Jeffrey Mankoff has indicated that Russia's position in regards to Iran has hardened and the US should now lay off them to become more effective (The Road to Tehran Does Not Lead Through Moscow http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-mankoff/the-road-to-tehran-does-n_b_284458.html). While this singular fact may be true, the article if full of other distortions and outright lies about the facts pertaining to Iran.
When Mohamed ElBaradei said "breakout capacity", he meant that Iran would, for the first time, have the ability to become self-sufficient in their nuclear fuel cycle, not anything more sinister, as Mankoff intimates. This is only how the most recent in a long chain of articles attacking Iran for imaginary nuclear weapons construction and deployment begins. The lie to this disproved assertion, which is being echoed over and over by U.S. Think tanks and pundits has been challenged by ElBaradei most recently during his statement to the IAEA Board of Governors on September 7, "I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member States, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith." There are no nukes, no nuclear weapons development, only lies, and distortions by those paid by government and the media.
The United States and its P6 partners get not one benefit from pursuing this ceaseless attack on Iran and its imaginary nukes, but two - the often essential political and economic benefits of pleasing the pro-Israel lobby, and keeping open the door to a possible 2nd Cold War and the immense defense income and profits that could derive from it. The economic stranglehold the pro-Israel lobby holds over U.S. and European Union politicians combined with the prospects of a continuation of the profitable Cold War, means that we will not likely see an end of this 21st century fantasy for a long time. Remember, we have over 3,000 nukes not being built, but currently deployed and waiting.
Fortunately, Iran has called the P6’s bluff and their serious call for a world free of nuclear arms http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=34271, submitted in their 5-page document, has a possibility of being heeded, if only Mankoff and his friends only don’t succeed in covering it up.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The FP Article, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/04/why_moscow_wont_stand_between_tehran_and_its_nukes makes transparent the ultimate goal of establishment foreign policy thinktanks such as CFR. The purpose of the policy of placing pressure on Iran at all costs, despite the evidence that Iran is not interested in building a nuclear weapon, is to restart the Cold War and all the profits it can bring.
"... the absence of effective international action on Iran's nuclear program ... will cause countries throughout Europe and the Middle East again to turn to the United States for protection and leadership."
This is not the kind of foreign policy we want or what we should have. The Obama Presidency should leave a legacy of International Relations free of Cold War tensions and war-mongering.
"... the absence of effective international action on Iran's nuclear program ... will cause countries throughout Europe and the Middle East again to turn to the United States for protection and leadership."
This is not the kind of foreign policy we want or what we should have. The Obama Presidency should leave a legacy of International Relations free of Cold War tensions and war-mongering.
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Health Care Unplanning of the Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal is flying colors again attacking Health Care Reform. The fact that factions like the WSJ, the Insurance Lobby, and the Republican Party are attacking President Obama is because he is leading the change. This is 2009. America just voted for change, and now we have all the unhappy factions wishing they could turn back the clock and using any means necessary to try to "make it so".
Of course the changes include things like better care and service for the elderly, based on medical reports on what the elderly actually want and need. Well, let’s scare them out of wanting these changes; that should be easy! All we have to do is convince them that if they get better care, it will have to be rationed. Of course – what a stroke of genius! Because they really don't deserve the care, do they? No American does. We'll just make it look like striving for a better health care system, is like striving for a better nation, it can only make things worse!
This is the "common sense" of the WSJ and the factions. We are not into scare tactics! We are the Responsible Press, and the Conservative Responsible Republican Party! They are the Usurpers. We should not allow them to improve the lives of anyone, and how dare they save the economy! Did we ask them to? Hell no! The presumptiousness of limiting CEO salaries and bonuses! We will nip this Obama problem in the bud – by any means necessary!
We will tell people that the reformers are using too many non-political entities to control health care, and then write an editorial explaining that government control of health care means that the government must pay for health care. No matter how many safeguards are built into the system, we will insist that the government will rule with an iron hand, regardless if this is true for most other nations with government run plans. We will insist that because this is America, a large nation, we will fail if we rationalize any part of our economy! We are Republicans and we are smart and we know that stuff!
