A week late, but the mainstream media has finally learnt (not least through my telling them) that it was the Mossad link that was really worrying Whitehall about Fox.
And I have an article in the Mail on Sunday.
The Indie on Sunday story of a Fox-Israel plot against Iran is a great deal more credible than Obama’s announcement of a plot by Iranian used car salesmen to employ the Canadian Mounties to assassinate Justin Timberlake outside the Won-Ton Chinese restaurant in Champaign-Urbana (I may have got some of the details of Obama’s fantasy wrong, but what’s the difference?)
It is now absolutely essential that Matthew Gould. British Ambassador to Israel, answers the questions I have put to him.
Cosmetic adjustments to lobbying rules will take a while to invent, says Camoron:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/17/new-rules-lobbyists-not-rushed?newsfeed=true
@Stephen:
.
I don’t agree with you on the “usual anti-Americanism” point – we come, I expect, from different parts of the ideological spectrum. Is there such a thing as racism against Americans? Yes. Should this fact be used to deflect legitimate criticism of an obviously unilateralist and militarist superpower? No. My tuppence worth!
.
So, what to do? Good question. I’m in favour of the UN. The headquarters should be moved forthwith to a neutral country, so as to reduce US influence and surveillance. A mechanism to abandon the veto at the UNSC should be made a top priority.
.
In terms of the Fox/Werrity story, firstly a mandatory register of lobbyists made publicly available. This could be instituted in the UK at first but genuine efforts should be made to broker similar agreements in other countries (some already exist). Jail terms would be appropriate for undeclared lobbying, if it is reasonably thought to be deliberate.
.
I support the call for Werrity et al to be investigated and prosecuted for fraud. We need to see that conspiracy against the public interest, involving secret deals and acting against the spirit of democracy, will be met with reasonable punishment.
.
Importantly, anyone who becomes a Member of Parliament must relinquish all of their other business interests. This is often scoffed at by those it would most affect – but it is not such a bitter pill to swallow. MPs are paid around £65K/annum and could quite comfortably live on this figure without extra income. I would also be inclined to permit existing parliamentarians the remainder of their term of office, after implementing this law, to dispose of their assets. I would generally agree with blind trusts for pensions and other reasonable savings, if they are properly policed.
.
No Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet MP may take any paid employment with an organisation relating to the area in which their held posts until five years have elapsed. (If ordinary members of the public would be in agreement, I’d make this ten years.) Ex-members would then have to find work based on their management skills, rather than their contacts or influence.
.
I am incidentally unsympathetic to the suggestion that some of the above ideas would chase ‘talent’ out of Parliament. I think it would chase money-grubbers out, which would suit the public interest just fine.
.
OK, let’s have a public no-confidence mechanism for MPs (the recall system). If enough members of a constituency decide that their MP is rubbish/greedy/dishonest/whatever they can petition for a local referendum. I am not au fait with the various proposals on how this would work, but there are various organisations that have been clamouring for this for a while.
.
Lastly I think I would take a good look at the defence industry. I’m not specifically a pacifist but I don’t see how profiting from the sale of weapons can possibly reduce conflict – in fact I think it has the opposite effect. I don’t think it is a coincidence that people who run or invest in arms companies are hawks generally, even if the linkage is subconscious. War on Iran/Iraq/Palestine/whoever is good business! I would therefore start with forcing all defence companies headquartered in the UK to open their books – everything they do will henceforth be run on Open Book Accounting. (They could be nationalised instead, but I am not sure that will have as much of a useful effect. Even public institutions sometimes grow the need they were set out for.)
.
There are loads of extra things I’d support to democratise our political system – voting reform, workplace democracy, a decent independent media regulator etc. but the above will do for now!
Protests in China. Isn’t this what Marx predicted? All the ordinary folk Vs. all the ruling classes:
.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-protests-20111009,0,7542516,full.story
.
On Mondoweiss, “the Emergency Committee for Israel [try] to paint the entire Occupy Wall Street movement as anti-Semitic”. So the Occupy campaign has responded with a rather nice video of the similar protests in Israel:
.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/is-occupy-wall-street-anti-semitic.html
Jon – brilliant! You’re on a roll, man! Big wheel keep on turnin’!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23997366-thieves-steal-dostoevsky-unabridged-from-michael-goves-car.do
.
