Tanya Reinhart reports on the struggle to stop The Wall: "The army decided to treat this action with the harshest of measures, perhaps to send a signal to Israeli activists to stay out of the Palestinian struggle. The soldiers immediately started firing live rounds. A sniper, identified in Ha’aretz as N.,[16] aimed carefully at the knee of one of the protestors, Gil Na’amati; Na’amati was shot in the knee, and the thigh of his other leg. This careful targeting of the smallest parts of the body, like the knee, requires extensive training and it is part of a technique developed by the Israeli army in the occupied territories since the early stages of the present intifada. It is designed to severely injure and disable people, without killing them."

"This Saturday evening hundreds of furious demonstrators, many of them young, blocked the road in front of Tel Aviv's Defense Ministry for hours... "

"Paradoxically, the army’s attempt to scare the Israeli activists, and put an end once and for all to their presence in the Palestinian villages, gave considerable momentum to the struggle against the wall in Israel. This was the first time the army had used live ammunition against Israeli demonstrators - and this in a situation where there was absolutely no danger to the soldiers. There was a widespread feeling that a line had been crossed. Though Israeli society tolerated such violence against Palestinian demonstrators, and even remained relatively passive over the cases of the various internationalists shot earlier in the year, this episode could not so easily be ignored. The event, the anarchist participants, their parents and the subsequent protests, were covered heavily in the Israeli media."

"The people of Budrus did manage to organize, unite and sustain the struggle, despite the lack of support, and even obstacles, put in their way by the Palestinian Authority. Indeed this time, unlike in Mas’ha, the village’s Fatah party joined the struggle. Budrus provided the first successful model for a popular grassroots struggle in the West Bank, clearly defining the principles of non-violent civil resistance."

Tanya Reinhart reports on the struggle to stop The Wall: "The army decided to treat this action with the harshest of measures, perhaps to send a signal to Israeli activists to stay out of the Palestinian struggle. The soldiers immediately started firing live rounds. A sniper, identified in Ha’aretz as N.,[16] aimed carefully at the knee of one of the protestors, Gil Na’amati; Na’amati was shot in the knee, and the thigh of his other leg. This careful targeting of the smallest parts of the body, like the knee, requires extensive training and it is part of a technique developed by the Israeli army in the occupied territories since the early stages of the present intifada. It is designed to severely injure and disable people, without killing them."

"This Saturday evening hundreds of furious demonstrators, many of them young, blocked the road in front of Tel Aviv's Defense Ministry for hours... "

"Paradoxically, the army’s attempt to scare the Israeli activists, and put an end once and for all to their presence in the Palestinian villages, gave considerable momentum to the struggle against the wall in Israel. This was the first time the army had used live ammunition against Israeli demonstrators - and this in a situation where there was absolutely no danger to the soldiers. There was a widespread feeling that a line had been crossed. Though Israeli society tolerated such violence against Palestinian demonstrators, and even remained relatively passive over the cases of the various internationalists shot earlier in the year, this episode could not so easily be ignored. The event, the anarchist participants, their parents and the subsequent protests, were covered heavily in the Israeli media."

"The people of Budrus did manage to organize, unite and sustain the struggle, despite the lack of support, and even obstacles, put in their way by the Palestinian Authority. Indeed this time, unlike in Mas’ha, the village’s Fatah party joined the struggle. Budrus provided the first successful model for a popular grassroots struggle in the West Bank, clearly defining the principles of non-violent civil resistance."

The Deep Breath Before the Plunge: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just announced that starting this July, Iran will stop trading oil for dollars. Instead, anyone who wants to buy oil from Iran will have to pay for it in euros. Coming on the heels of the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB), an energy exchange Iran just registered on the Island of Kish on May 5, this looks like a calculated effort to undermine the US dollar."

"In related news, Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced a similar plan: he is calling for Russia to establish an oil exchange denominated in rubles. Depending on how Russia is prepared to go in its requirements for selling oil, this could prove far more damaging to the global market for petrodollars."

"The best outcome for all would be a smooth, managed transition from a pre-eminent petrodollar system to a basket of oil trading currencies, including the dollar, euro, ruble, renminbi, and others. However, the Bush administration has made it very clear that it is not prepared to share power.

"It remains to be seen just how far the United States will go diplomatically and militarily to preserve its hegemony, and how far Iran, Russia, and other potential rivals waiting in the wings will go to break that hegemony up.

"Analysts from all over the political spectrum are speculating that this round of increasingly aggressive posturing could escalate into a major conflict, even another world war. The potential for global devastation is so appalling that whatever its likelihood, the parties involved should be doing everything they can to let careful diplomacy map a way out."

The dollar's falling, gold soaring, markets falling, war plans forming - there's almost an air of inevitability about the coming catastrophe.

The Deep Breath Before the Plunge: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just announced that starting this July, Iran will stop trading oil for dollars. Instead, anyone who wants to buy oil from Iran will have to pay for it in euros. Coming on the heels of the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB), an energy exchange Iran just registered on the Island of Kish on May 5, this looks like a calculated effort to undermine the US dollar."

"In related news, Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced a similar plan: he is calling for Russia to establish an oil exchange denominated in rubles. Depending on how Russia is prepared to go in its requirements for selling oil, this could prove far more damaging to the global market for petrodollars."

"The best outcome for all would be a smooth, managed transition from a pre-eminent petrodollar system to a basket of oil trading currencies, including the dollar, euro, ruble, renminbi, and others. However, the Bush administration has made it very clear that it is not prepared to share power.

"It remains to be seen just how far the United States will go diplomatically and militarily to preserve its hegemony, and how far Iran, Russia, and other potential rivals waiting in the wings will go to break that hegemony up.

"Analysts from all over the political spectrum are speculating that this round of increasingly aggressive posturing could escalate into a major conflict, even another world war. The potential for global devastation is so appalling that whatever its likelihood, the parties involved should be doing everything they can to let careful diplomacy map a way out."

The dollar's falling, gold soaring, markets falling, war plans forming - there's almost an air of inevitability about the coming catastrophe.

The British lose Basra: "Iran, which has long held imperial designs on Basra as part of its dream of a grand Shi’a alliance, offered sky-high prices for copper, leading locals to tear up cables and pipes to sell them for scrap."

Interesting suggestion, can this be verified? How cleverly has Iran played its hand compared to the ignorance, brutality and hubris of the US?

The British lose Basra: "Iran, which has long held imperial designs on Basra as part of its dream of a grand Shi’a alliance, offered sky-high prices for copper, leading locals to tear up cables and pipes to sell them for scrap."

Interesting suggestion, can this be verified? How cleverly has Iran played its hand compared to the ignorance, brutality and hubris of the US?

Where is the global outcry at this continuing cruelty?: "Israel is 58 years old today. Israelis have already celebrated with barbecues and parties. And so they should, for they've pulled off an amazing stunt: the creation of a state for one people on the land of another - and at their massive expense - without incurring effective sanction. Some of those not celebrating, the Arab citizens of Israel, were also there, demonstrating to remind the world that Israel displaced 250,000 to take their land without compensation. Millions more Palestinians will demonstrate today in the refugee camps of Gaza, the West Bank and neighbouring Arab states against their expulsion by Israel. The world, however, is not listening, any more than it did in 1948, when most of Palestine's inhabitants were expelled to make way for Jewish immigrants."

Where is the global outcry at this continuing cruelty?: "Israel is 58 years old today. Israelis have already celebrated with barbecues and parties. And so they should, for they've pulled off an amazing stunt: the creation of a state for one people on the land of another - and at their massive expense - without incurring effective sanction. Some of those not celebrating, the Arab citizens of Israel, were also there, demonstrating to remind the world that Israel displaced 250,000 to take their land without compensation. Millions more Palestinians will demonstrate today in the refugee camps of Gaza, the West Bank and neighbouring Arab states against their expulsion by Israel. The world, however, is not listening, any more than it did in 1948, when most of Palestine's inhabitants were expelled to make way for Jewish immigrants."

Geonomics

Principles of Geonomics (does this come before the review, or after, as a summary?)

Definition of Geonomics - rule or law or management of the earth: an explicitly global or environmental discipline which replaces economics, the management of the household (land, slaves/ labor, capital) or the firm.

Humans, Resources, Production, Products, Capital.

Theory of Value - economy of effort. Exchange including credit at equal value.

Space, Time, Toil

Rent, Wages, Interest: Money/Credit and 'the economy.' Self-ordered allocation ('invisible hand').

The function of government is to collect the rent and invest in the earth. The word invest is used advisedly: invest with a view to return - higher revenues. Physical Infrastructure (right of way): transport, water, sewer, power, communications. Social infrastructure: justice, health, education, pension. And last but not least: the environment or the earth itself.

Physical infrastructure is a necessity that must not be neglected. It has first call on revenue, ahead even of social infrastructure (except justice). Social infrastructure is a function of wealth and abundance.

Conquest and enslavement: Land Monopoly (optional slavery).

Robbery through taking of man, product, or land. Exploitation, unearned income.

Kapital: 'capitalised or exchange value of politically created unearned income'.

Alienation of the physical product, reduced production, wasteful or luxurious consumption, land and financial speculation and manipulation.

Summarise in the Geonomic Table - Healthy and Sick (Land Monopoly)

Review of Economic Theory - Aristotle (Oikos nomos, 2 uses), Quesnay, Ricardo, Marx, George, NCE (Gaffney), Pearce.

Integration of Geonomics with Political and other Philosophy - Liberalism, anarchism, socialism, environmentalism.

Geonomics and Geopolitics - Dialectical Materialism and False and True Consciousness (Marx, Hegel)

Review of current situation - hegemony and global military, fiscal, financial, political and environmental collapse. (Chomsky, Hudson).

Geonomics

Principles of Geonomics (does this come before the review, or after, as a summary?)

Definition of Geonomics - rule or law or management of the earth: an explicitly global or environmental discipline which replaces economics, the management of the household (land, slaves/ labor, capital) or the firm.

Humans, Resources, Production, Products, Capital.

Theory of Value - economy of effort. Exchange including credit at equal value.

Space, Time, Toil

Rent, Wages, Interest: Money/Credit and 'the economy.' Self-ordered allocation ('invisible hand').

The function of government is to collect the rent and invest in the earth. The word invest is used advisedly: invest with a view to return - higher revenues. Physical Infrastructure (right of way): transport, water, sewer, power, communications. Social infrastructure: justice, health, education, pension. And last but not least: the environment or the earth itself.

Physical infrastructure is a necessity that must not be neglected. It has first call on revenue, ahead even of social infrastructure (except justice). Social infrastructure is a function of wealth and abundance.

Conquest and enslavement: Land Monopoly (optional slavery).

Robbery through taking of man, product, or land. Exploitation, unearned income.

Kapital: 'capitalised or exchange value of politically created unearned income'.

Alienation of the physical product, reduced production, wasteful or luxurious consumption, land and financial speculation and manipulation.

Summarise in the Geonomic Table - Healthy and Sick (Land Monopoly)

Review of Economic Theory - Aristotle (Oikos nomos, 2 uses), Quesnay, Ricardo, Marx, George, NCE (Gaffney), Pearce.

Integration of Geonomics with Political and other Philosophy - Liberalism, anarchism, socialism, environmentalism.

Geonomics and Geopolitics - Dialectical Materialism and False and True Consciousness (Marx, Hegel)

Review of current situation - hegemony and global military, fiscal, financial, political and environmental collapse. (Chomsky, Hudson).

Save the Internet: More on net neutrality: "The cable and telephone industry see enormous revenues as operators of a private internet toll-road. How has the internet -- so diverse and unwieldly -- fallen into their hands? The answer is (of course) the Bush administration. Heavily lobbied by the cable and phone giants, the Bush Federal Communications Commission has been eliminating the rules that required the internet to operate in a nondiscriminatory manner."

We will have to watch to see if the Howard government will follow policies as destructuve as this.

Save the Internet: More on net neutrality: "The cable and telephone industry see enormous revenues as operators of a private internet toll-road. How has the internet -- so diverse and unwieldly -- fallen into their hands? The answer is (of course) the Bush administration. Heavily lobbied by the cable and phone giants, the Bush Federal Communications Commission has been eliminating the rules that required the internet to operate in a nondiscriminatory manner."

We will have to watch to see if the Howard government will follow policies as destructuve as this.

Review of Medialens' 'Guardians of Power': "The authors conclude by arguing that a corporate-media system whose prime motivation is the increment of profit will always fall in line with the ideology of the state and business sector, of which it is part. While they argue that it is possible to influence and pressurise journalists' performance, this does not resolve the central issue of the media's structural flaws. Yet for Edwards and Cromwell, democratic and compassionate media are already beginning to have some considerable influence. They cite the example of South Korea where the Internet has played a fundamental role in that country's recent democratic opening. For the first time ordinary people have access to insightful and brilliant journalism from all over the world. Many 'alternative' media organisations, like Z Magazine and its web counterpart ZNet, are non-profit and don't advertise yet produce excellent articles challenging Thatcher's maxim that 'there is no alternative.' Such organisations are becoming increasingly influential and important for those sick and tired of the mainstream acquiescence to elite interests."

Somehow the broad masses of the public have to come to realise that corporate journalism is not information but propaganda comparable (but different) to Pravda and Goebbels' Ministry of Progaganda. 'Alternative', non-profit, principled reporting has to become the mainstream.

Review of Medialens' 'Guardians of Power': "The authors conclude by arguing that a corporate-media system whose prime motivation is the increment of profit will always fall in line with the ideology of the state and business sector, of which it is part. While they argue that it is possible to influence and pressurise journalists' performance, this does not resolve the central issue of the media's structural flaws. Yet for Edwards and Cromwell, democratic and compassionate media are already beginning to have some considerable influence. They cite the example of South Korea where the Internet has played a fundamental role in that country's recent democratic opening. For the first time ordinary people have access to insightful and brilliant journalism from all over the world. Many 'alternative' media organisations, like Z Magazine and its web counterpart ZNet, are non-profit and don't advertise yet produce excellent articles challenging Thatcher's maxim that 'there is no alternative.' Such organisations are becoming increasingly influential and important for those sick and tired of the mainstream acquiescence to elite interests."

Somehow the broad masses of the public have to come to realise that corporate journalism is not information but propaganda comparable (but different) to Pravda and Goebbels' Ministry of Progaganda. 'Alternative', non-profit, principled reporting has to become the mainstream.

Chomsky on attacking Iran: "My assumption all along has been that they would not attack Iran, and I strongly suspect that the Pentagon and US intelligence (and their British counterparts) are trying to leak dire warnings in the hope of cutting it off at the pass. I suspect that's the basis for what Seymour Hersh recently reported, and other reports like it at about the same time.

"That doesn't mean that Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush will follow that advice. They have created a major catastrophe in Iraq, not only for Iraqis but even for themselves, and they may be desperate to prevent what could turn into a real nightmare for them. A man-eating tiger in your backyard is not very pleasant. A wounded one is a lot worse."

Chomsky on attacking Iran: "My assumption all along has been that they would not attack Iran, and I strongly suspect that the Pentagon and US intelligence (and their British counterparts) are trying to leak dire warnings in the hope of cutting it off at the pass. I suspect that's the basis for what Seymour Hersh recently reported, and other reports like it at about the same time.

"That doesn't mean that Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush will follow that advice. They have created a major catastrophe in Iraq, not only for Iraqis but even for themselves, and they may be desperate to prevent what could turn into a real nightmare for them. A man-eating tiger in your backyard is not very pleasant. A wounded one is a lot worse."

Blair clings to power and sacks Jack Straw: "Jack Straw made two crucial mistakes in his dealings with Tony Blair: one involved the prime minister's relationship with Gordon Brown and the other Iran. Mr Straw has said repeatedly that it is 'inconceivable' that there will be a military strike on Iran and last month dismissed as 'nuts' a report that George Bush was keeping on the table the option of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran's nuclear plants. But Mr Blair, who sees Iran as the world's biggest threat, does not agree with his former foreign secretary.... Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically. His fate was sealed when the White House called Mr Blair and asked why the foreign secretary kept saying these things."

My God they have got to get rid of that disastrous conman, liar and war criminal Blair sooner rather than later. How could he possibly hang on so long?