As the article mentions, Obama points out that an alarming amount of rationing is occurring in America today. The WSJ counters that restriction occurs in European Universal Health Care countries. The only difference must be that their babies and seniors aren’t dying as much as ours do. This fact alone should prove that even if there is some rationing in those countries it is not done as randomly as it occurs here.
The WSJ and the factions cherrypick facts to make foreign plans and Medicare look bad.: The French have limited CT-SCAN’s and MRI’s, without mentioning that they are limited throughout Europe for HEALTH REASONS. Medicare doesn’t pay for Virtual Colonoscopies, without mentioning that VC’s, while attractive to patients, are not the prefered procedure. Why in this issue is the WSJ a complete source of misinformation? And then, the coup de gras, the WSJ plays dumb, mentioning that Medicare cost is growing, one of the main indicators driving reform, and proposes that we fix it instead, by offering competitive plans (instead of repairing delivery, as President Obama proposes). Medicare already has competitive plans, but the plans offered by the insurance companies cost both, the seniors and the taxpayers much more than the option offered by government.
The final accusation, aimed partially at AARP, is made to sound like a indictment on all health care reform based on the fact that a publicly finianced Health Care component is part of President Obama’s system. But Medicare already is, and must continue to be, a publicly financed component, and the WSJ won’t explain why it is that Medicare recipients have the most hassle –free service in the U.S. today. I guess this would have something to do with not wanting reform, not wanting public anything, not even roads and drinking fountains, and being so complacent with the status quo and whatever the distribution of wealth happens to be at this moment in time, that any improvements leading to a better society had better be avoided like the plague.
Of course the changes include things like better care and service for the elderly, based on medical reports on what the elderly actually want and need. Well, let’s scare them out of wanting these changes; that should be easy! All we have to do is convince them that if they get better care, it will have to be rationed. Of course – what a stroke of genius! Because they really don't deserve the care, do they? No American does. We'll just make it look like striving for a better health care system, is like striving for a better nation, it can only make things worse!
This is the "common sense" of the WSJ and the factions. We are not into scare tactics! We are the Responsible Press, and the Conservative Responsible Republican Party! They are the Usurpers. We should not allow them to improve the lives of anyone, and how dare they save the economy! Did we ask them to? Hell no! The presumptiousness of limiting CEO salaries and bonuses! We will nip this Obama problem in the bud – by any means necessary!
We will tell people that the reformers are using too many non-political entities to control health care, and then write an editorial explaining that government control of health care means that the government must pay for health care. No matter how many safeguards are built into the system, we will insist that the government will rule with an iron hand, regardless if this is true for most other nations with government run plans. We will insist that because this is America, a large nation, we will fail if we rationalize any part of our economy! We are Republicans and we are smart and we know that stuff!
As the article mentions, Obama points out that an alarming amount of rationing is occurring in America today. The WSJ counters that restriction occurs in European Universal Health Care countries. The only difference must be that their babies and seniors aren’t dying as much as ours do. This fact alone should prove that even if there is some rationing in those countries it is not done as randomly as it occurs here.
The WSJ and the factions cherrypick facts to make foreign plans and Medicare look bad.: The French have limited CT-SCAN’s and MRI’s, without mentioning that they are limited throughout Europe for HEALTH REASONS. Medicare doesn’t pay for Virtual Colonoscopies, without mentioning that VC’s, while attractive to patients, are not the prefered procedure. Why in this issue is the WSJ a complete source of misinformation? And then, the coup de gras, the WSJ plays dumb, mentioning that Medicare cost is growing, one of the main indicators driving reform, and proposes that we fix it instead, by offering competitive plans (instead of repairing delivery, as President Obama proposes). Medicare already has competitive plans, but the plans offered by the insurance companies cost both, the seniors and the taxpayers much more than the option offered by government.