The wife sounds pretentious. When I last read her stuff before the paywall came in, it was all about domestic bliss in the Gove household, labradors on the bedm waiting for Michael to arrive home, etc.
,
Apparently according to Ian Bone’s blog, the car is still there. A K reg Skoda – a man of the people. No shiny black 4×4 like most of the rest of Surrey. Another pretence.
Heh, cheers Suhayl 🙂
.
I did wonder about how to deal with the issue of MPs being members of “Friends of Israel” groups. If it is true that 80% of Conservative members belong to such a group (see Wikipedia for reference) then that is of substantial concern, in my view. I understand “Israel’s interests”, in the way that such groups would define them, as prolonging the occupation, dismissing concerns about Palestinian human rights, obfuscating the details of Israeli war crimes, subverting attempts to establish Palestinian statehood, etc. (Of course these things are antithetical to Israel’s long-term security, but that doesn’t usually get mentioned.)
.
So, this 80% sets out specifically to prioritise Israel’s needs before Palestinian ones. That should be bad enough, but (as in the Fox/Werrity case) what about the politicians who are prepared to prioritise Israel’s interests before British ones?
.
I should admit to a major bias, however. I regard memberships of “Friends of Palestine” groupings in the opposite way – those members are opposed to the status quo, and would like to bring both sides to the negotiating table without preconditions, so that repeated attempts at agreement can be made. (I should clarify that there are probably members in both groups who in practise oppose justice for the opposite side, but I stick with my formulation in general.)
.
This presents a dilemma: in what way can a rule be written that prohibits membership of groups that are opposed to Palestinian justice whilst at the same time permitting members their democratic right to join whatever group they choose? If a particular grouping is made illegal according to Commons rules, would that not force such groupings underground?
.
(This is a stream of consciousness question, since I am afraid I don’t think there is an answer!)
Jon, as you suggested, these interests need to be openly declared and also open to scrutiny. Elites will tend to support one another – nothing new there – and so one might almost expect many MPs to gravitate to the prevailing node of power. Imperium has a vested interest in maintaining Israel as a colonial settler-state and preventing real integration into the Levantine area. Like many states, Israel also seems to make it a cornerstone of its foreign policy to cultivate maximal political leverage in key groupings. Israel just seems so much better at it than almost every other state in the world. Perhaps this is partly to do with its positioning as central node in the military-industrial-techonological complex, partly to do with its influential and active constituency within the political apparatus of the USA and partly to do with it assiduous cultivation of European guilt transference.
Jon
Well I’m sure we do come from different parts of the spectrum – but I certainly wouldn’t regard my self as being on the Right but just as a social democrat who is able to see out of both eyes. Yes the US has it faults but in terms of respecting the human rights of its citizens and in its democratic institutions it is light years ahead of what goes on in Iran (or many other Middle Eastern states). The UN whatever you might think is there to defend UNIVERSAL human rights – and I hear very little from you as to what it should be doing beyond Israel and the US and how it might be strngthened in those aims. I’m afraid Ahmenjinabad did not win the last Iranian election and is responsible for a wave of repression against his own population – and is the case with all fascists he is not above playing the racist card (against Israel and the US) in order to support his position. Being on the real Left I believe that steps should be taken against all fascists – and I would prefer to use international institutions rather than bilateral military action, but I do not see ignoring the problem and letting it go away as a viable alternative however. I also believe that action and pressure should be taken against Israel fro its abuses – but you should see how the failure to adopt an even handed approach actaully means that you end up doing nothing to resolve the situation until it blows up in your face.
I also think that some of the things you propose e.g. taking away the veto at the UN Security Council, moving the UN from New York really are just not grounded in reality and what is possible.
