American tragi-comedy

.
.
.
.

Heard Any Good War Jokes Lately?
by Jeff Huber at antiwar.com

The pratfall Dave Petraeus took face-first into his microphone during his farcical testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last Tuesday channeled the Twix candy bar commercial that asks: “Need a moment?” As the New York Times put it, the Teflon General was facing some intense questioning on the president’s order to begin reducing American forces in Afghanistan next year when he “slumped toward the microphone on his table.” Maybe Dave just needed some time think things over. Maybe he needed to stall while his driver ran out to see if he left his crib sheet in his government sedan.

The general returned to the floor a half hour after later claiming he “just got dehydrated.” Must have been from all the heat he was catching from the committee.

The hearing’s running gag was a manhood dance between committee members who wanted Petraeus to come right out and say Obama’s withdrawal timeline for Afghanistan makes dirt look smart and Petraeus wanting to agree that Obama’s timeline makes dirt look smart without coming right out and saying it. This bit of patter between Petraeus and committee chairman Carl Levin deserves an Emmy:

Levin: “Do you continue to support that July 2011 date for the start of reduction in U.S. forces from Afghanistan?”

Petraeus: “I support the policy of the president, Mr. Chairman…”

Levin: “When you say that you continue to support the president’s policy … does that represent your best personal professional judgment?”

Petraeus: “In a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful with timelines…”

Levin: “Do I take that to be a qualified yes, a qualified no, or just a non-answer?”

Petraeus: “A qualified yes, Mr. Chairman.”

When the senior half of the comedy team McCain and Lieberman* asked Petraeus if he told Obama, as per a recent book by Joseph Alter of Newsweek, that he’s “confident we can train and hand over to the ANA” in 18 months, Petraeus’ qualified non-answer was, “Well, Senator, I’m not sure it’s productive to comment on conversations that took place in the Oval Office.”

After a three-Twix-bar think about it I couldn’t conjure a single thing that could possibly have been more productive at that testimony than commenting on Petraeus’ discussion with Obama in the Oval Office concerning withdrawal timelines. McCain apparently could, though, because he said, “I understand that. I understand that.” He must have said it twice in case nobody believed him the first time.

Petraeus’ next non-answer was an unqualified masterpiece of bull-feather artistry. McCain asked “Do you agree with the comment of [Afghan] President Karzai’s former intelligence chief that Karzai has lost confidence in the ability of the United States and NATO to succeed in Afghanistan?”

Petraeus replied that his protégé Stan McChrystal, commander in Afghanistan, had “no sense” that there was “a lack of confidence in the United States’ commitment to Afghanistan.” To further support his position, he added, “The fact that we have more than tripled … our forces … is of enormous significance.”

Note Petraeus’ sleight-of-tongue here: the issue was whether the United States could succeed in Afghanistan, not whether it would commit to Afghanistan. They are not the same thing, at least not in any sane interpretation of the terms. We cannot possibly succeed at anything in Afghanistan other than running our ship of state aground. Committing to a course that will run us aground, however, seems to be the war mongrels’ goal, hence Petraeus’ observation that tripling our number of forces there constitutes “success.”

McCain then called Petraeus one of “America’s great heroes” but cautioned that he continued to worry about “the message we are sending to the region” by not making an even larger, even more open-ended commitment there than we’ve already made. That’s when Petraeus did his Chevy Chase impersonation and they carried his skinny carcass out of the room. Here’s how the dialogue went when Petraeus came back:

Petraeus: “Senator, my apologies.”

Levin: “Are you kidding?”

Petraeus: “I got a little bit light-headed there. It wasn’t Senator McCain’s questions, I assure you.”

Levin: “I know, it was mine.”

Petraeus: “No, it’s just that…”

Levin: “Clear me, too, would you, with the same breath, if you would? Just kidding.”

Can these guys be bloody serious?

Testimony the next day by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen was equally bathetic, perhaps even more so. Gates and Mullen both asked the committee to be “patient” and allow them to make America’s longest war even longer. They’re like the lunatics who think we needed to have more patience with the Vietnam War. After all, we only committed a decade and a half-million troops to that conflict. Just think; if we had redoubled our efforts in Vietnam we’d still be winning there.

Gates, predictably, blamed the media for America’s disaffection for the war in Afghanistan. “The narrative,” he rued, is “too negative.”

Hmm. We’re backing a crooked ruler who stole an election and relying on his drug lord brother for intelligence. McChrystal himself called the Marjah offensive an “open sore,” and he had to delay the Kandahar offensive because nobody in Kandahar wants us to liberate them. We can’t even make up our minds who the enemy is. Is it the Taliban or is it al-Qaeda or is it the Pakistani security forces or is it Iran or maybe even the Turks? Wait: I bet it’s those crafty Chinese people! Or maybe that Venezuela guy we don’t like, Chavez or whatever his name is.

The comedians who put on last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee burlesque should retire from their day jobs and write full time for Saturday Night Live. Lord knows the present manifestation of SNL needs all the help it can get. In fact, the best stratagem for fixing both our failed foreign policy and our bad television programming might be a role reversal: put the incompetent generals and politicians in charge of our wars on Saturday Night Live and put the incompetent comedians on Saturday Night Live in charge of our wars.

The only thing genuine in the Senate hearing came from a lone protester who shouted “This is mass murder” as she was escorted out by police.

No kidding, lady. No kidding.

The Third Reich, and the Wehrmacht.

.
.
.
.
Yes I thought those posters of Obama as Hitler by the Tea Party plebs were a bit tasteless and far fetched. But was it? Obama smiles after all, has a family with two girls, is half African, and well educated.......Whilst Hitler on the other.

But on fundamentals which matter to 100's of millions if not billions, they may have more in common.

Both men are and were fronts for Jewish bankers based in Europe and North America.

Both men love loved perpetual war, and so it seems.........both men have had a sado-masochistic homosexual obsession with war, where men committed themselves, and sacrificed themselves in war.

Both men know/knew nothing about war, its essential strategies, but by their very policies there is a perception that they think thought they know knew better.

Both men were are big lying psychopaths, where making convincing lies to the public, with grand eloquent passionate oratory comes very easily.

Both men attack attacked the media for not obeying their world view..........Obama's criticism of the NYT recently for being too critical of Afghan policy. Both men have had problems handling criticism.

Finally both men sacked top generals who offered a more realistic view of the world.

OH DEAR, NEVER MIND.........just whistle, keep your fingers crossed, and hope for Mit Romney to be in by 2012.

_________________________________

The last post: McChrystal's bleak outlook

President Obama lost patience with Runaway General's failed strategy

By Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady of the Independent.

Sacked US General Stanley McChrystal issued a devastatingly critical assessment of the war against a "resilient and growing insurgency" just days before being forced out.

Using confidential military documents, copies of which have been seen by the IoS, the "runaway general" briefed defence ministers from Nato and the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) earlier this month, and warned them not to expect any progress in the next six months. During his presentation, he raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration.

Details of General McChrystal's grim assessment of his own strategy's current effectiveness emerged as the world's most powerful leaders set the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, a five-year deadline to improve security and governance in his country.

The G8 summit in Toronto called for "concrete progress" within five years on improving the justice system and for Afghan forces to assume greater responsibility for security. David Cameron said a "political surge" must now complement the military one.

But the "campaign overview" left behind by General McChrystal after he was sacked by President Barack Obama last week warned that only a fraction of the areas key to long-term success are "secure", governed with "full authority", or enjoying "sustainable growth". He warned of a critical shortage of "essential" military trainers needed to build up Afghan forces – of which only a fraction is classed as "effective".

He pinpointed an "ineffective or discredited" Afghan government and a failure by Pakistan "to curb insurgent support" as "critical risks" to success. "Waning" political support and a "divergence of coalition expectations and campaign timelines" are among the key challenges faced, according to the general.

It was this briefing, according to informed sources, as much as the Rolling Stone article, which convinced Mr Obama to move against the former head of US Special Forces, as costs soar to $7bn a month and the body count rises to record levels, because it undermined the White House political team's aim of pulling some troops out of Afghanistan in time for the US elections in 2012. In addition to being the result of some too-candid comments in a magazine article, the President's decision to dispense with his commander was seen by the general's supporters as a politically motivated culmination of their disagreements.

