole superpower, Engelhardt suggests that Americans should prepare for a much more grim demise. Through the efforts of successive administrations, the United States has sown the seeds of its own demise. This drive toward self-destruction dates back to the 1990s, according to Engelhardt, when the United States initiated what he terms an "arms race of one," a push by the military to ensure American military predominance over future decades. In the post-9/11 era, this rationale would become the foundation of Washington's policies under George W Bush with the adoption of what Engelhardt calls the "100 percent doctrine," or 100 percent assurance that the American people would be safe from terrorist threats. As a result, groups like al-Qaeda have managed to drain billions of U.S. dollars by simply representing perceived threats to U.S. security. The U.S. government has devoted enormous resources for increased security in airports, an ever-expanding drone and special operations program, boosting the intelligence community, and maintaining wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Engelhardt maintains that the Obama administration has similarly fallen victim to this national security logic, which he dubs the "Tao of Terrorism," by expanding Bush's "Global War on Terror," increasing drone activity, orchestrating a surge of troops in Afghanistan, and multiplying the number of monstrous overseas embassies and consulates. This all reflects what Engelhardt views as the "always more, never less" mentality within U.S. policy formation that further drains the treasury with little regard to the internal decay of U.S. infrastructure. Moreover this always-increase mentality has ultimately failed to combat threats. For example, the highest number of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan since the war started took place in 2010-11. In short, the U.S. national security system, for Engelhardt, is literally self-defeating. Engelhardt's approach is most certainly poignant and to the point. The work suffers at times from its origin as blog posts, for it is occasionally repetitive. Still, The United States of Fear provides an important balance to mainstream discourse, highlighting the extremely high cost of maintaining the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, the militarization of diplomatic efforts, and the need to reevaluate U.S. budget priorities.
Disgruntled feels: Propaganda! The US is like the Tennessee Tea
Partiers that are demanding references to
Email www.wsws.org...Us Doubles Aircraft Carriers near
Persian Gulf...By Peter Symonds...The Obama
Email http://thenewamerican.com...China, Japan Agree to
Reduce Reliance on U.S. Dollar...By Alex Newman...The
Email gaspap@yahoo.com...US builds hospitals in Georgia,
readies for war with Iran'...The US is sponsoring the construction of
facilities in Georgia on the threshold of a military conflict in Iran, a
member of Georgian opposition
Email www.allgov.com...Poor Piling Up at Chicago
Morgue...By Noel Brinkerhoff...Times are so tough in Illinois that
|
Side Orders
Desserts
Irvin Grice, Photographer
|
|
|
The DISH is based on T.H.I.N.C. (Teaching Humanity In New Consciousness) Send comments/inquiries or questions about making a donation to thedish@thedish.org
|
The DISH© 2011