Blair clings to power and sacks Jack Straw: "Jack Straw made two crucial mistakes in his dealings with Tony Blair: one involved the prime minister's relationship with Gordon Brown and the other Iran. Mr Straw has said repeatedly that it is 'inconceivable' that there will be a military strike on Iran and last month dismissed as 'nuts' a report that George Bush was keeping on the table the option of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran's nuclear plants. But Mr Blair, who sees Iran as the world's biggest threat, does not agree with his former foreign secretary.... Downing Street phoned the Foreign Office several times to suggest Mr Straw stop going on the BBC Today programme and ruling it out so categorically. His fate was sealed when the White House called Mr Blair and asked why the foreign secretary kept saying these things."

My God they have got to get rid of that disastrous conman, liar and war criminal Blair sooner rather than later. How could he possibly hang on so long?

Interview with Dr. Faber: "We are in a global boom but it doesn't change the fact that it is an imbalanced boom and it's driven largely by credit creation in the US, leading to overconsumption, leading to a growing trade deficit, current account deficit, the accumulation of reserves in Asia and a global boom. But it is nevertheless an imbalanced boom and one day there will be a problem, certainly with the US dollar. The US dollar is a doomed currency. Doomed? Doomed. Will be worthless. Actually each one of your listeners should buy one US Treasury bond and frame it - put it on the wall so they can show their grandchildren how the US dollar and how US dollar bonds became worthless as a result of monetary inflation."

Every Tom, Dick and Harry has been predicting the fall of the dollar for years now, but it just keeps hanging up there. But with the Bush Administration threatening war against Iran and the booming gold price, maybe soon now.....

Interview with Dr. Faber: "We are in a global boom but it doesn't change the fact that it is an imbalanced boom and it's driven largely by credit creation in the US, leading to overconsumption, leading to a growing trade deficit, current account deficit, the accumulation of reserves in Asia and a global boom. But it is nevertheless an imbalanced boom and one day there will be a problem, certainly with the US dollar. The US dollar is a doomed currency. Doomed? Doomed. Will be worthless. Actually each one of your listeners should buy one US Treasury bond and frame it - put it on the wall so they can show their grandchildren how the US dollar and how US dollar bonds became worthless as a result of monetary inflation."

Every Tom, Dick and Harry has been predicting the fall of the dollar for years now, but it just keeps hanging up there. But with the Bush Administration threatening war against Iran and the booming gold price, maybe soon now.....

Windows XP EULA in Plain English: As Danny Yee says, "I'll take this anyday." It's not about 'open source', it's all about the license.

Windows XP EULA in Plain English: As Danny Yee says, "I'll take this anyday." It's not about 'open source', it's all about the license.

What’s Really at Stake with Net Neutrality: "Broadband will soon deliver nearly all television, radio, phone service – and of course the Web – to most Americans. This transition is our big chance to do an end run around 24-7 lapdog journalism, low-brow entertainment, celebrity gossip, and rampant commercialism that has left the public in a fog of Brangelina, windbag pundits, sound bytes and little knowledge about what’s happening in the world and what our elected officials actually think or stand for.

"If we lose this net neutrality battle, we lose the greatest opportunity of our lifetimes to get critical journalism and diverse media into living rooms across the nation, as the largest cable and phone companies turn the Internet into modern cable TV: they control what you see and how much it costs."

What’s Really at Stake with Net Neutrality: "Broadband will soon deliver nearly all television, radio, phone service – and of course the Web – to most Americans. This transition is our big chance to do an end run around 24-7 lapdog journalism, low-brow entertainment, celebrity gossip, and rampant commercialism that has left the public in a fog of Brangelina, windbag pundits, sound bytes and little knowledge about what’s happening in the world and what our elected officials actually think or stand for.

"If we lose this net neutrality battle, we lose the greatest opportunity of our lifetimes to get critical journalism and diverse media into living rooms across the nation, as the largest cable and phone companies turn the Internet into modern cable TV: they control what you see and how much it costs."

Chalmers Johnson on the failure of 'democratisation': "On the eve of our entry into World War I, William Jennings Bryan, president Woodrow Wilson's first secretary of state, described the United States as 'the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes'.

"If there is one historical generalization that the passage of time has validated, it is that the world could not help being better off if the American president had not believed such nonsense and if the United States had minded its own business in the war between the British and German empires. We might well have avoided Nazism, the Bolshevik Revolution, and another 30 to 40 years of the exploitation of India, Indonesia, Indochina, Algeria, Korea, the Philippines, Malaya and virtually all of Africa by European, American and Japanese imperialists."

"The Federation of American Scientists has compiled a list of more than 201 overseas military operations from the end of World War II until September 11, 2001, in which we were involved and normally struck the first blow.... The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not included. In no instance did democratic governments come about as a direct result of any of these military activities."

Chalmers Johnson on the failure of 'democratisation': "On the eve of our entry into World War I, William Jennings Bryan, president Woodrow Wilson's first secretary of state, described the United States as 'the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes'.

"If there is one historical generalization that the passage of time has validated, it is that the world could not help being better off if the American president had not believed such nonsense and if the United States had minded its own business in the war between the British and German empires. We might well have avoided Nazism, the Bolshevik Revolution, and another 30 to 40 years of the exploitation of India, Indonesia, Indochina, Algeria, Korea, the Philippines, Malaya and virtually all of Africa by European, American and Japanese imperialists."

"The Federation of American Scientists has compiled a list of more than 201 overseas military operations from the end of World War II until September 11, 2001, in which we were involved and normally struck the first blow.... The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not included. In no instance did democratic governments come about as a direct result of any of these military activities."

Robert Fisk interviews Sy Hersh: Once again, Hersh is quite alarming about Bush and Iran: they are deluded, powermad and out of touch. A conventional or even nuclear attack is a frightening possibility.

Robert Fisk interviews Sy Hersh: Once again, Hersh is quite alarming about Bush and Iran: they are deluded, powermad and out of touch. A conventional or even nuclear attack is a frightening possibility.

Property investors hit hard: "A GROWING band of Sydney home owners who bought near the peak of the property boom in late 2003 are facing negative equity as property prices sag.... Prices have now fallen 9.6 per cent on average since property prices turned, slashing the city's median home value from $570,000 to $516,000."

"Late last year an American pro-growth consultancy named Demographia announced that the median house in this city cost 8.5 times the median household income. This was up from a multiple of five in the 1980s, which even then was steep. Demographia defines "affordable" as a multiple of no more than three. The 2005 result meant housing in Sydney was the sixth least affordable of 100 cities looked at around the world."

Property investors hit hard: "A GROWING band of Sydney home owners who bought near the peak of the property boom in late 2003 are facing negative equity as property prices sag.... Prices have now fallen 9.6 per cent on average since property prices turned, slashing the city's median home value from $570,000 to $516,000."

"Late last year an American pro-growth consultancy named Demographia announced that the median house in this city cost 8.5 times the median household income. This was up from a multiple of five in the 1980s, which even then was steep. Demographia defines "affordable" as a multiple of no more than three. The 2005 result meant housing in Sydney was the sixth least affordable of 100 cities looked at around the world."

Review of Gabriel Kolko's 'Age of War': "A fuller list, such as one provided by ZNet, numbers at least 60 US military and/or covert interventions since 1950, excluding shows of naval/air strength, covert action and/or the use of proxy forces where the United States did not have command, and US pilots flying foreign warplanes. Instances in which the US has used proxy forces and/or covert action for regime change, for propping up 'friendly' rulers, or to fight communism include scores of countries around the globe: Angola, Cuba, Venezuela, Indonesia, the Philippines, Namibia, Iran in 1953, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Iran again in 2006, to name just a very few.

"And all this for what? As Kolko writes, everywhere it has intervened, militarily, covertly, or by providing funding, arms and training for 'friendly' repressive regimes and their state-terrorist organs, the US has created enemies. Hardly anywhere has Washington's desired political outcome been achieved, despite - or because of - the staggering human, social and financial costs. In many cases, all the US has achieved has been stalemate (eg, Korea), defeat (eg, Vietnam), or blowback (eg, from its onetime proxy in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden). In other cases it has set in motion unforeseen and uncontrollable developments (eg, the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia). The US itself is at greater risk than ever, as it discovered in 2001 when war came to its shores. Its enemies are now far more diverse than they were during the Cold War. They are harder to identify, let alone attack, and threats and potential threats to the US are harder to see and foresee."

They call this nakedly aggressive, imperialistic, resource-dominating, hegemonic project a 'War on Terror' and people take them seriously. The power of state-sponsored propaganda, disinformation, mass delusion and self deception is staggering. This is a salutary lesson which every adult person must learn. In fact it should be taught from childhood.

Review of Gabriel Kolko's 'Age of War': "A fuller list, such as one provided by ZNet, numbers at least 60 US military and/or covert interventions since 1950, excluding shows of naval/air strength, covert action and/or the use of proxy forces where the United States did not have command, and US pilots flying foreign warplanes. Instances in which the US has used proxy forces and/or covert action for regime change, for propping up 'friendly' rulers, or to fight communism include scores of countries around the globe: Angola, Cuba, Venezuela, Indonesia, the Philippines, Namibia, Iran in 1953, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Iran again in 2006, to name just a very few.

"And all this for what? As Kolko writes, everywhere it has intervened, militarily, covertly, or by providing funding, arms and training for 'friendly' repressive regimes and their state-terrorist organs, the US has created enemies. Hardly anywhere has Washington's desired political outcome been achieved, despite - or because of - the staggering human, social and financial costs. In many cases, all the US has achieved has been stalemate (eg, Korea), defeat (eg, Vietnam), or blowback (eg, from its onetime proxy in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden). In other cases it has set in motion unforeseen and uncontrollable developments (eg, the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia). The US itself is at greater risk than ever, as it discovered in 2001 when war came to its shores. Its enemies are now far more diverse than they were during the Cold War. They are harder to identify, let alone attack, and threats and potential threats to the US are harder to see and foresee."

They call this nakedly aggressive, imperialistic, resource-dominating, hegemonic project a 'War on Terror' and people take them seriously. The power of state-sponsored propaganda, disinformation, mass delusion and self deception is staggering. This is a salutary lesson which every adult person must learn. In fact it should be taught from childhood.

The Return of the Death Squads - by John Pilger Pilger argues that the incitement of civil war and the breakup of Iraq is original war aim of the US. Many people will find this hard to accept, but when one considers the hideous reality of the Vietnam 'Phoenix Program' or the Central American 'Death Squad Democracies' it is more than possible.

The breakup of Iraq gains in inevitability every day, but I am not convinced this was the 'original war aim'. A revised war aim, maybe.

The Return of the Death Squads - by John Pilger Pilger argues that the incitement of civil war and the breakup of Iraq is original war aim of the US. Many people will find this hard to accept, but when one considers the hideous reality of the Vietnam 'Phoenix Program' or the Central American 'Death Squad Democracies' it is more than possible.

The breakup of Iraq gains in inevitability every day, but I am not convinced this was the 'original war aim'. A revised war aim, maybe.

Moussaoui Trial Leaves Questions Unanswered: "Now that the trial has concluded, Moussaoui will be transferred to the federal maximum security prison at Florence, Colorado. And the world will be left to ponder why the main organizers of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh – both of whom are in U.S. custody – have never been put on trial."

Moussaoui Trial Leaves Questions Unanswered: "Now that the trial has concluded, Moussaoui will be transferred to the federal maximum security prison at Florence, Colorado. And the world will be left to ponder why the main organizers of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh – both of whom are in U.S. custody – have never been put on trial."

Laurence Britt: Fascism in America? Interview with Dr Britt, author of the widely circulated 14 common characteristics of fascist regimes.

Laurence Britt: Fascism in America? Interview with Dr Britt, author of the widely circulated 14 common characteristics of fascist regimes.

Let's calm down. Messianic Bush isn't about to rain down nukes on Iran: So David Aaronovitch blithely reassures us, dismissing Seymour Hersh in the process.

Hersh's article was based largely (exclusively?) on anonymous sources. This is a discredited tactic in American journalism and Hersh, because of his track record and reputation for integrity, is one of the few who could get away with using it on a major story like this. The journalist's reputation is why it became world news.

It remains to be seen whether Bush will indulge in the supreme folly of a nuclear or conventional attack on Iran. I think it possible but unlikely. Hersh's view is that the US administration definitely wants to do it but may (or may not) be deterred in the end by the consequences, the complications, and resistance from other sectors of the US elite.

The Turkish FM has come out with a forthright statement which should be emulated by all countries including Australia:

"Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said Sunday that his country refused a request from the United States to attack Iran from its Air Force base in Incirlik, despite the U.S. offer of a nuclear reactor, according to a report in Al Biyan.

"In an interview for the United Arab Emirates newspaper, Gul noted that America’s efforts to attack Iran are “imaginary” and that Turkey’s stance is “strategic” and refuses the use of its land for any belligerent activity against neighboring countries."

Appeasement of US aggression must end.

Let's calm down. Messianic Bush isn't about to rain down nukes on Iran: So David Aaronovitch blithely reassures us, dismissing Seymour Hersh in the process.

Hersh's article was based largely (exclusively?) on anonymous sources. This is a discredited tactic in American journalism and Hersh, because of his track record and reputation for integrity, is one of the few who could get away with using it on a major story like this. The journalist's reputation is why it became world news.

It remains to be seen whether Bush will indulge in the supreme folly of a nuclear or conventional attack on Iran. I think it possible but unlikely. Hersh's view is that the US administration definitely wants to do it but may (or may not) be deterred in the end by the consequences, the complications, and resistance from other sectors of the US elite.

The Turkish FM has come out with a forthright statement which should be emulated by all countries including Australia:

"Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said Sunday that his country refused a request from the United States to attack Iran from its Air Force base in Incirlik, despite the U.S. offer of a nuclear reactor, according to a report in Al Biyan.

"In an interview for the United Arab Emirates newspaper, Gul noted that America’s efforts to attack Iran are “imaginary” and that Turkey’s stance is “strategic” and refuses the use of its land for any belligerent activity against neighboring countries."

Appeasement of US aggression must end.

Nuclear no cure for climate change, scientists warn: "The cost of building the large number of nuclear power stations needed to even partly replace coal as a source of electricity would be so heavy no private investor would take on the risk without huge government subsidies."

This isnt news. Nuclear power cannot survive without massive corporate welfare. Nuclear power advocates, who are essentially 'welfare queens' trying to put the industry on the public teat, should always be asked, can your industry survive without corporate welfare?

It is typical of course that Treasurer Cosello should come out in favour of corporate welfare.

Nuclear power: Costly, toxic, non-renewable and not the answer. Any public funds available should be put into genuinely renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal etc. The debate is over and the time is now. And to make renewable energy more competitive, carbon taxes should be imposed on the coal industry, which currently gets a free ride in the classic corporate sense of costfree devastation of the commons.

Nuclear no cure for climate change, scientists warn: "The cost of building the large number of nuclear power stations needed to even partly replace coal as a source of electricity would be so heavy no private investor would take on the risk without huge government subsidies."

This isnt news. Nuclear power cannot survive without massive corporate welfare. Nuclear power advocates, who are essentially 'welfare queens' trying to put the industry on the public teat, should always be asked, can your industry survive without corporate welfare?

It is typical of course that Treasurer Cosello should come out in favour of corporate welfare.

Nuclear power: Costly, toxic, non-renewable and not the answer. Any public funds available should be put into genuinely renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal etc. The debate is over and the time is now. And to make renewable energy more competitive, carbon taxes should be imposed on the coal industry, which currently gets a free ride in the classic corporate sense of costfree devastation of the commons.

Mini-Microsoft: Vista 2007. Fire the leadership now!: "Vista is the biggest software development failure of all time"

Fun gossip about Microsoft Vista and the 'slippage'. If free software like linux, Open Office and Firebird are fully functional and fully legal, I dont understand why they are not installed by default on every computer. Proprietary, purchased software can only be justified where there is a proven need for functionality not otherwise available.

Mini-Microsoft: Vista 2007. Fire the leadership now!: "Vista is the biggest software development failure of all time"

Fun gossip about Microsoft Vista and the 'slippage'. If free software like linux, Open Office and Firebird are fully functional and fully legal, I dont understand why they are not installed by default on every computer. Proprietary, purchased software can only be justified where there is a proven need for functionality not otherwise available.