I have no problem with transparency re lobbying – but you need to guard against lobbying being stopped and driven into secret – because it is pretty essential that lobbying does occur in a democracy and is seen as listening to everyone regardless of the ability to pay (not much lobbying in Iran other than from one particular viewpoint you will note). I’m not sure about a £65k limit on MPs salaries – some parties would struggle to find qualified resent their views at that salary (much as I dislike Tories I do still feel that they have a right to be represented)
And on the Iran-Saudi Ambassador tale, well, anything’s possible, but it does sound suspicioously like entrapment to me. A very convenient entrapment. Watch out for those car dealers – can one believe anything they say?!
Some quotes from the Daily Mirror of 1/10/2011 – “He [Fox} blamed commanders for a “complete breakdown of trust” between the Ministry of Defence and the rest of Whitehall.” “Tory Dr Fox said: “The MoD consistently dug a hole for itself that it eventually couldn’t climb out of.” “Dr Fox has threatened to shed even more jobs unless the MoD’s finances are brought under control.” Ten days after these comments the scandal broke. Could it be that Fox preempted the attacks on himself by criticizing his own MoD civil servants so publicly?
Stephen, what some people are looking for is simply that, an even-handed approach. That has never been the case, as you well know. There’s much more than that, of course, but it would be a start. It’s not going to happen, and so the ‘blowing up in one’s face’ – actually, usually in the faces of the people of the Middle East is more or less guaranteed. The USA et al – and indeed all states in the world – absolutely do not premise their foreign policy on universal human rights, they premise it on the acquisition and sustainment of power and wealth, access to resources, etc. I agree of course that domestically, the USA, UK, etc. are by far more preferable places to live in than Iran. Why would you suggest that Jon believes otherwise?
.
Stephen, earlier on this site – you are the same Stephen, aren’t you? – you indicated that you had supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 even though it was conducted on completely false premises.
.
Did you – since you are a social democrat – support the invasion of, or sanctions on, Pinochet’s Fascist Chile, one wonders?
Hi Stephen, thanks for the reply 🙂
.
Couple of issues first: we all believe we see out of both eyes, I guess, and I am not sure there is anything I’ve said that shows I am entirely biased against Israel, or the US, or against MPs. More on that in a bit!
.
> Being on the real Left I believe…
.
Ah… (tongue in cheek!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
.
> I hear very little from you as to what it should be doing beyond Israel
> and the US and how it might be strngthened in those aims
.
Well, it would be a mistake here to assume that everyone here (or everyone on the progressive/socialist Left) is reflexively pro-Iran. Opinions vary wildly, in my experience, and on this very forum we have plenty of voices supporting your position – that Ahmadinejad could be dangerous and needs to be considered with caution. My views on the balance of opposing Western imperialism with the need to consider international responses to appalling regimes have, I think, been modified by posting here over the long term.
.
My dilemma is that no humanitarian intervention undertaken by the UN or NATO will have human rights at its core, mainly because the military-energy-financial complex informs most of the political decisions (the Fox/Werrity farrago is a good example of how that happens). It is (mostly) about power projection and profit, in my view, and how much these motivations can be hidden in propaganda from a lazy and xenophobic media. The question we need to ask ourselves in each case of military action is “Would attacking country X and occupying it, rewriting its laws, neo-liberalising its economy and killing some civilians be better that atrocious dictator Y?” In Iraq, as was predicted, definitely not. In Libya, it is more difficult to say.
.
So, it’s complicated. One could say that “doing nothing is not an option”, but as good as that sounds in a speech, sometimes it *is* the right thing to do. Or, sometimes there are good ideas that require patience, like sending neutral weapons inspectors in. I am sure a middle ground was possible in Iraq and in Libya, but aggressive militarists in the US and elsewhere are often not amenable to dialogue/careful solutions.
.
I agree entirely that “international institutions [are better] than bilateral military action” which is why people were so angry over Iraq. Clearly faked documents (the Niger connection) and a fake informant (Curveball) plus a failure to get international agreement (the second resolution) – bilateralism *and* deliberate, malicious misinformation!
.
> Yes the US has it faults but in terms of respecting the human rights of its citizens
> and in its democratic institutions it is light years ahead of what goes on in Iran (or
> many other Middle Eastern states).
.
