Terror 'Attack' that Wasnt

Afghanistan cannot be surrendered as a training base of unlimited potential to terrorists as it was prior to 2001

said Prime Minister Rudd. But what if war against and occupation of Middle Eastern countries is the cause of terrorism?

And what if the war in Afghanistan, nearly ten years old already, goes on for decades?

And also, it was the US, not Australia, that was attacked on 9/11. Australia does not want or need to get involved in the imperialist wars of the US or any other country. The proper response to terrorist incidents is police action under international law and redressing the grievances people have, not random war and killing of people and countries that may or mostly may not have had anything whatever to do with it.

This statement of motive for the alleged attack against an army base is plain enough and typical for the jihadis:

One of five men charged with plotting the alleged suicide attack, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, delivered a defiant outburst when he appeared in a Melbourne court on terrorist charges yesterday.

''You call us terrorists,'' he said. ''I've never killed anyone in my life.''

But he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court the Australian Army ''kills innocent people'' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During his rant, Fattal, 33, also said Israelis forcibly took land from Palestinians and said he wanted to leave Australia.

So why doesn't Mr Rudd:

1. Withdraw all Australian forces permanently from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East generally.

2. Stop supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and call for boycott, divestment and sanctions if Israel does not withdraw all soldiers and settlers behind the 1967 Green line.

The Australian Government will obviously do no such thing, and the reason is that we are not committed to a 'war on terror', we are committed (virtually as an appendage, not even with the dignity of UK 'spear carrier' status) to the global hegemonic ambitions of the United States. In this sense Rudd is no different from Howard.

In continuing the war effort against Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and condoning the occupation of those countries and of Palestine Rudd is simply creating a motive for vengeance and thus directly exposing Australia and Australians to an unnecessary risk of terrorist attack, small though that may be.

Afghanistan cannot be surrendered as a training base of unlimited potential to terrorists as it was prior to 2001

said Prime Minister Rudd. But what if war against and occupation of Middle Eastern countries is the cause of terrorism?

And what if the war in Afghanistan, nearly ten years old already, goes on for decades?

And also, it was the US, not Australia, that was attacked on 9/11. Australia does not want or need to get involved in the imperialist wars of the US or any other country. The proper response to terrorist incidents is police action under international law and redressing the grievances people have, not random war and killing of people and countries that may or mostly may not have had anything whatever to do with it.

This statement of motive for the alleged attack against an army base is plain enough and typical for the jihadis:

One of five men charged with plotting the alleged suicide attack, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, delivered a defiant outburst when he appeared in a Melbourne court on terrorist charges yesterday.

''You call us terrorists,'' he said. ''I've never killed anyone in my life.''

But he told the Melbourne Magistrates Court the Australian Army ''kills innocent people'' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

During his rant, Fattal, 33, also said Israelis forcibly took land from Palestinians and said he wanted to leave Australia.

So why doesn't Mr Rudd:

1. Withdraw all Australian forces permanently from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East generally.

2. Stop supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and call for boycott, divestment and sanctions if Israel does not withdraw all soldiers and settlers behind the 1967 Green line.

The Australian Government will obviously do no such thing, and the reason is that we are not committed to a 'war on terror', we are committed (virtually as an appendage, not even with the dignity of UK 'spear carrier' status) to the global hegemonic ambitions of the United States. In this sense Rudd is no different from Howard.

In continuing the war effort against Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and condoning the occupation of those countries and of Palestine Rudd is simply creating a motive for vengeance and thus directly exposing Australia and Australians to an unnecessary risk of terrorist attack, small though that may be.

Terror 'Attack' that Wasnt

Shut Down US Bases

Empire of Bases

How many military bases does the United States have in other countries?

According to the Pentagon's own list, the answer is around 865, but if you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand. These thousand bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country's territory....

The old way of doing colonialism, practiced by the Europeans, was to take over entire countries and administer them. But this was clumsy. The United States has pioneered a leaner approach to global empire. As historian Chalmers Johnson says, "America's version of the colony is the military base." The United States, says Johnson, has an "empire of bases."

Yet those foreign bases seem invisible as budget cutters squint at the Pentagon's $664 billion proposed budget....

It is also inevitable that, from time to time, U.S. soldiers--often drunk--commit crimes. The resentment these crimes cause is only exacerbated by the U.S. government's frequent insistence that such crimes not be prosecuted in local courts. In 2002, two U.S. soldiers killed two teenage girls in Korea as they walked to a birthday party. Korean campaigners claim this was one of 52,000 crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Korea between 1967 and 2002. The two U.S. soldiers were immediately repatriated to the United States so they could escape prosecution in Korea. In 1998, a marine pilot sliced through the cable of a ski gondola in Italy, killing 20 people, but U.S. officials slapped him on the wrist and refused to allow Italian authorities to try him. These and other similar incidents injured U.S. relations with important allies.

The 9/11 attacks are arguably the most spectacular example of the kind of blowback that can be generated from local resentment against U.S. bases. In the 1990s, the presence of U.S. military bases near the holiest sites of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia angered Osama bin Laden and provided Al Qaeda with a potent recruitment tool. The United States wisely closed its largest bases in Saudi Arabia, but it opened additional bases in Iraq and Afghanistan that are rapidly becoming new sources of friction in the relationship between the United States and the peoples of the Middle East....

U.S. foreign bases have a double edge: they project American power across the globe, but they also inflame U.S. foreign relations, generating resentment against the prostitution, environmental damage, petty crime, and everyday ethnocentrism that are their inevitable corollaries. Such resentments have recently forced the closure of U.S. bases in Ecuador, Puerto Rico, and Kyrgyzstan, and if past is prologue, more movements against U.S. bases can be expected in the future. Over the next 50 years, I believe we will witness the emergence of a new international norm according to which foreign military bases will be as indefensible as the colonial occupation of another country has become during the last 50 years.

The Declaration of Independence criticizes the British "for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" and "for protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States." Fine words! The United States should start taking them to heart.

No sovereign country worthy of the name would tolerate the presence of foreign troops on its own soil except in a dire emergency, ie imminent threat of invasion.

Empire of Bases

How many military bases does the United States have in other countries?

According to the Pentagon's own list, the answer is around 865, but if you include the new bases in Iraq and Afghanistan it is over a thousand. These thousand bases constitute 95 percent of all the military bases any country in the world maintains on any other country's territory....

The old way of doing colonialism, practiced by the Europeans, was to take over entire countries and administer them. But this was clumsy. The United States has pioneered a leaner approach to global empire. As historian Chalmers Johnson says, "America's version of the colony is the military base." The United States, says Johnson, has an "empire of bases."

Yet those foreign bases seem invisible as budget cutters squint at the Pentagon's $664 billion proposed budget....

It is also inevitable that, from time to time, U.S. soldiers--often drunk--commit crimes. The resentment these crimes cause is only exacerbated by the U.S. government's frequent insistence that such crimes not be prosecuted in local courts. In 2002, two U.S. soldiers killed two teenage girls in Korea as they walked to a birthday party. Korean campaigners claim this was one of 52,000 crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Korea between 1967 and 2002. The two U.S. soldiers were immediately repatriated to the United States so they could escape prosecution in Korea. In 1998, a marine pilot sliced through the cable of a ski gondola in Italy, killing 20 people, but U.S. officials slapped him on the wrist and refused to allow Italian authorities to try him. These and other similar incidents injured U.S. relations with important allies.

The 9/11 attacks are arguably the most spectacular example of the kind of blowback that can be generated from local resentment against U.S. bases. In the 1990s, the presence of U.S. military bases near the holiest sites of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia angered Osama bin Laden and provided Al Qaeda with a potent recruitment tool. The United States wisely closed its largest bases in Saudi Arabia, but it opened additional bases in Iraq and Afghanistan that are rapidly becoming new sources of friction in the relationship between the United States and the peoples of the Middle East....

