Wars 4 Status Quo

"The parable of David and Goliath has re-emerged on the world stage. Ironically, the most recent battle cast the Israeli State as the heavy. The “David” of the piece was decentralized “4GW” (4th Generation Warfare) as deployed by an estimated 3,000 Hezbollah fighters.
The outcome of that battle is a serious blow to central governments everywhere. If one of the most effective government militaries in the world can’t protect its people from 3,000 militiamen, what good is it? The inevitable outcome of the ill conceived U.S. Government action in Iraq will almost certainly deliver a second and much more lethal blow to Goliath.

.“The central secret to Hezbollah’s success is that it trained its (global) guerrillas to make decisions autonomously (classic 4GW), at the small group level. In every area — from firing rockets to defending prepared positions to media routing around jamming/disruption — we have examples of Hezbollah teams deciding, adapting, innovating, and collaborating without reference to any central authority. The result of this decentralization is that Hezbollah’s aggregate decision cycles are faster and qualitatively better than those of their Israeli counterparts.” Global Guerrillas, Sunday, July 30, 2006 THE SECRETS OF HEZBOLLAH’S SUCCESS, Organizational Improvements

“Several years ago, a Marine friend went down to Bolivia as part of the U.S. counter-drug effort. He observed that the drug traffickers went through the Boyd cycle, or OODA Loop [decision cycle], six times in the time it took us to go through it once . When I relayed that to Colonel Boyd, he said, ‘Then we’re not even in the game.’” William S. Lind, More on Gangs and Guerrillas vs. the State, April 29, 2005

In fact, this effect — Goliaths being in trouble at the hand of more decentralized structures — isn’t limited to military operations. Lacking mercantalist links to governments in the current age, all economic structures (corporations, etc.) larger than justified by “economies of scale” are vulnerable.

Micro-power (termites of power) is spreading to all areas of human endeavour. Rather than the bi-polar world of the 20th century, we are entering a hyper-polar world — a world with hundreds, thousands of smaller centers of power. Central Banks used to call all the shots, but now there are hundreds of independent hedge-funds that limit central banks, for one example. I don’t know what the ultimate outcome will be and I don’t think anyone does. -Moises Naim, Venezuelan Minister of Industry, Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria, July 25, 2006, 12:21:36

Part 1 , Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

"When, in a very few years, the pundits start to pontificate on the great question: "Who was the Man of the Century?" there is little doubt that they will reach virtually instant consensus. Inevitably, the answer will be: Winston Churchill. Indeed, Professor Harry Jaffa has already informed us that Churchill was not only the Man of the Twentieth Century, but the Man of Many Centuries."

Assim começa este texto de Ralph Raico, um especialista na História do Liberalismo Clássico mas também Libertarian anti-war (não pacifista). Sobre a sua presença da WII:

World War I

In 1911, Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty, and now was truly in his element. Naturally, he quickly allied himself with the war party, and, during the crises that followed, fanned the flames of war. When the final crisis came, in the summer of 1914, Churchill was the only member of the cabinet who backed war from the start, with all of his accustomed energy. Asquith, his own Prime Minister, wrote of him: "Winston very bellicose and demanding immediate mobilization. . . . Winston, who has got all his war paint on, is longing for a sea fight in the early hours of the morning to result in the sinking of the Goeben. The whole thing fills me with sadness."

On the afternoon of July 28, three days before the German invasion of Belgium, he mobilized the British Home Fleet, the greatest assemblage of naval power in the history of the world to that time. As Sidney Fay wrote, Churchill ordered that:

The fleet was to proceed during the night at high speed and without lights through the Straits of Dover from Portland to its fighting base at Scapa Flow. Fearing to bring this order before the Cabinet, lest it should be considered a provocative action likely to damage the chances of peace, Mr. Churchill had only informed Mr. Asquith, who at once gave his approval.

No wonder that, when war with Germany broke out, Churchill, in contrast even to the other chiefs of the war party, was all smiles, filled with a "glowing zest."