This is more complicated than that, I think. I agree that Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and most of the Middle East has had an appalling human rights record and an open contempt for democracy. I also acknowledge that the US and the Western powers have a history of democratic rights, a matured judicial system and a relatively free press. But I suspect the US and its coterie (i.e. the UK in particular) has been responsible for more unjust deaths and suffering in the last fifty years than most of the rest of the world’s atrocities put together during that time.
.
This is of course a paradox. How can a democratic country kill more people than an authoritarian one? Partly the answer is that democratic countries are not as democratic as we like to think they (we) are. We also (as mentioned earlier) cloak the injustices we perpetrate in misinformation, lies and spin.
.
This is an unfair comparison, since every superpower will kill to achieve its greedy aims – history teaches us that plenty of countries have tasted Imperialism, spilt blood, and enjoyed the spoils. We find it difficult to see the modern superpowers in that light because the history books have not yet judged them, and also – as you quite rightly say – those powers in theory have laws to check their behaviour. But a corollary of this position is that it is preferable (on balance) to have a religious nutter leading an imperialist and nuclear United States than it would be to have a religious nutter leading an imperialist and nuclear Iran. Obviously it would be nice to have had neither, but one of them has already happened (the other one could too, if one argues that a nuclear Iran would become imperialist).
.
On MPs salaries – I think they could get by on £30K, frankly. It is above the mean wage in the UK (which sits around £26K last I checked, and that is much higher than the median wage). But if we could have a Parliament of people whose only income is from the government and whose only priority was their constituents, then yeah, they can have a big fat raise. I’m not comfortable with it, as I think big fat wages give rise to negative social consequences, but if that is what it takes to clean up Parliament…
.
> I also think that some of the things you propose e.g. taking away the veto at
> the UN Security Council, moving the UN from New York really are just not
> grounded in reality and what is possible.
.
I would say that, as things stand, a permanent peace accord in the Middle East looks exactly as likely as either of these. But you won’t catch me dismissing the possibility of peace as “not grounded in reality”. We have to hope that it is possible 🙂
How about some “even-handedness” wrt Saudi Arabia or Bahrain? And you make thee comments, Stephen, in the face of a UK Govt Minister supposedly having been caught with his pants down, making backroom deals with a foreign power to destabilise and/or attack other countries.
.
And we are supposed to beleive that Fox did not have the blessing of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister? If he did not have the blessing of the FS and PM, the FS and PM are grossly incompetant and if he did, the FS and PM are also deeply involved in destablising other countries and possibly of putting the intersts of the MIC above those of the UK.
.
Of course, we know fine well – recent history tells us – that the UK has destablised countries/regimes when it sees its interests being contingent with that dynamic. Trying to pour a human rights gloss over that granite simply won’t work any more, Stephen.
.
No-one would be the least bit interested in human rights in Iran if all Iran sold was caviar from the Caspian. The USA/UK are after Iran’s oil and gas. The regime in Iran is a shit regime. I know people in Iran – who are no friends of the CIA/MI6, btw as they know full well what those organisations have done to their country/their people – who, esp. since July 2009, have been in fear of their lives. But even if the regime were a model one in relation to human rights in that country, the geopolitical dynamic would remain the same. I don’t know why you imagine that people are so stupid as to not to be able to see all of this clearly. With both eyes wide open.
Absolutely, Jon. The Islamists in Iran massacred the Left in Iran during the 1980s. But the ‘choice’ now facing the people of Iran seems to be b/w the Islamists – torture, repression and death – or dismemberment, mass death and re-colonisation by the West, in other words, having an ‘Iraq’ done them.
.
Let’s focus back on Liam Fox and the hard work he – and possibly others – may have done for the Israeli MIC and weapons dealers in general, work which makes Mark Thatcher’s alleged crooked exploits look like playground games.
Totally pathetic as was expected. The BBC give us a preliminary.
.
October 2011 Last updated at 22:43
.
Liam Fox broke ministerial code, official report to say
Mr Fox resigned on Friday after a week of allegations relating to his friendship
.
Q&A: Liam Fox row
Profile: Liam Fox
Timeline: Fox and Werritty meetings
.
Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox broke the ministerial code in his dealings with his friend Adam Werritty, an official report is expected to say.
.