U.S. foreign bases have a double edge: they project American power across the globe, but they also inflame U.S. foreign relations, generating resentment against the prostitution, environmental damage, petty crime, and everyday ethnocentrism that are their inevitable corollaries. Such resentments have recently forced the closure of U.S. bases in Ecuador, Puerto Rico, and Kyrgyzstan, and if past is prologue, more movements against U.S. bases can be expected in the future. Over the next 50 years, I believe we will witness the emergence of a new international norm according to which foreign military bases will be as indefensible as the colonial occupation of another country has become during the last 50 years.

The Declaration of Independence criticizes the British "for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" and "for protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States." Fine words! The United States should start taking them to heart.

No sovereign country worthy of the name would tolerate the presence of foreign troops on its own soil except in a dire emergency, ie imminent threat of invasion.

Shut Down US Bases

Housing Busts and Hedge Fund Meltdowns: A Spectator’s Guide

Housing Busts and Hedge Fund Meltdowns: A Spectator’s Guide: Nice image from the New York times helps explain some of the action in the subprime/ hedge fund markets. Crack open a tinnie and pull up a chair - this could be fun to watch.

It seems to me to be a classic george/hoyt/harrison 18-yr land boom and bust cycle, with a few features that could make it special. First, the Conservative Reaction against Socialism and the Sixties means we have had a good couple of decades of deregulation, privatisation and laissez faire behind us to help prepare for the big bang. Bascially, stagnant or falling wages, increased profits/surpluses and less regulation and control. Second, fancy new thingummies like computers, securitization, hedge funds and derivatives means we don't know how much credit has been created, what the risk is, who owns it or how to control it, or if it can be controlled. This has led to a land boom that the Economist magazine has described as the biggest bubble in history. Put it all together and the bust could be like the good ole days of 1890 or 1929. Third, the US army is doing a slow motion Barbarossa and Stalingrad with their Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) and Battle of Baghdad. Fourth, US current account deficit, dollar, budget deficit and economy could all go bust in a historic realignment of global hegemonic power - nothing less than the end of white power after 500 years of war and colonialism. And I haven't even mentioned peak oil and global warming.

Dr Strangemoney adds some thoughtful comments on the affair:

dr strangemoney: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bubble

General "Buck" Turgidson: General Ripper called Strategic Air Command headquarters shortly after he issued the go code. I have a portion of the transcript of that conversation if you'd like me to to read it.

President Merkin Muffley: Read it!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Ahem... The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he *had* issued the go code, and he said, uh, "Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all" and he hung up.

General "Buck" Turgidson: Uh, we're, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.

President Merkin Muffley: There's nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.

General "Buck" Turgidson: We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.

President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you *assured* me there was *no* possibility of such a thing *ever* occurring!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.
...

[discussing the Doomsday machine]
President Merkin Muffley: How is it possible for this thing to be triggered automatically and at the same time impossible to untrigger?

Dr. Strangelove: Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing.
...

[Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

----
Decoder ring for the kids at home:
nuclear weapons -> derivatives
post-nuclear war survival -> bailout

Housing Busts and Hedge Fund Meltdowns: A Spectator’s Guide: Nice image from the New York times helps explain some of the action in the subprime/ hedge fund markets. Crack open a tinnie and pull up a chair - this could be fun to watch.

It seems to me to be a classic george/hoyt/harrison 18-yr land boom and bust cycle, with a few features that could make it special. First, the Conservative Reaction against Socialism and the Sixties means we have had a good couple of decades of deregulation, privatisation and laissez faire behind us to help prepare for the big bang. Bascially, stagnant or falling wages, increased profits/surpluses and less regulation and control. Second, fancy new thingummies like computers, securitization, hedge funds and derivatives means we don't know how much credit has been created, what the risk is, who owns it or how to control it, or if it can be controlled. This has led to a land boom that the Economist magazine has described as the biggest bubble in history. Put it all together and the bust could be like the good ole days of 1890 or 1929. Third, the US army is doing a slow motion Barbarossa and Stalingrad with their Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) and Battle of Baghdad. Fourth, US current account deficit, dollar, budget deficit and economy could all go bust in a historic realignment of global hegemonic power - nothing less than the end of white power after 500 years of war and colonialism. And I haven't even mentioned peak oil and global warming.

Dr Strangemoney adds some thoughtful comments on the affair:

dr strangemoney: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bubble

General "Buck" Turgidson: General Ripper called Strategic Air Command headquarters shortly after he issued the go code. I have a portion of the transcript of that conversation if you'd like me to to read it.

President Merkin Muffley: Read it!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Ahem... The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he *had* issued the go code, and he said, uh, "Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all" and he hung up.

General "Buck" Turgidson: Uh, we're, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.

President Merkin Muffley: There's nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.

General "Buck" Turgidson: We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.

President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you *assured* me there was *no* possibility of such a thing *ever* occurring!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.
...

[discussing the Doomsday machine]
President Merkin Muffley: How is it possible for this thing to be triggered automatically and at the same time impossible to untrigger?

Dr. Strangelove: Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing.
...

[Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

----
Decoder ring for the kids at home:
nuclear weapons -> derivatives
post-nuclear war survival -> bailout

Housing Busts and Hedge Fund Meltdowns: A Spectator’s Guide

Nice IOZ post has a welcome jab at the 'blogosphere'

The tiresomely ignorant and in denial democratic/'progressive' blogosphere: "For many decades now, people like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky and James Bovard have been airing what we now call the imperial critique, which, as someone once said, has the unique benefit of being correct. Men like Chalmers Johnson have affirmed it from the inside. Its basic tenets are empirically demonstrable. Its fundamentals comport with nearly everything we know about American policy at home and abroad. It provides a basic intellectual framework through which all the events, actions, and outcomes that so puzzle Democrats ("I'll never understand why we went to war in Iraq in the first place. How could this have happened?") become understandable and predictable. It provides a clear history of the precedents to our current politics and current wars. It allows us to easily grasp the linkages between our militant posture abroad, our system of worldwide military satrapies, our inability to extricate ourselves from ill-conceived foreign adventures, our slow militarizing of the mechanisms of law and law enforcement within our own borders, and the otherwise inexplicable complicity of the supposed opposition party in all of these things. It is plainly, clearly, almost self-evidently true, and for fifty years at least it has been scorned as a conspiracy theory or an intellectual parlor game for bored old men, crank writers, and the comfortably tenured.

"The United States finished the Second World War and never stepped down from its war footing. The entire government of the United States was methodically rearranged to support imperial ventures. The threat of the Soviet Union was consciously and carefully manipulated, exaggerated, and propogated to justify the construction of the vastest military capacity the world has ever known--and, hopefully, ever will know. Intelligence services were created with the specific capacity and intent to control, influence, undermine, and subvert foreign governments. A long series of territorial skirmishes in Asia, Africa, and Latin America commenced. A complex system of proxy wars, client states, and puppet governments was begun. Post-War affirmations of universal rights were conspicuously repurposed, as goes the current neologism, as "humanitarian intervention," which, you'll note, is a euphemism for military actions in foreign territory for purposes other than immediate self-defense. The phrase "vital national iterest" entered the lexicon as a euphemism for using the military to control resources, access, and assets. This is not some hidden, secret history. It requires no special discipline or competency; no access to state secrets; no extraordinary skills as an analyst or historian or economist. It is neat, accessible, and sitting in plain view for anyone with the slightest inclination to shed the enforced--and not very skillfully, I'd add--doxologies of the American Empire, principle among them: That America is not an empire.