General McChrystal's presentation to Nato defence ministers and Isaf representatives provided an uncompromising obstacle to Mr Obama's plan to bring troops home in time to give him a shot at a second term, according to senior military sources. The general was judged to be "off message" in his warning to ministers not to expect quick results and that they were facing a "resilient and growing insurgency".

It came as mounting casualties added to US and UK discomfort. June has been the bloodiest month for coalition forces since the conflict began, with 88 killed. A soldier from 4th Regiment Royal Artillery died yesterday in hospital in Birmingham of wounds sustained in an explosion on 10 June. He had been on patrol with members of the Afghan National Army in Nahr-e Saraj North District, Helmand Province. He was the 308th British soldier killed since the start of the war nine years ago. The death toll is escalating, with 62 deaths this year – almost double the 32 that died in the same period last year.

Nato played down the chances of success. "I don't think anyone would say we're winning," said a Nato spokesman. The revelations provide context to the disagreements between Mr Obama and his general, highlighted in the article in Rolling Stone in which senior White House figures were criticised.

The reality, according to a senior military source, is that General McChrystal's candour about the reality of the situation was an obstacle to Mr Obama's search for an "early, face-saving exit" to help his chances in the 2012 presidential elections. "Stan argued for time, and would not compromise. Rolling Stone provided an excuse for Obama to fire the opposition to his plan without having to win an intellectual argument," he said.

General McChrystal knew "his time was up" and had been told by White House aides his "time-frame was all wrong", with the general thinking in years while the President was thinking more in months, he added.

The general's departure is a sign of politicians "taking charge of this war", a senior Whitehall official said. "The Taliban are feeling the pressure, but we're not harvesting it politically," he said. "Obama sacking McChrystal was a show of strength. What we are seeing on both sides of the Atlantic, at long last, is the politicians starting to take charge of this war. Wars are won when you have a Churchill and an Alanbrooke, when you have a proper balance between political direction and military leadership."

Mr Cameron asked for a political settlement to be mapped out at a special cabinet meeting held at Chequers earlier this month, he said. "Cameron doesn't want to make Brown's mistake of getting bogged down in details instead of doing grand strategy."

He said General McChrystal had been urging Washington to "start the political track as soon as possible" while his replacement, General Petraeus, has argued "that we need to get the upper hand militarily and regain the military initiative, and then negotiate from a position of strength". He said it would take time to recover from General McChrystal's loss, "particularly if Petraeus just ploughs on with trying to get the upper hand militarily".

Admiral Mike Mullen met with President Karzai yesterday to assure him that the new Nato commander will pursue the same strategy followed by his predecessor. He pledged that General Petraeus would also do his best to reduce civilian casualties.

General McChrystal said progress in the next six months was unlikely. He raised serious concerns over levels of security, violence, and corruption within the Afghan administration. Only five areas out of 116 assessed were classed as "secure" – the rest suffering various degrees of insecurity and more than 40 described as "dangerous" or "unsecure".

Just five areas out of 122 were classed as being under the "full authority" of the government – with governance rated as non-existent, dysfunctional or unproductive in 89 of the areas. Seven areas out of 120 rated for development were showing sustainable growth. In 48 areas, growth was either stalled or the population were at risk. Less than a third of the military and only 12 per cent of police forces were rated as "effective".

A strategic assessment referred to in the presentation revealed just how close the strategy in Afghanistan is to failing. It stated that the campaign was "on track temporarily" – but this was defined as meaning that there was "a low level of confidence that positive trends will be sustained over the next six-month period". It also said the Afghan people "believe that development is too slow" and many "still generally mistrust Afghan police forces". Security was "unsatisfactory" and efforts to build up the Afghan security forces were "at risk", with "capability hampered by shortages in NCOs and officers, corruption and low literacy levels".

A general's damning report...

Afghan security forces

General McChrystal says both the Afghan police (ANP) and army (ANA) were "critically short on trainers – the essential resource required for quality". Out of 2,325 required, only 846 were already on the ground and 660 more were promised.

Governance

The Afghan government was assessed as having "full authority" in only five districts; in 45 more, governance was "unproductive", in 29 "dysfunctional" and in 15 "non-existent". In the "Critical risks" section of his presentation, General McChrystal listed "Governance: ineffective or discredited". ISAF accepted that "governance needs improvement and lags security efforts".

Security

Nato informed that "violence and security varies regionally... focused in localised areas", and "assessments of key district security are improving slightly". However, only a third of 122 "key terrain areas" were regarded as "secure" or suffering "occasional threats". In key areas, 47 per cent of the population were assessed as secure.

Corruption

General McChrystal noted the need to "address principal sources of corruption and grievance" in Kandahar. Nato warned that "corruption remains an impediment to connectivity between the government and its people". Echoes earlier US concerns that the "lack of Afghan government will and the capacity to prosecute narco-corrupt officials continues to undermine development of governance and security".

Justice

Referred to President Karzai's early pledge to "further the reform process within our justice system". But US Department of Defense has since complained courts are "chronically corrupt". McChrystal's recommendations on "Detention operations and rule of law" include "transition to Afghan lead" and "promoting transparency across spectrum of detention activities".

Development/reconstruction

Emphasised need to "create conditions for development", particularly in the south. But there are worries that the government "has become increasingly dependent on contributions from the international community". Although satisfaction with the local electricity supply has risen, many remain without access and the general warns of the need to "significantly expand electrical supply to meet rising demand".

Different face same policy

.
.
.
.
So McCrystal is gone, hardly a year after his appointment, and the second commander to be sacked in Afghanistan since General Mckiernan in early 2009.

Clearly things are not going well for America, or as perceived by the Jewish dominated government in Washington. In reality America had won in Afghanistan in 2001, but now America is in an aimless MOBY DICK like pursuit of enemies it clearly created in the first place through the helpful servile services of the ISI, which America bankrolls, such as the Taliban and "al-Qaeda" the none-existent hologram.

If you have and plan to have 100,000 American soldiers, 40,000 NATO and 180,000 mercenaries pursuing essentially a none enemy, then with such large numbers of armed men strutting about freely in the country feeling bored, obviously this is going to create some friction with the locals. A few Afghans out of the 28 million who offer active resistance to the illegal occupation of their country which is also being used for growing and exporting heroin can hardly be called a credible or justifiable enemy of the sole super power on earth.

But at least the artificial Jew created race war between Iranians vs Celts in this theater is finished in a symbolic sense. Enter now the new Jew commander David Petraeus the Jew with a WASP outer layer.

Most Iranian countries are Third World, with the exception of Russia, and all Celtic countries are First World; what more meaningful debates does one need to undertake except for soothing the insecurities of Nathan Rothschild's clan in London and his ginger pubic hair. The USA which won its independence from the UK, ought not pursue wars for the whims and bizarre fantasies of the Rothschild of London...................its silly, its meaningless. Yes the Heroin profits are handy and clever, horse whipping Afghans to produce the stuff, and then paying them pittance but that will hardy contribute towards America the nation state. (Jimmy Carter vs The Shah 52/444.....David Kilcullen)

In the 21st century we are rational human beings not ruled by emotions or petty prejudices. That at least is the aim. As rational human beings we ought not be duped by such basic Jew race wars.....as intelligent beings we ought to recognize them, and avoid being exploited so easily.

If we do not the costs can be tremendous.

Consider the artificial race war created by the Jew between the great German race and the "Slav's" of Russia and Ukraine in the last century. The devious filthy Jew propagated Adolf Hitler into power, and built up his war machine, and the extreme xenophobia that eventually gripped the German nation led by Goebbels...."The Rabbi". On the other side we had Joseph Stalin possibly a Jew, with 3 Jewish wives consecutively, also funded by the filthy devious Jew.

The Great war of WWII followed which was essentially a slaughter theater between between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. At least 25 million Soviets perished in the Great Patriotic War, and upwards of 10 million ethnic Germans may have perished in the whole of Eastern and Central Europe between 1939--1948.

All for what?