Mr Fox resigned on Friday after a week of allegations over his working relationship with Mr Werritty, a lobbyist and former flatmate.
The BBC understands a report by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell will find Mr Fox broke the rules.
.
!!+++++!!
But it will conclude Mr Fox did not gain financially from the arrangement.
!!+++++!!
.
In resigning, the defence secretary said he had allowed his personal loyalties and professional responsibilities to become “blurred”.
.
He had been criticised for his conduct in relation to Mr Werritty, who had claimed to be Mr Fox’s adviser, joined him on 18 foreign trips and arranged meetings for him despite having no official government or Conservative Party role.
.
/…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15344455
Another Iran “Expert”, pray tell, how did you adduce; “people of Iran seems to be b/w the Islamists – torture, repression and death – or dismemberment, mass death and re-colonisation by the West, in other words, having an ‘Iraq’ done them”
=
Further, you seem to have not understood; there already exists an Algerian “National Transitional council” in exile, crack addicts and money junkies always go after little old ladies and not strapping brutes, whom are likely to kick their arse to hell.
=
If the neocon could have attacked Iran, they would not spend a single minute to bitch and moan, coming up with B movie plots.
=
The unbelievable chauvinism on display on this borad discounts people whom want to lead their lives based on their religious beliefs.
=
PS Take a look at the Mediterranean map and then tell me what you see سهیل?
@Fedup – sorry, I didn’t follow much of that at all.
.
Most people here, it should be said, strongly support religious freedom. I do to, even though I tend to disapprove of religion. My formulation to permit freedom but to trammel the harm of evangelism, though in jest, is “permit religion, ban churches”!
There appears to be a curious silence in the Iranian media about a Mossad-linked plot to overthrow President Ahmadinejad. Might it have something to do with this
little-analysed point?
“In May 2009, Mr Werritty arranged a meeting in Portcullis House between Mr Fox and an Iranian lobbyist with close links to President Ahmadinejad’s regime.”
Has anyone seen any discussion of this aspect of the affair, anywhere?
According to the Mail’s coverage, sensitive defence information was passed to Werrity – and then to Luke Coffey – by Boulter, in the belief that it would go to Fox. Did it? Have either Werrity or Coffey so much as signed the OSA, ever? Who the hell is Coffey anyway?
.
http://hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/liam-fox-adam-werrity-but-no-mention-of-luke-coffey-cia-agent-with-access-all-areas-pass-at-the-mod/
.
Incidentally, the commentator “Komo” on this site has no connection with me. He has C&P’d a quote which I earlier C&P’d here, which is cool.
And another one bites the dust –
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/17/jonathan-djanogly-stripped-power-ambulance-chasers
As for who cares about the Iranian Government for reasons other than oil – well I think many Iranians do, I do and Is suspect most decent human beings do as well. It should also be noted that many Israelis – both ordinary citizens and those in government do as well. And indeed it could be said that given the noxious statements of the Iranian leadership with regards to Jews and the Holocaust that the Israelis have not a little justification in portraying Iran as the bogey man.
As for who is responsible for the most deaths in wars and conflicts in the last 50 years – might I suggest that you go back and look at the statistics – you may find that the 11m deaths which occurred during the Cultural Revolution rather disprove your argument. And in that regard perhaps it is worth noting how almost without fail the current Chinese Government can be seen as standing behind most of the world’s remaining dictatorship and is among the first to argue against any action being taken against the same.
Suhayl – human rights are not a gloss – it is not for no reason that they are at the heart of what the UN is meant to stand for. I have no problem whatsoever in criticising the human rights abuses which occur in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain or anywhere else for that matter.
As for the Liam Fox thing – I’m afraid it really doesn’t tell us anything new about the world – there are those which to see the whole Arab Israeli conflict as a continuation of the Crusades. I for one never doubted their existence within the ranks of the Tory Party or that they will continue to exist. But there is another side to the same grubby coin.
Yes democracies do things in the rest of the world that they should be ashamed of – the one fundamental difference is that the citizens in those democracies can do something about should they wish and their citizens can also stand up for those in the rest of the world whose human rights are being denied. We have the freedom to say a plague on both of your houses without endorsing one or the other.