Chomsky: Democratic collapse in the face of crisis issues: "We began by considering four critical issues that should rank high on the agenda of those concerned with the prospects for a decent future. Two of them are literally matters of survival: nuclear war and environmental disaster. The first danger is ever-present, beyond imagination, and in principle avoidable; practical ways to proceed are understood. The second is longer-term, and there is much uncertainty about how a serious crisis can be averted, or at least mitigated, though it is clear enough that the longer the delay in confronting the tasks, they harder they will be. And again, sensible measures to proceed are well known. The third major crisis is that the government of the global superpower is acting in ways that enhance these threats, and others as well, such as the threat of terrorism by enemies. That conclusion, unfortunately all too credible, brings to prominence a fourth critical issue: the growing democratic deficit, the gap between public will and public policy, a sign of the increasing failure of formal democratic institutions to function as they would in a democratic culture with vitality and substance."

When one looks at the Iraq war, a act of naked aggresion based on lies that would do Goebbels proud, and the miserable failure or complicity of parliament, press and institutions in stopping or objecting to the war, one could indeed be deeply concerned about the decline of late Western democracy.

Chomsky: Democratic collapse in the face of crisis issues: "We began by considering four critical issues that should rank high on the agenda of those concerned with the prospects for a decent future. Two of them are literally matters of survival: nuclear war and environmental disaster. The first danger is ever-present, beyond imagination, and in principle avoidable; practical ways to proceed are understood. The second is longer-term, and there is much uncertainty about how a serious crisis can be averted, or at least mitigated, though it is clear enough that the longer the delay in confronting the tasks, they harder they will be. And again, sensible measures to proceed are well known. The third major crisis is that the government of the global superpower is acting in ways that enhance these threats, and others as well, such as the threat of terrorism by enemies. That conclusion, unfortunately all too credible, brings to prominence a fourth critical issue: the growing democratic deficit, the gap between public will and public policy, a sign of the increasing failure of formal democratic institutions to function as they would in a democratic culture with vitality and substance."

When one looks at the Iraq war, a act of naked aggresion based on lies that would do Goebbels proud, and the miserable failure or complicity of parliament, press and institutions in stopping or objecting to the war, one could indeed be deeply concerned about the decline of late Western democracy.

Stephen Colbert comedy routine at White House event (9mbvid): Evidently Bush didn't find this funny. A real tyrant would have to have the clown killed. Power cannot afford to be laughed at unless it is at its end.

Billmon has some good commentary on this:

"Colbert's routine was designed to draw blood -- as good political satire should. It seemed obvious, at least to me, that he didn't just despise his audience, he hated it. While that hardly merits comment here in Left Blogostan, White House elites clearly aren't used to having such contempt thrown in their faces at one of their most cherished self-congratulatory events. So it's no surprise the scribes have tried hard to expunge it from the semi-official record -- as Peter Daou notes over at the Huffington Post."

"It's becoming harder and harder to conceal the ruthlessness of the struggle for power, or ignore the consequences of losing it. There were people at last night's dinner who really could end up in jail -- depending on Patrick Fitzgerald's theory of the case and/or the results of the next two elections. Things have been done over the past five years that can't be undone; crimes committed that can't be uncommitted. If Colbert faced a tough crowd last night, it was probably because so many of them understand that the Cheneyites and the Rovians really are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg, and that if the airship goes down in flames their own window seats are going to get pretty toasty. Jobs are at stake. Careers could be at stake. For all we know lives could be at stake. It's an ugly moment, and expecting people like that to laugh at their own misfortunes isn't very realistic."

Stephen Colbert comedy routine at White House event (9mbvid): Evidently Bush didn't find this funny. A real tyrant would have to have the clown killed. Power cannot afford to be laughed at unless it is at its end.

Billmon has some good commentary on this:

"Colbert's routine was designed to draw blood -- as good political satire should. It seemed obvious, at least to me, that he didn't just despise his audience, he hated it. While that hardly merits comment here in Left Blogostan, White House elites clearly aren't used to having such contempt thrown in their faces at one of their most cherished self-congratulatory events. So it's no surprise the scribes have tried hard to expunge it from the semi-official record -- as Peter Daou notes over at the Huffington Post."

"It's becoming harder and harder to conceal the ruthlessness of the struggle for power, or ignore the consequences of losing it. There were people at last night's dinner who really could end up in jail -- depending on Patrick Fitzgerald's theory of the case and/or the results of the next two elections. Things have been done over the past five years that can't be undone; crimes committed that can't be uncommitted. If Colbert faced a tough crowd last night, it was probably because so many of them understand that the Cheneyites and the Rovians really are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg, and that if the airship goes down in flames their own window seats are going to get pretty toasty. Jobs are at stake. Careers could be at stake. For all we know lives could be at stake. It's an ugly moment, and expecting people like that to laugh at their own misfortunes isn't very realistic."

Only Politically Correct Refugees Allowed: "The Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, has written an extraordinary piece for The Australian newspaper (which unfortunately does not appear to be online). Amazingly, after starting off saying “there needs to be increased understanding of our protection visa obligations,” she then goes on to say that “it is the Government’s strong preference that protection is not offered in Australia to Papuan separatists” – a statement which is a blatant contradiction of the provisions of the Refugee Convention, and therefore of the Migration Act which the Minister is supposed to be overseeing."

The Howard government has adopted Hansonism, which is a revived version of the White Australia policy, because it is seen to be a vote winner. Remember that Hanson attracted one million votes in an earlier election, many of them former conservative voters.

Only Politically Correct Refugees Allowed: "The Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, has written an extraordinary piece for The Australian newspaper (which unfortunately does not appear to be online). Amazingly, after starting off saying “there needs to be increased understanding of our protection visa obligations,” she then goes on to say that “it is the Government’s strong preference that protection is not offered in Australia to Papuan separatists” – a statement which is a blatant contradiction of the provisions of the Refugee Convention, and therefore of the Migration Act which the Minister is supposed to be overseeing."

The Howard government has adopted Hansonism, which is a revived version of the White Australia policy, because it is seen to be a vote winner. Remember that Hanson attracted one million votes in an earlier election, many of them former conservative voters.

Report: Turkey won’t let U.S. attack Iran from its land: "Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said Sunday that his country refused a request from the United States to attack Iran from its Air Force base in Incirlik, despite the U.S. offer of a nuclear reactor, according to a report in Al Biyan.

"In an interview for the United Arab Emirates newspaper, Gul noted that America’s efforts to attack Iran are “imaginary” and that Turkey’s stance is “strategic” and refuses the use of its land for any belligerent activity against neighboring countries."

Describing the US plan to attack Iran as 'imaginary' is humiliating for Bush and the neocons. This principled stand of non-cooperation with proposed aggression should be adopted by all countries including Australia.

Report: Turkey won’t let U.S. attack Iran from its land: "Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said Sunday that his country refused a request from the United States to attack Iran from its Air Force base in Incirlik, despite the U.S. offer of a nuclear reactor, according to a report in Al Biyan.

"In an interview for the United Arab Emirates newspaper, Gul noted that America’s efforts to attack Iran are “imaginary” and that Turkey’s stance is “strategic” and refuses the use of its land for any belligerent activity against neighboring countries."

Describing the US plan to attack Iran as 'imaginary' is humiliating for Bush and the neocons. This principled stand of non-cooperation with proposed aggression should be adopted by all countries including Australia.

The Worst President in History? Monster deficits... "Between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined (the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions.)"

The Worst President in History? Monster deficits... "Between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined (the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions.)"

Mason Gaffney discusses Hurricane Katrina and Recovering from Another Great Disaster, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906: "How did a city [San Francisco] with so few assets raise funds to repair its broken infrastructure and rise from its ashes? It had only the local property tax, and much of this tax base was burned to the ground. The answer is that it taxed the ground itself, raising money while also kindling a new kind of fire under landowners to get on with it or get out of the way."

"Even in the flooded and abandoned areas [of New Orleans] there is strong demand from absentee bottom-fishers looking for a free ride up the price elevator as the efforts of others bring back the neighborhoods. Yet this kind of dynamism is worse than stasis. These absentees choke out other buyers aiming to commit themselves -- to rebuild and reside and make neighborhoods.... Mayor Nagin of New Orleans tells the world that Katrina wiped out most of his tax base, so he is impotent."

Mason Gaffney discusses Hurricane Katrina and Recovering from Another Great Disaster, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906: "How did a city [San Francisco] with so few assets raise funds to repair its broken infrastructure and rise from its ashes? It had only the local property tax, and much of this tax base was burned to the ground. The answer is that it taxed the ground itself, raising money while also kindling a new kind of fire under landowners to get on with it or get out of the way."

"Even in the flooded and abandoned areas [of New Orleans] there is strong demand from absentee bottom-fishers looking for a free ride up the price elevator as the efforts of others bring back the neighborhoods. Yet this kind of dynamism is worse than stasis. These absentees choke out other buyers aiming to commit themselves -- to rebuild and reside and make neighborhoods.... Mayor Nagin of New Orleans tells the world that Katrina wiped out most of his tax base, so he is impotent."

Prisoner of conscience: RAF doctor who refused Iraq service is jailed: "“The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a campaign of imperial military conquest and falls into the category of criminal acts. I would have had criminal responsibility vicariously if I had gone to Iraq.""

During the whole course of the obviously illegal and criminal Iraq war a mere handful of people in the military, government and public service of the aggressor countries have had the courage to oppose it on principle. In one sense, the Nuremburg defence ('I was only following orders') is valid, in that you cannot seriously expect people in any numbers to risk career, income, status, freedom by making a stand against wrong. Those few that do, of course, are heroes.

Prisoner of conscience: RAF doctor who refused Iraq service is jailed: "“The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a campaign of imperial military conquest and falls into the category of criminal acts. I would have had criminal responsibility vicariously if I had gone to Iraq.""

During the whole course of the obviously illegal and criminal Iraq war a mere handful of people in the military, government and public service of the aggressor countries have had the courage to oppose it on principle. In one sense, the Nuremburg defence ('I was only following orders') is valid, in that you cannot seriously expect people in any numbers to risk career, income, status, freedom by making a stand against wrong. Those few that do, of course, are heroes.

Euston Manifesto: The comments are more amusing than the 'Manifesto':

"Do we need another warmongers charter?"

"I don’t think this is a left-wing manifesto at all. I think it is a neo-conservative one, with some vague, sugary liberal coating about human rights."

"Pretentious and hilarious in equal measure. The ‘Euston Group’ is a 21st-century attempt at creating another Bloomsbury Group, albeit with even more elitism and even less influence. Despite all the pompous posturing, all it does is create “a new Website”.

"As for the Manifesto itself, it is very telling that the only topics that are dealt with in any real depth are…the Iraq War and Islamic terrorism."

"Oh dear! History has passed them by and they find themselves beached with Bush, Blair and the zionists. So why not set up another “left-wing” group? Trouble is, who apart from those listed would be attracted?"

Euston Manifesto: The comments are more amusing than the 'Manifesto':

"Do we need another warmongers charter?"

"I don’t think this is a left-wing manifesto at all. I think it is a neo-conservative one, with some vague, sugary liberal coating about human rights."

"Pretentious and hilarious in equal measure. The ‘Euston Group’ is a 21st-century attempt at creating another Bloomsbury Group, albeit with even more elitism and even less influence. Despite all the pompous posturing, all it does is create “a new Website”.

"As for the Manifesto itself, it is very telling that the only topics that are dealt with in any real depth are…the Iraq War and Islamic terrorism."

"Oh dear! History has passed them by and they find themselves beached with Bush, Blair and the zionists. So why not set up another “left-wing” group? Trouble is, who apart from those listed would be attracted?"

Chomsky On Hegemony And Disarmament: "It is widely recognised among strategic analysts that unless production of weapons-grade fissile materials is controlled, the fate of the species is very much in doubt. There are sensible proposals as to how to deal with this problem: the proposal of Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to place production of fissile materials in the hands of an international agency, to which states could apply for legitimate uses; and the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FISSBAN) called for in a UN resolution of 1993. The U.S. would never accept ElBaradei's proposal. In fact, the only state to have accepted it, to my knowledge, is Iran, in February 2006 (unreported in the Western press, to my knowledge)."

"India faces some important choices. It has made some steps towards closer relations with China, but is also tempted by the prospects of joining Britain in its role as a "spear-carrier for the pax Americana", as Blair's Britain is described in the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs."

"The U.S. could gain access to Iranian energy resources and markets if it chose, but it is more important to punish Iran for defying Washington in 1979 by overthrowing the tyrant that the U.S. and U.K. had installed when they destroyed Iran's parliamentary system. Such "successful defiance", as it is described in the internal record, cannot be tolerated, just as it cannot be tolerated by the Mafia, to which international affairs bears an uncomfortable resemblance. It is possible that sooner or later Japan and China (the leading lenders to the U.S.), and others, might switch to a basket of currencies, primarily the Euro, and that energy producers might do so as well. The effects on the U.S. economy, and the global economy, could be substantial."

General Newbold provides an illustration of what is meant by the problem of 'successful defiance'. After explaining clearly enough why the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, he then says a 'precipitous' withdrawal would "send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated." The Mafioso Don's 'credibility' must be preserved above all else.

Chomsky On Hegemony And Disarmament: "It is widely recognised among strategic analysts that unless production of weapons-grade fissile materials is controlled, the fate of the species is very much in doubt. There are sensible proposals as to how to deal with this problem: the proposal of Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to place production of fissile materials in the hands of an international agency, to which states could apply for legitimate uses; and the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FISSBAN) called for in a UN resolution of 1993. The U.S. would never accept ElBaradei's proposal. In fact, the only state to have accepted it, to my knowledge, is Iran, in February 2006 (unreported in the Western press, to my knowledge)."

"India faces some important choices. It has made some steps towards closer relations with China, but is also tempted by the prospects of joining Britain in its role as a "spear-carrier for the pax Americana", as Blair's Britain is described in the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs."

"The U.S. could gain access to Iranian energy resources and markets if it chose, but it is more important to punish Iran for defying Washington in 1979 by overthrowing the tyrant that the U.S. and U.K. had installed when they destroyed Iran's parliamentary system. Such "successful defiance", as it is described in the internal record, cannot be tolerated, just as it cannot be tolerated by the Mafia, to which international affairs bears an uncomfortable resemblance. It is possible that sooner or later Japan and China (the leading lenders to the U.S.), and others, might switch to a basket of currencies, primarily the Euro, and that energy producers might do so as well. The effects on the U.S. economy, and the global economy, could be substantial."

General Newbold provides an illustration of what is meant by the problem of 'successful defiance'. After explaining clearly enough why the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, he then says a 'precipitous' withdrawal would "send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated." The Mafioso Don's 'credibility' must be preserved above all else.

The Iran Plans: Seymour Hersh's latest account of extensive Pentagon planning for war, even nuclear war, against Iran.

It is amusing to observe the disconnect in the following excerpt: "Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ” "

As John Pilger has observed, the Bush Administration is the Third Reich of our time, and appeasement of US threats and aggression is the height of folly. It is Bush who is threatening nuclear war against Iran, threatening to start World War 111, but somehow this more or less obvious fact is not noticed by scores of journalists, politicians and commentators.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to his credit, has publicly declared that a nuclear strike on Iran would be 'completely nuts.' An obvious question to ask Blair and Howard would therefore be Do they also consider a conventional or nuclear attack on Iran as inconceivable or 'nuts' and do they intent to convey that feeling to the US? Or do they intend to maintain the pattern of appeasement of US aggression even to the extent of nuclear warfare?

Jorge Hirsch has a typically even more alarming post about the likelihood of a nuclear attack against Iran: "If there is an aerial bombing of Iran, I believe it is inevitable it will go nuclear.... I believe President Bush has embraced the breaking of the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons as his personal goal ... The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, Congress has no say. The chain of command doesn't go through the Joint Chiefs of Staff that may oppose it as Hersh mentions: it goes directly from Bush and Rumsfeld to commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands such as Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Cartwright. Unless those individuals disobey orders, there is no way to stop it.... Iran will respond to a conventional attack with conventional weapons (eg missiles) and will not be deterred by a US nuclear threat from doing so. The US will use nuclear weapons against Iran because certain sectors of the American establishment, that are in power now, believe it is in the long term strategic interest of the US to do so.... no US military power will be able to contain the chaos and asymmetrical warfare that will engulf the region after the US attacks Iran."

