You call this journalism ? "Sources Close to the IAEA" said all this crap ?

There isn't a single quoted source inside or outside of the IAEA, UN, Iranian or any other govt.

This article seems like it is entirely more of the spin and misinformation.

Based on this article, I think it's safe to say that there may or may not be a problem with Iran's nuclear problem, other coutries may or may not have an agenda, the inpectors may or may not have found anything suspicious.

I suppose an invasion may or may not be the answer.

Hey if George and company want to invade Iran, its only a matter of time. They went looking for stuff in Iraq that didn't exist, Colin Powell lied at the UN and other chimed in. They will do the same in Iran. Weapons of mass destruction around every corner.
They can't control Iraq so let's spread the devastation around a bit.

It's get even time for the Iranians years ago taking over the US embassy. And of course George has told the world they will continue to do first strike stuff. I do believe there were some treaties against such action. But George's polls are in the toilet so let's see them gear up, and bring democracy as he sees it into Iran just like they have in Iraq. heaven forbid

jwstewart:
This article suggests more than one might intially think. The story, "Life as a nuclear Watchdog" released at the same time as this one, holds the likely "source" in the IAEA, and both are somewhat linked. What were you expecting, a reporter for the Tyee to come right out and say:

"The WMD propaganda machine that instigated the U.S. led illegal war against Iraq for GWB is at it again with IRAN. Same dark U.S. empirical motives with a twist. Steal oil and continue to dominate the middle east... business as usual... in punnishment for IRAN to dare threaten to trade their oil in a currency that doesn't have a dead president on it, or not open up free markets to globalization and resource buyouts."

Its once again about greed and corruption of public servants for money, but how do you expect them to say it better than this?

"Some countries having "issues" with Iran for reasons other than its nuclear activities are using selective leaks of information to serve a particular agenda to give the public impression of Iran as serial violators."

"A propaganda game is being played on all sides."

Sad to say, whether its this country, or IRAN that this article is about, or any other country that is under the thumb of the U.S. empire, the majority of us won't search "as deeply" as we've been asked to do. Sadly, we'll miss just how close those warships, and IRAQ and Afganistan really are to IRAN, or ignore Bush senior history here.

And just what can the U.S. do against IRAN? What will GWB try with the UN and congress? Same thing with Iraq? Air strike? Land invasion? Land invasion & occupation? All three? Whatever works to suit their needs, however insane or otherwise?

The only good news to report is that Bush is down by less than 40% pop vote, around 34% by CBS of all stations with the word "empeachment" becoming a mantra chant, a late fall congress election that needs to become republican for Bush to begin another war, and Harper is a minority instead of a majority at home. And, our involvement begins at home.

Us Canadians are well versed with our wonderful free markets and resource sellouts, at least, anyone who's cared to notice or look. The majority of us don't. For the new readers...

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/04/21/HarpersDarkOpportunity/
morefreedom.org

Hey DPL, cheers

georgie needs to get his boots off the Iraqi ground but cannot do this and allow the vacuum to be filled by an Iranian sponsored theocracy....answer: destabilize the whole area with air strikes; let U.N. monitor and pay for the resulting mess.

Anyone interested in a bit more meat could start with this article:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200505/proliferation/page1.asp

I maintain that a great deal of the USA bluster is about various nations' desires to trade oil in EUROs as opposed to USdollars. Wanna bet that CIA activity in Venezuela is frantic the more that country alludes to using EUROs.

What is the USA going to do when Norway and Russia (natural gas) move to the EURO as the preferred trading currency?

Just do a quick mental exercise, asking yourself: "what happens to the USA economy -- and Canada by default -- if major oil prodicers move to the EURO?"

This is very disturbing . . the current leadership of Iran is the greatest threat to any chance of peace in the middle east. This article is simplistic propaganda and bad journalism . . sweeping the problem under the carpet by pretending that western powers are sabotaging the Iranians is ridiculous.

Does anyone doubt that the Iranian President is a racist who would not lose a minute of sleep after ordering his nuclear tipped missles launched against Israel ?

We as the civilized world can't take that chance because if he launches one missle there will be ten sent back agianst his country, of which he doesn't give a damn either.

He is simply mad. Stop him now.

UN sanctiosn, embargoes, whatever it takes.

This site Axis of Logic is one of the best sites I have ever found. It has an article written on March 15, 2006 called "We've Done It Before, Why All the Shock" about "the war" on Iraq and the present Amerikan fascination with nuclear weapons in Iran. Absolutely the best thing I have read in a long time. It is verrrry long...you need a bit of time and a cuppa coffee to go along with it but highly worth it... I think at least...it definitely will make you aware of how the US views Canada and Canada's love of their public social infrastructure as a threat to US profits as well:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_21415.shtml

Small sample:

Thx Lynn, as always - the coffee's on!

From the bit of Irish in me, G West, Happy St. Paddys Day. ( If I could I'd pour you a bit of Bailey's Irish Creme in your coffee.) :-)

Okay, I'm wiling to endure everyone's wrath about putting in more quotes...but these flank the quote above and hit at the heart of the matter:

Viewed within the context of US history, and the social and economic forces which have shaped Washington’s foreign policy, the US aggression against Iraq can be seen to be part of this coherent whole, not an anomaly that has sprung from an immanent lust for power residing deep in the psyches of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, nor a consequence of a unique set of events arising out of a social-economic vacuum. This has important implications for understanding what realistic options are available to those who seek to change this recurrent pattern of war, of domination, and of spoliation of foreign countries. New personalities won’t do it, because personalities aren’t the cause. Third parties alone won’t do it, because third parties, as any other, are subordinate to the same systemic logic that has driven all parties in power, whether conservative, liberal, socialist and even communist (e.g. Yugoslavia) to pursue policies that facilitate the profit-making of the dominant economic class, including by the use of force to extort or secure opportunities from unwilling third countries. The solution is to step outside (to overthrow) the logic that compels this behavior, not to tolerate it or assume wrongly it can be tamed and harnessed.