"Nonetheless, I have listened to these ideas mocked or dismissed since my earliest recollection of political awareness by people who call themselves "liberals" or now "progressives" or always "Democrats." These are the people who now claim to be antiwar, who have spent the last six years rightly lamenting the horrors wrought by the present executive, finding that the institutions of representative democracy have been seriously undermined and exist at present mostly as formal ritual and tradition, and discovering that their party of identification is not actually interested in taking concrete measures to rectify any of it, although they'll occasionally complain about it before voting to authorize this or that further expansion of military funding, presidential power, domestic surveillance, ad inf. These are the people who coined cute phrases like "the new Naderism" and who treat as children anyone who notes that the line they toe is naught but dust on a windy day. They say to those of us who absent ourselves from the current liturgies and catechisms of phony democracy that we're lazy, have no program, and take no action. But of course the whole purpose of writing this history day in and out is to try to convince enough people of it to create a program and to have something to do. Even then, I wouldn't be optimistic, but enough people could at least put a small wrench in the imperial works from time to time. And when we seem cranky, irritable, and misanthropic, it's because so very many of these liberals and progressives and Democrats are willing to walk right up to the edge, as Greenwald does, and to acknowledge the legitimacy of our critique, and to acknowledge that it's true their party has sold them out again and again and again because it is dedicated to the bipartisan, imperial governing consensus, only to come back, a day or two later, pimping some Democratic Party nonsense and some Democratic Party candidates and telling us that we are assholes once again for refusing to make the expression of our political will the choice between a blond imperialist from Chappaqua and a balding imperialist from Manhattan."

It is tiresome to the point of being comical how so many people refuse or fail to recognise the validity of the 'Imperial Critique.' I feel, however, that the ideological control is breaking down, and could fail rather suddenly. Opportunity abounds.

Nevertheless it remains true that one ought vote Democratic rather than Republican to try and minimise the harm. US politics is seriously impeded by 'first past the post' voting, which places such a great obstacle in the way of forming a third party. At least in Australia with preferential voting the option is there to create or join a more progressive party (ie, the Greens) and direct preferences to Labor.

The tiresomely ignorant and in denial democratic/'progressive' blogosphere: "For many decades now, people like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky and James Bovard have been airing what we now call the imperial critique, which, as someone once said, has the unique benefit of being correct. Men like Chalmers Johnson have affirmed it from the inside. Its basic tenets are empirically demonstrable. Its fundamentals comport with nearly everything we know about American policy at home and abroad. It provides a basic intellectual framework through which all the events, actions, and outcomes that so puzzle Democrats ("I'll never understand why we went to war in Iraq in the first place. How could this have happened?") become understandable and predictable. It provides a clear history of the precedents to our current politics and current wars. It allows us to easily grasp the linkages between our militant posture abroad, our system of worldwide military satrapies, our inability to extricate ourselves from ill-conceived foreign adventures, our slow militarizing of the mechanisms of law and law enforcement within our own borders, and the otherwise inexplicable complicity of the supposed opposition party in all of these things. It is plainly, clearly, almost self-evidently true, and for fifty years at least it has been scorned as a conspiracy theory or an intellectual parlor game for bored old men, crank writers, and the comfortably tenured.

"The United States finished the Second World War and never stepped down from its war footing. The entire government of the United States was methodically rearranged to support imperial ventures. The threat of the Soviet Union was consciously and carefully manipulated, exaggerated, and propogated to justify the construction of the vastest military capacity the world has ever known--and, hopefully, ever will know. Intelligence services were created with the specific capacity and intent to control, influence, undermine, and subvert foreign governments. A long series of territorial skirmishes in Asia, Africa, and Latin America commenced. A complex system of proxy wars, client states, and puppet governments was begun. Post-War affirmations of universal rights were conspicuously repurposed, as goes the current neologism, as "humanitarian intervention," which, you'll note, is a euphemism for military actions in foreign territory for purposes other than immediate self-defense. The phrase "vital national iterest" entered the lexicon as a euphemism for using the military to control resources, access, and assets. This is not some hidden, secret history. It requires no special discipline or competency; no access to state secrets; no extraordinary skills as an analyst or historian or economist. It is neat, accessible, and sitting in plain view for anyone with the slightest inclination to shed the enforced--and not very skillfully, I'd add--doxologies of the American Empire, principle among them: That America is not an empire.

"Nonetheless, I have listened to these ideas mocked or dismissed since my earliest recollection of political awareness by people who call themselves "liberals" or now "progressives" or always "Democrats." These are the people who now claim to be antiwar, who have spent the last six years rightly lamenting the horrors wrought by the present executive, finding that the institutions of representative democracy have been seriously undermined and exist at present mostly as formal ritual and tradition, and discovering that their party of identification is not actually interested in taking concrete measures to rectify any of it, although they'll occasionally complain about it before voting to authorize this or that further expansion of military funding, presidential power, domestic surveillance, ad inf. These are the people who coined cute phrases like "the new Naderism" and who treat as children anyone who notes that the line they toe is naught but dust on a windy day. They say to those of us who absent ourselves from the current liturgies and catechisms of phony democracy that we're lazy, have no program, and take no action. But of course the whole purpose of writing this history day in and out is to try to convince enough people of it to create a program and to have something to do. Even then, I wouldn't be optimistic, but enough people could at least put a small wrench in the imperial works from time to time. And when we seem cranky, irritable, and misanthropic, it's because so very many of these liberals and progressives and Democrats are willing to walk right up to the edge, as Greenwald does, and to acknowledge the legitimacy of our critique, and to acknowledge that it's true their party has sold them out again and again and again because it is dedicated to the bipartisan, imperial governing consensus, only to come back, a day or two later, pimping some Democratic Party nonsense and some Democratic Party candidates and telling us that we are assholes once again for refusing to make the expression of our political will the choice between a blond imperialist from Chappaqua and a balding imperialist from Manhattan."

It is tiresome to the point of being comical how so many people refuse or fail to recognise the validity of the 'Imperial Critique.' I feel, however, that the ideological control is breaking down, and could fail rather suddenly. Opportunity abounds.

Nevertheless it remains true that one ought vote Democratic rather than Republican to try and minimise the harm. US politics is seriously impeded by 'first past the post' voting, which places such a great obstacle in the way of forming a third party. At least in Australia with preferential voting the option is there to create or join a more progressive party (ie, the Greens) and direct preferences to Labor.

Nice IOZ post has a welcome jab at the 'blogosphere'

Hiroshima

The 'official' story is something like this: we had to drop the bomb on Japan to force them to surrender and thus save heaps of lives - allied soldiers and Japanese civilians who would all be killed in huge numbers when we invaded Japan.

This, it appears, would be a pack of lies invented after the fact of the bombings, setting aside the fact that even if it were true, it is no justification. Cut off from oil and overseas empire, Japan was totally defeated already. Invasion and further killing was not necessary - surrender or no surrender.

The atomic bombings were a war crime, a crime against humanity, an act of barbarism and state terrorism on a gigantic scale. A blunt and ruthless message to the Soviet Union and in fact the entire world.

It goes something like this: 'We've got a bomb. It's a big bomb. We're gonna drop it on a city and wipe it out. See that? We did it. You don't believe we could have done that? Wiped out a whole city and all it's people? You better believe it. There. We did it again. Got that?'

What makes the Holocaust horrific above all other crimes is that such a large number of innocent people could have been deliberately and cold-bloodedly murdered in a concentrated period of time, for no good reason, by a scientifically and technologically advanced society. The atomic bombing of Japan is in a somewhat similar category.

America lost its soul when it permitted itself to commit this crime. Since then, the postwar era could be described as a sustained struggle against the evil of US global hegemony, which has proved itself with its warcrimes and atrocities to be a kind of slow motion nazism. Many millions of victims over more than six decades on several continents. De-militarization, de-nuclearisation, de-nazification and dismantlement of the United States could be the only remedy.

On Aug. 9, three days after the Enola Gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and hours after Bockscar dropped it on Nagasaki, Truman announced, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." Actually, of course, it was not a military base, but a city, a fact that Truman must have known before he made the decision. And if he didn't know it, then how horrible is that? Someone who wants to drop a nuclear bomb on a target should surely do due diligence to find out what the target is. That seems like a minimal requirement.

In response to a clergyman who criticized his decision, Truman wrote:

"I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast."