The Iran Plans: Seymour Hersh's latest account of extensive Pentagon planning for war, even nuclear war, against Iran.

It is amusing to observe the disconnect in the following excerpt: "Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ” "

As John Pilger has observed, the Bush Administration is the Third Reich of our time, and appeasement of US threats and aggression is the height of folly. It is Bush who is threatening nuclear war against Iran, threatening to start World War 111, but somehow this more or less obvious fact is not noticed by scores of journalists, politicians and commentators.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to his credit, has publicly declared that a nuclear strike on Iran would be 'completely nuts.' An obvious question to ask Blair and Howard would therefore be Do they also consider a conventional or nuclear attack on Iran as inconceivable or 'nuts' and do they intent to convey that feeling to the US? Or do they intend to maintain the pattern of appeasement of US aggression even to the extent of nuclear warfare?

Jorge Hirsch has a typically even more alarming post about the likelihood of a nuclear attack against Iran: "If there is an aerial bombing of Iran, I believe it is inevitable it will go nuclear.... I believe President Bush has embraced the breaking of the 60-year old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons as his personal goal ... The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, Congress has no say. The chain of command doesn't go through the Joint Chiefs of Staff that may oppose it as Hersh mentions: it goes directly from Bush and Rumsfeld to commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands such as Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Cartwright. Unless those individuals disobey orders, there is no way to stop it.... Iran will respond to a conventional attack with conventional weapons (eg missiles) and will not be deterred by a US nuclear threat from doing so. The US will use nuclear weapons against Iran because certain sectors of the American establishment, that are in power now, believe it is in the long term strategic interest of the US to do so.... no US military power will be able to contain the chaos and asymmetrical warfare that will engulf the region after the US attacks Iran."

An Interview with William Blum - Osama's Favorite Writer?: "They went around the world during the Cold War stamping out one attempt after another at improving people's lives The Cold War has always been sold to us as, 'We are the good guys and the Commies were the bad guys and the good guys won.' But it's a total fabrication."

"Those people who are beyond surgery or any kind of relief-I estimate their number at 15% of the population-- I suggest to activists to stop wasting their time on them. They will not change even if the Government comes into their homes and kidnaps their first-born and takes them away screaming The other 85% are capable of change if they get enough input."

An Interview with William Blum - Osama's Favorite Writer?: "They went around the world during the Cold War stamping out one attempt after another at improving people's lives The Cold War has always been sold to us as, 'We are the good guys and the Commies were the bad guys and the good guys won.' But it's a total fabrication."

"Those people who are beyond surgery or any kind of relief-I estimate their number at 15% of the population-- I suggest to activists to stop wasting their time on them. They will not change even if the Government comes into their homes and kidnaps their first-born and takes them away screaming The other 85% are capable of change if they get enough input."

Failed States, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzalez: "If we're talking about exit strategies from Iraq, we should bear in mind that for the U.S. to leave Iraq without establishing a subordinate client state would be a nightmare for Washington. All you have to do is think of the policies that an independent Iraq would be likely to pursue, if it was mildly democratic. It would almost surely strengthen its already developed relations with Shiite Iran right next door. Any degree of Iraqi autonomy stimulates autonomy pressures across the border in Saudi Arabia, where there's a substantial Shiite population, who have been bitterly repressed by the U.S.-backed tyranny but is now calling for more autonomy. That happens to be where most of Saudi oil is. So, what you can imagine -- I'm sure Washington planners are having nightmares about this."

"Second is their so-called democracy-promotion mission elsewhere in the world. The latter is just pure fraud. The only evidence that they're interested in promoting democracy is that they say so. The evidence against it is just overwhelming, including the cases you mentioned and many others. I mean, the very fact that people are even willing to talk about this shows that we're kind of insisting on being North Koreans: if the Dear Leader has spoken, that establishes the truth; it doesn't matter what the facts are. I go into that in some detail in the book."

Failed States, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzalez: "If we're talking about exit strategies from Iraq, we should bear in mind that for the U.S. to leave Iraq without establishing a subordinate client state would be a nightmare for Washington. All you have to do is think of the policies that an independent Iraq would be likely to pursue, if it was mildly democratic. It would almost surely strengthen its already developed relations with Shiite Iran right next door. Any degree of Iraqi autonomy stimulates autonomy pressures across the border in Saudi Arabia, where there's a substantial Shiite population, who have been bitterly repressed by the U.S.-backed tyranny but is now calling for more autonomy. That happens to be where most of Saudi oil is. So, what you can imagine -- I'm sure Washington planners are having nightmares about this."

"Second is their so-called democracy-promotion mission elsewhere in the world. The latter is just pure fraud. The only evidence that they're interested in promoting democracy is that they say so. The evidence against it is just overwhelming, including the cases you mentioned and many others. I mean, the very fact that people are even willing to talk about this shows that we're kind of insisting on being North Koreans: if the Dear Leader has spoken, that establishes the truth; it doesn't matter what the facts are. I go into that in some detail in the book."

15 Best Skylines in the World

15 Best Skylines in the World

Chomsky discusses the Israel Lobby: Chomsky reiterates his long held view that the US Israeli lobby, while it exists, is not as important in determining US policy as strategic and hegemonic considerations, or "strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage", as he puts it.

Blankfort, however, makes the argument that 'Chomsky is soft on Israel.'

Chomsky discusses the Israel Lobby: Chomsky reiterates his long held view that the US Israeli lobby, while it exists, is not as important in determining US policy as strategic and hegemonic considerations, or "strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage", as he puts it.

Blankfort, however, makes the argument that 'Chomsky is soft on Israel.'

Avnery on the Israeli election: "The main result of these elections is that the hold of the nationalistic-religious bloc, which has dominated Israel for more than a generation, has been broken... This is a turning point. The dream of a Greater Israel, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, is dead.

"Significantly, the "National Union", the party that is completely identified with the settlers, has won only 9 seats - more or less like last time. After all the heart-rending drama of the destruction of the Gaza settlements, the settlers remain as unpopular as ever. They have lost the decisive battle for public opinion."

"For those who are interested: the fascist group that called for my murder as part of their election program has failed to attain the 2% necessary to gain entry into the Knesset. But, of course, an assassin does not need 2% to follow such a call. (I would like to use this occasion to express my heartfelt thanks to all those around the world who expressed their solidarity.)"

Avnery on the Israeli election: "The main result of these elections is that the hold of the nationalistic-religious bloc, which has dominated Israel for more than a generation, has been broken... This is a turning point. The dream of a Greater Israel, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, is dead.

"Significantly, the "National Union", the party that is completely identified with the settlers, has won only 9 seats - more or less like last time. After all the heart-rending drama of the destruction of the Gaza settlements, the settlers remain as unpopular as ever. They have lost the decisive battle for public opinion."

"For those who are interested: the fascist group that called for my murder as part of their election program has failed to attain the 2% necessary to gain entry into the Knesset. But, of course, an assassin does not need 2% to follow such a call. (I would like to use this occasion to express my heartfelt thanks to all those around the world who expressed their solidarity.)"

Interview with US Sargeant Major Haney: "Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward."

Interview with US Sargeant Major Haney: "Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward."

Ogg Vorbis audio format as a replacement for mp3: "Vorbis was started following a September 1998 letter from Fraunhofer Gesellschaft announcing plans to charge licensing fees for the MP3 format.... Vorbis is considered to be one of the highest quality audio codecs in use today. For many applications, Vorbis has clear advantages over other modern codecs, in that it is patent-free, and therefore free to use, implement, or modify as one sees fit, yet produces smaller files than most other codecs at equivalent quality."

Ogg Vorbis audio format as a replacement for mp3: "Vorbis was started following a September 1998 letter from Fraunhofer Gesellschaft announcing plans to charge licensing fees for the MP3 format.... Vorbis is considered to be one of the highest quality audio codecs in use today. For many applications, Vorbis has clear advantages over other modern codecs, in that it is patent-free, and therefore free to use, implement, or modify as one sees fit, yet produces smaller files than most other codecs at equivalent quality."

Tim Tyler, prisoner of the drug war: "In 1992, my brother, my best friend, Tim, was sentenced to 2 life sentences without parole, under federal law for selling LSD. He is nonviolent (doesn't even eat meat), didn't have or use weapons, and was just a 'Deadhead' following the Grateful Dead shows. He has been in jail since he was 23."

"He had a public pretender, and they told him if he plead guilty, he would get maybe 20 years, so he plead guilty and they gave him double life, no parole. They "enhanced" his sentence using his priors in which adjudications were withheld. They were supposed to tell him that it was a minimum mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole before he plead guilty, but they did not."

Tim Tyler, prisoner of the drug war: "In 1992, my brother, my best friend, Tim, was sentenced to 2 life sentences without parole, under federal law for selling LSD. He is nonviolent (doesn't even eat meat), didn't have or use weapons, and was just a 'Deadhead' following the Grateful Dead shows. He has been in jail since he was 23."

"He had a public pretender, and they told him if he plead guilty, he would get maybe 20 years, so he plead guilty and they gave him double life, no parole. They "enhanced" his sentence using his priors in which adjudications were withheld. They were supposed to tell him that it was a minimum mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole before he plead guilty, but they did not."

The US Gulag Prison System - the shame of the nation and crime against humanity : SF Indymedia: "Today the US shamelessly has more people behind bars than any other nation including China with over 4 times our population.... Arnold J. Toynbee ... said: "America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests.""

The US Gulag Prison System - the shame of the nation and crime against humanity : SF Indymedia: "Today the US shamelessly has more people behind bars than any other nation including China with over 4 times our population.... Arnold J. Toynbee ... said: "America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests.""

WaPo Chat With Chomsky: "Lancaster, U.K: What do you feel are the limits to 'free speech' given the arguments recently over racial hatred and religious intolerance?

Noam Chomsky: My feeling is that the Supreme Court reached a reasonable standard of protection of speech in the 1960s, a standard higher than any other country in the world, to my knowledge. In brief, speech should be protected up to participation in imminent criminal action. So if you and I go into a store to rob it, and I say 'shoot,' that's not protected. Like all judicial decisions and legislation, this leaves plenty of gray areas, including many of great significance that are rarely discussed: advocacy of imminent war crimes, such as aggression, for example. I think we would all agree that such speech should be protected, despite the often horrific consequences, but it's worth noting that that stretches the doctrine to its limits.

Wellfleet, Mass.: Mr. Chomsky:

Many fear the country is moving towards a "police state" where the Executive acts according to its desires, without constraint. What possibilities do you see, if any, for the trend towards consolidation of power in the Executive to be thwarted?

Noam Chomsky: The concerns are justified. Thus in this morning's press it was reported that after signing the new version of the Patriot Act with grandiose flourishes, President Bush quietly issued a "signing statement" that exempted him from its requirement to notify Congress of FBI actions that go beyond court authorizaton. That is yet another brazen affirmation of executive power. There are many others. There is little doubt that this administration is at an extreme in seeking to establish a powerful state executive, free from interference by Congress or public awareness of its actions. The justification is the "war on terror," but that can hardly be taken seriously. Terror is doubtless a very serious threat, but it is all to easy to demonstrate that it does not rank high in administration priorities.

Though the concerns are valid, we should not exaggerate. The public is not likely to give up the achievements of centuries of struggle easily."

WaPo Chat With Chomsky: "Lancaster, U.K: What do you feel are the limits to 'free speech' given the arguments recently over racial hatred and religious intolerance?

Noam Chomsky: My feeling is that the Supreme Court reached a reasonable standard of protection of speech in the 1960s, a standard higher than any other country in the world, to my knowledge. In brief, speech should be protected up to participation in imminent criminal action. So if you and I go into a store to rob it, and I say 'shoot,' that's not protected. Like all judicial decisions and legislation, this leaves plenty of gray areas, including many of great significance that are rarely discussed: advocacy of imminent war crimes, such as aggression, for example. I think we would all agree that such speech should be protected, despite the often horrific consequences, but it's worth noting that that stretches the doctrine to its limits.

Wellfleet, Mass.: Mr. Chomsky:

Many fear the country is moving towards a "police state" where the Executive acts according to its desires, without constraint. What possibilities do you see, if any, for the trend towards consolidation of power in the Executive to be thwarted?

Noam Chomsky: The concerns are justified. Thus in this morning's press it was reported that after signing the new version of the Patriot Act with grandiose flourishes, President Bush quietly issued a "signing statement" that exempted him from its requirement to notify Congress of FBI actions that go beyond court authorizaton. That is yet another brazen affirmation of executive power. There are many others. There is little doubt that this administration is at an extreme in seeking to establish a powerful state executive, free from interference by Congress or public awareness of its actions. The justification is the "war on terror," but that can hardly be taken seriously. Terror is doubtless a very serious threat, but it is all to easy to demonstrate that it does not rank high in administration priorities.

Though the concerns are valid, we should not exaggerate. The public is not likely to give up the achievements of centuries of struggle easily."

Apache's Greg Stein says commercial software's days are numbered: "'As the [open-source] stack grows and grows and takes over more areas, there's less money available in packaged products,' Stein said. 'All of your software [will be] free. It means that over time, you aren't going to be paying for software anymore' but will instead pay for assistance with it. The shift could take an estimated five to 10 years, he said. 'The notion of [a] packaged product is really going to kind of go away,' Stein said."

Given that the cost of OpenOffice is zero, one would think that it's default installation everywhere was a no-brainer. If there are some things it cant do, that would be a case for the purchase of a limited number of specialist proprietary applications.

Apache's Greg Stein says commercial software's days are numbered: "'As the [open-source] stack grows and grows and takes over more areas, there's less money available in packaged products,' Stein said. 'All of your software [will be] free. It means that over time, you aren't going to be paying for software anymore' but will instead pay for assistance with it. The shift could take an estimated five to 10 years, he said. 'The notion of [a] packaged product is really going to kind of go away,' Stein said."

Given that the cost of OpenOffice is zero, one would think that it's default installation everywhere was a no-brainer. If there are some things it cant do, that would be a case for the purchase of a limited number of specialist proprietary applications.

US finally swinging back to support Sunni domination in Iraq?: "Sunni Arab leaders Adnan Dulaimi and Salih Mutlak have begun speaking of a convergence of interests between them and the United States. Al-Hayat say its sources tell it that the US now feels that aligning with the Sunni Arabs against the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance is a way of offsetting Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs. "

"Like many Iraqi and Arab observers, Muqtada was shocked when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said last week that the US military would not intervene in an Iraqi civil war, leaving that to Iraqi forces.

"' "May God damn you," Sadr said of Rumsfeld. "You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere." '"

A cynic would point out that Saddam is still alive and could be pulled out of prison and installed as 'President of Iraq.'

US finally swinging back to support Sunni domination in Iraq?: "Sunni Arab leaders Adnan Dulaimi and Salih Mutlak have begun speaking of a convergence of interests between them and the United States. Al-Hayat say its sources tell it that the US now feels that aligning with the Sunni Arabs against the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance is a way of offsetting Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs. "

"Like many Iraqi and Arab observers, Muqtada was shocked when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said last week that the US military would not intervene in an Iraqi civil war, leaving that to Iraqi forces.

"' "May God damn you," Sadr said of Rumsfeld. "You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere." '"

A cynic would point out that Saddam is still alive and could be pulled out of prison and installed as 'President of Iraq.'

The strange state of American politics: "What more can one say about a political party whose politicians want to censure a President in their own party for his role in a sex scandal, while fearfully refusing to censure a President in the other party for breaking the law -- repeatedly, deliberately and proudly -- while spying on American citizens?"

The strange state of American politics: "What more can one say about a political party whose politicians want to censure a President in their own party for his role in a sex scandal, while fearfully refusing to censure a President in the other party for breaking the law -- repeatedly, deliberately and proudly -- while spying on American citizens?"

The Campaign to Pacify Sunni Iraq: Michael Schwarz summarises the state of the guerilla war.

The Campaign to Pacify Sunni Iraq: Michael Schwarz summarises the state of the guerilla war.

Cockburn: Did Milosevic or His Accusers "Cheat Justice"? The Show Trial That Went Wrong

Cockburn: Did Milosevic or His Accusers "Cheat Justice"? The Show Trial That Went Wrong

Hawks Prevail In Preventing U.S. Troop Withdrawal: "We may never know who blew up the shrine and, with it, the prospects for troop withdrawals. It is assumed that the villains were either deranged Sunnis acting on their own, or al-Zarqawi cadres intent on civil war.