Thx Again Lynn
And may your soul be 20 minutes in heaven before the devil knows you're dead!
I'm always willing to kick up my heels for a touch of Bailey's, don't you know.

It’s been pretty clear that Iran’s goal is to have nukes, prestige plays a big part in their politics and they consider many of the other countries in the region a threat to them. Having nukes will give them the prestige and combined with their army and terrain will make them invulnerable to invasion/retaliation. As I said before having nukes can be a double edged sword as it will stalemate any conflict without either side being able to win without risking an exchange. Iran has also made known that they have a missile system that can hit Israel. Having nukes would mean they are the only Muslim country with the ability to destroy Israel (Pakistan can’t reach), that will defiantly be something they will be able to strut around with and rub into the faces of the Arabs. Although I generally don’t see the Iranians as suicidal, their current president is a quite off his rocker, not sure if this is on purpose or just happened that way, but the religious council that decides who runs the country will have to rethink their strategy if they want to play nuclear brinkmanship and survive.

As far as the oil goes, Iran supplies approx 15% of the worlds oil supply and 22% of the US supply, it is important, but neither country is a in a position to dump the other, despite rhetoric. Iran also has disputes with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia over the Dorra field.

Iran likes to rattle their sabres, but they can’t really afford to piss off their customers to much, anything that would severally affect the living standards in Iran could destroy what little popular support the government has. Already one of the large Japanese oil suppliers have begun to look elsewhere

Over and over I hear the phrase "War on Iraq" bandied about. The only MSM outlet which calls it what it is - The CBC - terms it "The Invasion of Iraq". This is, in my opinion, a far more accurate description.

Now Iran. This will be a war. Iran has not been pre-softened, crippled by 14 years of 'cool war' sanctions and 'oil for food' limits imposed since Desert Storm. Iran has a real air force and navy, albeit vastly inferior to that of the US and the (so-called) coalition forces. The US treasury has been emptied already, their debt is astounding, and they are conventionally extended with forces on the ground in Iraq.

The present situation is not analogous with past US strategy, despite Stephen Gowans' quoted article above. The US has entered an arena where it is possible they could be defeated; all it would take is an alliance between surrounding Arab states, not to mention the possible entry of Russia or China to the fray.

This could mean (and I hope I am wrong on this) that tactical nuclear weapons may be used. The very same justification (to spare the lives of American GIs) could be given as that employed when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated. George W. Bush has often said that he is inspired and guided by the bible, and one only has to peruse Revelations, or John, to understand the prophecies of tribulation. In other words, massive scale mid-east war, death, carnage is something the US administration sees as inevitable.

All this bullology about Iran having a nuclear weapons program is pure propaganda designed to prime the public for this next stage in the plan to 'stabilize' (read dominate) the middle east, and the waning oil supply.

Here in Canada they show up in three piece suits - briefcases in hand, with exactly the same goal in mind. They distribute crumbs to the people and politicians instead of bombs and bullets, but they seek the same outcome.

Brain has mentioned "empeachment (sic)". Not gonna happen (wagging finger like Daddy Bush). If Cheney et al have their way the US really will be at war soon, and all bets are off for elections or as far as replacing the present gang of thugs in the white house. Nope - "We're at war!" will be the mantra, and this time it will be true.

Colin:

For sure! And if I'm the leader of Iran, I'm expediting the construction of nukes. It's fairly apparent -- Iraq -- what happens if you don't have them; you get bush-whacked.

I have absolutely no time for the Iranian leadership as they're every bit as nutty as GWB, but, hey, if GWB poses a threat, why wouldn't Iran arm itself to the teeth?

Bullshitt.

And the entire world, including the US citizenry themselves judging from the most recent polls, is waking up to this big time. It is the current leadership of the US Empire that is the greatest threat to any chance of peace in the Middle East. That's the fact. It is only they who are off their own turf, and invading strangers in a foreign land, in a region far removed from their's.

The only mystery is, given the rampaging, war making and imperialist character of the Neocon USA, armed to the teeth with nukes and other WMD as it is, that every other nation in the world, especially in the Middle East, doesn't have a nuclear weapons building plan in motion as well as Iran-, regardless of what one thinks about Iran's current leadership. (And Iran is as much and no more religious nutters than the US administration caters to at home, as part of its base, all the time, coming out of Mississippi and the rest of the Christian warmongering Bible Belt throughout the country. Just pay attention and listen to CNN, their other even more looney right wing media, and bible thumping Bush himself. The whole world is awash in religious nutters, including Israel. Not just Iran.) And Iran is probably a whole hell of a lot less in debt to the world than is the US-, and dependant on oil.

The US Empire, just as we, like the pack of complete fools that we are, getting on board to take the hit intended for them in Afghanistan, is itself getting set up over there in the Middle East to come completely unglued and have to flee for the Gulf in Iraq. Pay attention kiddies. Watch for it. Listen to the US voices themselves, coming out of their own mouths, and that of their "old" military leaders who are now retired, and able to speak their own minds without censorship.