The other thing that you don’t realise that once you appease the fascists and dictators you are actually weakening your own moral legitimacy to use your democratic rights to stand up and point out where your rulers are often abusing the self same rights
@Komodo “Who the hell is Coffey anyway?”
.
Obviously, he is the CIA-op in this plot. The acronym for Council for Emerging National Security Affairs is CIA, as far as I understand.
.
Seems wherever there are Ziocon interests you always find both Mossad and CIA.
Stephen, on the 11m figure – is that from the Great Chinese Famine? Wikipedia puts various estimates as much higher. I don’t know that history well enough to analyse it unfortunately – so my ability to independently determine how much of figure X was deliberate and how much was due to natural disaster is somewhat limited. Says WP: “In 1960, an estimated 60% of agricultural land received no rain at all”.
.
But, your general point is taken. Let us assume that the 11m figure is correct, and is wholly attributable to the malice of the Chinese government at the time. I would not be the first to refute it – there have been plenty of malicious governments in these last fifty years! But in Iraq, the sanctions cost around 1M lives (half of them children, as acknowledged by Madeline Albright). The second invasion and occupation has cost somewhere between 100K and 1.2M lives, depending on which report one reads. Vietnam, easily 1M. East Timor, 200K. Guatemala, 100K. Indonesia, 500K-1M. Afghanistan in 1979, 1M dead, 3M disabled, 5M displaced.
.
And so it goes on. This is just a sample, and doesn’t include those who were deliberately tortured, raped, shot, dismembered and all the rest of it. As I say, all superpowers throughout history have had their chance at depravity on this scale, and now it is the turn of the US. Is there another nation in these past fifty years that has sown so much international discord and suffering?
.
Still, we can agree to disagree. Perhaps my leftism is idealistic – the basic structures we have (particularly the UN) are okay but they need to democratise. In fact, everything needs to democratise more; as has been discussed on this site many times, if we can inject some real democracy into our national (UK, US) structures, that would build a much better set of international groups whose intent was genuinely human rights, rather than the conflicting mix of justice, propaganda and brutality we carry out now.
@Jon,
=
=
Taking a look at Mediterranean basin map, would clarify the mindset that belies the slow push towards Supremacy/Total Domination or bust attitudes of the psychotics assigned the task of holding the US empire together, and ensuring its longevity. In fact Mediterranean is gradually being transformed to an exclusive lake for the US, and her satellites in Europe. Securing this area from any potential intrusions of Chinese or Russian naval assets, in anticipation of potential confrontation, and military clashes in the area. Furthermore, stationing military assets throughout the lands surrounding Mediterranean basin, in further enforcement of isolation of the basin. These steps are in complement to the control of ingress and egress routes through the natural choke points; Strait of Gibraltar, and the Suez Canal.
=
The project was kick started with destruction of Yugoslavia (Milosevic’s representatives hinted at this in early stages of his trial in Hague), and its dismemberment to the current political geographic arrangements in the Balkans, Furthermore, this has been followed by insertion of National Transitional Councils, into various victim countries, which happen to share the topography of the isolation strategy, as in the case of Libya. That is to be followed, by Algeria (NTC has already been cobbled together), followed by perhaps Syria (NTC has been formed, and introduced in Istanbul), Tunisia sandwiched between the land masses of Libya and Algeria is most likely to escape this fate, however Morocco in all probability will be somewhat pruned to fit the scheme.
=
Support for this line of thinking is found in Qaddafi’s demise. We all knew he was a complaint vassal, yet he has been deposed, and Libya is currently under the occupation of NATO albeit a small force, nonetheless a bridgehead put in place for future rapid deployment scenarios. For domination of the area, there exists a need for contiguous and uninterrupted topography of deployed forces stationed in the area. Therefore, the formulae applied, itself is a variation of Gene Sharp doctrine; “how to start a revolution” as applied in the case of the colour revolutions in the former Warsaw pact countries.
, and then and as well as through insertion into the beaches sounding the basin. This step is complimentary to introduction of the missile defence shield which in theory would secure the survival, after a engaging in a first strike scenario.