It's a sad fact of humanity that once war starts the hate and killing is all but impossible to restrain. Another reason why the concept of 'humanitarian war' is such a nauseating fraud.

And how regrettable was it to Truman? He later wrote, "I telephoned Byrnes [his secretary of state] aboard ship to give him the news and then said to the group of sailors around me, 'This is the greatest thing in history.'"

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

Fleet Admiral Leahy, for instance, the chief of staff to the president and a friend of Truman's, thought the atom bomb unnecessary. Furthermore, he wrote, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."[4] Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, thought the war could be ended well before a planned November 1945 naval invasion. And in a public speech on Oct. 5, 1945, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, said, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war."

Many Army leaders had similar views. Author Norman Cousins writes of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:

"[H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

What about the idea that the Japanese would fiercely resist an invasion of their main islands? It is one of those myths that have come about with few apparent facts to support it. The various military men who were close to the action were quite confident that the Japanese had been so thoroughly bombed and their infrastructure so thoroughly destroyed that there was no need for the atom bomb. The literature is rife with quotes to that effect.

Henderson goes on in his article to describe how, after the bombing, there was ongoing criticism from a number of sources, including Einstein, and so therefore they had to craft an official response. It was in this way that the 'saving American lives' story was invented, years after the fact.

(Photo is Seizo Yamada's ground level photo taken from approximately 7km NE of Hiroshima)

The 'official' story is something like this: we had to drop the bomb on Japan to force them to surrender and thus save heaps of lives - allied soldiers and Japanese civilians who would all be killed in huge numbers when we invaded Japan.

This, it appears, would be a pack of lies invented after the fact of the bombings, setting aside the fact that even if it were true, it is no justification. Cut off from oil and overseas empire, Japan was totally defeated already. Invasion and further killing was not necessary - surrender or no surrender.

The atomic bombings were a war crime, a crime against humanity, an act of barbarism and state terrorism on a gigantic scale. A blunt and ruthless message to the Soviet Union and in fact the entire world.

It goes something like this: 'We've got a bomb. It's a big bomb. We're gonna drop it on a city and wipe it out. See that? We did it. You don't believe we could have done that? Wiped out a whole city and all it's people? You better believe it. There. We did it again. Got that?'

What makes the Holocaust horrific above all other crimes is that such a large number of innocent people could have been deliberately and cold-bloodedly murdered in a concentrated period of time, for no good reason, by a scientifically and technologically advanced society. The atomic bombing of Japan is in a somewhat similar category.

America lost its soul when it permitted itself to commit this crime. Since then, the postwar era could be described as a sustained struggle against the evil of US global hegemony, which has proved itself with its warcrimes and atrocities to be a kind of slow motion nazism. Many millions of victims over more than six decades on several continents. De-militarization, de-nuclearisation, de-nazification and dismantlement of the United States could be the only remedy.

On Aug. 9, three days after the Enola Gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and hours after Bockscar dropped it on Nagasaki, Truman announced, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." Actually, of course, it was not a military base, but a city, a fact that Truman must have known before he made the decision. And if he didn't know it, then how horrible is that? Someone who wants to drop a nuclear bomb on a target should surely do due diligence to find out what the target is. That seems like a minimal requirement.

In response to a clergyman who criticized his decision, Truman wrote:

"I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast."

It's a sad fact of humanity that once war starts the hate and killing is all but impossible to restrain. Another reason why the concept of 'humanitarian war' is such a nauseating fraud.

And how regrettable was it to Truman? He later wrote, "I telephoned Byrnes [his secretary of state] aboard ship to give him the news and then said to the group of sailors around me, 'This is the greatest thing in history.'"

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

Fleet Admiral Leahy, for instance, the chief of staff to the president and a friend of Truman's, thought the atom bomb unnecessary. Furthermore, he wrote, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."[4] Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, thought the war could be ended well before a planned November 1945 naval invasion. And in a public speech on Oct. 5, 1945, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, said, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war."

Many Army leaders had similar views. Author Norman Cousins writes of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:

"[H]e saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

What about the idea that the Japanese would fiercely resist an invasion of their main islands? It is one of those myths that have come about with few apparent facts to support it. The various military men who were close to the action were quite confident that the Japanese had been so thoroughly bombed and their infrastructure so thoroughly destroyed that there was no need for the atom bomb. The literature is rife with quotes to that effect.

Henderson goes on in his article to describe how, after the bombing, there was ongoing criticism from a number of sources, including Einstein, and so therefore they had to craft an official response. It was in this way that the 'saving American lives' story was invented, years after the fact.

(Photo is Seizo Yamada's ground level photo taken from approximately 7km NE of Hiroshima)

Hiroshima

Coup against Maliki reported in the making: Maliki and the Iraqi government would be replaced by an army junta or dictator who would better follow US orders.

Covert operations, they aint what the used to be, are they? Now discussed in the pages of major newspapers and bloggers all over the world. Anyone can chip their two cents into the plot.

The mean part of me wants the US to go ahead with this coup. The country is in ruins and heading for dismemberment, with the 'government' having virtually no authority. But despite efforts by the US to install puppets like Chalabi or Allawi, and in large part because of the determination of Sistani and the Shiites, the Iraqi government, such as it is, is in fact 'democratic', with elections, a parliament, a constitution and ministries.

If this was swept away in a US-orchestrated coup, probably futile anyway, the last shreds of US credibility would be gone with it. Weapons of mass destruction? Nothing. Links to al-Qaeda? Zilch. Democracy? Abolished. Stay the course, Dubya, Mission Accomplished, bring 'em on, don't cut and run, finish the job.

Billmon also posts on what a dumb idea a coup would be and the seeming obliviousness of the US ruling elite to the further damage to their shattered credibility.

Coup against Maliki reported in the making: Maliki and the Iraqi government would be replaced by an army junta or dictator who would better follow US orders.

Covert operations, they aint what the used to be, are they? Now discussed in the pages of major newspapers and bloggers all over the world. Anyone can chip their two cents into the plot.

The mean part of me wants the US to go ahead with this coup. The country is in ruins and heading for dismemberment, with the 'government' having virtually no authority. But despite efforts by the US to install puppets like Chalabi or Allawi, and in large part because of the determination of Sistani and the Shiites, the Iraqi government, such as it is, is in fact 'democratic', with elections, a parliament, a constitution and ministries.

If this was swept away in a US-orchestrated coup, probably futile anyway, the last shreds of US credibility would be gone with it. Weapons of mass destruction? Nothing. Links to al-Qaeda? Zilch. Democracy? Abolished. Stay the course, Dubya, Mission Accomplished, bring 'em on, don't cut and run, finish the job.

Billmon also posts on what a dumb idea a coup would be and the seeming obliviousness of the US ruling elite to the further damage to their shattered credibility.

Levy: The mystery of America: "Rice has been [to Israel several] times in the course of a year and a half, and what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask herself?

"It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world? How is it that the world's only superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution, does not lift a finger to promote it?"

One could say about Rice/Bush/Cheney that they are corrupt, ignorant, incompetent etc. But US policy is disgraceful, inhumane and dangerous. Why do they do it? There are two usual explanations: the Israel lobby, and regional hegemony. Neither (or both) seem wholly satisfactory. It is folly.

Levy: The mystery of America: "Rice has been [to Israel several] times in the course of a year and a half, and what has come of it? Has anyone asked her about this? Does she ask herself?

"It is hard to understand how the secretary of state allows herself to be so humiliated. It is even harder to understand how the superpower she represents allows itself to act in such a hollow and useless way. The mystery of America remains unsolved: How is it that the United States is doing nothing to advance a solution to the most dangerous and lengthiest conflict in our world? How is it that the world's only superpower, which has the power to quickly facilitate a solution, does not lift a finger to promote it?"

One could say about Rice/Bush/Cheney that they are corrupt, ignorant, incompetent etc. But US policy is disgraceful, inhumane and dangerous. Why do they do it? There are two usual explanations: the Israel lobby, and regional hegemony. Neither (or both) seem wholly satisfactory. It is folly.