They are going to lose this one. And with them, Zionist Israel itself is entirely likely to begin to unravel. Again, don't just take my word for it, listen to the US chatter online, in their media, and coming out of their military and home communities.

Hell, if we can tolerate a religious looney USA until it hopefully one day grows up and constitutes a rational, truly secular state, we're gonna have to give these hard-pressed, frequently invaded and impoverished states of the Middle East some time and opportunity as well. The US, no less, went through its own revolutionary and civil wars, and it still ain't without its own big time class, racial, regional and other problems. Why should the rest of us, including the Middle East and ourselves, be expected to have to meet a higher standard than these hockey pucks.

Evolution is not a trouble free process carried on through saints, but real people, real history and real events.

And by the by, it is reported in the media today that the US is upset because China is selling weapons to Latin American governments. They are all worried and indignant. (Just in case you think there isn't a risk of WW3 embodied within current US imperialist behaviour.Watch for this in the media as well.)

They are all worried about it, like they are Iran securing nuclear weapons. Come on! What the hell did you expect?

That the world would live to one standard, while the US lived by another?

Fug off. Get real.

This country and its citizenry has to learn a thing or two as well.

What did you think the whole world was going to do? Sit on its hands and view the US like some errant child, cluck clucking and going, "Oh, well. We just have to put up with it. They'll grow up one day."

Yeah, maybe they will, with a cuff or two up the side of the head.

Feelin' your oats there Coyote?

That was inspiring.

You, Grub and Tommymoore have placed the focus of this back where it ought to be. There is much spin thrown at the issue.

Look, who but a bloody idiot would buy into the "Iran's got nukes" from someone who knowingly lied about WMD in neighbouring Iraq three years ago?

That's like heading down to the carnie when it rolls into town a year later and buying another lifetime supply of some product sold by a barker who gave you useless junk the first time.

Call the cops.

Actually, it's much worse. It means another massive war with tens of thousands of deaths, peerhaps a full scale world war.

China, in the past year or so, has secured a fairly large volume of energy resources in Iran on a long term basis.

Their perspective, I'm sure, would be that they don't want interuptions of supply brought on by the only nation that would truly stand to benefit from China's inability to expand its economy.

I think we should all be like the little old lady and ask "Where's the beef?"

Of course, Israel wants to be the only middle east country to possess nuclear weapons and non-Jews in the west may agree, believing that Israel has a responsible government.

But there is no doubt that Iran will eventually be invaded, however, the Israeli influence in the U.S. - NOT Bush - will ultimately decide when. And, maybe rightly so, because nuclear weapons proliferation is a huge threat to humanity - almost as large as polution.

I'm begining to think Coyote is some kind of closet American hater, consumed by anall emcompassing, irrational hatred, a self loathing, mindless ability to ignore reality because it doesn't fit within the fantasy constructs of his/her mind.

No problem, that kind of mental self pleasurement is actually quite harmless in the long run and doesn't have any bearing on what really happens in the actual world.

Thanks for this very good link Lynn, I will indeed read it.

Immediately striking me in its simple accuracy however, is this brief piece above. It is this call for a fundamental change in the way we think and understand things, social and class relationships generally, and those notions and entitities to which we choose to attach our loyalties. But none needs to change more, I think, than the way we understand what has been called and understood as "economics".

Which is where Fait Lux gets it especially right, with his understanding about how we have all got it so wrong about this notion of "wealth creation" that has been central to our entire understanding of "the market", "profit", and the source and role of "wealth" to here. For "economics", and it as "wealth creation" especially, which has come to be put at the heart of the former, we are now in a place in time and development where we should begin to be able to see and understand, has in fact not lead to wealth creation, but patterns in fact of obscene private and state wealth alongside gross social and material inequality, impoverishment, starvation, and war across the globe-, AND atop that social heap we are now discovering that we have in fact at the same time been destroying the only real and very source of our collective sustainance itself-, the natural world, wherein the source of all wealth actually resides.

It's incredible in its simplicity and accuracy, and amazing that it has not been seen before in quite this way, for which the only explanation is that too many like our rightwingnutters, world leaders and leading economic and other intellectuals, and many of the rest even of we "little people" have been too busy on the "get rich quick" schemes of those ruling classes in all societies and social systems who have stood astraddle over and in control of the economic plant and facility mechanisms through which we interface with nature for our daily bread, clothing and shelter. (Which is why it is this question of a new and "new forms" of "democracy", including "economic democracy" which lies at the heart of the solution here, because we really are in a situation where we need to wrest control of these very important instruments from these "self obsessed with personal riches" hands. Without that there is no hope of a solution, either for us or "the poor", at only the most extreme end of the inequality it manifests, or the destruction of the very natural environment itself. Which even now is at a stage where virtually all of us should be able to see and link it up as the natural byproduct of this extreme greed we have allowed to drive everything for us, and in our name. As it is also the source of war, such as we are seeing in Iraq, which is itself part of a larger war by US imperialism to control the Middle East and its resources, especially oil.)

This really is a time where we need to connect these dots and draw the appropriate "action" conclusions, or there is a point as well where it all becomes too late anyway, and moot. For it is not written in stone anywhere by any opinion that I would trust, that a successful end to the story of human evolution is a given or guaranteed.

Indeed, there may already now be some, we assume, insignificant creature who has been scurrying about in the underbrush of the shadow we have cast on the earth, as we presumably must have done through the time of the dinosaurs, destined to emerge at our end and do with their evolutionary time what we have not proved capable.