"There is another perspective for close observers of dirty wars, the possibility that the bombing was planned and handled by elements of Western counter-terrorism forces. Similar tactics were employed by British agents during the long conflict in Northern Ireland, and heavily-armed British commandos disguised as Arabs were captured in Basra just last year. One of the oldest imperial strategems is to divide and conquer, incite sectarian divisions, and justify military occupation to keep the natives from killing each other. This is precisely the justification for continued war that is heard from those who have admitted the original invasion was a “mistake.”"

Ever since the invasion of 2003 Iraq has been plagued by a devastating series of car and truck bombs, in a country which had not had a single car bombing in its history. Who on earth has been doing this and who is the beneficiary?

Hawks Prevail In Preventing U.S. Troop Withdrawal: "We may never know who blew up the shrine and, with it, the prospects for troop withdrawals. It is assumed that the villains were either deranged Sunnis acting on their own, or al-Zarqawi cadres intent on civil war.

"There is another perspective for close observers of dirty wars, the possibility that the bombing was planned and handled by elements of Western counter-terrorism forces. Similar tactics were employed by British agents during the long conflict in Northern Ireland, and heavily-armed British commandos disguised as Arabs were captured in Basra just last year. One of the oldest imperial strategems is to divide and conquer, incite sectarian divisions, and justify military occupation to keep the natives from killing each other. This is precisely the justification for continued war that is heard from those who have admitted the original invasion was a “mistake.”"

Ever since the invasion of 2003 Iraq has been plagued by a devastating series of car and truck bombs, in a country which had not had a single car bombing in its history. Who on earth has been doing this and who is the beneficiary?

Nuclear Power is Dead: "Last year's energy bill provided some pretty eye-popping incentives designed to make nuclear energy competitive including 80 percent loan guarantees, $2 billion of public insurance against legal or regulatory delays, an additional 1.8 cent/kWh in operating subsidies, payment for late acceptance for hazardous waste, capping liability for mishaps, free offsite security and another $1.3 billion tax break for decommissioning funds. Under that bill all risk is absorbed by tax payers and the promoters don’t even have to invest very much of their own money. With all this going for nuclear power plants, you would think that nuclear energy would be a market winner."

That would be the 'level playing field' 'free market' 'competitive system.' Without corporate welfare, nuclear power cannot survive. Its promoters are corporate tools. In one of the links to this article, it is shown that windpower is cheaper than gas-fuelled power.

Nuclear Power is Dead: "Last year's energy bill provided some pretty eye-popping incentives designed to make nuclear energy competitive including 80 percent loan guarantees, $2 billion of public insurance against legal or regulatory delays, an additional 1.8 cent/kWh in operating subsidies, payment for late acceptance for hazardous waste, capping liability for mishaps, free offsite security and another $1.3 billion tax break for decommissioning funds. Under that bill all risk is absorbed by tax payers and the promoters don’t even have to invest very much of their own money. With all this going for nuclear power plants, you would think that nuclear energy would be a market winner."

That would be the 'level playing field' 'free market' 'competitive system.' Without corporate welfare, nuclear power cannot survive. Its promoters are corporate tools. In one of the links to this article, it is shown that windpower is cheaper than gas-fuelled power.

Bush Nukes Legal and Ethical Constraints: "Eye-Ran. That's what the Americans call Iran — pronounced Ee-Ra'an. This is a minor matter, compared to how the U.S. is bullying Iran over its nuclear program, even while rewarding India for committing worse transgressions of international nuclear rules.

"All nation-states operate in their own interests, of course. But American disregard for the law, and the moral and political inconsistency of its foreign policy, has hit a new low under George W. Bush."

Bush Nukes Legal and Ethical Constraints: "Eye-Ran. That's what the Americans call Iran — pronounced Ee-Ra'an. This is a minor matter, compared to how the U.S. is bullying Iran over its nuclear program, even while rewarding India for committing worse transgressions of international nuclear rules.

"All nation-states operate in their own interests, of course. But American disregard for the law, and the moral and political inconsistency of its foreign policy, has hit a new low under George W. Bush."

The U.S. Role in Iraq’s Sectarian Violence: Stephen Zunes shows how the US first tried to install leaders in Iraq and then in response to massive demonstrations were forced to hold elections which were dominated by Shiites. Also how the dismissal of the Baath party and Iraq Army left a vacuum leading to the rise of sectarianism and the dissolution of Iraq.

The U.S. Role in Iraq’s Sectarian Violence: Stephen Zunes shows how the US first tried to install leaders in Iraq and then in response to massive demonstrations were forced to hold elections which were dominated by Shiites. Also how the dismissal of the Baath party and Iraq Army left a vacuum leading to the rise of sectarianism and the dissolution of Iraq.

Former Iranian president attacks Ahmadinejad over Holocaust -- Middle East Times: "'We should speak out if even a single Jew is killed. Don't forget that one of the crimes of Hitler, Nazism and German national socialism was the massacre of innocent people, among them many Jews,' the cleric said in comments carried in the Iranian press on Wednesday.

"The Holocaust, he asserted, should be recognized 'even if this historical reality has been misused and there is enormous pressure on the Palestinian people'. Ahmadinejad has caused international outrage by insisting that the Holocaust - the killing of an estimated 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II in death camps and elsewhere - was a myth used to justify the creation of Israel. He has also said that the Jewish state 'must be wiped off the map' or moved as far away as Alaska - comments that have provoked anger in the West and even condemnation from the UN Security Council.

"Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric has also served to increase tensions over Iran's atomic energy drive, seen in the West as a mask for weapons development. Khatami served as Iran's president from 1997 to 2005, and attempted to open up Iran to the West and initiate a 'dialogue among civilizations' - in stark contrast to the ultraconservative agenda of Ahmadinejad.

"The mild-mannered former president, who has shied away from the political limelight since leaving office, also asserted Muslims were not out to persecute Jews. 'The persecution of Jews, just like Nazism, is a Western phenomenon. In the east, we have always lived side by side with them. And we follow a religion that states that the death of an innocent person is the death of all of humanity,' Khatami said. He also argued that it was of little importance 'whether the number killed [during the Holocaust] was high or not' - but at the same time went on to accuse Israel's leaders as being 'victims of fascism and practicing fascist policies today'.

"Ahmadinejad also came under attack from the prominent and centrist Shargh newspaper, which complained that 'the Holocaust has, as wished for by the president, become a topic of our foreign policy'. 'The Jewish question was never a problem for Iran or Islam, and is a Christian-European problem,' the paper argued. 'Don't we have enough with the nuclear question, human rights, free elections and political in-fighting, so do we need to add another problem to that?' it said, saying that Iran would be better off 'thinking of the creation of a Palestinian state rather than the destruction of Israel'."

Former Iranian president attacks Ahmadinejad over Holocaust -- Middle East Times: "'We should speak out if even a single Jew is killed. Don't forget that one of the crimes of Hitler, Nazism and German national socialism was the massacre of innocent people, among them many Jews,' the cleric said in comments carried in the Iranian press on Wednesday.

"The Holocaust, he asserted, should be recognized 'even if this historical reality has been misused and there is enormous pressure on the Palestinian people'. Ahmadinejad has caused international outrage by insisting that the Holocaust - the killing of an estimated 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II in death camps and elsewhere - was a myth used to justify the creation of Israel. He has also said that the Jewish state 'must be wiped off the map' or moved as far away as Alaska - comments that have provoked anger in the West and even condemnation from the UN Security Council.

"Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric has also served to increase tensions over Iran's atomic energy drive, seen in the West as a mask for weapons development. Khatami served as Iran's president from 1997 to 2005, and attempted to open up Iran to the West and initiate a 'dialogue among civilizations' - in stark contrast to the ultraconservative agenda of Ahmadinejad.

"The mild-mannered former president, who has shied away from the political limelight since leaving office, also asserted Muslims were not out to persecute Jews. 'The persecution of Jews, just like Nazism, is a Western phenomenon. In the east, we have always lived side by side with them. And we follow a religion that states that the death of an innocent person is the death of all of humanity,' Khatami said. He also argued that it was of little importance 'whether the number killed [during the Holocaust] was high or not' - but at the same time went on to accuse Israel's leaders as being 'victims of fascism and practicing fascist policies today'.

"Ahmadinejad also came under attack from the prominent and centrist Shargh newspaper, which complained that 'the Holocaust has, as wished for by the president, become a topic of our foreign policy'. 'The Jewish question was never a problem for Iran or Islam, and is a Christian-European problem,' the paper argued. 'Don't we have enough with the nuclear question, human rights, free elections and political in-fighting, so do we need to add another problem to that?' it said, saying that Iran would be better off 'thinking of the creation of a Palestinian state rather than the destruction of Israel'."

Opposition to Iraq War Reaches 55% in Australia

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose Australia’s involvement in Iraq?

Support: 38%

Oppose: 55%

Do you support or oppose Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan?

Support: 45%

Oppose: 48%

Support for this stupid war has always been hard to drum up, all the more remarkable, therefore, that both major parties do support it.

Opposition to Iraq War Reaches 55% in Australia

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose Australia’s involvement in Iraq?

Support: 38%

Oppose: 55%

Do you support or oppose Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan?

Support: 45%

Oppose: 48%

Support for this stupid war has always been hard to drum up, all the more remarkable, therefore, that both major parties do support it.

Ubuntu - Killer App for Linux It was Unix and then became GNU - for Gnu's not Unix. Ok try again. Then we had Linux - unknown pronunciation, misleading egotism, clueless philosophy but very cute penguin.

Ubuntu is 'humanity to others' or 'I am what I am because of who we all are'. It puts the focus back on the principles of freedom and free software, sidestepping that tedious 'open source' corporate sales pitch.

Free download or free CDs - posted free to your door. It 'just works' out of the box. Even the linmodem works, with a little help from the folks at linmodems.org .

Ubuntu - killer marketing and killer app.

Ubuntu - Killer App for Linux It was Unix and then became GNU - for Gnu's not Unix. Ok try again. Then we had Linux - unknown pronunciation, misleading egotism, clueless philosophy but very cute penguin.

Ubuntu is 'humanity to others' or 'I am what I am because of who we all are'. It puts the focus back on the principles of freedom and free software, sidestepping that tedious 'open source' corporate sales pitch.

Free download or free CDs - posted free to your door. It 'just works' out of the box. Even the linmodem works, with a little help from the folks at linmodems.org .

Ubuntu - killer marketing and killer app.

John Zogby: On a New Poll Of U.S. Soldiers During Their Service in Iraq: "85% [of US troops in Iraq] said the U.S. mission is 'to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks,' while 77% said they believe the main or a major reason for the war was 'to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.'"

Cannon fodder - the poor deluded fools. They have been lied to and they do not realise, even today. Saddam had no part in 9/11; there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

There was appparently no question on whether the US invaded Iraq for reasons of oil or hegemony.

However, it is interesting to note that "72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year ... 29% thought the U.S. should pull its troops immediately."

John Zogby: On a New Poll Of U.S. Soldiers During Their Service in Iraq: "85% [of US troops in Iraq] said the U.S. mission is 'to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks,' while 77% said they believe the main or a major reason for the war was 'to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.'"

Cannon fodder - the poor deluded fools. They have been lied to and they do not realise, even today. Saddam had no part in 9/11; there were no links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

There was appparently no question on whether the US invaded Iraq for reasons of oil or hegemony.

However, it is interesting to note that "72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year ... 29% thought the U.S. should pull its troops immediately."

Peter Singer: Against Holocaust denial, use arguments not laws: "The timing of Austria's conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the Holocaust could not have been worse. Coming after the deaths of at least 30 people during protests in Arab and Muslim countries against the Danish cartoons ridiculing the prophet Muhammad, the Irving verdict made a mockery of the claim that in democratic countries freedom of expression is a basic right.

"We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures, but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed."

"Laws against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in circumstances where that incitement is intended to - or can reasonably be foreseen to - lead to violence or other criminal acts, are different, and are compatible with maintaining freedom to express any views at all. Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: "We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.""

Peter Singer: Against Holocaust denial, use arguments not laws: "The timing of Austria's conviction and imprisonment of David Irving for denying the Holocaust could not have been worse. Coming after the deaths of at least 30 people during protests in Arab and Muslim countries against the Danish cartoons ridiculing the prophet Muhammad, the Irving verdict made a mockery of the claim that in democratic countries freedom of expression is a basic right.

"We cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures, but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed."

"Laws against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in circumstances where that incitement is intended to - or can reasonably be foreseen to - lead to violence or other criminal acts, are different, and are compatible with maintaining freedom to express any views at all. Only when David Irving has been freed will it be possible for Europeans to turn to the Islamic protesters and say: "We apply the principle of freedom of expression even-handedly, whether it offends Muslims, Christians, Jews, or anyone else.""

Norman Finkelstein & Shlomo Ben-Ami: Complete Transcript Finkelstein, of course, is very good, but its a pleasant surprise to see how good Former Israeli Foreign Minister Ben-Ami is, especially after having had to put up with the programmed disinformation and propaganda of Ehud Barak. Finkelstein pays Ben-Ami a nice compliment when he says "if representatives of the Palestinians were to sit down with Shlomo Ben-Ami in a room, weren't subjected to the sorts of political pressures that Dr. Ben-Ami describes from Israel, I think a reasonable settlement could be reached."

The two have some different and intriguing interpretations of the tragic failure of the Camp David/Taba negotiations.

FINKELSTEIN: The Israelis chose Arafat [as negotiating partner after the Iraq war], not only because Arafat himself was desperate [to return to Palestine and resume control]. They chose him because they thought he would deny them what they were entitled to. He would suppress all resistance to the occupation. And then, finally, the day of reckoning came with the Camp David talks. It turned out Arafat was not willing to make those concessions to deny Palestinians what their rights were under international law, and I think that's where the impasse occurred at Camp David and at Taba.

And the standard interpretation, which comes — which is — you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafat's unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.

BEN-AMI: What Dr. Finkelstein said here about international law, I want to make it clear, it is important, it is vital for a civilized community of nations to have an axis of principles based on international law, around which to run the affairs of our chaotic world. It is very important. It is vital, etc. But at the same time, when you go into political issues, and you need to settle differences, historical differences, differences that have to do with political rights, security concerns, historical memories, etc., it is almost impossible to do things on the basis of international law, but rather, on something that is as close as possible to the requirements of international law. The very fact that, as Dr. Finkelstein rightly says, the Palestinians were ready to make this or that concession is the reflection of them understanding that there is no viability, there is no possibility really to reach an agreement that says let us apply automatically and rigidly the requirements of international law.

The thing is that we need to understand that with all — frankly, with all due respect for the requirements of international law, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, a peace process is a political enterprise. And there are things that governments can do and things that they cannot do, because if you do things that leave you without political support, then you can do nothing. You can write poetry, not make peace. And we have been writing poetry ever since, because we are not in office. We have been advancing all kind of peace dreams. It is only when you are in office and you have a political support that you can move ahead. This is the only way that peace is done. We have done our very best. We went to the outer limits of our capacity for compromise without disintegrating entirely our home front, and this is an exercise that Sharon decided not to make, precisely because he learned from our experience. He said, "Listen, we are not going to do that. I am going to be unilateral. I don't believe in negotiations." It's very bad, but this is the lesson that he learned from the sad experience of the collapse of the peace process in the last year of Clinton's presidency.

The problem is Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too. Even a corrupt leader like Arafat could not accept Israeli grasping and arrogance on this scale, and Israel could not see the lost opportunity, that 'in justice lies the truest and highest expediency.' The talks were doomed to fail.

Norman Finkelstein & Shlomo Ben-Ami: Complete Transcript Finkelstein, of course, is very good, but its a pleasant surprise to see how good Former Israeli Foreign Minister Ben-Ami is, especially after having had to put up with the programmed disinformation and propaganda of Ehud Barak. Finkelstein pays Ben-Ami a nice compliment when he says "if representatives of the Palestinians were to sit down with Shlomo Ben-Ami in a room, weren't subjected to the sorts of political pressures that Dr. Ben-Ami describes from Israel, I think a reasonable settlement could be reached."