The final accusation, aimed partially at AARP, is made to sound like a indictment on all health care reform based on the fact that a publicly finianced Health Care component is part of President Obama’s system. But Medicare already is, and must continue to be, a publicly financed component, and the WSJ won’t explain why it is that Medicare recipients have the most hassle –free service in the U.S. today. I guess this would have something to do with not wanting reform, not wanting public anything, not even roads and drinking fountains, and being so complacent with the status quo and whatever the distribution of wealth happens to be at this moment in time, that any improvements leading to a better society had better be avoided like the plague.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Reply to WSJ Why U.S. Diplomacy Will Fail With Iran
This is my comment on Why U.S. Diplomacy Will Fail With Iran by Edward N. Luttwak.
Edward Luttwak doesn’t miss a beat here in relating all of Iran’s politics, history and policies to the US and Israel. Neither does he fail us for an instance in imagining that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s political dominance in many areas of Iraq could not be overwhelming, even aginst a strident, naive, psuedo-reformist opponent such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi. What all this right-wing analysis so au current in the press fails to appreciate is that while Mousavi is well to the left of Ahmadinejad is several respects, his positions are much less acceptable to the dominant right wing of Iran’s clergy than even Ahmadinejad’s, who is also seen by them as a potentially dangerous progressive. Another weakness in this analysis is that neither Mohammad Khatami nor Ahmadinejad were “chosen” by Ayatollah Khameni, as Mr. Luttwak alledges. Regardless of their strict control of media and the police, the fact is the Iranian clergy are still operating a type of theocratic democracy, no matter how lunatic it may appear to outsiders in love with their own democratic systems.
Add into the mix, Mr. Luttwak’s complete historical reinvention of the details of Operation Ajax, the incredible coup against Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953, and you have seen the value the neoconservative movement in America today. What we have here is exactly the view that Iran is anti-American, and anti-Israel, because, well, they’re bad, instead of recognizing that Iran is possibly, and continues to be, the the number one victim of America’s continuing plots to control it and many other countries in the middle east, and the recipient of continuing threats from Israel, a country well-known for its clashes with bordering peoples and military surgical strikes against “common enemies”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that America is “bad” either - it’s just that all belligerent countries are considered badly by their opposing belligerent countries. The main implied assertion by Luttwak that Iran “needs” the US to be an enemy is not at all substatiated: Remember when we were all “Imperialists”, and how quickly that changed once dialogue became possible?
I think I can do Mr. Luttwak one better in his analysis of the 2009 elections. Mir-Hossein Mousavi is, as we know, an old hand in Iranian politics, having served as prime minister of an almost completely totalitarian government from 1981 to 1989. The fact that he was available to oppose the phlegmatic and problematic Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2009 shows strong signs of being an “inside job”. The fact that he was allowed to stay under house arrest and maintain claims of election racketeering and stir up dissent on his website while 3,000 of his supporters were arrested, and in many cases, tortured or abused, also looks very fishy. It is still not clear whether he himself will be charged by his old cronies.
Mr. Luttwak wants to return to the good old days of sanctions, threats, and even better, nevertheless he doesn’t take into account is that our perception of Iran is based on our own sociological assumptions about their role in the world, based in turn, here, on the neoconservative world view. What is much superior, is Mr. Obama’s position of staying open to dialogue, and possibly achieve important gains for the Iranian people and ourselves. Even if Iran’s plans to develop nuclear energy are countered prematurely by Israel, or a combination of Israel and America, Iran will not suffer; it will, like Hezbollah, merely impose on its opponent whatever it perceives as a necessary countermeasure, damaging our interests, and sink back into the anti-American, anti-Israel morass it is in even deeper. This is the nature of limited war and sanctions: The opponent never really gets to change their position and appears to be the eternal enemy. Barack Obama’s Iran policy is the exact opposite and carries the possibility of transformation.
Edward Luttwak doesn’t miss a beat here in relating all of Iran’s politics, history and policies to the US and Israel. Neither does he fail us for an instance in imagining that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s political dominance in many areas of Iraq could not be overwhelming, even aginst a strident, naive, psuedo-reformist opponent such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi. What all this right-wing analysis so au current in the press fails to appreciate is that while Mousavi is well to the left of Ahmadinejad is several respects, his positions are much less acceptable to the dominant right wing of Iran’s clergy than even Ahmadinejad’s, who is also seen by them as a potentially dangerous progressive. Another weakness in this analysis is that neither Mohammad Khatami nor Ahmadinejad were “chosen” by Ayatollah Khameni, as Mr. Luttwak alledges. Regardless of their strict control of media and the police, the fact is the Iranian clergy are still operating a type of theocratic democracy, no matter how lunatic it may appear to outsiders in love with their own democratic systems.