Coyote says:

I think the key to this (these) puzzles is "time". Unfortunately, that may be the one thing there isn't enough of right now. Or at least not enough of an appreciation of its powers in the capitals where the sands are running so rapidly.

For the Americans the timing is especially critical with the 2006 elections and the potential political bills for the Republicans about to come due. The Israeli situation is even closer to hand and recent polls seem to indicate that Olmert's party will come out of the election strengthened. If you believe in the overweening power of the Israel lobby over decision-making in the United States then it's hardly a surprise that a lot of pundits would predict that there will be 'boots on the ground' before fall....

Personally, I doubt it. Why?
1. If there's going to be a shooting conflict I can't imagine the Americans haven't considered the huge differences between the fight they'd be in, in Iran, as opposed to what they've experienced in Iraq.

2. They have the example of Israel's successful 'handling' of Saddam's nuclear aspirations as a model for the effective cancellation of a 'scientific' program.

3. While America's land forces are pretty much stretched to their limit; in the air, the US is mightier than ever. If there is going to be an attack on Iran, it will be from the air exclusively.

4. Clearly, the Israeli interest and involvement is important. But, given - as was mentioned up post a few comments – that the increasing sensitivity in Washington to the charge that American foreign policy is dictated from Jerusalem (see the long article in the current issue of the “London Review of Books” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt) is also pretty acute it may be that America just now doesn’t want to act in a way that reinforces the mistaken impression that one can blame all (or even most) of America’s problems on the Jews. Therefore, although Israel might choose to act precipitously on her own, it may be that this just isn't the right time for America to act in a way that would be perceived as bowing to the pressure of its long-time ally in the Middle East.

Even so, I think it can be argued that there may actually be a way for this thing to be negotiated toward a solution. Not so much because the elements of a solution are at hand, or even foreseeable, but because, in the end, the costs of failing are as high now as they've been since before the end of the Cold War – many of the reasons for which are cogently laid out above by Coyote, Grub, Tommymoore and others. Time will tell, but I look for the Bush White House to pull a diplomatic solution (with the help of the Russians and the Europeans) out of the hat this time. Despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, it may be that they are finally actually learning something from their mistakes. One can only hope.

Good discussion: Thanks to all for thoughtful and considered comments.

There are some other serious considerations in this saga. The new Bush positions on "pre-emptive war" are out, and carry a startling new addition - the use of "tactical" nuclear weapons in first-strike mode.

This is the escalation feared by all, and is proposed by those without personal history of war, who show easy willingness to have others kill and die for them, and who apparently can rationalize anything for personal and political profit.

To an administration under duress, coming apart, one that revels its willingness to resort to violence, this is an option too inviting to resist.

Who would trust these clowns?

gkam
Of course, that's the elephant hiding behind the couch. Still, there is such a wide range of bad choices available short of the tactical nuclear option that one might not expect, even from a crew of rationalizers like the Bushies, that it wouldn't be used unless it were in response to a pretty serious reversal on the battlefield. Imagine Israel suffering serious reverses in a land war, for example.

I could see the use of small nukes under such circumstances but I can't imagine even the Bush White House would use a first-strike nuclear option in Iran at this stage of the game. Were we talking of incipient brinksmanship in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula I might conclude differently; however, the multiple American interests and the number of elements in play in the Middle East would seem to rule it out in Iran.
Without the bunker-busting capability of US conventional arms I think the situation might be different too. As somebody observed up-post, time is of the essence.

I don't know their plans, I only know of their words. They have added nuclear weapons to their menu of options, supposedly for bunker-busting.

They are getting rattled, and are prone to fall back on the War President image again, to the dismay and detriment of us all.

These are ivory tower ideologues, not practical men of the world, and living justification of Goethe's admonition:

"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action."

gkam
Amen to that. Still one hopes. The alternative is despair - perhaps you know them better than an old Greek like me.

One often feels one has awakened, not unlike Kafka's hero in Metamorphosis, into a world from which it is almost impossible for a thoughtful person to feel alienated much of the time.

I dearly hope my fears are unjustified, . . but after many years of watching tyrants and idiots, I'm not optimistic.

These guys won't just go down, they'll take us all down with them.

Yes, but this time, it is the external world which has become pestilent. We awake to find ourselves mired in the world occupied and controlled by slimy creatures, of base intent and ruthless resolve.

Some damned fine writing here, from GWest and all of you. I wish I had more time to get into some of the points raised here, but I will have to exercise some restraint. (Not a typical behaviour for me, I 'fess. :-)

I tend to focus on the "dark" side of the picture for sure, because I do think the current state of global affairs, including the environmental issues, are extremely foreboding. But... for example if you are paying attention to events in France right now, and events there are going to have at least something of a dominoe awakening effect of its own I think across Europe and the western world. There are small and tentative signs even within the US, if you are watching the progress of this peace walk currently going on across the south to New Orleans for example, and the reception it is getting, and most US opinion polls, that there is a new reality struggling to take shape there no less. Now whether it will or not, clearly I can't be any more sure than most of you, or even Washington, at this stage.