The Jew has also been busy trying to do the same between India and China, start a race war where none existed for 5,000 years. The Jew has been busy investing capital into China such that China is now the greatest industrial and soon to be trading nation on earth. The Jew has also been busy in India, whispering soothing words to the Indians that the USA will make India into a Super-power (he he he).....upon these mischievous words the foolish Indians quickly ran to Russia and bought yet another second hand aircraft carrier at over inflated Jew prices to make India into a "Superpower". Indian papers such as the Times of India, once a heavy weight broadsheet is now a mere purveyor of gossip and titillation about Indians and AMERICAN stars. As if 90% of Indians need to know about the trivia of Hollwood stars. Bollywood Stars can speak American better than their Hindi, and are often in America. Poor needy men following the rich is not a new narrative of course.

We hope these two ancient civilizations do not fall into this time honored Jew trick of race wars.

The same is happening in front of our very eyes within America, more Jew funded race wars, with the Jew flooding the country with Hispanics for the coming race war between European Americans and the rest. European Americans will become a minority in the USA by 2040.

In that sense America's presence in Afghanistan (Arianna) is about Jewish race wars more than anything else, but how does one write all that down in State department policy papers, and explain to the diplomatic and general public in simple language...................you can't.

Misguided rationale and justification

.
.
.
.

Afghan Bling
By Justin Raimondo

Just as John McCain was telling Gen. David Petraeus how worried he is that the US is going to leave Afghanistan before “the job” is done, the General’s head dropped onto the desk in front of him: had he passed out from ennui? McCain had the same effect on the American electorate in 2008. Petraeus blamed it on not having had breakfast, but, in any case, the US government seems intent on having Afghanistan for lunch – and what a rich meal that is going to be! According to a piece by James Risen in the New York Times, there’s gold in them thar hills!

“The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.”

Risen, reporting the views of US officials, goes on to write that the lode is “so big and include[s] so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world.”

The face of a nearly forgotten figure, Paul Wolfowitz, rises up from the mists of the past, promising that the oil riches of Iraq would ensure no unusual outlays from the US Treasury for postwar reconstruction:

“We’re dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction… The oil revenues of that country [Iraq] could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of claims on that money, but that’s – we’re not dealing with Afghanistan that’s a permanent ward of the international community. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”

As Sarah Palin would put it: and how’s that Iraq-will-pay-for-itself idea workin’ out for ya?

Eight years later, we are dealing with Afghanistan, “a permanent ward of the international community,” i.e. a US colony, but Wolfie’s words have gone down the Memory Hole conveniently located near every neocon’s work station.

Afghanistan, says an internal Pentagon memo, could become “the Saudi Arabia of lithium” – a prospect that, if the Saudi kleptocracy is replicated on Afghan terrain, bodes ill for the people of that country. Given the truth of this alleged discovery – one that is by no means a new one, by the way – such an outcome certainly seems all too likely. A look [.pdf] at Afghanistan’s mining laws – coincidentally just recently formulated and passed – confirms this suspicion:

“Article 4: Ownership of Minerals

“(1) All naturally occurring Minerals and all Artificial Deposits of Minerals on surface or subsurface of the territory of Afghanistan or in its water courses (rivers and streams) are the exclusive property of the State.

“(2) Mineral operations shall be conducted in Afghanistan by the State. A Person can also carry out mining operations by obtaining a License or Authorization in accordance with the provisions of this Law.”

This is a perfect set-up for corruption. Licenses are granted by the Afghan Ministry of Mines, formerly headed up by Muhammad Ibrahim Adel, who was dumped by the Karzai regime after being accused by the US of accepting a $30 million bribe from the Chinese for a copper mining franchise. His crime, of course, was that he accepted a bribe from the wrong people: his successor won’t make the same mistake.

A crude analysis of the above-cited mining laws would characterize them as “socialist,” but this really qualifies as corporatism: government for the benefit of certain politically-connected corporations, i.e. the same sort of crony capitalism that currently characterizes the US economy. We’re exporting our system around the world.

Everything about the Risen piece screams government disinformation campaign. To take one example: Risen avers that this “vast” mineral wealth was just recently discovered “by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists.” As Marc Ambinder points out, however, the Soviets beat the Obama-ites to the punch by a couple of decades.

The Soviets – who were themselves on the way out, although they didn’t know it – were convinced that by “building socialism” in Afghanistan, i.e. a strong centralized state, they could exploit the country’s rich natural resources for their own benefit. In the end the costs proved too great, and the terminal crisis of the Soviet system doomed the Kremlin’s puppet government to a swift demise.

Like the Soviets, the Americans live in an ideologically constructed alternate universe – one already colliding with the reality on the ground – which doesn’t permit them to see the many reasons for their inevitable failure.

The Obama-ites think that by dangling some fool’s gold in front of the American public that they can forestall growing discontent with the longest war in our history. This is what they think of us: that we’re just a bunch of greedy pigs eager to grab what we can from whomever we can. That just about sums up the guiding philosophy of the current regime.

(No that's not the real ultimate justification; the real ultimate justification is about making the Greater Middle East "safe" for Eretz Israel....which as a rationale can never be sold to any public, even the American public so the Jew strategists in the Pentagon came up with the "minerals meme"......that need to secured by the USA by force, and a continuation of the faggotty war against Afghan wedding parties.

In Iraq recently as I understand it correctly, most of the contracts awarded were to non-USA companies for exploration and exploitation of the big oil fields there.

In Afghanistan, for the sake of politics, Hamid Karzai has been talking about giving Japan, and by implication other Asian nations preference towards exploiting Afghanistan's alleged mineral deposits.

The Socialist Chinese have shown with their commercial mineral contracts around the world in South America, Africa and of course Asia that in international business, best practices, fair exchange of goods, real help with infrastructure is the best policy towards promoting long term business relations and cooperation around the world...........and not as in the 19th century habit of European colonialism sending the military to secure other peoples wealth......this is Jewish. Madoff Jewish...Wall Street Jewish......"The City" Jewish)

Citing Jack Synder’s Myths of Empire, Stephen Walt, writing on his Foreign Policy blog, debunks what he calls the “el Dorado myth,” making the perfectly reasonable point that we don’t need to control territories rich in natural resources in order to make economic use of them, engage in trade, and otherwise partner with the Afghans to mutual profit:

“Because whoever is in charge is going to have to sell them to someone and won’t be able to prevent them from being sold to us (even if indirectly) if we want to buy (that’s how markets work). And if we want to make sure that U.S. companies have the opportunity to compete for the opportunity to mine these resources some day, it might be a good idea if we didn’t spend the next decade blundering around and angering the local population.”

(The same with Afghan Opium and Heroin)

Yes, but it matters who’s in charge. If it’s the US, acting through its Afghan sock puppet, then franchises are going to be doled out to friends of the regime. There is no market economy in an occupied country: the conqueror extracts the spoils of war, in this case from the very soil of Afghanistan, not as result of any free contract, but due to its preeminent position as the occupier. There is always a lot of window dressing to prettify this ugly reality, but in the Afghan case it doesn’t even look like the occupiers care much about appearances. As Ambinder points out, the bidding war started in 2009.

Our rulers don’t at all mind “blundering around and angering the local population,” just as long as they and their cronies reap rich rewards, however short-lived and costly their acquisition. Furthermore, they don’t want just any old companies competing for the opportunity to mine those resources some day. Not everyone is invited to the feast. The US/NATO occupiers are in a perfect position to say “I’m sorry, sir, but those tables are reserved.”

This dangling of bling is not only for the benefit of the American people, but also for the Europeans, who haven’t been all that enthusiastic [.pdf] about doing their duty on the Afghan front, at least up until now. The Obama-ites are seeking to entice them with the prospect of mineral riches down the road, but this promise is bound to be met with a high degree of skepticism. After all, Afghanistan lacks the infrastructure to bring its mineral wealth to market, quite aside from the difficulties of extracting it to begin with. If the Obama administration believes they can use the vague promise of future riches to lure the Europeans into America’s latest nation-building project, they are very wrong. Aside from overwhelming opposition to the war by European voters, Obama’s Euro-socialist friendsters are having their own problems over there – what with Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland going down the economic sinkhole – with not a lot of resources to spare.