Soviet Generals: NATO will rout from Afghanistan: "British troops will be forced to flee Afghanistan, say former Soviet commanders who oversaw Moscow's disastrous campaign against the mujahideen in the 1980s.

"In a withering assessment of the "hopeless" campaign being waged there, they have told The Sunday Telegraph that mounting casualties will drive out Britain and its Nato allies. Chillingly, General Ruslan Aushev, who was injured during fighting with Mujahideen rebels, predicted: "You will flee from there.""

"Aushev believed that the Americans were attempting to pave the way for a quiet exit by asking for more soldiers from allies such as Britain and Poland. "The Americans can't have another Vietnam, so they are saving face. They will say, 'We did not withdraw; it was the Australians, the British who withdrew'."

Soviet Generals: NATO will rout from Afghanistan: "British troops will be forced to flee Afghanistan, say former Soviet commanders who oversaw Moscow's disastrous campaign against the mujahideen in the 1980s.

"In a withering assessment of the "hopeless" campaign being waged there, they have told The Sunday Telegraph that mounting casualties will drive out Britain and its Nato allies. Chillingly, General Ruslan Aushev, who was injured during fighting with Mujahideen rebels, predicted: "You will flee from there.""

"Aushev believed that the Americans were attempting to pave the way for a quiet exit by asking for more soldiers from allies such as Britain and Poland. "The Americans can't have another Vietnam, so they are saving face. They will say, 'We did not withdraw; it was the Australians, the British who withdrew'."

Public Daily Briefing: Bush-Cheney Determined to Strike in Iran

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bush-Cheney since they came to power have wanted to conduct attacks in Iran.

We are picking up immense amounts of chatter about a possible war against Iran. All the lights are blinking red.

As Col. Sam Gardiner has been quoted: "When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran."

Dave Lindorff: Report on strike group heading for the Gulf (21/9/6)

Time: What War with Iran would look like (17/9/6)

Col. Sam Gardiner: ASSESSING U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS ON IRAN (Sept 06)

Billmon: War with Iran could be just the beginning. (21/9/6)

Lindorff: Bush and Iran - 26/9/6

SusanUnPC: October Surprise? (22/9/6)

Raw Story: Senior Pentagon Planning moves to second stage for Iran strike

Chris Hedges: Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse

Chossudovsky: War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia: Good on basic analysis and the citizen's duty in this crisis.

Moves toward War with Iran: William Polk rates an attack on Iran as a 90% chance before the end of Bush's term. He quotes one source as saying that "conversations with senior officials in the Pentagon and the White House had convinced him that the decision for war had already been made." No one supports the attack, not even the British. (Little Johnny Howard isnt mentioned.)

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bush-Cheney since they came to power have wanted to conduct attacks in Iran.

We are picking up immense amounts of chatter about a possible war against Iran. All the lights are blinking red.

As Col. Sam Gardiner has been quoted: "When I discuss the possibility of an American military strike on Iran with my European friends, they invariably point out that an armed confrontation does not make sense -- that it would be unlikely to yield any of the results that American policymakers do want, and that it would be highly likely to yield results that they do not. I tell them they cannot understand U.S. policy if they insist on passing options through that filter. The "making sense" filter was not applied over the past four years for Iraq, and it is unlikely to be applied in evaluating whether to attack Iran."

Dave Lindorff: Report on strike group heading for the Gulf (21/9/6)

Time: What War with Iran would look like (17/9/6)

Col. Sam Gardiner: ASSESSING U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS ON IRAN (Sept 06)

Billmon: War with Iran could be just the beginning. (21/9/6)

Lindorff: Bush and Iran - 26/9/6

SusanUnPC: October Surprise? (22/9/6)

Raw Story: Senior Pentagon Planning moves to second stage for Iran strike

Chris Hedges: Bush’s Nuclear Apocalypse

Chossudovsky: War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia: Good on basic analysis and the citizen's duty in this crisis.

Moves toward War with Iran: William Polk rates an attack on Iran as a 90% chance before the end of Bush's term. He quotes one source as saying that "conversations with senior officials in the Pentagon and the White House had convinced him that the decision for war had already been made." No one supports the attack, not even the British. (Little Johnny Howard isnt mentioned.)

Public Daily Briefing: Bush-Cheney Determined to Strike in Iran

Iraq war among history's 'dumbest'

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq was among the "dumbest moves of all time" that ranks with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia, billionaire philanthropist Ted Turner said Tuesday."

I think he is exaggerating a little bit here. The actual Barbarossa moment (still to come) is when Bush attacks Iran....

But the realisation is dawning widely that the Iraq war is a disaster with immense strategic significance. If the US is ultimately ejected from Iraq, which looks more and more likely, its hegemonic ambitions in the region and globally are essentially defeated.

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq was among the "dumbest moves of all time" that ranks with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and the German invasion of Russia, billionaire philanthropist Ted Turner said Tuesday."

I think he is exaggerating a little bit here. The actual Barbarossa moment (still to come) is when Bush attacks Iran....

But the realisation is dawning widely that the Iraq war is a disaster with immense strategic significance. If the US is ultimately ejected from Iraq, which looks more and more likely, its hegemonic ambitions in the region and globally are essentially defeated.

Iraq war among history's 'dumbest'

Ahmadinejad, Chavez denounce Bush at UN General Assembly

"The Security Council must be overhauled because the current structure allows some “hegemonic powers” to impose their policies on others, undermining its credibility and fostering global mistrust, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the United Nations General Assembly."

"“It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said in an address to world leaders gathered for the Assembly’s annual general debate. He accused the United States and the United Kingdom, which are both permanent members of the Council, of being able to commit “aggression, occupation and violation of international law” with impunity.

"“Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened?” he asked. The Iranian President cited several examples of what he said were situations where “nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.”

"He listed Iran’s nuclear activities, which he described as “transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors”; the recent conflict between the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and Hizbollah in Lebanon; the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory; and the continuing violence and presence of foreign troops in Iraq. “In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfil its responsibilities?”

"Mr. Ahmadinejad called for the General Assembly, “as the highest organ of the UN,” to lead the task of reforming the UN system as a whole and the Security Council in particular. In the interim, he said, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Africa should each have a permanent, veto-wielding representative on the Council. “The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.”"

Sensible remarks that undoubtedly most world leaders would agree with. There is nothing that Bush can do to counter this, the man is just an embarassment for the United States, and a danger to the world.

Venuzuelan President Hugo Chavez also addressed the Assembly in similar terms, remarkably enough brandishing a copy of Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival in the process, which promptly shot to number one (from 26,000!) on the Amazon.com bestseller lists.

"The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads," Chavez said.

"I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

"They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

"What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

"The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

"Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up."

This is open, public ridicule of an Emperor who has no clothes, in the heart of the Great City of the Empire itself. No wonder 'Bonkers' Bolton wanted to blow off the top ten stories of the UN building.

Chavez entertained the General Assembly by remarking as he took the stand that "The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house. "And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

"Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world."

You could tell Bush was offended by Chavez calling him the devil, because his tail stopped wagging. But seriously, when pressed for comment, "I won't dignitify Chavez with an response," President Bush fumed. "I'm very busy right now trying to unite Congress behind my torture plan." hat tip: Big Gav.

We've already seen how British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been found to have the Mark of the Beast on his forehead. Where does our own little Johnny Howard stand in relation to these epochal events? John W Howard he likes to style himself, the W standing it is said for Winston, as in Churchill. But when the laughter dies down, we must remember that W also stand for 'Dubya' - the Beast. Howard has the Mark, no question.

UPDATE: More from the article linked above: "Hegemony or Survival dislodged the earlier number one by New York Times columnist Frank Rich The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina. "I hate the guy. Forget about geopolitics," Mr Rich joked overnight speaking on US television, when asked about being bumped from the top book sales spot.