Even some of the most reactionary elements within the Republican Party itself, even if one only follows CNN, are beginning to show serious signs of doubt about the "winability" of the situation they are in, across the Middle East. (The real "why" for all their sudden panic talk, right out of the mouth of Bush, of their need to wean themselves of their "addiction" to oil.) Even some former leading military men retired from the US military are beginning to become alarmed at their prospects in Iraq, and the resurgance of the Taliban In Afghanistan, and growing signs of hostility towards "the coalition of the bribed" in Kabul itself. (Which the shooting and killing of a taxi cab passenger by Canadian troops in Kabul the other day, only feeds directly into.)

And in Iran, China's oil/economic interest there, for both Israel and The Empire must, one would assume, unless the Washington leadership really is in a bunker and Kimakaze mind set, has to be exercising something of a restraining influence. And in any case, Israel without US military and war cost aid and assistance really does quickly become nothing but a third rate military power like any other in the Middle East. They are unlikely to act without Washington's go ahead-, and if they do, that's what they've got, even if only as a furtive wink and a nod.

Israel really is a client state of the US, not entirely unlike this country, so it has to bend the knee and kiss Gentile Yankee ass no less than we.

So, for all my tendency to total bleakness, on both the war and corporate capitalism's "globalization"/neoconservative development fronts, I concede, these situations nonetheless do have some glimmers of hope that do show through. US imperialism is no longer the economic power it once was, much of it merely rests on piles of paper of dubious real value in any case, and the threat of their military and its WMD, and they are so over populated and developed that they really do, at a fundamental level, need those of us with remaining raw resources reserves, more than we actually need them. So, as they must realize at some level, they are not any longer "all powerful" in the world and able to go about entirely, without some fear of big time miscalculation or walking into a trap. At which borderline they are already showing major signs of being stretched.

With some both cunning and courage on the part of the world's people, they and their self-serving global agenda can be beat. They are doable. :-) I don't think there is any real question.

Besides, hope ever springs eternal, not? :-)

gkam
true that - obviously meant to have typed 'not' between 'person' and 'to' you caught the metaphor and thanks for the correction. Did you ever check back into the conclusion of the discussion from the other day on the libs/blogger thread?

I suggest you read "By Way of Deception" by a former Mossad officer. I think it's Viktor Ostrovsky. You may get a different impression.

No, I missed it.

gkam
you should check it out. There were some good wishes for you over there!

Hmmmmm, . . I'll bet. Thanks. Where is it?

I saw the note by oilbertan, if that's it.

It's time to go to a wedding, speaking of hope springing eternal, so thank you to all for such good discussion.

Oh, I don't doubt at all that it is resented and chafed against, even intrigued against. They do afterall have a powerful US AND European lobby. So They are not helpless babes in the woods, for sure. And they do have a stronger sense of independant will than Canada does, by near infinite multiples, coming out of their terrorist roots at the fight for land, the expulsion of the Palestinians, and the founding of the Israeli state and current respectability.(And they will and do readily test those "influence" limits all the time. And I am sure Washington considers them troublesome, doubtless even treacherous "clients". But afterall, there is this underlying mutual "dependency" thingy also.)

In the end however, under the current arrangement at least, they are much beholden and even dependant upon US assistance, politically and materially, and all the other manner of largesse they receive-, from both the US state and its powerful "Jewish lobby". (The data and thougtful estimates are out there with a Google. I'm too lazy.:-)

So they will not "yet" at least, be too anxious to lunge at the holder of their leash.

All bets are off when the US is finally forced to retreat entirely from the Middle East though, for sure. (Their enemies are already working on Saudi Arabia, to preemptively cut off that evental retreat position. And if the Kurds are left there, in control of their new Kudistan, the Turks on the Day of Judgement may well suffer some reluctance to let them light there and hold some kind of token presence in the region as well. The may even choose to not let them retreat/pass through there, just to complicate their life.)

For then the Zionist State will truly be in for the final fight for survival of its life. Life will have suddenly become even more perilous than it is. (There is a great deal of desire for revenge in its extremely densley populated regional neighbourhood. It will be a matter of extreme life and death. They are certainly not going to listen to anyone, and especially a defeated US Empire at that moment, then doing all it can, in an even bigger and grander repeat of the Retreat From Saigon, to get its army out of Iraq before it is trapped and slaughtered, and bound for the safety of home.

It will be Shock and Awe, only played in reverse, and the US Forces without all their swagger and cockiness, looking really scared more like. And maybe even leaving a good deal of equipment behind, as in Napoleon's retreat from Russia-, but making that even look like an amateur Little Theatre play.

Great pieces by all.

Coyote, I enjoyed reading your comment on the quote from the link above. I know the article is a long one but where I thought it was interesting was its viewing of american imperialism as "a pattern of all advanced capitalist states"....suggesting that despite the endless reasons we give for Amerika's war agenda, reasons that certainly may be true, it is the pattern that must change...just as you say above... our way of thinking...about economics , about wealth, about life itself...much as you and Fiat Lux have been saying all along, each in your own way.

The article in that link makes very clear that as I have often heard you say "the Empire", (and the patterns and the kind of thinking that flows from that) must fall... the mad logic overthrown..if we are going to survive. (And G West is so right... "time" is a real unpredictable player in this drama).

Since we now have a capitalist system following its pre-destined pattern, revved up with the lust for Profit, dancing as fast as it can, and then some.. feeding off our social infrastructure more and more... insatiable...licking its lips for whatever is its new desire...oil, water, whatever...it really doesn't matter in a solely material world...because all things, even those necessary for survival, are mere commodities.