The idea that Afghanistan is going to finance its own reconstruction on account of its mineral wealth, or that the US can derive some economic benefit from pillaging those resources, is a dangerous mix of economic ignorance and brazen militarism. In short, this is a rationale for war that fits the current gang in Washington to a tee.

__________________________

The Chinese takeaway

General Betrayus not

.
.
.
.

Is Petraeus McChrystal’s Replacement or Obama’s

By Paul Craig Roberts

Our petulant president’s ego can’t handle a general letting off steam. Neither can any of the spoiled children who comprise “our” government in DC, the capital of the “superpower.”

(Yes Paul that's one way of looking at it.

However there is a saying that one should not bite the very hand that feeds you.

There is also the issue of national strategic agenda setting.........whose job is it? The military or the civilian politicians who have been elected....The Rolling Stone magazine is the culmination of a one year long process where the good general has been actively seeking important media platforms to state what HE WANTS, in the USA, and abroad........and that may not be in the best interests of American democracy or overall general policy towards Afghanistan.

General McCrystal besides being a military man is also a very important public figure, posted to an extremely sensitive position by Washington.....what he says was always going to matter.

In the USA, the military important figures traditionally criticize government openly only after they have retired, and no longer in service.

A lot of McCrystal's criticism seemed to be personalized against other military men, such as Eikenberry, or civilian politicians such as Biden and even the President. WHAT CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTIONS WAS HE REALLY OFFERING TO EXTRICATE THE USA FROM THE AFGHAN MESS, beyond the public exposure of playground kiddy cat fights.

Afghanistan after the initial success of 2001, by accident or design, is a failed project where the USA to save its dignity should simply and courageously announce that it will be leaving the country asap.....the generals sacking is a reflection of this fact)

Generals have to fight wars that civilians start, either from the incompetence of their diplomacy or the arrogance of their hubris. Generals have to get young troops killed because of the stupidity or ambition or corruption of civilian government officials.

(That may have been true at one time in American history, but since WWII, and especially from the 1960's, the USA military-industrial complex, in league with the Jew lobby have been setting American military goals........PNAC (2000) is the classic example. It is not so much unintentional incompetency from the most advanced nation on earth, but fundamental intentions and motivations within the Jewish military/industrial complex structure.)

All McChrystal did was to let off steam. A real president would have realized that and let it go.

(There was more to it than that...............it was calculated)

Don’t get me wrong. McChrystal is a militarist, and I am pleased to see him gone.

(What would you do with a military man who wasn't a militarist?)

However, McChrystal didn’t restart America’s aggression against Afghanistan. The Obama moron did.

(Obama was selected and groomed over 30 years or more by the Jewish banker's of Wall Street. He is no more the leader of the USA than you or I are....others write his speech, and he presents them, thats it. His job is to sound as much WASPISH as possible with the neo-liberal buzz vocab, whilst physically looking black)

People elected Obama, because they were tired of Bush’s wars based on lies. So Obama gave us a new war in Pakistan and reignited the Afghan war. (That is what George Soros and his Jewish banker cabal want) No one knows what these wars are about or why the bankrupt US government is wasting vast sums of money, which it has to borrow from foreigners, in order to murder the citizenry in two countries that have never done anything to us.

Just as Bush/Cheney and their criminal neocon government deceived the world that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that threatened white people everywhere, Obama has conflated the Taliban with al Qaeda. Obama has sold the tale to white countries that unless the US determines how Afghanistan is ruled and by whom, white people are in danger of being exterminated by al Qaeda Taliban terrorists.

The most telling aspect of the McChrystal-Obama contretemps is that it has caused no one in the US government, or media, to ask why the US is still killing women and children in Afghanistan after 9 years. The US government is prepared for everyone except itself to be tried at the War Crimes Tribunal.

Fred Branfman writing in AlterNet on June 22 reminds us that five million Iraqis were killed, maimed, tortured and displaced by an American invasion based on lies told by the highest officials in the American government. Yet, no one has been held accountable.

But Gen. McChrystal is held accountable for letting off steam.

(There is more to it than that.

Propaganda is at the center of this latest Jew war. If you have the top military commander criticizing the Obama administration, and telling the public what Obama is really like.....a naive nave FRONT stumbling through policy {for the Jewish bankers} than that doesn't do their agenda many favors.......OFCOURSE THE Jew banker front is going to look and sound uncomfortable in and with real military commanders, some of whom presumably earned their position through some merit.)

Once the Roman senate, the legislative branch, collapsed, the caesars, the executive branch, became the captives of the military. Now with Gen. Petraeus once again moved to the fore as McChrystal’s replacement in Afghanistan, we have the Obama moron elevating Petraeus to the Republican presidential nomination in the next election.

(hook nosed Petraeus is a crypto-Jew....the Jew bankers very own, being groomed for a possible political career. McCrystal was a gungo ho WASP but crucially not captured and controlled by the Jew bankers, that is the redeeming aspect of his whole persona)

Thus has Obama replaced himself with a man who will unify the military and executive branch.

Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven and Anne Gearan write (June 23) about the “admired and tightly disciplined Gen. David Petraeus,” the “architect of the Iraq war turnaround,” who is “once again to take hands-on leadership of a troubled war effort.”

Petraeus is an evolved form of general. He “won” in Iraq by paying protection money to the Sunnis who were effectively resisting the US occupation. Petraeus figured out that it was far cheaper and more efficient to put the Sunnis on the US military payroll and to pay them to stop fighting, which is how the war between the Sunnis and the Americans ended. To keep the Americans out of the ongoing large scale sectarian violence that continues to slaughter Iraqis, the US military was confined to remote bases.

If history is a guide, the Afghans will also accept Petraeus’ protection money, and Petraeus has just enough time to buy the Afghan war before the next presidential election.

The Afghans will, of course, take the money and wait us out, just as the Iraqis are doing.

All of this drama is playing out despite the continuing lack of any valid reason for the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Washington idiots, trying to dictate how Iraq and Afghanistan are governed, are destroying constitutional government in the United States. In our hubris to determine how Iraq and Afghanistan are ruled, we are losing our own government.

__________________________

More analysis on the issue

Afghanistan politics.

.
.
.
.

General McChrystal’s Burning Contempt for the Puppet Obama.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com

The farce that is the war in Afghanistan is coming apart at the seams. General Stanley McChrystal’s sharp comments about Obama, Biden, and the administration published by Rolling Stone are not so much about disrespect, as the script-reading corporate media talking heads would have it, but rather about a policy in disarray in Afghanistan.

(There is no real enemy to fight in Afghanistan..........mission was accomplished in 2001. Even with a mass compliant media, after 9 years you are obviously going to be struggling to justify your presence there, and the issue is which leader or general in the USA has the courage to finally tell it like it really is in Afghanistan....we're not in 1910 )

Obama the wunderbar teleprompter reader (and little else) is instructed to push the completely untenable prospect that the United States can win the so-called war in Afghanistan, a country often referred to as the graveyard of empires (tiring overused cliche that bring no benefits for Afghans).

The British, the Russians, Alexander the Great, and Genghis Khan either fell to the Afghans or made painful concessions. The British suffered one of their greatest military defeats in the Khyber. 16,500 British soldiers and civilians, retreating after defeat in Kabul, were slaughtered by the Afghans. One person was spared to tell the story.

(The worst British military defeat has to be Singapore 1942, where 140,000 British Empire troops surrendered to 30,000 lightly armed Japanese troops, without a fight; The Japanese reputation had preceded them)

The establishment knows it cannot “win” in Afghanistan and the claim the U.S. military is there to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda is nothing but transparent propaganda.

("al-Qaeda" is a nonexistent entity whose existence is propagated by Israel/USA, and their client states in the Middle East. The Taliban is a creation of America from 1994, and actually run by the ISI,.......the ISI which America controls and bankrolls)

Afghanistan is a black hole sucking up men and machinery for the sake of death merchant profiteers. It is valuable real estate to be held — not conquered — real estate where opium grows for the sake of CIA off-the-books operating capital funding covert wars against enemies of the global elite. The fantastic profits earned from opium also flood the coffers of the masters of the casino economy on Wall Street. As Catherine Austin Fitts has documented, without this influx of laundered underground and illicit money Wall Street would have collapsed long ago.