"Mr Chomsky, 77, told to the New York Times last week that he would be "happy to meet" Mr Chavez. A linguistics scholar and longtime critic of US foreign policy, he told the daily he is "quite interested" in Mr Chavez's policies and finds many of his views "quite constructive."

There are some good reviews of Hegemony or Survival on the Amazon site as well as the usual ignorant, hateful, deranged attacks that people make on Chomsky. I agree with the main reviewer that the book gets a star knocked off for being a bit of a rehash and also as compared to some of Chomsky's very best and most important works such as Manufacturing Consent, the work in question does not merit five stars - but as the reviewer rightly said "to suggest that Chomsky is ever anything less than four stars is to betray one's ignorance and bias." The book in question is a must read for anyone concerned about the future of the planet.

Chomsky seems to evoke emotional reactions in some readers (and non-readers). For people new to him I would urge that it is important his books be read carefully, in full, including the notes, and that the content of his argument be properly understood before formulating an opinion. It can be seen on the Amazon site that certain misrepresentations or misunderstandings about Chomsky are repeated over and over again by 'critics', but if you have any knowledge of the subject at all these errors are quite obvious and have been refuted by Chomsky and others time and again.

For example, its said that Chomsky 'hates America and supports tyranny'. No, he despises all tyranny, and loves the freedom and prosperity of America, but as a true patriot criticises his country where it has done wrong. Or, it is said that he is totally negative but has nothing constructive to propose. Again, for those with any knowledge of the matter, he is full of positive suggestions, which basically fall along the lines of the country living up to its professed beliefs in freedom, democracy and human rights and thus ending involvement in crimes, violations and abuses.

"The Security Council must be overhauled because the current structure allows some “hegemonic powers” to impose their policies on others, undermining its credibility and fostering global mistrust, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the United Nations General Assembly."

"“It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said in an address to world leaders gathered for the Assembly’s annual general debate. He accused the United States and the United Kingdom, which are both permanent members of the Council, of being able to commit “aggression, occupation and violation of international law” with impunity.

"“Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened?” he asked. The Iranian President cited several examples of what he said were situations where “nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.”

"He listed Iran’s nuclear activities, which he described as “transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors”; the recent conflict between the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and Hizbollah in Lebanon; the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory; and the continuing violence and presence of foreign troops in Iraq. “In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfil its responsibilities?”

"Mr. Ahmadinejad called for the General Assembly, “as the highest organ of the UN,” to lead the task of reforming the UN system as a whole and the Security Council in particular. In the interim, he said, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Africa should each have a permanent, veto-wielding representative on the Council. “The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.”"

Sensible remarks that undoubtedly most world leaders would agree with. There is nothing that Bush can do to counter this, the man is just an embarassment for the United States, and a danger to the world.

Venuzuelan President Hugo Chavez also addressed the Assembly in similar terms, remarkably enough brandishing a copy of Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival in the process, which promptly shot to number one (from 26,000!) on the Amazon.com bestseller lists.

"The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads," Chavez said.

"I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

"They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

"What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

"The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom."

"Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are standing up."

This is open, public ridicule of an Emperor who has no clothes, in the heart of the Great City of the Empire itself. No wonder 'Bonkers' Bolton wanted to blow off the top ten stories of the UN building.

Chavez entertained the General Assembly by remarking as he took the stand that "The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house. "And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

"Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world."

You could tell Bush was offended by Chavez calling him the devil, because his tail stopped wagging. But seriously, when pressed for comment, "I won't dignitify Chavez with an response," President Bush fumed. "I'm very busy right now trying to unite Congress behind my torture plan." hat tip: Big Gav.

We've already seen how British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been found to have the Mark of the Beast on his forehead. Where does our own little Johnny Howard stand in relation to these epochal events? John W Howard he likes to style himself, the W standing it is said for Winston, as in Churchill. But when the laughter dies down, we must remember that W also stand for 'Dubya' - the Beast. Howard has the Mark, no question.

UPDATE: More from the article linked above: "Hegemony or Survival dislodged the earlier number one by New York Times columnist Frank Rich The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina. "I hate the guy. Forget about geopolitics," Mr Rich joked overnight speaking on US television, when asked about being bumped from the top book sales spot.

"Mr Chomsky, 77, told to the New York Times last week that he would be "happy to meet" Mr Chavez. A linguistics scholar and longtime critic of US foreign policy, he told the daily he is "quite interested" in Mr Chavez's policies and finds many of his views "quite constructive."

There are some good reviews of Hegemony or Survival on the Amazon site as well as the usual ignorant, hateful, deranged attacks that people make on Chomsky. I agree with the main reviewer that the book gets a star knocked off for being a bit of a rehash and also as compared to some of Chomsky's very best and most important works such as Manufacturing Consent, the work in question does not merit five stars - but as the reviewer rightly said "to suggest that Chomsky is ever anything less than four stars is to betray one's ignorance and bias." The book in question is a must read for anyone concerned about the future of the planet.

Chomsky seems to evoke emotional reactions in some readers (and non-readers). For people new to him I would urge that it is important his books be read carefully, in full, including the notes, and that the content of his argument be properly understood before formulating an opinion. It can be seen on the Amazon site that certain misrepresentations or misunderstandings about Chomsky are repeated over and over again by 'critics', but if you have any knowledge of the subject at all these errors are quite obvious and have been refuted by Chomsky and others time and again.

For example, its said that Chomsky 'hates America and supports tyranny'. No, he despises all tyranny, and loves the freedom and prosperity of America, but as a true patriot criticises his country where it has done wrong. Or, it is said that he is totally negative but has nothing constructive to propose. Again, for those with any knowledge of the matter, he is full of positive suggestions, which basically fall along the lines of the country living up to its professed beliefs in freedom, democracy and human rights and thus ending involvement in crimes, violations and abuses.

Ahmadinejad, Chavez denounce Bush at UN General Assembly

Norman Solomon on the debacle of the Iraq war: and how the corporate media, seemingly undeterred, is going through all the motions of preparation for a war on Iran.

Eric Margolis discusses how badly the forgotten war in Afghanistan is going. The imperial powers look to be headed for inevitable defeat there as well.

Norman Solomon on the debacle of the Iraq war: and how the corporate media, seemingly undeterred, is going through all the motions of preparation for a war on Iran.

Eric Margolis discusses how badly the forgotten war in Afghanistan is going. The imperial powers look to be headed for inevitable defeat there as well.

The Mark of the Beast: "Observers at the TUC conference were startled to spot a giant W etched on [Blair's] skin. To some the wrinkle may be a sign that in troubled times the PM is growing ever closer to George W Bush and becoming Tony Dubya Blair.

"But docs blame serious stress, which restricts blood flow to the skin causing it to wrinkle in that particular shape. Dr Patrick Bowler, head of the British Association of Cosmetic Doctors, said: "My advice is resign tomorrow."

History will show that Blair was a remarkably successful, popular and unbeatable politician whose career and reputation were destroyed by the Iraq war. Why did he do it?

The conventional explanation is that Blair is not very bright, and could not make independent strategic assessments (at this late stage he even backed the Lebanon war!); that he was targeted by Washington with calculated flattery that he could not resist; that he had delusions about his own personal role with Bush and Washington; that he worshipped power above all, and the greatest power the most; that Britain's role as the US 'lieutenant, the fashionable word is partner' rendered it more difficult to chart an independent course. But now we know the real reason and all is explained.... he is a minion of Mephistopheles.

A visit to an exorcist or simply Repentence might do the trick, or if there is no hope for him then he needs be cast down from on high to the lowest places. Now we need to inspect urgently John 'Dubya' Howard's forehead to see if he has also got the Mark of the Beast....

The Mark of the Beast: "Observers at the TUC conference were startled to spot a giant W etched on [Blair's] skin. To some the wrinkle may be a sign that in troubled times the PM is growing ever closer to George W Bush and becoming Tony Dubya Blair.