If "red shoes" hung from trees...and the Amerikan capitalist state suddenly developed an unquenchable urge for them, a passion of the first degree for the ever-alluring profits of red shoes...and if any country had the utter cheek to want to control their own red shoe market...and had the sheer audacity to try to nationalize their red shoe resource...out of the reach and the greedy grasp of corporate amerikan hands...well... time to drag out the rumours of WMD's and such and let the capitalist cat and mouse games begin...

Like gkam, I feel who would trust these clowns...this is a very dangerous time... much that could unravel world-wide - so I share your worry, gkam, of the "ruthless resolve" of these very scary clowns, even more scary now that they are rattled by their own fears:

should read... "are seen as mere commodities"

The symplicity of the words, belie the "humongousness" of what that little snippet has to tell us by way of explanation for the history of the entire post WW2 world, at least the thin pie slice of it I experienced and continue to do so. God or Allah willing. 8-D

Though it really lays down the groundwork earlir, of course, with the English Civil War, the rise of capitalism in one country, the French Revolution, and who can forget the Amerikan Revolution, who is of course, the leading Empire of the "advanced capitalist world" of the present.

I even personally got to experience, in a very small way, of course, as one the street riff-raff, the sun finally setting on the British Empire, who's ass we left with our slobber all over it as well. You know, the Neocons of their day, but many a "good" folk too.

It's worth a repeat.

The point being, keep your eye on rising Chinese Capitalism. (It's carrying a red hammer and sickle flag, but make no mistake, it's "capitalism".)

Firstly, to JWStewart, I'm sorry you don't consider the article journalism. There wouldn't be a story at all had I not agreed to protect the anonymity of sources in the middle of what is a very sensitive international and diplomatic situation, no matter what its basis is. In British journalism, the "source" is a common tool, sometimes too common. But I assure the story is 100 per cent geniune, the quotes are not made up.
May I say that had it not been for The Tyee, this story, and the feature never would have seen the light of day. Canadian newspapers are not interested in any foreign story that doesn't come from the Canadian Press or CanWest News Service - it is a monopoly of news and information which is dangerous. As a Canadian reporter trying to send stories to Canada, some relating directly to Canadians, some just interesting, it is nearly impossible. Foreign editors believe readers only want to see the same stories from the same countries (ie the US) 24/7. It's difficult to compete with that.
On the other side of the coin, I have to admit it's been easier to publish stories in the UK about serious issues in Canada than in Canada. That's an even sadder state of "crap" than anything in my journalism.
Thanks all for reading my original piece.
Tristan

Tristan
JWStewart notwithstanding, I think the subsequent response to your report is evidence you've no need to apologize. The MSM 'is' a bit of a mess. No shortages of column inches for sports and fashion though. Keep at it.
Cheers

Here's an American who tells it like it is in 2006:
Title: America, Narcoleptic Pit Bull
Once the (tarnished) beacon of peace and democracy, now just another global flamethrower

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/02/24/notes022406.DTL

I can't decide whether I like the title, which you posted, or the reference to Bush as a trailer hitch better. Lovely, angry, biting stuff.

Thanks, tommy. An interesting read.

Have you noticed, even watching CNN these days, especially Wolf Blitzer, the growing sense of alarm, and the voices of the old military and political leadership coming forward to voice the view that there is serious possibility that they are about to lose this one?

Certainly it's a dramatic turn around of tenor and tone from what it was at the time of, go get 'em cheerleading "Shock and Awe."

And get this, many are actually practically begging Chine to develop alternate fuels, though it is not actually said, so the that they, The Empire can have all the Middle East oil. They know that though China is not current saying a great deal, they are wargaming not far from the region, by themselves and with Russia, and that they are a player, in Iran and Saudi Arabia. (On one show, it was even mentioned that Canada is about to build a pipline to Prince George, to feed oil to China, as part of a joint project.)

They are starting to shit their drawers. The smell of it is just beginning to waft about the room, like the smell of poo-poo baby's diapers.

Now, I don't know a great many US citizens, but if they are anything like Canadians, listening to the media ideas they have access to on any given day will give you a pretty good general idea of what street opinion will be on the following day, not always, but very often. (Though virtually all street opinion being aired on our media, does not seem to be buying into the media blitz of support for our participation in Afghanistan. (CBC as well, is sounding like a propaganda agency of the Cons.) Quite the contrary still. Though I'm sure it has had some influence.)

Coyote,tommymoore
On that subject, that a slow turning has begun in the media on the subject of US foreign policy, I noticed a couple of OP-ED pieces in today's New York Times. One is ccompanied by a graphic that illustrates the complex of failures in Iraq and another is from a recently retired general who's calling flat out for Rumsfeld to resign – among other things.
And of course there's another important story about the complicity of higher ranks in a ‘torture centre’ (not Abu Ghraib) by Eric Schmitt and Carolyn Marshall. I think you can read all these online without subscribing to Times Select. http://nytimes.com/

The Canadian media, on the other hand, are an almost complete disaster.

I know this doesn't really belong here. But it's a slow day and I have to get busy and head out on my daily run. Apropos of the Canadian media's failure to cast a very critical eye on the Prime Minister's adventures in Afghanistan I thought you might enjoy this (with translation) from Le Devoir. Seems like the French aptitude for satire didn't die with Voltaire. Enjoy:

"Quel courage! Quelle leçon de leadership! Enfin un premier ministre qui dit haut et fort que le Canada doit s'impliquer davantage militairement pour défendre le monde libre menacé par l'ennemi terroriste! Stephen Harper est revenu du front afghan gonflé de cette fierté qui caractérise les vrais combattants de la démocratie. «Avant d'être affranchi du régime des talibans, l'Afghanistan a souvent servi d'incubateur pour al-Qaïda et d'autres organisations terroristes. Cette réalité nous a touchés de façon tragique le 11 septembre 2001 lorsque deux douzaines de Canadiens ont perdu la vie soudainement et gratuitement dans la destruction du World Trade Center», a rappelé M. Harper.Enfin, nous avons notre petit Rambo tout rosé, un brin rondouillard, pour nous seuls."