The two have some different and intriguing interpretations of the tragic failure of the Camp David/Taba negotiations.

FINKELSTEIN: The Israelis chose Arafat [as negotiating partner after the Iraq war], not only because Arafat himself was desperate [to return to Palestine and resume control]. They chose him because they thought he would deny them what they were entitled to. He would suppress all resistance to the occupation. And then, finally, the day of reckoning came with the Camp David talks. It turned out Arafat was not willing to make those concessions to deny Palestinians what their rights were under international law, and I think that's where the impasse occurred at Camp David and at Taba.

And the standard interpretation, which comes — which is — you can call it the Dennis Ross interpretation, which, I think, unfortunately Dr. Ben-Ami echoes, is that Israel made huge concessions at Camp David and Taba; Palestinians refused to make any concessions, because of what Dr. Ben-Ami repeatedly calls Arafat's unyielding positions; and that Arafat missed a huge opportunity. Now, it is correct to say that if you frame everything in terms of what Israel wanted, it made huge concessions. However, if you frame things in terms of what Israel was legally entitled to under international law, then Israel made precisely and exactly zero concessions. All the concessions were made by the Palestinians.

BEN-AMI: What Dr. Finkelstein said here about international law, I want to make it clear, it is important, it is vital for a civilized community of nations to have an axis of principles based on international law, around which to run the affairs of our chaotic world. It is very important. It is vital, etc. But at the same time, when you go into political issues, and you need to settle differences, historical differences, differences that have to do with political rights, security concerns, historical memories, etc., it is almost impossible to do things on the basis of international law, but rather, on something that is as close as possible to the requirements of international law. The very fact that, as Dr. Finkelstein rightly says, the Palestinians were ready to make this or that concession is the reflection of them understanding that there is no viability, there is no possibility really to reach an agreement that says let us apply automatically and rigidly the requirements of international law.

The thing is that we need to understand that with all — frankly, with all due respect for the requirements of international law, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, a peace process is a political enterprise. And there are things that governments can do and things that they cannot do, because if you do things that leave you without political support, then you can do nothing. You can write poetry, not make peace. And we have been writing poetry ever since, because we are not in office. We have been advancing all kind of peace dreams. It is only when you are in office and you have a political support that you can move ahead. This is the only way that peace is done. We have done our very best. We went to the outer limits of our capacity for compromise without disintegrating entirely our home front, and this is an exercise that Sharon decided not to make, precisely because he learned from our experience. He said, "Listen, we are not going to do that. I am going to be unilateral. I don't believe in negotiations." It's very bad, but this is the lesson that he learned from the sad experience of the collapse of the peace process in the last year of Clinton's presidency.

The problem is Israel wants to have its cake and eat it too. Even a corrupt leader like Arafat could not accept Israeli grasping and arrogance on this scale, and Israel could not see the lost opportunity, that 'in justice lies the truest and highest expediency.' The talks were doomed to fail.

Hamas signals (again) that it will accept a two-state solution: "Palestinian prime minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said in an interview yesterday ... that Hamas did not harbour animosity towards Jews and did not wish to throw them into the sea.

"'If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages,' he said, beginning with a long-term truce. He declined, however, to commit himself when asked if Hamas would recognise Israel's right to exist, a commitment implying permanent peace rather than a period of truce followed by war.

"'The answer,' he said, 'is to let Israel say it will recognise a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release prisoners and recognise the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. 'Hamas will have a position if that occurs.'"

"Israel views the demand that millions of Palestinian refugees return to Israel as a non-starter, since it would mean the demographic demise of the Jewish state."

Zionist Israel is a racist state (like White Australia or Apartheid Africa) where 'Arabs' are considered inferior and totally unacceptable as citizens.
Beginning in 1948 and continuing, millions of Palestinians have been made into refugees in order that the Zionist state might colonise the land. Since the fall of the Soviet Union one million Russian Jews have migrated to Israel, but as Chomksy has previously remarked, Israel would resort to nuclear weapons rather than allow Arabs to return.

As a practical matter therefore the return of millions of Palestinians to Israel is not possible in terms of a political settlement. Some other solution would need to be found, eg monetary compensation or resettlement somewhere else. This would be the subject of current negotiations except that Israel has now and has never had any intention of a 'two-state' solution. Although the realities on the ground had forced even Sharon to abandon Gaza and heavily populated parts of the West Bank, Israel has every intention of colonising and annexing as much land as possible.

UPDATE: Full interview with Haniyeh here.

Hamas signals (again) that it will accept a two-state solution: "Palestinian prime minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said in an interview yesterday ... that Hamas did not harbour animosity towards Jews and did not wish to throw them into the sea.

"'If Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages,' he said, beginning with a long-term truce. He declined, however, to commit himself when asked if Hamas would recognise Israel's right to exist, a commitment implying permanent peace rather than a period of truce followed by war.

"'The answer,' he said, 'is to let Israel say it will recognise a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release prisoners and recognise the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. 'Hamas will have a position if that occurs.'"

"Israel views the demand that millions of Palestinian refugees return to Israel as a non-starter, since it would mean the demographic demise of the Jewish state."

Zionist Israel is a racist state (like White Australia or Apartheid Africa) where 'Arabs' are considered inferior and totally unacceptable as citizens.
Beginning in 1948 and continuing, millions of Palestinians have been made into refugees in order that the Zionist state might colonise the land. Since the fall of the Soviet Union one million Russian Jews have migrated to Israel, but as Chomksy has previously remarked, Israel would resort to nuclear weapons rather than allow Arabs to return.

As a practical matter therefore the return of millions of Palestinians to Israel is not possible in terms of a political settlement. Some other solution would need to be found, eg monetary compensation or resettlement somewhere else. This would be the subject of current negotiations except that Israel has now and has never had any intention of a 'two-state' solution. Although the realities on the ground had forced even Sharon to abandon Gaza and heavily populated parts of the West Bank, Israel has every intention of colonising and annexing as much land as possible.

UPDATE: Full interview with Haniyeh here.

Excellent interview re Bin Laden strategy

Excellent interview re Bin Laden strategy

Golden Dome of Samarra Destroyed. Before & After:






US involved?: "The popular mood has been anti-occupation rather than sectarian. Iraq is awash with rumours about the collusion of the occupation forces and their Iraqi clients with sectarian attacks and death squads: the US is widely seen as fostering sectarian division to prevent the emergence of a united national resistance.... the US aim of installing a client pro-US regime in Baghdad risked plunging the country into civil war - but not a war of Arabs against Kurds or Sunnis against Shias, rather a war between a US-backed minority (of all sects and nationalities) against the majority of the Iraqi people. That is where Iraq is heading."

"In the run-up to the December elections, Sadr's forces won decisive battles in Baghdad and the south against Sciri, the Shia faction more inclined to work with the US. The defeat of the Sciri forces gave Sadr's Mahdi army a powerful voice in the coalition that won the election, and helped nominate Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister against the US-backed Sciri man, Adil Abdulmahdi. Khalilzad is adamant that Sadr's supporters should not be able to exercise such influence. This is the cause of the political crisis engulfing the Green Zone regime.... All the Bush and Blair strategies are based on maintaining a pro-US regime in Baghdad. Freed from this hated occupation, proud and independent Iraqis will never elect a collection of US- and British-backed proteges."

Golden Dome of Samarra Destroyed. Before & After:






US involved?: "The popular mood has been anti-occupation rather than sectarian. Iraq is awash with rumours about the collusion of the occupation forces and their Iraqi clients with sectarian attacks and death squads: the US is widely seen as fostering sectarian division to prevent the emergence of a united national resistance.... the US aim of installing a client pro-US regime in Baghdad risked plunging the country into civil war - but not a war of Arabs against Kurds or Sunnis against Shias, rather a war between a US-backed minority (of all sects and nationalities) against the majority of the Iraqi people. That is where Iraq is heading."

"In the run-up to the December elections, Sadr's forces won decisive battles in Baghdad and the south against Sciri, the Shia faction more inclined to work with the US. The defeat of the Sciri forces gave Sadr's Mahdi army a powerful voice in the coalition that won the election, and helped nominate Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister against the US-backed Sciri man, Adil Abdulmahdi. Khalilzad is adamant that Sadr's supporters should not be able to exercise such influence. This is the cause of the political crisis engulfing the Green Zone regime.... All the Bush and Blair strategies are based on maintaining a pro-US regime in Baghdad. Freed from this hated occupation, proud and independent Iraqis will never elect a collection of US- and British-backed proteges."

Lengthy interview with Chomsky in Korea - very good

Lengthy interview with Chomsky in Korea - very good

Expert: Iraq war a gift for Al-Qaeda to haunt us for next 20 or 30 years: "[Professor Paul Rogers] told the conference on politics and terrorism: 'Iraq is very slowly becoming something of a Jihadist training zone for a new generation of Jihadists, rather like Afghanistan was in the 1980s against the Soviets.

"'You get young Jihadists from Afghanistan travelling to Iraq, getting combats training against the American troops in urban environments and then taking their skills elsewhere.'

"Prof Rogers, from the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford University, added: 'The real gift to al-Qaeda is a long-term urban combat training zone, not a rural one as previously. 'That is going to come back and haunt us over the next 20 to 30 years.' "

Someone should make a compilation of the number of experts who before and during the war warned that it would only increase terrorism. We are facing one of the most gigantic of all big lies, that the war is or was a 'war on terror' rather than an imperialist war producing terror.

Expert: Iraq war a gift for Al-Qaeda to haunt us for next 20 or 30 years: "[Professor Paul Rogers] told the conference on politics and terrorism: 'Iraq is very slowly becoming something of a Jihadist training zone for a new generation of Jihadists, rather like Afghanistan was in the 1980s against the Soviets.

"'You get young Jihadists from Afghanistan travelling to Iraq, getting combats training against the American troops in urban environments and then taking their skills elsewhere.'

"Prof Rogers, from the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford University, added: 'The real gift to al-Qaeda is a long-term urban combat training zone, not a rural one as previously. 'That is going to come back and haunt us over the next 20 to 30 years.' "

Someone should make a compilation of the number of experts who before and during the war warned that it would only increase terrorism. We are facing one of the most gigantic of all big lies, that the war is or was a 'war on terror' rather than an imperialist war producing terror.

Profits correlate with rents: "This is in good agreement with mesoeconomic theory which states that inequalties in profits are correlated to rents." - and if surplus value was co-related with rents we would be making some progress. Mark Blaug says Marx assumed surplus value was equal per man but gave no evidence for this. But one could make the argument surplus value is not necessarily equal per man but rather varies with location and in fact is more or less correlated with site or economic rent. It's also necessary to reformulate the labour theory of value in such a way as to avoid the trap that Ricardo set for Marx - a technically incorrect statement which opened the door to the kind of criticism that 'throws the baby out with the bathwater'. The issue is an analysis that comprises both exploitation and allocation. The concept of exploitation - whether chattel slavery or 'primitive accumulation', ie enclosure of land and resources into monopoly or ownership class control - is straighforward and should be susceptible to analysis and explanation. People don't seem to have had much trouble getting it to work on the ground using such simple tools as whips, chains, guns etc so why is it such a big problem to analyse and explain? Of course the answer to that is that some things really don't want to be explained....

Profits correlate with rents: "This is in good agreement with mesoeconomic theory which states that inequalties in profits are correlated to rents." - and if surplus value was co-related with rents we would be making some progress. Mark Blaug says Marx assumed surplus value was equal per man but gave no evidence for this. But one could make the argument surplus value is not necessarily equal per man but rather varies with location and in fact is more or less correlated with site or economic rent. It's also necessary to reformulate the labour theory of value in such a way as to avoid the trap that Ricardo set for Marx - a technically incorrect statement which opened the door to the kind of criticism that 'throws the baby out with the bathwater'. The issue is an analysis that comprises both exploitation and allocation. The concept of exploitation - whether chattel slavery or 'primitive accumulation', ie enclosure of land and resources into monopoly or ownership class control - is straighforward and should be susceptible to analysis and explanation. People don't seem to have had much trouble getting it to work on the ground using such simple tools as whips, chains, guns etc so why is it such a big problem to analyse and explain? Of course the answer to that is that some things really don't want to be explained....

Attacking Iran should be an option: Britain's Tories: "'Every pressure must be brought,' [Tory Defence spokesman] Fox was quoted as saying in a speech to the right-wing Hermitage Foundation Thursday. 'But it was wrong for the European Union's foreign affairs spokesman Xavier Solana to rule out the use of force. It is wrong for Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to echo him. 'Frederick the Great once observed that diplomacy without arms was like music without instruments. We must keep all options open if we are to stand any chance of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis.'"

I've been calling repeatedly for Tony Blair to be arrested as a war criminal over the Iraq war. But what is one to do with half-witted Tories who want to start a war against Iran?

At least he didn't quote Hitler for diplomatic advice. In civilised countries, the waging or threatening of aggressive war against other countries is a supreme crime; and the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent war breaking out, or to bring conflict to an end as quickly as possible.

Attacking Iran should be an option: Britain's Tories: "'Every pressure must be brought,' [Tory Defence spokesman] Fox was quoted as saying in a speech to the right-wing Hermitage Foundation Thursday. 'But it was wrong for the European Union's foreign affairs spokesman Xavier Solana to rule out the use of force. It is wrong for Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to echo him. 'Frederick the Great once observed that diplomacy without arms was like music without instruments. We must keep all options open if we are to stand any chance of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis.'"

I've been calling repeatedly for Tony Blair to be arrested as a war criminal over the Iraq war. But what is one to do with half-witted Tories who want to start a war against Iran?

At least he didn't quote Hitler for diplomatic advice. In civilised countries, the waging or threatening of aggressive war against other countries is a supreme crime; and the purpose of diplomacy is to prevent war breaking out, or to bring conflict to an end as quickly as possible.

Abortion will lead to Muslim nation: MP: "AUSTRALIA could become a Muslim nation within 50 years because 'we are aborting ourselves almost out of existence', a Government backbencher [Danna Vale] says."

So speaks the authentic voice of patriarchy and White Australia. You won't get Howard to disown this one. Let's face it: modern civilisation, can't handle that. It does make one nostalgic, however, for the good old days. Back in the day, men were on top, women were breeders, blacks were dispersed, Orientals were kept out and the only Muslim in the country was Abdul the Afghan camel driver. Women didn't have the vote or even an education, much less contraception or control of their reproductive organs. Lord no! Never heard of such a concept.

Abortion will lead to Muslim nation: MP: "AUSTRALIA could become a Muslim nation within 50 years because 'we are aborting ourselves almost out of existence', a Government backbencher [Danna Vale] says."

So speaks the authentic voice of patriarchy and White Australia. You won't get Howard to disown this one. Let's face it: modern civilisation, can't handle that. It does make one nostalgic, however, for the good old days. Back in the day, men were on top, women were breeders, blacks were dispersed, Orientals were kept out and the only Muslim in the country was Abdul the Afghan camel driver. Women didn't have the vote or even an education, much less contraception or control of their reproductive organs. Lord no! Never heard of such a concept.

India almost invaded Pakistan in 2002: "Pakistani generals have said that the nuclear option would be exercised were the national existence of the country to be at stake. Had the Indian army overrun Pakistan, that situation could well have arisen. One of the scenarios considered at the time was that Pakistanis might use one nuclear weapon on Indian troops in the field, almost as a demonstration, a warning, and that such a limited use on a battlefield might not create the political space for India to escalate. But most people believed that after the first weapon was used the war would escalate to a much more serious exchange."

"The jihadis have nuclear ambitions of their own, and there were concerns during this crisis-and after it-about how secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are. The question is whether some of those weapons or the technology that surrounds them might leak to jihadi groups or dissenting Islamist military officers. He said the AQ Khan affair remains “a mystery in important respects,” but there has been a specific mechanism within the Pakistani military to enable it to control its nuclear-weapons programme. It obtained control and authority over AQ Khan’s laboratory two years before Khan was stopped. Elaborating, he said, “It’s unclear how much the Pakistani Army knew about Khan’s activities, particularly in the later phase. But if they didn’t know anything, which is the claim that the Pakistani leadership has made, it suggests that their internal system of controls was very weak. And, if they did know, then it begs a whole different set of questions: what, if anything, the Pakistani Army thought it was accomplishing by permitting, for instance, the sale of nuclear-weapons technology to Libya.”