"But docs blame serious stress, which restricts blood flow to the skin causing it to wrinkle in that particular shape. Dr Patrick Bowler, head of the British Association of Cosmetic Doctors, said: "My advice is resign tomorrow."

History will show that Blair was a remarkably successful, popular and unbeatable politician whose career and reputation were destroyed by the Iraq war. Why did he do it?

The conventional explanation is that Blair is not very bright, and could not make independent strategic assessments (at this late stage he even backed the Lebanon war!); that he was targeted by Washington with calculated flattery that he could not resist; that he had delusions about his own personal role with Bush and Washington; that he worshipped power above all, and the greatest power the most; that Britain's role as the US 'lieutenant, the fashionable word is partner' rendered it more difficult to chart an independent course. But now we know the real reason and all is explained.... he is a minion of Mephistopheles.

A visit to an exorcist or simply Repentence might do the trick, or if there is no hope for him then he needs be cast down from on high to the lowest places. Now we need to inspect urgently John 'Dubya' Howard's forehead to see if he has also got the Mark of the Beast....

The Great Equalizer: Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon: Gabriel Kolko reflects on the consequences of easily and cheaply available missiles and nuclear weapons. Its a changed world.

"American experts believe that the Iranians compelled [Hezbollah] to keep in reserve the far more powerful and longer range cruise missiles they already possess. Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles and American experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable."

"The U.S. war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas -- a half trillion dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have left America on the verge of defeat in both places. The "shock and awe" military strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons makers -- indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S. economic bankruptcy.

"The Bush Administration has deeply alienated more of America's nominal allies than any government in modern times. The Iraq war and subsequent conflict in Lebanon have left its Middle East policy in shambles and made Iranian strategic predominance even more likely, all of which was predicted before the Iraq invasion. Its coalitions, as Thomas Ricks shows in his wordy but utterly convincing and critical book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, are finished. Its sublime confidence and reliance on the power of its awesome weaponry is a crucial cause of its failure, although we cannot minimize its preemptory hubris and nationalist myopia. The United States, whose costliest political and military adventures since 1950 have ended in failure, now must face the fact that the technology for confronting its power is rapidly becoming widespread and cheap. It is within the reach of not merely states but of relatively small groups of people. Destructive power is now virtually "democratized.""

Perhaps Mr Howard might be asked to comment on the contention that the 'coalition with the US' is finished, and why that is so? Or if is is not finished, does it go all the way to Iran?

The Great Equalizer: Lessons From Iraq and Lebanon: Gabriel Kolko reflects on the consequences of easily and cheaply available missiles and nuclear weapons. Its a changed world.

"American experts believe that the Iranians compelled [Hezbollah] to keep in reserve the far more powerful and longer range cruise missiles they already possess. Iran itself possesses large quantities of these missiles and American experts believe they may very well be capable of destroying aircraft carrier battle groups. All attempts to devise defenses against these rockets, even the most primitive, have been expensive failures, and anti-missile technology everywhere has remained, after decades of effort and billions of dollars, unreliable."

"The U.S. war in Iraq is a political disaster against the guerrillas -- a half trillion dollars spent there and in Afghanistan have left America on the verge of defeat in both places. The "shock and awe" military strategy has utterly failed save to produce contracts for weapons makers -- indeed, it has also contributed heavily to de facto U.S. economic bankruptcy.

"The Bush Administration has deeply alienated more of America's nominal allies than any government in modern times. The Iraq war and subsequent conflict in Lebanon have left its Middle East policy in shambles and made Iranian strategic predominance even more likely, all of which was predicted before the Iraq invasion. Its coalitions, as Thomas Ricks shows in his wordy but utterly convincing and critical book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, are finished. Its sublime confidence and reliance on the power of its awesome weaponry is a crucial cause of its failure, although we cannot minimize its preemptory hubris and nationalist myopia. The United States, whose costliest political and military adventures since 1950 have ended in failure, now must face the fact that the technology for confronting its power is rapidly becoming widespread and cheap. It is within the reach of not merely states but of relatively small groups of people. Destructive power is now virtually "democratized.""

Perhaps Mr Howard might be asked to comment on the contention that the 'coalition with the US' is finished, and why that is so? Or if is is not finished, does it go all the way to Iran?

Iranian President Ahmadinejad did not say the Holocaust was a myth or call for the annihilation of Israel: Mistranslations have been repeatedly circulated in the corporate media, obviously in order to raise the possibility of war with Iran. Its remarkable the extent to which this propaganda is circulated and the complacency with which it is regarded. Most sane people agree that a war on Iran would be a bigger disaster than the Iraq war.

However, former CIA analyst Ray Close makes an argument that in spite of the obvious and great dangers, Bush will be driven to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad did not say the Holocaust was a myth or call for the annihilation of Israel: Mistranslations have been repeatedly circulated in the corporate media, obviously in order to raise the possibility of war with Iran. Its remarkable the extent to which this propaganda is circulated and the complacency with which it is regarded. Most sane people agree that a war on Iran would be a bigger disaster than the Iraq war.

However, former CIA analyst Ray Close makes an argument that in spite of the obvious and great dangers, Bush will be driven to attack Iran before the end of his term.

Iranian President Opens Up: Interview is almost as interesting for the foolish performance of Mike Wallace as it is for the Iranian President's comments.

Iranian President Opens Up: Interview is almost as interesting for the foolish performance of Mike Wallace as it is for the Iranian President's comments.

Hezbollah: Barbarous terrorists?: "When the police van arrived and the six who were to die stepped out, a tremendous and awful cry arose from the crowd. The six young men walked firmly to the iron posts, and as their hands were tied behind the shafts they held their bare heads upright, one or two with closed eyes, the others staring over the line of the buildings and the crowd into the lowering clouds . . . There was the jarring, metallic noise of rifle bolts and then the sharp report. The six young men slid slowly to their knees, their heads falling to one side. An officer ran with frantic haste from one to the other, giving the coup de grâce with a revolver, and one of the victims was seen to work his mouth as though trying to say something to the executioner. As the last shot was fired, the terrible, savage cry rose again from the crowd. Mothers with babies rushed forward to look on the bodies at close range, and small boys ran from one to the other spitting upon the bodies. The crowd dispersed, men and women laughing and shouting at one another. Barbarous?"

"Barak abandoned Lebanon two months ahead of schedule, suddenly and without advance warning, on 23 May 2000. His SLA clients and other Lebanese who had worked for the occupation over the previous 22 years were caught off guard. A few escaped into Israel, but most remained. UN personnel made urgent appeals for help to avert a massacre by Hizbullah. Hizbullah went in, but nothing happened.

"‘It is no secret that some young combatants, as well as some of the region’s citizens, had a desire for vengeance – especially those who were aware of what collaborators and their families had inflicted on the mujahedin and their next of kin across the occupied villages,’ Qassem wrote in Hizbullah: The Story from Within. ‘Resistance leadership issued a strict warning forbidding any such action and vowing to discipline those who took it whatever the justifications.’ Hizbullah captured Israeli weapons, which it is now using against Israel, and turned over SLA militiamen to the government without murdering any of them. Barbarous?"

"Naim Qassem called the liberation of south Lebanon ‘the grandest and most important victory over Israel since it commenced its occupation [of Palestine] fifty years before – a liberation that was achieved at the hands of the weakest of nations, of a resistance operating through the most modest of means, not at the hands of armies with powerful military arsenals.’ But what impressed most Lebanese as much as Hizbullah’s victory over Israel was its refusal to murder collaborators – a triumph over the tribalism that has plagued and divided Lebanese society since its founding. Christians I knew in the Lebanese army admitted that their own side would have committed atrocities."