Add into the mix, Mr. Luttwak’s complete historical reinvention of the details of Operation Ajax, the incredible coup against Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953, and you have seen the value the neoconservative movement in America today. What we have here is exactly the view that Iran is anti-American, and anti-Israel, because, well, they’re bad, instead of recognizing that Iran is possibly, and continues to be, the the number one victim of America’s continuing plots to control it and many other countries in the middle east, and the recipient of continuing threats from Israel, a country well-known for its clashes with bordering peoples and military surgical strikes against “common enemies”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that America is “bad” either - it’s just that all belligerent countries are considered badly by their opposing belligerent countries. The main implied assertion by Luttwak that Iran “needs” the US to be an enemy is not at all substatiated: Remember when we were all “Imperialists”, and how quickly that changed once dialogue became possible?
I think I can do Mr. Luttwak one better in his analysis of the 2009 elections. Mir-Hossein Mousavi is, as we know, an old hand in Iranian politics, having served as prime minister of an almost completely totalitarian government from 1981 to 1989. The fact that he was available to oppose the phlegmatic and problematic Mr. Ahmadinejad in 2009 shows strong signs of being an “inside job”. The fact that he was allowed to stay under house arrest and maintain claims of election racketeering and stir up dissent on his website while 3,000 of his supporters were arrested, and in many cases, tortured or abused, also looks very fishy. It is still not clear whether he himself will be charged by his old cronies.
Mr. Luttwak wants to return to the good old days of sanctions, threats, and even better, nevertheless he doesn’t take into account is that our perception of Iran is based on our own sociological assumptions about their role in the world, based in turn, here, on the neoconservative world view. What is much superior, is Mr. Obama’s position of staying open to dialogue, and possibly achieve important gains for the Iranian people and ourselves. Even if Iran’s plans to develop nuclear energy are countered prematurely by Israel, or a combination of Israel and America, Iran will not suffer; it will, like Hezbollah, merely impose on its opponent whatever it perceives as a necessary countermeasure, damaging our interests, and sink back into the anti-American, anti-Israel morass it is in even deeper. This is the nature of limited war and sanctions: The opponent never really gets to change their position and appears to be the eternal enemy. Barack Obama’s Iran policy is the exact opposite and carries the possibility of transformation.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Ahmadinejad speech at the Durbin Racism Conference 4/20/2009
His Excellency Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke yesterday at the Durbin Conference, news media around the world reported the walkout, with a quote or two supporting the reason for the walkout. But as usual, yours truly wishes to report what was actually said. It's true that the main part of the speech was a diatribe against the long history of oppression in the world, pretty much from the institution of Christianity forward. Ahmadinejad feels that it is important to acknowledge this oppression, and reform our international political and financial institutions before we can be free to eliminate racism. In this way, the action part of his program sounds reminiscent of what we have heard from the pro-peace wing of the American Libertarian Party, although the LP would concern themselves much less with international issues.
I have transcribed the English translation of the last, positive, part of his speech below, since, while everyone may not agree with it, it is an important view about how collective will can lead to a better world, and a plea for peace. I have included the entire video, demonstrations and all. If you read my transcription first, you'll gain better insight into the purpose and significance to the disruptions on the video.
I have transcribed the English translation of the last, positive, part of his speech below, since, while everyone may not agree with it, it is an important view about how collective will can lead to a better world, and a plea for peace. I have included the entire video, demonstrations and all. If you read my transcription first, you'll gain better insight into the purpose and significance to the disruptions on the video.
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the world is going through fundamental changes. Rapid fundamental changes. How the relations have become so weak and fragile. The sound of cracks in the pillars of world oppression can now be heard.
Major political and economic structures are at the brink of
collapse. Political and security crises are on the rise. The worsening crisis in the world economy, for which there can be seen no bright prospect, amply demonstrates the rising tide of far-reaching global changes.