(America doesn't need $1 million per soldiers to effectively profit from that business in Afghanistan.........the greatest profit for the American criminal elite is from narcotics in South America, but there isn't a military presence there to secure that business, but instead reliance is made of local criminal stooges........politicians, military, police and left wing groups)

1. Narco-dollars

2. Narco-dollars

3. "Who benefits from the Afghan Opium trade?"............not ordinary Russians, or Iranians,West Europeans or Americans

After the so-called Afghanistan assessment was supposedly leaked to the CIA’s favorite newspaper last year — the report recommended in Pentagon-speak securing the population, aiding in providing good governance, building and mentoring the Afghan security forces — McChrystal threatened to resign if he was not provided with resources to accomplish the mission.

(The American forces can NEVER ACHIEVE THESE NOBLE AIMS, for a variety of reasons. The quicker it is realized the better for all)

In other words, McChrystal said he needs more troops, something our rulers will not do. Not because it is politically unpopular, but because the mission in Afghanistan is not to win. The unstated mission is to chew up men, resources, and a lot of money loaned out by international banksters. The mission is to keep an unwinnable conflict on low heat indefinitely, or at least until the United States collapses from the crushing debt burden.

(Like Vietnam???? Wasn't that also about drugs too; Golden Triangle etc)

McChrystal made his opinion about the corporatization of the “war” known in April when he criticized the use of private-sector contractors. “I actually think we would be better to reduce the number of contractors involved.” He suggested increasing the number of troops “if necessary,” or “using a greater number of Afghan contractors, or Afghans to help with the mission,” according to the Boston Globe.

(Yes that again sounds reasonable, BUT McCrystal has a track record of saying reasonable things to the media, but the reality in Afghanistan is something else. Ultimately McCrystal must as a "Noble Pure Warrior" face the truth which is that he is nothing more than muscle for the Wall Street narcoteers and money launders, and the question is how long he intends to stay in that roll, churning out ever more improbable narratives for staying in Afghanistan.........there is no "enemy" to fight in Afghanistan and deep down, if non-delusional, he must know that. A few disgruntled Afghans armed with AK-47, angered by poor treatment by the notorious Afghan police, security forces, and occupation troops does not a make a serious genuine "enemy" which the sole Super on earth should be expending its best military efforts to wage "war" against......it can't be)

Instead of acting as the CEO of a floundering occupation designed to last forever, McChrystal hinted he would resign. “Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he’d stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy,” it was reported last September.

Now McChrystal and his boys are making sarcastic and derogatory — even adolescent — remarks about Obama and Biden in the presence of Rolling Stone journalists. McChrystal realizes this behavior will likely result in his forced resignation. He has obviously arrived at a decision to publicly express his contempt for Obama and the administration.

Contempt for the Chicago Mafia errand boy and accomplished teleprompter reader is now a popular sport not only in Washington but around the country. He will likely go down as the most reviled puppet of the ruling elite in modern history.

Another marionette awaits behind the curtain.

.
.
.
.

Yeah, I was wondering what Bush family leaming, Iran Contra Gates was talking about........"here you take the guns, you give us the money, and you beanies take the crack cocaine to Los Angeles".

Then he was saying just the other day that the Iran mullahs with a few missiles built in North Korea (no quality control) are just gonna fire them at the 500 million Europeans because they just might feel like it.

Have we really arrived into the era of Mickey Mouse Foreign and Defense policy, or is there something else to all this.

Israel, our little Zionist entity is under the spotlight.........once again, for the wrong reasons. After the recent tragedy with Israel's ally in the Med, more ships filled with well intention individuals will attempt to break the Gaza blockade. Ships from Western countries, ships with media celebrities, ships with just women, ships with politicians.....and from else where.

Netinyahoo who portrays himself as the tough guy with no compromise,.... as a matter of political survival in the sewer politics of Israel MUST deal with ALL such aid ships strictly, and as he does so, he only destroys his nations image even further...........the obviousness of the situation is revealed without the benefit of an insightful Noam Chomsky book on the tragic matter....it is clarified.

The Jews and crypto-Jews in America know this fact and they want to help their mother country, as do the Jews and cryto-Jews in Iran who have run the country behind the shadows since 1979. The punch and Judy show between Israel/USA/Iran was a bit too obvious, and so a diversion must be created preferably in the Red sea for Israel's sake.

Strategically it of course made more sense for the mullahs to stay quiet, gloat at Israel self inflicted plight, which takes the heat off Iran and its many problems in the international plain, but the mullahs aren't going to do that.........they wish to rescue ISRAEL.

___________________________

USA and Israeli Warships pass through Suez Canal.
by Scott Creighton at American Everyman.

It’s being reported all across the internet that on Friday, the U.S. and Israel have sent at least 12 warships through the Suez Canal on route to the Red Sea and eventually to the Persian Gulf. It is assumed that this is to become the core of the naval blockade on Iran. The sanctions didn’t include refined fuel but we will see what they end up doing.

Reportedly the USS Harry Truman along with 12 other accompanying ships including at least one Israeli vessel passed through the Suez Canal as the Egyptian army made extra security measures for their safe passage. Thousands of Egyptian army troops lined up along both sides of the Suez Canal on the Red Sea coast to protect the flotilla. USS Harry Truman and its strike group carry 60 warplanes and 6000 troops. Hamsayeh

This is a remarkable development for several reasons the first of which being this is the first time in a while that a ship the size of a U.S. aircraft carrier has been through the canal.

According to eyewitnesses, the U.S. battleships were the largest to have crossed the Canal in many years, Al-Quds reported. Haaretz

The canal is a tight passageway which forces our fleet to expose themselves to ground assault and pens them in such a way as to make defensive maneuvering impossible. It’s a big risk at a time of “war”.

The fact that the Israelis are also involved in this, sending ships of their own with ours, is not good news. After all, what did the Israelis do to help with Iraq and Afghanistan? Nothing. They sent no ships.

Iran has promised to retaliate in kind if shipping lanes were to be disturbed in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. Analysts warn the US bullying postures against Iran and an eventual military confrontation would lead to the start of Third World War. Hamsayeh

The opposition to the corrupt puppet regime in Egypt are having a field day with this one.

Egyptian opposition members have criticized the government for cooperating with the U.S. and Israeli forces and allowing the ships’ passage through Egyptian territorial waters.

They said they viewed the event as Egyptian participation in an international scandal, and added that the opposition would not sit with its arms crossed while the country allowed a fleet of U.S. and Israeli military ships to cross. Haaretz

This could spark a smoldering civil war in Egypt to overthrow the pro-western dictator, Mubarak. This is a provocative action either way you look at it.

We are ruled,in Egypt, by a tyrant called Mubarak. He has imprisoned thousands of his opponents and tortured them. He is planning to make his son the next president of Egypt by force and oppression. article base

Kinda makes you wonder though; since Israel offered no help in Afghanistan and Iraq, what exactly is their ship doing with our fleet right now? Is it the false flag event sacrificial lamb for a war with Iran, like the U.S.S. Liberty or the PCC Cheonan were attempted FFs for other wars? Only time will tell.

But if they hurry and rush down there and suddenly an Israeli ship is sank “by Iran” it will look damn suspicious won’t it? Of course, the MSM has already demonized any criticism of Israel and the sinking of one of their vessels by the “evil Iran” might just be what the doctor ordered to get the U.S. population to feel sympathetic to the Zionist cause right now.

---

Possibly related posts:

• U.S. speeds up arms buildup with Gulf allies
• Israeli Warships Cross Suez Canal; Egypt Doesn’t Object

Turkey

.
.
.
.

In discussing Turkey and its "Jewish legacy" it gives us a valuable insight and example of the probable MO of the Jews and crypto-Jews such as the likes of Ahmedinejad who operate within Persia, Turkey's neighbor. We must never forget the fact that just a few years ago the deputy head of Iranian intelligence who was assassinating all in-sunder, including allegedly no less Ahmed Khomeini, Ayatollah Khomeini's son,...........................was a JEW. Those who often profess to shout the loudest for the beloved nation often end up doing the greatest amount of harm to it.