"Coll quoted unnamed Pakistani generals who, he said, had told him that they have8,000 people working in their security directorate, most of them soldiers and retired soldiers, all dedicated to guarding the 50 to 100 weapons that Pakistan is thought to have manufactured. He added that there have been “very serious breakdowns” in the past five years or so. AQ Khan is one case, but not the only one. Asked if India and Pakistan had learnt any lessons from the 2002 standoff, he replied that there is evidence that some in the leadership on both sides learned the wrong lessons from this crisis. “For instance, the Indian military, or sections of it, came away with the lesson that they need to be able to attack quickly after a terrorist event, so they don’t create the time for outside powers to intervene diplomatically. They have started to recommend a new military doctrine called ‘cold start,’ which would allow them to attack across the Pakistan border within days.”"

India almost invaded Pakistan in 2002: "Pakistani generals have said that the nuclear option would be exercised were the national existence of the country to be at stake. Had the Indian army overrun Pakistan, that situation could well have arisen. One of the scenarios considered at the time was that Pakistanis might use one nuclear weapon on Indian troops in the field, almost as a demonstration, a warning, and that such a limited use on a battlefield might not create the political space for India to escalate. But most people believed that after the first weapon was used the war would escalate to a much more serious exchange."

"The jihadis have nuclear ambitions of their own, and there were concerns during this crisis-and after it-about how secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are. The question is whether some of those weapons or the technology that surrounds them might leak to jihadi groups or dissenting Islamist military officers. He said the AQ Khan affair remains “a mystery in important respects,” but there has been a specific mechanism within the Pakistani military to enable it to control its nuclear-weapons programme. It obtained control and authority over AQ Khan’s laboratory two years before Khan was stopped. Elaborating, he said, “It’s unclear how much the Pakistani Army knew about Khan’s activities, particularly in the later phase. But if they didn’t know anything, which is the claim that the Pakistani leadership has made, it suggests that their internal system of controls was very weak. And, if they did know, then it begs a whole different set of questions: what, if anything, the Pakistani Army thought it was accomplishing by permitting, for instance, the sale of nuclear-weapons technology to Libya.”

"Coll quoted unnamed Pakistani generals who, he said, had told him that they have8,000 people working in their security directorate, most of them soldiers and retired soldiers, all dedicated to guarding the 50 to 100 weapons that Pakistan is thought to have manufactured. He added that there have been “very serious breakdowns” in the past five years or so. AQ Khan is one case, but not the only one. Asked if India and Pakistan had learnt any lessons from the 2002 standoff, he replied that there is evidence that some in the leadership on both sides learned the wrong lessons from this crisis. “For instance, the Indian military, or sections of it, came away with the lesson that they need to be able to attack quickly after a terrorist event, so they don’t create the time for outside powers to intervene diplomatically. They have started to recommend a new military doctrine called ‘cold start,’ which would allow them to attack across the Pakistan border within days.”"

RtoS on Bush's policy as enunciated in the State of the Union address: "War will always be with us. I define this country in terms of war. I can do unusual, even illegal things, because we are at war. You cannot criticse me because we are at war. I have no intention of ending this war, only of promising that it will continue for a long, long time."

It is quite obvious that Bush, Cheney and the Administration just love the 'war' they're in and the political opportunities it presents them. It's the same strategy that has been used throughout history by those who exploit war in order to increase power:

'War abroad and repression at home.'

It's a wonder that this approach isn't criticised and condemned far more rigourously than it is, particularly when one considers the colossal fraud of the Iraq war, which obviously had nothing to do with 'terrorism' and instead predictably increased terrorism.

Or as HL Mencken said in particularly blunt form:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

RtoS on Bush's policy as enunciated in the State of the Union address: "War will always be with us. I define this country in terms of war. I can do unusual, even illegal things, because we are at war. You cannot criticse me because we are at war. I have no intention of ending this war, only of promising that it will continue for a long, long time."

It is quite obvious that Bush, Cheney and the Administration just love the 'war' they're in and the political opportunities it presents them. It's the same strategy that has been used throughout history by those who exploit war in order to increase power:

'War abroad and repression at home.'

It's a wonder that this approach isn't criticised and condemned far more rigourously than it is, particularly when one considers the colossal fraud of the Iraq war, which obviously had nothing to do with 'terrorism' and instead predictably increased terrorism.

Or as HL Mencken said in particularly blunt form:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy: "The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises."

Sweden plans to be world's first oil-free economy: "The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises."

Iran's 6 point atomic plan ignored, suppressed: I still find it somewhat unlikely that the US would actually attack Iran, but the threat is certainly there. With the experience of Iraq fresh in everybody's mind, how can Europe, Russia and China appease the US going into such a war? The hypocrisy and double standards of the West and the US particularly is on a monumental scale as this article points out, and if people do not call the emperor on having no clothes, a heavy price may have to be paid.

Yet, incredibly, no one in the European or US media even examined the nature and content of the six-point Iranian proposal, confining themselves to the official pronouncements of the EU-3 diplomats who are more keen on satisfying the US's march toward the Security Council than in breaking the nuclear stalemate on their own.

These diplomats, so adept at "leaking" their own highly-publicized proposal to Iran last summer, kept a tight lid on Iran's proposal and, what is more, there is no evidence that any respected member of the Western media made any attempt to get their hands on Iran's proposal....

Clearly, listening to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's anti-Iran stance, Europe's main priority is US appeasement, and not Iran. Merkel's Iran-bashing could have dire consequences for Berlin's Iran and Middle East policy, in light of Germany's status as Iran's No 1 European trading partner.

Merkel, a novice in foreign policy making, has set aside the nuanced approach of her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder by facilitating the United States' war-prone approach to Iran. Merkel's government appears to be doing for the US on Iran the kind of subservient role London played on Iraq. This is a sure recipe for disaster....

Russia appears to have its Iran card poorly planned, and if not too careful it may soon find itself on the side of US-favored sanctions. Consequently, the whole spectrum of Russia's geostrategy will suffer indefinitely. The same pitch to China forms a carefully scripted sequence of "graduated response" by the US and, for now at least, that pitch seems to be working rather superbly.

In another good article, Afrasiabi, noting that the European response to the Iraq war was "feebly standing up to Washington's warmongering", points out the obvious, that the US is intent on global military hegemony especially through control of oil, and the other power centres, Europe, Russia, China and the non-aligned movement, all seem fundamentally hesitant in committing themselves to opposition to this. It is a recipe for disaster. The way to stop an Iran war, as with the Iraq war, is to openly condemn it, and to do everything possible to block it. Indecisiveness is unsatisfactory, and appeasers of the Blair (or Merkel?) kind are simply contemptible.

Iran's 6 point atomic plan ignored, suppressed: I still find it somewhat unlikely that the US would actually attack Iran, but the threat is certainly there. With the experience of Iraq fresh in everybody's mind, how can Europe, Russia and China appease the US going into such a war? The hypocrisy and double standards of the West and the US particularly is on a monumental scale as this article points out, and if people do not call the emperor on having no clothes, a heavy price may have to be paid.

Yet, incredibly, no one in the European or US media even examined the nature and content of the six-point Iranian proposal, confining themselves to the official pronouncements of the EU-3 diplomats who are more keen on satisfying the US's march toward the Security Council than in breaking the nuclear stalemate on their own.

These diplomats, so adept at "leaking" their own highly-publicized proposal to Iran last summer, kept a tight lid on Iran's proposal and, what is more, there is no evidence that any respected member of the Western media made any attempt to get their hands on Iran's proposal....

Clearly, listening to German Chancellor Angela Merkel's anti-Iran stance, Europe's main priority is US appeasement, and not Iran. Merkel's Iran-bashing could have dire consequences for Berlin's Iran and Middle East policy, in light of Germany's status as Iran's No 1 European trading partner.

Merkel, a novice in foreign policy making, has set aside the nuanced approach of her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder by facilitating the United States' war-prone approach to Iran. Merkel's government appears to be doing for the US on Iran the kind of subservient role London played on Iraq. This is a sure recipe for disaster....

Russia appears to have its Iran card poorly planned, and if not too careful it may soon find itself on the side of US-favored sanctions. Consequently, the whole spectrum of Russia's geostrategy will suffer indefinitely. The same pitch to China forms a carefully scripted sequence of "graduated response" by the US and, for now at least, that pitch seems to be working rather superbly.

In another good article, Afrasiabi, noting that the European response to the Iraq war was "feebly standing up to Washington's warmongering", points out the obvious, that the US is intent on global military hegemony especially through control of oil, and the other power centres, Europe, Russia, China and the non-aligned movement, all seem fundamentally hesitant in committing themselves to opposition to this. It is a recipe for disaster. The way to stop an Iran war, as with the Iraq war, is to openly condemn it, and to do everything possible to block it. Indecisiveness is unsatisfactory, and appeasers of the Blair (or Merkel?) kind are simply contemptible.

Positive thinking in the workplace: Kevin Carson in this and a followup post has a very funny piece on the latest craze in 'motivational' books for the corporate workplace.

In true anarchist style, Kevin concludes: "The lesson we ought to be learning is just the opposite: to instinctively doubt anything anybody in authority tells you."

Let's face it: the boss wants you to work harder to generate more profits, or replace you altogether with somone or something that could achieve that goal better. The only thing that makes it bearable is decent wages and conditions, and for that some solidarity could be useful.

Positive thinking in the workplace: Kevin Carson in this and a followup post has a very funny piece on the latest craze in 'motivational' books for the corporate workplace.

In true anarchist style, Kevin concludes: "The lesson we ought to be learning is just the opposite: to instinctively doubt anything anybody in authority tells you."

Let's face it: the boss wants you to work harder to generate more profits, or replace you altogether with somone or something that could achieve that goal better. The only thing that makes it bearable is decent wages and conditions, and for that some solidarity could be useful.

Sydney Desalination plant dumped (at least until after the election): "Cabinet met yesterday and was presented with the initial results of drilling in western Sydney, which revealed there might be up to 30 gigalitres a year of groundwater in aquifers. That would nearly match the 45 gigalitres a year that might have been produced by the Kurnell desalination plant.

"The groundwater has been known about for several years, but the scale of the reserves was untested. The most recent testing provides the Government with the political figleaf to put the plant on hold for several years. The reserves are large enough to provide additional water for several years."

"The Government is still likely to buy the Kurnell land and build a pilot plant, but a full-scale plant will not be built unless needed. The new trigger is likely to be when the dam system falls to 30 per cent full.... The plant has faced universal opposition from the environmental movement because of the massive power consumption needed to run it. The Government's estimates recognised the plant would add 2 per cent to Sydney's power consumption."

"The change of heart follows a report from two experts, Dr Stuart White and David Campbell, to the water subcommittee of cabinet. As well as the aquifer water, they identified recycling opportunities of up to 70 gigalitres a year. The newly discovered aquifers are in the Southern Highlands and western Sydney, near the Hawkesbury River."

Sydney Desalination plant dumped (at least until after the election): "Cabinet met yesterday and was presented with the initial results of drilling in western Sydney, which revealed there might be up to 30 gigalitres a year of groundwater in aquifers. That would nearly match the 45 gigalitres a year that might have been produced by the Kurnell desalination plant.

"The groundwater has been known about for several years, but the scale of the reserves was untested. The most recent testing provides the Government with the political figleaf to put the plant on hold for several years. The reserves are large enough to provide additional water for several years."

"The Government is still likely to buy the Kurnell land and build a pilot plant, but a full-scale plant will not be built unless needed. The new trigger is likely to be when the dam system falls to 30 per cent full.... The plant has faced universal opposition from the environmental movement because of the massive power consumption needed to run it. The Government's estimates recognised the plant would add 2 per cent to Sydney's power consumption."

"The change of heart follows a report from two experts, Dr Stuart White and David Campbell, to the water subcommittee of cabinet. As well as the aquifer water, they identified recycling opportunities of up to 70 gigalitres a year. The newly discovered aquifers are in the Southern Highlands and western Sydney, near the Hawkesbury River."

Former German intelligence officer summarizes the Iran war scenario:

Judging from the rather frantic behind-the-scenes efforts of Russia and China in Iran, they seem to appreciate that the Iranian leadership is in for a big and probably deadly surprise. The Bush administration has not only handled its Iran dossier much more skillfully than Iraq, but also managed to set up Iran for a war it can neither win nor fight to a draw....

Though a Western war against Iran will be a big geopolitical defeat for Russia and China, they cannot but resign themselves to this outcome if they are unable to convince the Iranians to accept the Russian proposal - ie uranium enrichment in Russia. The Russians saw the writing on the wall when France, Germany and Britain began to march in lockstep with the United States.

What in god's name are France, Germany and Britain doing appeasing the United States, backing Iran into a corner, and setting the scene for a possible war against Iran?

The Iranian leadership's obvious confidence in its ability to deter the US, Britain and Israel seems to rest on mainly four assumptions. Iran is militarily much stronger than Iraq, much larger, its terrain more difficult, its society more cohesive - thus more difficult to defeat, to occupy and to pacify. In addition, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad seems to take particular comfort from the widely anticipated wave of popular outrage and anti-Western attacks in the wider Middle East if Iran should be attacked.

Moreover, the economic costs of a war against Iran in terms of the price of oil and the interruption of the Iranian supply would propel the world economy into a tailspin. And finally, Iranian leaders seem to accept at face value the US moans over its overstretched military forces and the demoralization of US forces in Iraq.

These are all good, plausible reasons for a war not to be started, especially the global economic situation. It is going to depend a lot on how risky/crazy the US administration is. They cant be this crazy, surely?

An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq.

The Israel first strike would be designed to provoke Iran into attacking US forces as they have threatened, which would allow the US to mobilise its public for the commitment to a major war. Iran would be better served not to respond to the provocation other than diplomatically, monstrous though it would be.

If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure. If not, an air campaign of up to two weeks will prepare the ground campaign for the occupation of the Iranian oil and gas fields.

Iran's oil and gas is in the West of the country, bordering Iraq. That part, plus the southern coastline and the straits of Hormuz is all the the US would want.

Former German intelligence officer summarizes the Iran war scenario:

Judging from the rather frantic behind-the-scenes efforts of Russia and China in Iran, they seem to appreciate that the Iranian leadership is in for a big and probably deadly surprise. The Bush administration has not only handled its Iran dossier much more skillfully than Iraq, but also managed to set up Iran for a war it can neither win nor fight to a draw....

Though a Western war against Iran will be a big geopolitical defeat for Russia and China, they cannot but resign themselves to this outcome if they are unable to convince the Iranians to accept the Russian proposal - ie uranium enrichment in Russia. The Russians saw the writing on the wall when France, Germany and Britain began to march in lockstep with the United States.

What in god's name are France, Germany and Britain doing appeasing the United States, backing Iran into a corner, and setting the scene for a possible war against Iran?

The Iranian leadership's obvious confidence in its ability to deter the US, Britain and Israel seems to rest on mainly four assumptions. Iran is militarily much stronger than Iraq, much larger, its terrain more difficult, its society more cohesive - thus more difficult to defeat, to occupy and to pacify. In addition, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad seems to take particular comfort from the widely anticipated wave of popular outrage and anti-Western attacks in the wider Middle East if Iran should be attacked.

Moreover, the economic costs of a war against Iran in terms of the price of oil and the interruption of the Iranian supply would propel the world economy into a tailspin. And finally, Iranian leaders seem to accept at face value the US moans over its overstretched military forces and the demoralization of US forces in Iraq.

These are all good, plausible reasons for a war not to be started, especially the global economic situation. It is going to depend a lot on how risky/crazy the US administration is. They cant be this crazy, surely?

An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq.

The Israel first strike would be designed to provoke Iran into attacking US forces as they have threatened, which would allow the US to mobilise its public for the commitment to a major war. Iran would be better served not to respond to the provocation other than diplomatically, monstrous though it would be.

If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure. If not, an air campaign of up to two weeks will prepare the ground campaign for the occupation of the Iranian oil and gas fields.

Iran's oil and gas is in the West of the country, bordering Iraq. That part, plus the southern coastline and the straits of Hormuz is all the the US would want.

Chomsky on the Official US Definition of Terrorism: "The US Code for defining an 'act of terrorism' is an activity that -- (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

"I've been using this and other official US definitions since I began writing on the topic in the early 80s, immediately after the Reaganites declared their war on terror.