Rough translation:
"What courage! What a lesson in leadership! At last, a Prime Minister who says loudly and strongly that Canada should involve itself further militarily to defend the free world from the threat of enemy terrorists. Stephen Harper has returned from the Afghan front swelling with that pride which characterises the true fighters for democracy. "Before it was taken over by the Taliban, Afghanistan was often an incubator for Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. This reality touched us tragically on September 11th 2001, when two dozen Canadians lost their lives suddenly and gratuitously in the destruction of the World Trade Centre," recalls Mr. Harper. Finally, we have a little Rambo all pink and a bit fat for our very own..."

Such heavy sarcasm. It must be spite or jealousy that makes Le Devoir say all that mean stuff when Harper was being so nice.

Thx to Marian
http://www.ledevoir.com/2006/03/15/104380.html

At least g west understands the problem of the force (Israeli) behind America's middle east policy...

However - G. W. Bush is in his last term - and maybe he (like former President Eisenhower) has worked up the courage to buck the Israeli influence. I'm guessing that the port management deal was his idea and although it was ultimately shot down, he showed me some intestinal fortitude that I didn't think he had.
A threat to cut off America's foreign aid to Israel and you get Israel to tow the line. THAT, would be a first step in a middle east solution and would convey to the Arab world that the U.S. is not simply an Israeli puppet.

"finally ,we have a little rambo ,all pink and a bit fat,for our own."

that is typically french canadian sarcasm and i can even hear it in my childhood best friends voice.

i just hope harper doesn't start wearing fatigues and side arms and most of all i hope colin and rocky don't find out harper might be a posuer,like most politicians that stumble their way into being the commander and chief.

All I can say, Thomas, is merci beaucoup! Where've you been man?

I think, after all, French Canada may not be as subject to M. Harper's somewhat stiff 'Gallic' charm as he hopes it will be. They'll take his money and his favours and chuckle behind their napkins after dinner. Can't wait until some of the Great Man's more fanatical fans in the west get wind of how popular he's become in La Belle Province.

Do you think the label 'Peewee Rambo' might have legs though?

with harpers sychophantic business bent ,the military industrial complex can only grow bigger with alberta in it's pocket to lube the machine of war.

peewee rambo fits like a glove.

as an aside,the weather has been so nice i have been biking a lot,getting the winter blahs out of my system so to speak.the good health ,good mental health aspect.

hope all is well.

Isn't it though?

I have been a fan of CBC forever, but it has become a national embarassment the way it is cheerleading our taking up the fall guy's role in Afghanistan, for the US who just can't seem to get out of there fast enough. They likely know what is coming better than our puppet troops.

I'm stuck on Harpo, but I do like Pee Wee Rambo , and just may have to take it up.

Now, by cracky, :-) Spring is breaking out all over here. Gotta take a break to go out and roll naked in the Periwinkle. (Maybe a little early. But at least do some exploring. See if I can discover whether the bears are starting to move around yet. Certainly they will be starting to rub the sleep out of their eyes.)

A good day brothers and sisters. Maybe later.

Coyote
You gotta watch that periwinkle bro. Sometimes at the end of a long winter it can hold surprises.
Cheers.

i just hope harper doesn't start wearing fatigues and side arms and most of all i hope colin and rocky don't find out harper might be a posuer,like most politicians that stumble their way into being the commander and chief.

Thomas your concern is touching, Like all politicians I expect Harper to stumble, for now out of inexperience. It was a politically bold move and welcome relief from Mr Dithers and Uncle chretin. But I suspect that for you there is nothing that Harper could do that you would be happy with.

Gwest
I certainly agree with you on Rumsfield, he should have given the boot sometime ago, after all it was his policy of “military lite” that was shown to be a failure. Like others before, applying a business model to military operations does not work.

Coyote
I agree that China has been the elephant in the room that people desperately try to ignore, I also find it is amusing that people think Afghanistan is all about oil and gas for the US. Iran and the other “stans” want direct access to the growing Indian and Chinese markets. Meanwhile those 2 big players (along with Russia) are driving the policies of a group who’s name escapes me for the moment (something like: Asia economic council) They were instrumental in getting the US to close shop in one of the “stans” last year. Both China and India are going to need a growing amount of oil in the next decade and are working far harder to secure it than the US is.

Funny to how everyone is up in arms about us being in Kandahar with PRT’s, but far less concerned when we were in there around Kabaul fighting the Taliban and AQ when the Libs were in power.

Canada’s “Industrial Military complex” that would be where Tim Hortons and Wendy’s open up a store in Kandahar right?

dang, monday moring

Is a quote from Thomas

I agree with G West, if the US & Israel do move against Iran, it will likely be air strikes only. That would buy some time and hopefully the Mad Mullahs would come to their senses (that's a stretch admittedly) and replace Ahmacompleteidiot with someone less off the wall.