___________________________

Turkey's Trouble and the hidden Hand of History.

By Peter Chamberlain at Therearenosunglasses.com

The strangeness of modern day Turkey, as seen in the Kemalist legacy of democratic reforms, secularism, intersecting East and West, "moderate Islam,"--all of these reflect the movement of history in the direction of human liberation, but within this progress you also see evidence of the creeping "hidden hand" of history's secret manipulators. With each stride forward, for any segment of the human race, comes the companion shadow step of the secret power center, looking for ways to limit the liberation and to steer the moving popular force ("movement") in an unnatural alternate direction.

In Turkey's case, the covert herders of the movement have undermined the Nation from within, using groups like the "Young Turks" and the PKK to attack progress and create national divisions in order to multiply the anger and hatred. Many of the Young Turks were "crypto-Jews," Turkish Jews who hid their identities and secretly worked in support of a hidden anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish agenda.

(In talking about the Armenian tragedy perpetrated by the Young Turk Jews, one must not forget that ethnic Turks also suffered during WWI, losing 25% of their population.......a genocide, but due to the Zionist control of the Turkish media and Western media this tragedy is not focused on.......Lawrence of Arabia......Midnight Express etc)

In present-day Turkey, the PKK is much more than merely a Kurdish liberation group, it is also the tool used by the hidden hand to serve the cause of the "Jewish state," while disrupting the Nation and multiplying the divisions. The PKK advances the Israeli cause in Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

Today, the Israeli-backed PKK has been activated in a new offensive which has already claimed the lives of many Turkish troops. This new offensive by Israel's surrogates is timed simultaneously with the international effort to break the Gaza siege, which turned into a contest between Israel and Turkey with the flotilla attack. With the next planned international incident already set into motion from Lebanon and in the Red Sea against Israel's primary enemy, Iran.

There is another covert operation connected to the Israeli Mossad now unfolding now in Turkey as well, the "Ergenekon Plot." This is a plot by right-wing Turkish generals, with uncovered connections to the Israeli Mossad, to incite "Islamic" terrorism and cause a return to a military dictatorship. The exposure of this network, with its connections to Mossad, as well as its secret ties to the American "Stay Behind" "Deep State" network ("Gladio"), represents as Turkey's last chance to save itself from the hidden forces pushing instability and military dictatorship.

Most of Turkey's ongoing troubles are not of its own making.

Turkey’s trouble

The upsurge in fighting between the Turkish armed forces and the Kurdish rebel PKK is a serious setback for the efforts of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to bring an end to the long-standing conflict.

Ten Turkish soldiers were killed in an attack on a fort near the Iraqi border. In response the military sent warplanes and helicopter gun ships to attack PKK bases in Iraq. There is every sign the conflict is once again escalating.

The PKK abandoned a yearlong unilateral cease-fire in March and have since been mounting roadside bomb attacks on army convoys and killing local Kurdish militiamen and village guards. The army is rushing reinforcements to the region and says that it is expecting the PKK to increase its attacks during this summer.

War-weary Turks of all ethnic backgrounds will be in despair that this so-called dirty war has once more flared up. The tragic truth is that they have been here so many times before. This bitter 20-year conflict which has cost in excess of 40,000 lives is un-winnable by either side. With their Iraqi refuges, the PKK will always be able to escape across the border and regroup. Meanwhile, the Turkish military are tough and indomitable. They are unlikely to be deflected by the losses they are suffering.

Indeed there are some in Turkey who suspect their country’s top brass actually welcome the Kurdish insurrection. It ensures that the largely conscript armed forces are given generous portions of the state budget so they are well equipped to fight the PKK. Basic training for army recruits remains little changed from when it was introduced by Prussian officers at the start of the twentieth century. Military service is seen as part of the creation of good Turkish citizens. Typically recruits from the east of the country do their military service in the west and vice versa. As its past political interventions have shown, Turkey’s generals consider themselves to be the custodians of the Kemalist republican flame.

For them therefore the PKK insurrection rates as more than a rebellion but as a challenge to the homogeneity of the country that Kemal Ataturk created. There is resentment among nationalist politicians as well as senior commanders at the way in which the Erdogan government has sought to accommodate Kurdish demands for greater rights for their language and culture.

Therefore it could be feared that beyond welcoming the fighting with the PKK, individual officers may even be fostering it. Were this true, it would be an extremely serious situation. Soldiers should implement the policies of the elected government, not their own agenda. Yet in the bad lands of eastern Turkey where the fighting is taking place, it is hard for Ankara politicians to know what is actually going on.

The violence will only be ended by negotiation and compromise. The Erdogan administration recognizes this but there remains a core of nationalists who regard an accommodation with the Kurds as a betrayal. If their view prevails, then blood will continue to flow.

(This is Edogan Abe's dilemma. He has to show toughness against the Kurds, as much as he has to show toughness against the Israelis, the original backers of the PKK. But he also understands that in order to isolate the PKK terrorists effectively he must accommodate the basic Kurdish wishes without seeming to surrender to PKK demands originally penned in Tel a Viv)

The Green Movement must be supported by ALL Iranians

.
.
.
.

Iran's Mousavi issues charter, seeks radical reforms on clerical rule

By Thomas Erdbrink
Washington Post Foreign Service

An Iranian opposition leader and a key dissident called this week for radical reforms in the country's system of Shiite Muslim clerical rule, as they sought to rally a beleaguered grass-roots movement that has been decimated by a harsh government crackdown in the year since the disputed reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

(Decimated might be a too strong a word, cowed and slightly rudderless might be a better description of Iran's Green Movement. The general dissatisfaction with mullah rule is still there, indeed greater than the imposed rule of the Shah for 24 years.

The problem is the Likud Israelis and Obama who through their endless sanctions narrative against Iran give greater "credibility" to the mullahs and their platform, which thus appeals to ordinary Iranians sense of nationality. Israel and the USA, not for the first time in calculated ways are helping the mullahs.

Israel and the USA have since the 1950's developed close linkages with Islamic fundamentalist in the Greater Middle East, which thus destabilize many Muslim countries...............Iran being the classic example for the last 31 years.

The Green Movement in Iran is thus not only struggling against the mullahs of Iran, but also against the USA and Israel, indirectly)

Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister who ran against Ahmadinejad in the June 12, 2009, presidential election, published a political charter Tuesday that attempts, for the first time, to unite the opposition movement behind a clear set of goals.

The charter emerged a day after dissident politician Mostafa Tajzadeh, a former top Interior Ministry official, issued a controversial letter calling for apologies for what he described as the government's mistakes since the 1979 Islamic revolution, including the killing and jailing of political foes.

(We could say that the mullahs have made a FEW mistakes in the last 31 years both inside and outside Iran:

1. The mullahs sustained the Iran/Iraq war for 8 years; causing $1000 billion worth of damage to the country, and the death of possibly 1 million boys and men fighting Iraq, and Saddam an American recruited agent since the 1950's. Saddam the American agent sought peace after two years of the war in 1982; the mullahs in Tehran were not interested. The mullahs were willing to fight into infinity...into 2010, with 4--5 million dead Iranians if they could but alas, they started attacking neutral ships in the Persian Gulf, which angered mullah Iran's main arms suppliers the UK/USA. They imposed an arms embargo in the black market, and the mullah military machine came to a halt, and Saddam was in a position to march into Tehran, but didn't........the mullahs in Tehran..in panic knowing this fact executed thousands of political prisoners in 1988 "action speak louder than words". It is the absurd idea that mullah Iran, without a properly trained professional military could defeat Iraq, which was backed by 40 + countries including the USA, UK, France, Russia and many others....and that they were willing to achieve this through the sacrifice of millions of lives.

2. The Iranian civil war 1981-1982 between the mullahs and the Tudeh left alliance; 100,000 dead. The Shah dealt with them in a more civilized and professional way........The Shah never massacred that many Iranians in order to stay in power

3. The mullahs promoting pan-Islamism, and general Arab culture over and above traditional Persian identity. For a genuine Iranian who loves his country this might be considered a GREAT crime. A nation that prostitutes its true identity for a false foreign one is all but finished spiritually and at many other levels. Are you Iranian or are you not? What does it mean to be a true Iranian? What does the culture and history books say?