"For two reasons: (1) they are reasonable and close to common usage, and (2) they are appropriate, because the government that offers these definitions cannot claim that it is exempt from their consequences. Second point is that later this definition has been withdrawn, presumably because it was recognized that an immediate consequence is that the US is a leading terrorist state. Though it is safe to rely on the intellectual class not to draw the conclusion, nevertheless there are always mavericks who tell irritating truths, and sometimes the usual techniques of lying, hysteria, tantrums, etc., do not suffice among the general public, even though they almost invariably do among the educated classes. For that reason, the standard view now is that defining "terrorism" is a profound problem, to be dealt with in international conferences, academic studies, etc. And it's true that it is a very hard problem to define "terrorism" so that it singles out what they do to us and our clients, but excludes what we and our clients do to them -- a problem so far not solved and very profound, no doubt..."

"For any definition, the most important questions, I think, seem to me to lie elsewhere: in the distinction between terror and the much more serious crime of aggression, and the distinction between terror and legitimate resistance."

Chomsky on the Official US Definition of Terrorism: "The US Code for defining an 'act of terrorism' is an activity that -- (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

"I've been using this and other official US definitions since I began writing on the topic in the early 80s, immediately after the Reaganites declared their war on terror.

"For two reasons: (1) they are reasonable and close to common usage, and (2) they are appropriate, because the government that offers these definitions cannot claim that it is exempt from their consequences. Second point is that later this definition has been withdrawn, presumably because it was recognized that an immediate consequence is that the US is a leading terrorist state. Though it is safe to rely on the intellectual class not to draw the conclusion, nevertheless there are always mavericks who tell irritating truths, and sometimes the usual techniques of lying, hysteria, tantrums, etc., do not suffice among the general public, even though they almost invariably do among the educated classes. For that reason, the standard view now is that defining "terrorism" is a profound problem, to be dealt with in international conferences, academic studies, etc. And it's true that it is a very hard problem to define "terrorism" so that it singles out what they do to us and our clients, but excludes what we and our clients do to them -- a problem so far not solved and very profound, no doubt..."

"For any definition, the most important questions, I think, seem to me to lie elsewhere: in the distinction between terror and the much more serious crime of aggression, and the distinction between terror and legitimate resistance."

Messy Compromise on Iran: "Russia and China, which had hitherto been opposed to reporting Iran to the UNSC, have taken a pragmatic decision to step back. Their intention, presumably, is to fight another day, in a battleground where they can exercise their veto power."

"Today, what has to be grasped by everyone is that the U.S. is hell-bent on setting the stage for a military conflict with Iran. And that the course and outcome of such a conflict will have consequences even more disastrous for our region than the Iraq war so far. The compromise struck in London on Monday only pushes back by a month the timetable by which this tragedy will be enacted."

"Each time it appeases Washington's relentless pressure on Iran, the international community is being made to climb higher and higher up a ladder whose final rungs can only be sanctions and war. This is precisely the route the U.S. followed against Iraq in its quest to effect regime change there. Its war of attrition using sanctions, inspections, no-fly-zones, air strikes, and impossible ultimatums lasted 12 years before ending finally in an invasion that surprised no one.

"In a candid speech to the Arms Control Association in Washington last week, Hans Blix, former head of the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC), repeated a charge he has made before that the U.S. was never really interested in weapons inspections in Iraq. "My belief is that if we had been allowed to continue to carry out inspections for a couple of months more, we would then have been able to go to all the sites which were given by intelligence, and since there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, we would have reported that there weren't any." However, even with such a report, David Ruppe of the Global Security Newswire quoted him as saying, war probably would not have been averted as "there was a certain momentum behind it."

"Is there a lesson in all this for the world to learn as the Iran crisis slowly unfolds? Mr. Blix certainly thinks there is. "Today, I think I worry about the spin and momentum on Iran," he said. And well he might. The U.S. is not unaware that there exists a resolution of the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, demanding that Iran withdraw its temporary acceptance of the Additional Protocol as soon as the IAEA refers its case to the Security Council.... What would happen once Iran withdraws from the Additional Protocol, joining, in the process, the 106 countries who have yet to sign that document? IAEA inspectors would no longer be able to visit sites outside of those facilities that are already safeguarded."

"If indeed Iran has built clandestine nuclear facilities — as Britain and the U.S. believe — there cannot be a worse outcome from the non-proliferation perspective than IAEA inspectors losing their `go as you please' pass. However, in a perverse way, this is precisely what the Bush administration is hoping Iran will do. For once IAEA inspectors lose the special access they currently enjoy, this would allow the U.S. to seek yet another escalation — citing the urgency of regaining access."

'Appeasement' is the word. John Pilger said it before - the current US elite is the Third Reich of our time. Its objectives are imperialism and hegemony - not law and democracy. Countries which fail to recognise this reality and respond accordingly are simply guilty of appeasement. And as for countries that actually participate in this aggression, such as the UK or Australia - shameful and pathetic. And what do they get out of it? An oil field? A wheat contract? A terrorist bombing?

Messy Compromise on Iran: "Russia and China, which had hitherto been opposed to reporting Iran to the UNSC, have taken a pragmatic decision to step back. Their intention, presumably, is to fight another day, in a battleground where they can exercise their veto power."

"Today, what has to be grasped by everyone is that the U.S. is hell-bent on setting the stage for a military conflict with Iran. And that the course and outcome of such a conflict will have consequences even more disastrous for our region than the Iraq war so far. The compromise struck in London on Monday only pushes back by a month the timetable by which this tragedy will be enacted."

"Each time it appeases Washington's relentless pressure on Iran, the international community is being made to climb higher and higher up a ladder whose final rungs can only be sanctions and war. This is precisely the route the U.S. followed against Iraq in its quest to effect regime change there. Its war of attrition using sanctions, inspections, no-fly-zones, air strikes, and impossible ultimatums lasted 12 years before ending finally in an invasion that surprised no one.

"In a candid speech to the Arms Control Association in Washington last week, Hans Blix, former head of the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC), repeated a charge he has made before that the U.S. was never really interested in weapons inspections in Iraq. "My belief is that if we had been allowed to continue to carry out inspections for a couple of months more, we would then have been able to go to all the sites which were given by intelligence, and since there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, we would have reported that there weren't any." However, even with such a report, David Ruppe of the Global Security Newswire quoted him as saying, war probably would not have been averted as "there was a certain momentum behind it."

"Is there a lesson in all this for the world to learn as the Iran crisis slowly unfolds? Mr. Blix certainly thinks there is. "Today, I think I worry about the spin and momentum on Iran," he said. And well he might. The U.S. is not unaware that there exists a resolution of the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, demanding that Iran withdraw its temporary acceptance of the Additional Protocol as soon as the IAEA refers its case to the Security Council.... What would happen once Iran withdraws from the Additional Protocol, joining, in the process, the 106 countries who have yet to sign that document? IAEA inspectors would no longer be able to visit sites outside of those facilities that are already safeguarded."

"If indeed Iran has built clandestine nuclear facilities — as Britain and the U.S. believe — there cannot be a worse outcome from the non-proliferation perspective than IAEA inspectors losing their `go as you please' pass. However, in a perverse way, this is precisely what the Bush administration is hoping Iran will do. For once IAEA inspectors lose the special access they currently enjoy, this would allow the U.S. to seek yet another escalation — citing the urgency of regaining access."

'Appeasement' is the word. John Pilger said it before - the current US elite is the Third Reich of our time. Its objectives are imperialism and hegemony - not law and democracy. Countries which fail to recognise this reality and respond accordingly are simply guilty of appeasement. And as for countries that actually participate in this aggression, such as the UK or Australia - shameful and pathetic. And what do they get out of it? An oil field? A wheat contract? A terrorist bombing?

Hamas: We will not sell our people or principles for foreign aid: This statement by Hamas spokesperson Khalid Mish'al is an example of the clear-cut language and position of Hamas, and why they have superseded Fatah in the recent election. A few quotes gives the flavour:

We are being punished simply for resisting oppression and striving for justice. Those who threaten to impose sanctions on our people are the same powers that initiated our suffering and continue to support our oppressors almost unconditionally. We, the victims, are being penalised while our oppressors are pampered. The US and EU could have used the success of Hamas to open a new chapter in their relations with the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Muslims and to understand better a movement that has so far been seen largely through the eyes of the Zionist occupiers of our land....

Hamas has been elected mainly because of its immovable faith in the inevitability of victory; and Hamas is immune to bribery, intimidation and blackmail. While we are keen on having friendly relations with all nations we shall not seek friendships at the expense of our legitimate rights. We have seen how other nations, including the peoples of Vietnam and South Africa, persisted in their struggle until their quest for freedom and justice was accomplished. We are no different, our cause is no less worthy, our determination is no less profound and our patience is no less abundant....

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.

Hamas: We will not sell our people or principles for foreign aid: This statement by Hamas spokesperson Khalid Mish'al is an example of the clear-cut language and position of Hamas, and why they have superseded Fatah in the recent election. A few quotes gives the flavour:

We are being punished simply for resisting oppression and striving for justice. Those who threaten to impose sanctions on our people are the same powers that initiated our suffering and continue to support our oppressors almost unconditionally. We, the victims, are being penalised while our oppressors are pampered. The US and EU could have used the success of Hamas to open a new chapter in their relations with the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Muslims and to understand better a movement that has so far been seen largely through the eyes of the Zionist occupiers of our land....

Hamas has been elected mainly because of its immovable faith in the inevitability of victory; and Hamas is immune to bribery, intimidation and blackmail. While we are keen on having friendly relations with all nations we shall not seek friendships at the expense of our legitimate rights. We have seen how other nations, including the peoples of Vietnam and South Africa, persisted in their struggle until their quest for freedom and justice was accomplished. We are no different, our cause is no less worthy, our determination is no less profound and our patience is no less abundant....

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.

Former ADF head issues warning over US alliance.: "A former chief of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), retired Admiral Chris Barrie, has delivered a grim prediction on the state of Australia's defence alliance with the United States. He says in future, the majority of an untrusting Australian community will end up resenting the alliance.

"Giving the keynote speech at a Pacific Maritime Conference in Sydney, the retired admiral's scathing assessment of the ANZUS security pact included a prediction that in the next 50 years it would deliver very little of substance. "It's interesting when you wander around the Australian community today and ask that question," he said.

"I know that things are going to change, I know that politics in the United States invariably swings from one side to the other but I think ordinary Australians are making some serious questions about these things."

Former ADF chief Cosgrove wants out of Iraq and now his predecessor Barrie wants out of the US 'alliance' altogether. How long will it take for the politicians to catch up? The 'alliance' is worse than useless - it has dragged us into the US imperial Middle East war which has only increased the risk of terrorist attack against Australia and Australians. We would be safer if we didnt have a military at all, or at least one that the US couldn't find useful for it's own purposes.

Former ADF head issues warning over US alliance.: "A former chief of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), retired Admiral Chris Barrie, has delivered a grim prediction on the state of Australia's defence alliance with the United States. He says in future, the majority of an untrusting Australian community will end up resenting the alliance.

"Giving the keynote speech at a Pacific Maritime Conference in Sydney, the retired admiral's scathing assessment of the ANZUS security pact included a prediction that in the next 50 years it would deliver very little of substance. "It's interesting when you wander around the Australian community today and ask that question," he said.

"I know that things are going to change, I know that politics in the United States invariably swings from one side to the other but I think ordinary Australians are making some serious questions about these things."

Former ADF chief Cosgrove wants out of Iraq and now his predecessor Barrie wants out of the US 'alliance' altogether. How long will it take for the politicians to catch up? The 'alliance' is worse than useless - it has dragged us into the US imperial Middle East war which has only increased the risk of terrorist attack against Australia and Australians. We would be safer if we didnt have a military at all, or at least one that the US couldn't find useful for it's own purposes.

Negative gearing will go if business has its way on tax: "The Business Coalition for Tax Reform wants tax lurks such as workplace deductions and negative gearing scrapped"

"Among the more courageous suggestions - given the coalition's membership includes the Master Builders Association and the Property Council of Australia - is to abolish or seriously curtail negative gearing on rental properties. Rental deductions rose threefold in the decade to 2002-03, the last year when statistics are available. Landlords told the Tax Office their property investments lost $4.6 billion more than they earned that year."

When even these business and property groups call for the abolition of negative gearing, that's a hint isn't it?

Negative gearing will go if business has its way on tax: "The Business Coalition for Tax Reform wants tax lurks such as workplace deductions and negative gearing scrapped"

"Among the more courageous suggestions - given the coalition's membership includes the Master Builders Association and the Property Council of Australia - is to abolish or seriously curtail negative gearing on rental properties. Rental deductions rose threefold in the decade to 2002-03, the last year when statistics are available. Landlords told the Tax Office their property investments lost $4.6 billion more than they earned that year."

When even these business and property groups call for the abolition of negative gearing, that's a hint isn't it?

Female US soldiers fearing rape die of dehydration instead: "'women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep.'"

Down through the years in the history of human conflict every atrocity imaginable has been suffered, but I daresay this particular horror might be an altogether new one.

Female US soldiers fearing rape die of dehydration instead: "'women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep.'"

Down through the years in the history of human conflict every atrocity imaginable has been suffered, but I daresay this particular horror might be an altogether new one.

Iranian crisis summarised: In another good post, Big Gav brings together a collection of articles on the developing Iranian crisis. What strikes me about the crisis is that under the terms of the NPT Iran (like other countries) has the right to a nuclear energy program, including the enrichment of uranium. And so far, there is no indication that Iran is in breach of the treaty. The current demands by the US are superfluous to the treaty. The US and its client state Israel are openly and repeatedly threatening war against Iran, including nuclear war. This only makes sense in imperialist and hegemonic terms - naturally a regional hegemonic rival would want to be eliminated. But it does NOT make sense in terms of peace, security and international law (not to mention morality). Ideally, Iran should not develop nuclear weapons (or even a nuclear energy program). But were it to do so, while it would certainly change and perhaps change decisively the regional hegemonic equation, it would not necessarily increase of itself the risk of nuclear or conventional war. In fact it might even reduce the risk because it is a deterrent. We have learned to live with nukes.

However the US, instead of being condemned by the world community for this threatening behaviour, is effectively being backed and supported, even by the Russians who it appears might agree with the demand that nuclear enrichment be done in Russia but not Iran. Iran for its part has insisted on its right under the NPT and has threatened retaliation if it is attacked. Iran is being backed into a corner. Iran feels that the US has been weakened by the Iraq war and it should press its advantage. The US knows it has been weakened by the war and feels the pressure to deal with Iran while it still has a limited capacity or opportunity to do so. It is a dangerous game of brinkmanship which could lead to a miscalculation and consequent disaster, ie war.

Iranian crisis summarised: In another good post, Big Gav brings together a collection of articles on the developing Iranian crisis. What strikes me about the crisis is that under the terms of the NPT Iran (like other countries) has the right to a nuclear energy program, including the enrichment of uranium. And so far, there is no indication that Iran is in breach of the treaty. The current demands by the US are superfluous to the treaty. The US and its client state Israel are openly and repeatedly threatening war against Iran, including nuclear war. This only makes sense in imperialist and hegemonic terms - naturally a regional hegemonic rival would want to be eliminated. But it does NOT make sense in terms of peace, security and international law (not to mention morality). Ideally, Iran should not develop nuclear weapons (or even a nuclear energy program). But were it to do so, while it would certainly change and perhaps change decisively the regional hegemonic equation, it would not necessarily increase of itself the risk of nuclear or conventional war. In fact it might even reduce the risk because it is a deterrent. We have learned to live with nukes.

However the US, instead of being condemned by the world community for this threatening behaviour, is effectively being backed and supported, even by the Russians who it appears might agree with the demand that nuclear enrichment be done in Russia but not Iran. Iran for its part has insisted on its right under the NPT and has threatened retaliation if it is attacked. Iran is being backed into a corner. Iran feels that the US has been weakened by the Iraq war and it should press its advantage. The US knows it has been weakened by the war and feels the pressure to deal with Iran while it still has a limited capacity or opportunity to do so. It is a dangerous game of brinkmanship which could lead to a miscalculation and consequent disaster, ie war.