I see Peewee Rambo just got the expected imprimatur from Shapiro for his solicitation of little Davie Emerson. Not a big surprise. The hero of Kandahar rolls on from one great victory to another - next thing you know Hillier will have him back in theatre hunting scumbags with a 28 gauge quail gun. What sleazeballs!
Shapiro said their actions might have created the impression among voters that they had been de-valued. No kidding!
Ethics - you've got to be kidding!
Feeling any better folks?

I recall having an Israeli visitor to Toronto tell me that it was her country Israel that told the United States what to do not the other way around. I'm amazed to think that she might be right - it often appears that way - when will the UN or the US ask Israel to defuse it's nuclear arsenal?

Think this isn't being discussed elsewhere? Think again. You might want to start here: http://thestar.blogs.com/azerb/
if you haven't already gone to the London Review of Books site to read the piece I mentioned yesterday.

In fairness, if you're convinced that the London Review Article has merit, you should read this, which goes to great lengths to refute it:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5342

There is an "obvious solution" (OS) to all this. The guy at the center, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been screaming the solution for a long time.

Unfortunately the big moment of hope came and went last summer. It was scary watching the lack of press coverage of what DIDN’T get accomplished at the review conference (held just once every 5 years) of the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It was sad listening to Canadian diplomat Paul Myers and other diplomats lament that they couldn’t get their message to the people, or even to parliamentarians.

Maybe it’s not too late though to present the obvious solution. Unfortunatley France, Britain and Germany aren’t saying it. China isn’t saying it. Russia and the U.S. have schemes that are in tiny respects slightly similar and yet very, very different and very, very inferior.

Indeed, the "European 3" and the rest of the crew negotiating with Iran are failing the global community. And where the OBVIOUS SOLUTION should be spoken and staked as a rallying point, there is silence. Even ElBaradei is finally giving up and joining the chorus of silence on the topic. I believe the silence is Canada’s to break.

Strengthen international law. That’s it. Strengthen the NPT by requiring some form of multilateral control or other reasonable form of control over uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies. It won’t be completely fair and would presumably further entrench the global nuclear haves / have-nots divide, but more than any other option it would at the very least, to put it bluntly, make anything that Iran is doing remotely incorrect by international standards.

That’s the funny thing. In case you’ve been caught up in the propaganda and are a little confused about all this crap, there is one point on which nobody disagrees – Iran is not doing anything contrary to international law. The question is not "does iran have a WMD"? The question is "is iran developing uranium enrichment facilities?" The answer – yes! Nobody denies that either. Unfortunately, international law is completely botched. If non-nuclear weapons states are supposed to not have nuclear weapons, then they (we) should not be able to enrich uranium, cuz then we essentially have nuclear weapons. (The only real barrier to developing nuclear weapons is access to plutonium or highly enriched uranium.) The lack of nuclear disarmament on the part of nuclear weapons states is a disgrace, but we can’t throw out the whole system yet.

So the drama that is unfolding is absurd. The international community is trying to get Iran to stop doing something that all other countries are allowed to do, because Iran has "bad intentions." I agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but we can’t base nonproliferation efforts on an evaluation of a country’s intentions. The rules should be based on objective, not subjective criteria. The objective fact is that enrichment capacity gives a country nuclear weapons capability. Unfortunately, that’s not against the rules - whoops!

The "European 3" and co. aren’t going to succeed in bullying Iran to give up enrichment. Canada must step forward with the Obvious Solution (OS) to a peaceful resolution to the iran situation or else one of 2 violent solutions will likely occur. One is for israel to bomb iran’s facilities for a day or so to set them back a couple years. Who knows what that would lead to....

....The second is the "regime change" option, which is actually remarkably funny given the earnestness of the topic. Here it goes – and it’s getting press coverage around the world. Professor Raymond Tanter, president of the Iran Policy Committee and Georgetown University National Press Club (and former National Security advisor of President Reagan), sums up the "regime change option:"

"...there is only one group to which the regime pays attention and fears . . . By delisting the National Council of Resistance of Iran and Mujahedeen-e Khalq from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations listing maintained by the [US] Department of State, it would allow regime change to be on the table against Tehran." Does delisting a group from a terrorist list so they can control a state sound like a recipe for long-term peace? :o) The rest of his advice is here – quite harsh:

http://www.iranpolicy.org/images/stories/32006NuclearPressConference/20mar06,%20options%20for%20the%20un,%20eu,%20and%20usa%20to%20prevent%20a%20nuclear-armed%20iran.doc

Countries like Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Brazil and many others are perfectly capable of creating nuclear weapons in relatively short order. But to date we have kinda decided against it - read the NPT if you want to know why.

http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

Nah, not here anyway. I think it's a bootlick loser policy kissing US ass in Afghanistan or anywhere else, whoever does it; Libs, Cons or Dims. The NDP talks the talk better is all. It's walking the walk that always trips them up. And while the Liberals for sure puckered the nation up at the sight of the bared Yankee ass in Kabul, it's the Pee-Wee Rambo Cons who have taken up tongueing them with an embarassing enthusiasm.

The problem is, of course, it starts with our very ruling class itself, particularly that element of it that identifies their interests in a junior partner role with the US, extends to our total political party system which really does not want to displease the ruling class, for their own reasons, and completes the circle jerk with a Canadian military officer corps that is so integrated into the continental control system of the US Empire's military, that they have basically forgotten which nations military and national interest they are really there to serve. Listen to the officer corp there in Afghanistan. The walk, talk, and think in the same strategic language as the US military masters.

It's part of what makes the current state of the nation, it's economy, democracy and military so embarassingly pathetic.