Unbossed and unbought news and information you can use

Vol. 15 No. 4…Dedicated to the Dialogue on Race…January 27, 2011

Intuit's Vibe

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 backlash against the invocation of that term. That always happens whenever "Terrorism" is applied to acts likely undertaken by Israel, the US or its allies, rather than its traditional use: violence by Muslims against the US and its allies, because accusing Israel and/or the US of Terrorism remains one of the greatest political taboos (even when the acts in question involve not only assassinations but also explosions which kill numerous victims whose identities could not have been known in advance). But the case of these scientist assassinations particularly highlights how meaningless and manipulated this term is.

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)

Politics Y2K12

The Real Reason the US Is Targeting Iran (Excerpts)

By Junious Ricardo Stanton

"WASHINGTON -- The latest round of American sanctions are aimed at shutting down Iran's central bank, a senior US official said Thursday, spelling out that intention directly for the first time... Foreign central banks that deal with the Iranian central bank on oil transactions could also face similar restrictions under the new law, which has sparked fears of damage to US ties with nations like Russia and China." http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/12/u-s-wants-to-close-down-the-central-bank-of-iran-over-nuclear-concerns/

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)

News You Use

Charlottesville Resolution Opposing War on Iran (Excerpts)

By David Swanson

The City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, home of Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and the University of Virginia, passed on January 17, 2012, a resolution opposing the launching of a war on Iran, as well as calling for an end to current ground and drone wars engaged in by the United States and urging Congress and the President of the United States to significantly reduce military spending. Below is the text of the resolution, followed by an account of how it came to be. As other towns and cities have been inquiring about how they can do the same, this may prove helpful.

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.

Hood Notes

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-sanctions targeting countries who trade with Iran. China, another buyer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi's lead.

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."

Venue for an Artist

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 period, painting a bleak assessment of what he labels an empire in decline. Through his straightforward prose, which avoids the daunting language often found in similar works, Engelhardt mounts a scathing attack on U.S. foreign policy, the military industrial complex, and the Washington politicians who chant the mantra of "national security."

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.

About Me: Engelhardt is the creator of the Nation Institute's online blog, tomdispatch.com. He co-founded the American Empire Project. Engelhardt has authored numerous articles and several books, including The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation, and The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's (Source: http://www.fpif.org/articles/review_the_united_states_of_fear)

Disgruntled feels: Propaganda! The US is like the Tennessee Tea Partiers that are demanding references to slavery that make the nation's founding fathers a bunch of brutes and hypocrites are removed from history textbooks. If allowed to succeed, Tennessee school children will not learn that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, the brutality of the institution the nation warred over and the vicious treatment accorded Native Americans. Likewise, the US would prefer that Americans did not learn of its role in the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government and support for the brutal regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi prior to the Iranian Revolution, which abolished the monarchy. Every publicly stated reason the US has put forward for its naked aggression has been a pack of lies, propaganda, designed to put a pretty face on its ugly behavior.

Disgruntled wants to know: The US is flexing its military muscle around the world in a bid to control resources and maintain the dollar as the world's reserve currency. It is playing war games and selling sophisticated weapons to its allies and enemies in a dangerous bid to destabilize Southeast Asia. All indications point to preparations for armed conflict with Iran. In a move that can only be seen as provocation, it has moved aircraft carriers a few miles off the coast of Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. If the situation was reversed and Iran had aircraft carriers anchored a few miles off the coast of Florida or California, what would the US not do to discourage their presence?

Disgruntled says: I suppose the fact that drivers kill pedestrians is not that unusual. People are no match for a ton or two of metal and plastic. What frightens me is the alarming frequency of pedestrians dying on the roads and streets of metropolitan Atlanta and the drivers are not charged with any offense. In Georgia, and I suppose elsewhere, when a driver rear-ends another vehicle, the offending driver is ticketed with "failure to maintain a proper lookout." However, a driver can run over and kill a pedestrian without any charge, provided the offending pedestrian was not in a designated crosswalk and the driver remains at the scene of the incident. The absence of any charge in this type of loss of life is tantamount to a license to kill. Moreover, it suggests, given the ticketing in the case of a rear-end collision that property (car) is more valuable than a human being under the law.

Mailbox: E-Mails, Faxes and Telephone Calls

Email www.wsws.org...Us Doubles Aircraft Carriers near Persian Gulf...By Peter Symonds...The Obama administration has reinforced the threat of American military strikes against Iran by doubling the number of US aircraft carrier groups in the region. The provocative decision heightens the danger of war in the Persian Gulf as the US moves aggressively to impose a de facto embargo on Iranian oil exports. The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, backed by a cruiser and a destroyer, arrived in the Arabian Sea to join the USS John Stennis. A third carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is also heading for the area. US military spokesmen downplayed the deployments as "routine," noting that the USS John Stennis was due to return to the US. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has decided to maintain two carriers in the region rather than one, and, while the changeover is taking place, could have three, enhancing its ability to conduct an air and naval war against Iran.

Email http://thenewamerican.com...China, Japan Agree to Reduce Reliance on U.S. Dollar...By Alex Newman...The governments of Japan and China announced a landmark agreement to facilitate trade between the two without using the US dollar. According to the terms of the deal, the two governments agreed to encourage trade directly in yen and yuan without having to use US dollars as an intermediary -- the current practice. Companies in Japan and China will be able to convert the currencies directly. The Japanese government also agreed to hold Chinese yuan in its foreign-reserves portfolio. Officials said the move was aimed at reducing risk and transaction costs. The new currency deal comes as China takes steps to expand the international role of the yuan. The regime's officials have also become ever-more vocal in attacking the dollar's global reserve status, calling instead for a more international system managed by a world entity such as the IMF.

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 movement Public Assembly, Elizbar Javelidze has stated. According to the academician, that explains why President Mikhail Saakashvili is opening new hospitals in its regions. "These are 20-bed hospitals…It's an American project. A big war between the US and Iran is beginning in the Persian Gulf. $5 billion was allocated for the construction of these 20-bed military hospitals," Javelidze said, "the construction is mainly paid from the American pocket." In addition, airports are being briskly built in Georgia and there are talks of constructing a port for underwater vessels in Kulevi on the eastern Black Sea coast in Georgia. Javelidze believes that it is all linked to the deployment of US military bases on the Georgian soil. Lazika - one of Saakashvili's mega-projects, a new city that will be built from scratch - will be "an American military town." All in all, about 30 new hospitals and medical centers were opened in the former Soviet republic in December last year. The plan is to build over a hundred more.

Email www.allgov.com...Poor Piling Up at Chicago Morgue...By Noel Brinkerhoff...Times are so tough in Illinois that the state and its largest city are having a difficult time burying its poor. In Chicago, bodies are stacking up in the city morgue because the medical examiner's office hasn't paid for the burial boxes used for the dead who were indigent. The Cook County Medical Examiner morgue's cooler, built to hold 300 bodies, currently has 500, including a hundred babies. All of the decomposing corpses are too much for the room's ventilation system. "There are so many bodies in there now, they can't keep it cool enough. The stench is like nothing I've ever seen," a source told the Chicago Sun-Times. "I think it's sacrilegious." Chief Medical Examiner Nancy L. Jones acknowledged the backlog, but claimed that there were no more than 300 unburied bodies. In September Jones courted controversy when it was revealed that bodies of the indigent would be donated to science unless family members collected them within 60 days. The rest of the state is short on cash to cover the cost of burying those on welfare. State lawmakers slashed funding for such work, cutting what was a $13 million budget down to $1.9 million. The state pays for the burial of an estimated 12,000 poor people each year.