Hezbollah: Barbarous terrorists?: "When the police van arrived and the six who were to die stepped out, a tremendous and awful cry arose from the crowd. The six young men walked firmly to the iron posts, and as their hands were tied behind the shafts they held their bare heads upright, one or two with closed eyes, the others staring over the line of the buildings and the crowd into the lowering clouds . . . There was the jarring, metallic noise of rifle bolts and then the sharp report. The six young men slid slowly to their knees, their heads falling to one side. An officer ran with frantic haste from one to the other, giving the coup de grâce with a revolver, and one of the victims was seen to work his mouth as though trying to say something to the executioner. As the last shot was fired, the terrible, savage cry rose again from the crowd. Mothers with babies rushed forward to look on the bodies at close range, and small boys ran from one to the other spitting upon the bodies. The crowd dispersed, men and women laughing and shouting at one another. Barbarous?"

"Barak abandoned Lebanon two months ahead of schedule, suddenly and without advance warning, on 23 May 2000. His SLA clients and other Lebanese who had worked for the occupation over the previous 22 years were caught off guard. A few escaped into Israel, but most remained. UN personnel made urgent appeals for help to avert a massacre by Hizbullah. Hizbullah went in, but nothing happened.

"‘It is no secret that some young combatants, as well as some of the region’s citizens, had a desire for vengeance – especially those who were aware of what collaborators and their families had inflicted on the mujahedin and their next of kin across the occupied villages,’ Qassem wrote in Hizbullah: The Story from Within. ‘Resistance leadership issued a strict warning forbidding any such action and vowing to discipline those who took it whatever the justifications.’ Hizbullah captured Israeli weapons, which it is now using against Israel, and turned over SLA militiamen to the government without murdering any of them. Barbarous?"

"Naim Qassem called the liberation of south Lebanon ‘the grandest and most important victory over Israel since it commenced its occupation [of Palestine] fifty years before – a liberation that was achieved at the hands of the weakest of nations, of a resistance operating through the most modest of means, not at the hands of armies with powerful military arsenals.’ But what impressed most Lebanese as much as Hizbullah’s victory over Israel was its refusal to murder collaborators – a triumph over the tribalism that has plagued and divided Lebanese society since its founding. Christians I knew in the Lebanese army admitted that their own side would have committed atrocities."

The view from the Gulf: The US cannot lead the world anymore: "The Israeli war against Lebanon has destroyed the last vestige of honour that the US could use to justify its hegemony."

"It acted in favour of the aggressor leaving the victim to face its deadly fate. Who can trust the US not to repeat the same scenario on a larger scale? The facts that have emerged in the current war should prompt the world to unite in its search for a different system in order to stop the irresponsible management of world crises that threaten to destroy human civilisation.

"The conclusion from the four-week-old war against Lebanon is that the US would have defended the Lebanese had Syria assaulted them, but Israel can create havoc in the country and destroy the nation with full backing from the US. This morally ill and unjust attitude by a superpower should have no place in the world of the 21st century."

"No one can believe how the US administration has inflicted such a degree of damage to its own image while claiming to work on winning the hearts and minds of people in the region. The damage that has wrecked the US image around the world by way of the US administration is more damaging than the work of any of its enemies or the efforts invested by all of its enemies."

"Apart from crippling the United Nations Security Council from making what has been always an obvious and automatic choice against conflicts in the world (an immediate ceasefire) the US has supplied Israel with all its military needs to kill children and women.

"The Qana and Al Qaa massacres were just examples of how precise and intelligent the war machine of the US in Israelis hands can be. This happened in front of TV cameras and was transmitted live all over the world.

"In addition to helping the defence forces, the US administration has also decided to give the aggressor ample time to finish the job and prevented any political solution to the crisis."

"The US could have supplied Israel with the weapons and the intelligence it needed while allowing the Security Council to call for a ceasefire."

This is a good point. The Bush Administration's arrogance and hubris leads it to neglect diplomacy and appearances, devastating the credibility of the US in the process. In one sense this is a good thing in that the 'veil has been removed'.

An example of this was when an Israeli minister announced publicly at a certain point that the US had 'given Israel a green light.' If the US knew what it was about, it would have jumped hard on this statement and said publicly it wanted a ceasefire. The US could also have publicly supported a ceasefire but privately assured Israel it could continue with the attack and secretly resupplied the IDF with depleted bombs and fuel. Naturally all the odium of conducting the war and being in defiance of the 'international community' would attach even more so to Israel, but as Israel is a client state, the US could hardly mind that and even prefer it if the US can maintain an image as an 'honest broker'. But Bush, Cheney and the neocons are too arrogant and perhaps too stupid to practice this kind of duplicity of which previous US administrations have been past masters.

"The world is going through times similar to those that resulted in the dissolving of the League of Nations (1919-1945) because of its failure to stop the Second World War."

"The world's major powers other than the US, including the EU, Russia, China, Japan and Canada should sit and discuss the security in the world and how war crimes have actually surged since the US launched its war against terrorism. The rational world's leaders must come up with a better formula to manage human societies instead of leaving them at the mercy of the US and its Jezebel state of Israel."

This is exactly what is needed to try and rescue the United Nations and International Law, but by definition it involves a sustained confrontation with the US, which none of the powers have an appetite for. Nevertheless the citizens of the world must clamour that their governments act.

The view from the Gulf: The US cannot lead the world anymore: "The Israeli war against Lebanon has destroyed the last vestige of honour that the US could use to justify its hegemony."

"It acted in favour of the aggressor leaving the victim to face its deadly fate. Who can trust the US not to repeat the same scenario on a larger scale? The facts that have emerged in the current war should prompt the world to unite in its search for a different system in order to stop the irresponsible management of world crises that threaten to destroy human civilisation.

"The conclusion from the four-week-old war against Lebanon is that the US would have defended the Lebanese had Syria assaulted them, but Israel can create havoc in the country and destroy the nation with full backing from the US. This morally ill and unjust attitude by a superpower should have no place in the world of the 21st century."

"No one can believe how the US administration has inflicted such a degree of damage to its own image while claiming to work on winning the hearts and minds of people in the region. The damage that has wrecked the US image around the world by way of the US administration is more damaging than the work of any of its enemies or the efforts invested by all of its enemies."

"Apart from crippling the United Nations Security Council from making what has been always an obvious and automatic choice against conflicts in the world (an immediate ceasefire) the US has supplied Israel with all its military needs to kill children and women.

"The Qana and Al Qaa massacres were just examples of how precise and intelligent the war machine of the US in Israelis hands can be. This happened in front of TV cameras and was transmitted live all over the world.

"In addition to helping the defence forces, the US administration has also decided to give the aggressor ample time to finish the job and prevented any political solution to the crisis."

"The US could have supplied Israel with the weapons and the intelligence it needed while allowing the Security Council to call for a ceasefire."

This is a good point. The Bush Administration's arrogance and hubris leads it to neglect diplomacy and appearances, devastating the credibility of the US in the process. In one sense this is a good thing in that the 'veil has been removed'.

An example of this was when an Israeli minister announced publicly at a certain point that the US had 'given Israel a green light.' If the US knew what it was about, it would have jumped hard on this statement and said publicly it wanted a ceasefire. The US could also have publicly supported a ceasefire but privately assured Israel it could continue with the attack and secretly resupplied the IDF with depleted bombs and fuel. Naturally all the odium of conducting the war and being in defiance of the 'international community' would attach even more so to Israel, but as Israel is a client state, the US could hardly mind that and even prefer it if the US can maintain an image as an 'honest broker'. But Bush, Cheney and the neocons are too arrogant and perhaps too stupid to practice this kind of duplicity of which previous US administrations have been past masters.

"The world is going through times similar to those that resulted in the dissolving of the League of Nations (1919-1945) because of its failure to stop the Second World War."

"The world's major powers other than the US, including the EU, Russia, China, Japan and Canada should sit and discuss the security in the world and how war crimes have actually surged since the US launched its war against terrorism. The rational world's leaders must come up with a better formula to manage human societies instead of leaving them at the mercy of the US and its Jezebel state of Israel."

This is exactly what is needed to try and rescue the United Nations and International Law, but by definition it involves a sustained confrontation with the US, which none of the powers have an appetite for. Nevertheless the citizens of the world must clamour that their governments act.