=
To this end “National Transitional Councils” have come to play an important part. The various NTC are manned by the West friendly dissidents, whom in turn legitimize the subsequent waves of aggression on the target country. Furthermore these client states mostly armed by the West, find their supplied military equipment ineffective due to the identification friend or foe systems that stops these kit from functioning, in any confrontation with the US, or NATO forces. This is apparent from the lack of any retaliation against the invading NATO and US forces, by any of the air forces of the victim countries, or lack of use of any sophisticated weapons systems, despite heavy investments made by these various countries in such weapon systems. These seem to only use the rudimentary and established low-tech weapon systems, and find their high tech stuff to be very bulky and expensive paper weights
=
However, the above contention is lost in the reportage of the events, and passed as the triumph of integrated battle systems in the fight to invade these victim countries. That is despite the propensity of the high-tech to break down and frequent malfunctions. Yet this is glossed over with great adverts that are aired as news programs, accompanied with glitzy packages aired to convey the overwhelming force application that paralyses the enemy. However, in the words of Vladimir Putin in 2003 we find the truth; “America cannot be defeated at this stage, world needs America” aired during the period which American forces were at a halt during the dust storm in the Iraqi deserts.
=
Without boring you too, much, the plans drawn up by the US generals whom fought the last war, call for domination of the topography, whilst discounting space born (protection umbrella of MDS), and intercontinental missiles , which are developing too. As with the multiple war head weapons, armed with war heads, and decoy heads to confuse the Missile Defence Shield, as well as introduction of intricate trajectories, that will evade the MDS. Not mentioning anything about space born devices, which have come a long way from the days of the cannons stationed in space ( Soviet Almaz Craft, US. MOL).
=
Fact is for US to remain dominant, its supremacy can only be through application of force, and destruction of any potential competitors, without either of which US will surely fail. Therefore, the only course of action for US is to be found in first strike doctrine (nuke them first) and then reliant on Missile Defence Shield, survive any potential retaliation. Furthermore, by dominant control of the resources; raw material, hydrocarbons, etc. US can set the index of growth of any potential competitor, avoiding any potential competition.
=
Therefore before war on Iran US has to cover many bases, because war with Iran is not going to be the cake walk to Baghdad, and or bouncing rubble in Afghanistan. Iran is not a push over, and furthermore is the red line that will invoke Chinese and Russia wrath. Althea their current strategy of easement are in fact is fishing in muddy waters. This can be seen in Russian navy’s anchorage in Syrian ports, and the Chinese Persian Gulf Fleet already formed and ready, only awaiting a nod from Iranians.
=
Hence my incredulity in the face of regurgitation of the usual info bytes fed to public. It is to be found on various discussion boards. It is tiring to see thinking contracted out to various media, without scrutiny of why the information has been made available in the first place, given the fact that any information of any value has always been tagged with “secret, top secret, etc”.
=
Finally, in the face of onslaught of the lunatics bent on destruction of all things, by misinterpretation of the doctrine “Creative Destruction”. The firs target proves to be any means of organisation of the masses; political, religious, tribal, etc. Hence the almost non stop Islam bashing, and the constant torrent of anti Islam propaganda, because the only obstacle to all of the convoluted plans afoot; prove to be organisational capabilities, and cohesion of the target people/masses. With this in mind, we witness the frequently regular, coordinated two minutes hate rituals directed at Iran, which somehow have come to be presented as accepted facts. Fact that Iranians, and others wish to live their lives based on their religious beliefs, is somewhat misconstrued as they are being forced/coerced to live under such circumstances. The plethora of assumptions, assertions, followed by customary denunciations, all traits of primitives lacking intellectual capacities, somehow has come to be accepted as the main stream modes of thought. This is so evident in the material available in public domain, which have no roots in fact, for anyone whom remotely is familiar with Iran, Iranian and their culture. Ever seen a missionary from Iran anywhere on the planet, who is busy civilising the ungodly heathens, and converting the to Islam? Islam does not work on evangelism, it is a way of life, hence the almost phobic response to this un Wall Street system of beliefs, and political constructs.
I ought to have tidied up before pressing submit, alas I am tired, and exhausted, hence apologies for the spelling mistakes and untidy grammar, etc. However, I hope I have clarified my contentions.