4. The de-legitimation of Iran's standing in the world, with silly OTT antics; taking over foreign embassies; threatening foreign writers ; holding Holocaust revisionist meetings and so on and so on. We hope no silly stunts are pulled per Gaza; the Gazan's are not propaganda fodder for mullah Iran; they don't deserve to be used that way by the mullahs in wholly cynical calculated ways.

5. The destruction of the Middle Class; their partial expulsion from the country 3-4 million of the most educated articulate Iranians in favor of the illiterate villagers, who are constantly promised great things, and used primarily in the security apparatus to keep the rest of the population in line.

6. Running a banana Republic economy which could collapse at any time. $800 billion to $1 trillion worth of Capital flight by wealthy Iranians who refuse to or cannot do business in mullah Iran. The current wisdom that mullahs and mullah cronies are the only people privileged and qualified to own and run significant parts of the economy.

7. Running a very repressive police state, which has accounted for the death of possibly 30,000 political prisoners since 1979. A regime that executes more children than any other regime on earth.

8. Seeming to posture internationally, usually through speeches against Israel and the USA, and through talking up the Uranium Enrichment issue designed to niggle the USA and Israel. And through the support of Hamas and Hezbollah directly, WHILST not making any real efforts to defend itself militarily......spends 3% of GDP on defense, and is not a significant conventional power....at rank number 18, with Israel at 11, and the USA at number 1. Turkey at 10; Pakistan 15, Egypt 17.

9. Upwards of 3 million drug addicts in mullah Iran where the regime touts its conservative austere, puritanical credentials, but is unable, and unwilling to tackle this serious national problem. Credible reports indicate that aspects of the mullah regime are involved in the narcotics trade into Iran from Afghanistan, and towards other countries such as Iraq and Turkey.

10. The mullahs are modern slave runners selling "surplus" destitute Iranians to Gulf Arab countries, who face an obvious bleak future there after. Any Iranians who dare criticizes this national mullah shame are punished with imprisonment or death.

Realistically speaking I cannot see the mullahs apologizing about their rule. That would be tantamount to admitting that they should not be ruling Iran in the first place. Most regimes never apologize for their crimes, whether in banana republics or First World countries.

HOW WILL AN APOLOGY, EVEN IF OFFERED, IN A MULLAH RUN PAPER SOLVE THE BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF IRAN NOW)

Both men proposed radical reforms in the way Iran is ruled but stopped short of urging the abolition of the country's system of Islamic governance.

(This is pragmatic. Turning Iranian society upside down through foreign backed revolution again, with a new regime made up of political exiles from the USA AND Europe is clearly unwanted. HOWEVER realistically speaking how do you change/reform a wholly corrupt regime that relies ultimately on violent repression to sustain itself in power? The Green Movement clearly needs to go beyond mass guerrilla demonstrations, and mere REASONING with this vile mullah regime. Reasoning and demonstrations alone will not be enough to get rid of this vile mullah regime)

The proposals come as the opposition marks the first anniversary of Ahmadinejad's proclaimed landslide election victory, which led to months of demonstrations and fierce street battles between security forces and urban protesters belonging to what became known as the Green Movement.

(It was a rigged election led by Khamenei and his network)

But the opposition movement, named after Mousavi's campaign color, has come to be seen as leaderless and disorganized, with no clear common goals and no answer to a harsh government crackdown that has landed many of its key figures in prison.

Now, Mousavi said, the new charter can be used as a guideline for the movement's supporters. He stressed that the opposition should be nonviolent and adhere to the Islamic Republic's constitution, which he said is not being implemented by Iran's leaders.

Many protesters have said they seek the downfall of the country's rulers, some of them unelected clerics whose powers are enshrined in the constitution. Mousavi's charter tries to soften such demands by emphasizing that the constitution and laws are not "eternal and unchangeable documents."

The movement wants to return power to people through free elections, demands equality for women, minorities and other ethnic groups and promotes "compassionate religion," Mousavi said.

"This document is only the first step, and, during its evolution, the Green Movement will create a better and more complete set of guidelines," Mousavi wrote in the statement distributed on the Internet and in leaflets.

Tajzadeh, one of the main ideologues of the banned Islamic Iran Participation Front, lamented in his letter what he described as dark episodes in the 31-year history of the Islamic Republic.

A former official in the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance and the Interior Ministry in governments that preceded the Ahmadinejad administration, Tajzadeh himself apologized for past governmental transgressions, including the mass killing of opponents in 1988, the imprisoning of dissidents in the early days of the Islamic revolution and the ousting of revered religious figures who opposed the new system.

"If we had objected back then, we would not have these problems now," Tajzadeh wrote.

He also called for a new look at the influence of religion on the state, a taboo subject among the highest ranks of Iran's leadership.

"We must discuss which method is the most effective and least costly for the presence of clergy in politics," he said, stressing that he wants an end to veto rights by a key clerical vetting council.

Tajzadeh now is officially on sick leave from prison, where he has been serving a six-year sentence for conspiring against national security. He was reported arrested in June 2009 during the post-election protests.

It was not immediately clear whether the charter and the letter were coordinated, but Tajzadeh spelled out a detailed list of guidelines for the opposition movement similar to those of Mousavi.

"The society I saw after coming out of prison had undergone such great, deep changes that it is nearly impossible for me to understand all of its dimensions," Tajzadeh wrote. "It's belittling to call this a smoldering fire under the ashes [because] very soon this movement will make all of Iran green."

In comments on dissident Web sites, not all opposition supporters agreed. Some said Tajzadeh should have apologized while he was in power. Others criticized both him and Mousavi for continuing to support the constitution of the Islamic Republic.

"Over 30 years have passed since the Islamic revolution and the constitution," wrote one commenter who called himself Arash on the Kaleme.org Web site. "Today's world has completely new and different issues. We need a new constitution that returns the power to the people . . . not a remake of the 1979 revolution."

________________________

(The Green Movement need to build serious linkages with the Revolutionary Guard, member by member, and those in VEVAK, and conduct a soft revolution there after, which does not result in civil war..........the mullahs must go)

The steps towards war.

.
.
.
.

I don't think any other nation/regime such as Mullah Iran has suffered so many rounds of sanctions. This is the very same regime that was brought into power by the USA, with the aid of its neo-liberal allies in Europe such as the UK, France and probably Israel.

There was the Clinton sanctions of 1996, then the 3 rounds of sanctions by Bush junior, and now under the Obama the administration foreign policy forum it has been talking up sanctions against Iran and not much else.

The article posted below suggests that despite the three decades long narrative of sanctions against Iran by the USA, substantively they are STILL not real comprehensive sanctions in the fullest sense.

Why so?

The smelly mullahs of Iran, brought into power by the USA/UK/FRANCE/Israel have certain entertainment value with their frequent bizarre antics.............since they were installed in 1979. The mullahs of Iran do a wonderful job of de-legitimating Iran.......and embarrassing the rest of the 57 Muslim majority countries. Mullah Iran is a perfect foil for global Islamism, which of course requires the services of the USA, Israel and the UK to protect the world from the menace of this new threat. The tedious repetitive, empty threats of sanctions thus conflate this menace......and the very reason why the dreaded mullahs have been in power for 31 uninterrupted odd years. The Mullahs are a too useful scarecrow to get rid of now, but good material to gossip and banter about in endless international forums.

With North Korea you impose sanctions and leave it at that.

With Cuba you introduce sanctions and then leave it at that.

With Apartheid South Africa you introduce sanctions or not, and leave it at that.

But not with mullah Iran. With Iran we must have a continuous running drama of sanctions.

___________________________

OBAMA’S CHARADE ON IRAN SANCTIONS.

By Flynt and Hillary Leverett.

Today, the United Nations Security Council will adopt a new resolution (see, here) imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear activities. Predictably, the Obama Administration is working to spin its “victory” in New York as both a great diplomatic achievement and a serious intensification of international pressure on Iran over the nuclear issue.