I have repeatedly emphasized the need to change the wrong direction through which the world is being managed today, and I have also warned of the dire consequences of any delay in this crucial responsibility. Now, in this august and valuable event, I would like to announce to all leaders, thinkers, and to all nations of the world present in this meeting, and those who have a hunger for peace, economic well-being, that the (in)equitable and (in)just management of the world is at the end of the road. This deadlock was inevitable, since the logic of this imposed management was oppressive. The logic of collective management of world affairs is based on noble aspirations, which centers on human beings and the supremacy of almighty God, therefore, it defies any policy or plan which goes against the well-being of nations.
Victory of the right over the wrong, and establishment of a just world system have been promised by the almighty god and his messengers, and it has been a shared goal of all human beings from different societies and generations in the course of history. Realization of such a future depends on the creation and a belief in the hajj (gathering) of all the faithful.
The making of a global society is, in fact the accomplishment of a noble goal heralding the establishment of a common global system that will be run with the participation of all nations of the world in all major and basic decision making processes, and the major proof of this sublime goal, scientific and technical capacities, as well as communication technologies have created a common and wider-spread understanding of the world society and has provided the necessary ground for a common system.
Now it is incumbent upon all intellectuals, thinkers and policy makers in the world to carry out their historical responsibility with firm belief to this definite root, I also want to lay emphasis that, the western liberalism and capitalism, like communism, has reached to its end, and since it has failed to perceive the world and humanity as it is. It has imposed its own goals and directions on human beings with no regard for human and divine values, justice, freedom, love, or brotherhood, has based the living on an intensive confrontation, secure individual and collective material interest.
Now we must learn from the past by initiating collective efforts in dealing with present challenges, and in this connection, and in closing my remarks, I wish to draw your kind attention to two important points.
One, it is absolutely possible to improve the existing situation in the world. However, it must be noted that this could only be achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of the existing capacities and resources in the world.
My participation in this conference is because of my conviction to these important issues as well as to our common responsibility of defending the rights of all nations vis a vis the sinister phenomenon of racism, and being with you, the thinkers of the world.
Two, Mindful of the efficacy of the current international, political and economic security systems on the world scene, it is necessary to focus on the divine and humanitarian values, and by referring to the true definition of human beings, and based upon justice, and respect for the rights of all people, in all parts of the world, and by acknowledging the past wrongdoings in the past dominant management of the world, undertake collective measures to reform the existing structures. In this respect, it is crucially important to reform rapidly the structure of the security council, including the elimination of the discriminatory veto right, and change the current world’s financial and monetary systems. It is evident that lack of understanding of the urgency for change is equivalent to the much heavier cost of delay.
Dear friends, beware that to move in direction of justice and dignity is like the natural and rapid flow of a river’s current. Let us not forget the essence of love and affection, the promised bright future of human beings is a great asset that may serve our purpose in keeping us together to build a new world, and to make it a better place, full of love, fraternity and blessings, a world devoid of poverty and hatred, meriting the increasing blessings of God almighty, and the righteous managing of the perfect human being.
Let us all join hands in amity in playing our share in fulfillment of such a decent,
new world.
I thank you Mr. President, Secretary General, and all distinguished participants for having the patience to listen to me. Thank you very much.
I would love to hear from anyone who speaks Farsi, to revise my transcript, since it is only based on a real time translation at the conference.
It will be interesting to evaluate how much Ahmadinejad's influence multiplies through this conference and in the future. What we saw in the demonstrations yesterday, was the the sides are definitely set and divided, with America, Europe and Israel on one side and most other nations on the other. In a small sense, this is the neoconservative's dream. To isolate all muslim nations against the "western world". However, it is not being accomplished neatly, although the liberal media is doing all they can to block out the Ahmadinejad's actual point of view. I'll be reporting on the first part of his speech tomorrow, and perhaps have a chance to comment in more depth.
This is the link to the entire video: http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/conferences/DurbanConference/2009/durban090420pm1-eng.rm?start=00:05:30&end=00:39:30
Here is a link to the page the video was on: http://un.org/webcast/durbanreview/archive.asp?go=090420
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)