I agree with just about everything Fed Up wrote in the long post above. I know that Fed Up will ignore this. I do not agree with this, however:
.
“Fact that Iranians, and others wish to live their lives based on their religious beliefs, is somewhat misconstrued as they are being forced/coerced to live under such circumstances.” Fed Up.
.
I personally know Iranians in Iran (and who recently have left) who are very much being forced to live under such circumstances. These include people who lost family in the various wars and who are against US foreign policy and want Iran to remain independent. Your comment in an earlier post that the blog “discounts people whom want to lead their lives based on their religious beliefs” actually is an illustration of part of the problem. The problem in relation to this specific matter – which in my view has nothing to do with the geopolitics around Iran – that too often such Islamist cadres, whether in the majority or minority, demand maximum tolerance and the right to do whatever they want to do in the name of religion but when they get into positions of power and influence they then deny others the right to do the same and oppress others to the point of death. They have proved this on numerous occasions and in a wide variety of places: Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt…
.
Now, as I said, Iran would be under threat from the USA/NATO even if, politically, it were ‘Switzerland’ or ‘Sweden’. Indeed, possibly even more so, as then, like Nicaragua in the 1980s, it would provide an example to other Muslim countries which would need to be destroyed. The West instrumentalises Human Rights – we all know this. That does not make the consistent abuse of human rights a good thing.
.
Stephen, thanks. Yet your support for military intervention (i.e. war) sees to coincide almost wholly with Western military intervention. So why not simply say, “I support Western military intervention, regardless, in support of Western economic and strategic interests”. Why this need for gloss and redemption? ‘Human rights’ in this context is simply instrumentalised to serve US/NATO goals; a re-run (or rather, the ongoing imperial saga of) Lord Palmerston wrt Europe, C19th. And who, actually, “appeased” (much more than appeased in fact!) the dictators, set up many of the dictators, in Latin America, South Asia, the Middle East, etc.? Uhm, the West. Yes, well.
@suhayl
So why not simply say, “I support Western military intervention, regardless, in support of Western economic and strategic interests”.
Because that is not what I believe as you well know. I do believe, however, that the best way of dealing with facists and other totalitarians is for interenational institutions to come down on them extremely hard and treat them as pariahs at an early stage. Such a course of action will often remove the need for war and protect human rights. If this action is postponed and the totalitarian state then becomes stronger and abuses human rights further then military action is likely to be necessary if it has a practical chance of success. Whether it is Western or otehr military intervention isn’t really the point – the Soviet Union acted against the NAzis in WW2, the Kurds acted against Saddam (without western support for many years), Tanzania acted against Amin.
Suhayl
From your standpoint do you believe that it was coreect for the Allies to wage war against Nazi Germany and its allies? If you do – you must accept that there is some line where military intervention is appropriate to defend human rights even if it also coincides with defending Western strategic and economic interests. You may place the line in a different place from me – but there is still a line.
Yes, I agree, Stephen, there is a line – and it was right that the Allies fought Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but Iran and Iraq were/are not Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Nor did/do either of them have any possibility of becoming like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in terms of power, threat to the world, etc. That parallel, constantly pulled up by proponents of the invasion of Iraq, for example, holds no water whatsoever.
Re. your previous post wrt tolalitarians, Stephen, if that rule were applied even-handedly across the board, then fine. But clearly, it’s not. Quite the opposite, in fact. That was one of my points actually. Everyone can see that the West actively supports Saudi Arabia and Israel (and Pinochet’s Chile, and the Brazilian Fascist junta, and Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, and the death squads in El Salvador, and when it mattered, apartheid South Africa, and on on and so on) and so long as it serves perceived Western interest to not do so, applies zero real pressure for these countries to change their domestic and foreign policies. Yes, there are shifts and rivalries within imperium. But in essence, So then, everyone can see that whatever the West says is couched in such fundamental hypocrisies. This ongoing colonial/neocolonial dynamic (the “forked tongue”, one might say) – as well as much else systemically wrong in many majority Muslim countries – allows the Islamist military/paramilitary cadres, for example, to gain a real constituency.