It is neither.

The resolution will be adopted by a Security Council that is more deeply divided over this resolution than over the three sanctions resolutions against Iran adopted by the Council while George W. Bush was in the White House. It is particularly significant that Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon are refusing to support the resolution. In international political terms, this will very likely turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Obama Administration–the Administration will win a narrow, tactical battle today, but at great cost to America’s long term strategic position, in the Middle East and globally.

(elaborate?........in the 57 Muslim majority countries, most are run by pro-American puppets....Egypt, Jordan, Saudi who will pretend to look the other way when Israel once again does the dirty against unarmed civilians in its hinterland using American technology. In Pakistan the Americans can kill Pakistani civilians using both the Pakistani military and American air strikes.

Since Bush II, when members of the PNAC became part of the Bush administration team, America defacto discarded International Law in pursuit of its national goals as defined by the duel national Zionists......so how are these factors going to change by imposing "stringent" sanctions against Iran?....America has already lost its international reputation, and its door to door salesman pitches in relation to Iran won't take it to a new nadir in this area, that it already isn't in)

Moreover, by any substantive criterion, the sanctions actually authorized in the resolution to be adopted today are remarkably weak—for the Obama Administration, embarrassingly so (although you won’t hear them admit it). In the main body of the resolution, there are, literally, no sanctions limiting the capacity of the Islamic Republic to produce and export hydrocarbons. The Obama Administration wanted energy sanctions, but China made clear that it would not support a resolution containing them. So they were not included in the final text. Likewise, there are no sanctions barring the extension of financial services, insurance, reinsurance, etc. to Iranian individuals and entities.

In fact, the only mandatory measures in the resolution—that is, measures which all member states will be obligated to apply—are the following:

–States will be required to block Iranian investments outside the Islamic Republic in uranium mining or the production of nuclear materials and technology.

–States will be barred from supplying Iran with specified categories of heavy weaponry that could potentially be used in offensive military operations. (States, however, will be free to continue supplying Iran with weapons and military equipment outside the specified categories—including, for Russia, the S300 anti-aircraft missile.)

–States will be required to prevent individuals designated in an annex to the resolution (more on this below) to travel outside of Iran—except where such travel is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need or religious obligation. This provision is similar to travel restrictions imposed on individuals designated in annexes to the previous sanctions resolutions.

–States will be required to freeze assets of individuals and entities designated in annexes to the resolution (again, more on this below). This provision is also similar to asset freezes imposed on individuals and entities designated in annexes to the previous sanctions resolutions.

Beyond these mandatory sanctions, there are other, essentially “optional” measures which states may apply if they are so inclined:

–States may impose limits on the extension of financial services to Iranian individuals and entities by financial institutions under their jurisdiction, if they believe that those Iranian individuals and entities are involved in “proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities” or “the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems”. States may also, if they choose to do so, freeze whatever assets these individuals and entities have in their jurisdictions.

–States may inspect ships on the high seas suspected of carrying restricted items to Iran—but only with the consent of the state under which any given suspect ship is registered (the so-called “flag state”). Likewise, states may inspect any and all cargo going to and coming from Iran in their jurisdictions, if states determine that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the cargo contains prohibited items.

The Obama Administration has indicated that it anticipates these provisions will provide a legal basis for other states—like members of the European Union and Japan—to enact tougher national sanctions of their own. But the United States is not going to get anything approaching universal compliance with these “optional” sanctions. The net effect will be to accelerate the reallocation of business opportunities in the Islamic Republic from Western states to China and other non-Western powers.

There has been a remarkable amount of sloppy reporting by mainstream newspapers over the last 24 hours or so with regard to the annexes accompanying the new sanctions resolution. In reality, there are four annexes to the resolution. One lists the designated “individuals and entities involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities”. Another annex lists “entities owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”. A third lists “entities owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines”. Finally, the revised P-5+1 incentives package presented to the Islamic Republic in 2008 is once again included as an annex. The first three of these annexes are largely the product of intensive negotiations between U.S. and Chinese diplomats.

–Some journalists claim that there are forty-one new individuals captured in the annexes. This is wrong. In fact, there is one new individual listed; the other forty individuals are already listed in annexes to previous sanctions resolutions.

–Among the entities “involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities”, the United States was able to win the agreement of China and other Council members to include only one bank that had not been previously listed—and that bank is a subsidiary to Bank Mellat, which had been previously designated by the United Kingdom and the United States.

–Ostensibly, there are 15 entities listed as “owned, controlled, or acting on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”. But this is seriously misleading. There is, in fact, only one Revolutionary Guard-affiliated entity captured in the annex—the Khatam al-Anbiya construction company. The other 14 entities are all either subsidiaries of Khatam al-Anbiya or subsidiaries of subsidiaries of Khatam al-Anbiya.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that this resolution will confront Iran with the most significant sanctions it has ever faced. But that statement seems to overlook the Iran-Iraq war, when the Islamic Republic was cut off from international trade and economic activity to a much greater extent than this or any Security Council resolution will ever achieve.

(Yes but at least during that time the Americans and the UK supplied the mullahs with arms and spares. Arms deliveries to Mullah Iran did not officially stop in 1979 when the mullahs came to power, but only after the hostage crisis of the American embassy 444/52. There after during the Gulf War Iran was supplied by the USA/UK via Singapore, Chile and Israel...Iran/contra. Arms supplies completely stopped from the USA/UK in 1987, when Iran started mining the Persian Gulf, and attacking oil tankers from Kuwait)

The Obama Administration clearly has its talking points ready—it will claim that these sanctions are broader and tougher than any previous sanctions. But this is all political theater. No one in the Administration really believes that these sanctions will compel Tehran to alter is decision-making and behavior. But the Obama Administration is no longer interested in finding a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue—if it ever was.

(No I never thought so either)

As we predicted in a May 2009 Op Ed in The New York Times—before the Islamic Republic’s controversial presidential election—the Obama Administration has already “checked the box” to show that engaging Iran doesn’t work.

Now it has started the process of “checking the box” to show that the “broadest and toughest” sanctions ever imposed on the Islamic Republic don’t work.

And that will leave the Obama Administration with no other options except formal adoption of regime change as the explicit goal of its Iran policy—and/or military strikes against the Islamic Republic.

____________________________

(Military strikes will be costly given the American situation in Afghanistan against the 10,000 Taliban militia armed with ak-47's, and in Iraq against the Sunni fighters. Unlike Iraq/Afghanistan ......................Iran has had 22 years of peace to lick its wounds and re-arm. The Revolutionary Guard mobilisable to 300,000 will lead the counter attack, backed by nationalist Iranians who on the one hand hate the mullahs, but far more hate the idea that their country has been attacked by the USA for no particular good reason.......you can attack Taliban Afghanistan and Sudan(1998) on hunches, but not Iran. Iran will of course activate the Shia's loyal to Iran in Iraq, and the Afghan's in the Northern Alliance loyal to Iran, along with Shia's in that country.

Zionists loyal to Israel in the Obama administration may not consider these critical factors on the other hand, even though rationally it may not be in America's strategic interests. For them serving Israel may be of greater importance than the overall end costs for America, diplomatically, economically and militarily.....this is the essence one gets of the Obama administration.

This is the critical analysis that our 2 Jewish writers from the American security establishment fails to notice.......THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF ISRAEL IN ALL THIS..........and the commitment of dual national Jews to the greater cause of Likud Israel, serving within the power structure of the USA. Sort of like talking about France without mentioning Paris (5).

The two Jewish analysts also seem to be in favor of the mullah regime in Iran by arguing for protracted negotiations with the mullahs, and giving them greater status quo recognition....and defending crypto-Jew Ahmedinejads Presidential "victory".

Most reasonable Iranians beyond rent-a-crowds, would like to see the mullahs of Iran vanish from the page of history, preferably peacefully for obvious reason through a soft revolution. I also favor this...........the USA has ample experience in this area, and the Iranian people are waiting for this outcome.

We do not need crypto-Jewess Hilary Clinton getting into unnecessary orgasms over this.