From the outset of hostilities, Churchill, as head of the Admiralty, was instrumental in establishing the hunger blockade of Germany. This was probably the most effective weapon employed on either side in the whole conflict. The only problem was that, according to everyone's interpretation of international law except Britain's, it was illegal. The blockade was not "close-in," but depended on scattering mines, and many of the goods deemed contraband for instance, food for civilians had never been so classified before. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions by which men have tried to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. As a German historian has dryly commented, Churchill was ready to break the rules whenever the very existence of his country was at stake, and "for him this was very often the case."

The hunger blockade had certain rather unpleasant consequences. About 750,000 German civilians succumbed to hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition. The effect on those who survived was perhaps just as frightful in its own way. A historian of the blockade concluded: "the victimized youth [of World War I] were to become the most radical adherents of National Socialism." It was also complications arising from the British blockade that eventually provided the pretext for Wilson's decision to go to war in 1917.

// posted by CN @ 9:55 AM 5 comments

Telegraph: Is the United Kingdom heading for fragmentation with the secession of Scotland from the Union, even as it prepares to celebrate its 300th anniversary next year? And if it is, should those who make up the vast bulk of its population - the English - give a damn?

The questions arise following a series of astonishing events, beginning 10 days ago when nearly 1,200 delegates packed the new Concert Hall in Perth - the biggest gathering at a political conference that Scotland has seen in recent memory - to hear Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party, deliver his keynote address to his annual conference. His strident call for the break-up of the United Kingdom was cheered to the echo by his adoring audience.

Nothing new there, but what was surprising was what happened next. Two days later, Sir Tom Farmer, the founder of the Kwik Fit chain of exhaust and tyre depots, told the world that Scottish independence was "inevitable".

"Talibans"..."Inimigos" da democracia...do Ocidente...what´s the problem?

Pronto, já se podem acalmar. Putin não vai fazer o mesmo que Roosevelt, que concorreu por quatro vezes. (Enão três - corrigido após chamada de atenção nos comentários e que agradeço).

Wikipedia:

Third term, 1941-1945

The two-term tradition had been an unwritten rule since George Washington declined to run for a third term in 1796, but Roosevelt, after blocking the presidential ambitions of cabinet members Jim Farley and Cordell Hull, decided to run for a third term. In his campaign against Republican Wendell Willkie, Roosevelt stressed both his proven leadership experience and his intention to do everything possible to keep the United States out of war.

Fourth term and death, 1945

Although Roosevelt was only 62 in 1944, his health had been in decline since at least 1940. The strain of his paralysis and the physical exertion needed to compensate for it for over 20 years had taken their toll, as had many years of stress and a lifetime of chain-smoking. He had been diagnosed with high blood pressure and long-term heart disease and was advised to modify his diet (although not to stop smoking). Aware of the risk that Roosevelt would die during his fourth term, the party regulars insisted that Henry A. Wallace, who was seen as too pro-Soviet, be dropped as Vice President. After considering James F. Byrnes of South Carolina and being turned down by Indiana Governor Henry F. Schricker, Roosevelt replaced Wallace with the little known Senator Harry S. Truman. In the 1944 election, Roosevelt and Truman won 53% of the vote and carried 36 states, against New York Governor Thomas Dewey.

Rui Ramos no Público.

"(...) Há lições a retirar destas histórias do pós-estalinismo e da descolonização? Talvez. Por exemplo, que qualquer relação baseada num desnível de poder, mesmo que para suposto benefício do tutelado, pode tornar-se problemática para ideologias que assentam na ideia de libertação igualitária da humanidade. Há assim inevitavelmente um momento em que ainda se desejam os fins, mas já não os meios: é o princípio do fim. Mas a questão mais interessante destes cinquentenários é outra: se a história do comunismo e da influência ocidental ficaram escritas há 50 anos, porque é que ninguém aprendeu nada? Depois de Budapeste, houve Praga. Depois do Suez, o Vietname. O comunismo europeu caiu em 1989, mas subitamente, sem que ninguém o tivesse previsto, e depois de passados 33 anos. O passado pode dar-nos lições, mas não nos dá certezas. Daí que o fim, mesmo das coisas condenadas, demore muito tempo. Por vezes, o tempo suficiente para se parecer com a eternidade."

CNBC: Spy Jonathan Pollard caught on tape- Surveillance video from 1985 shows American stealing secrets for Israel

WASHINGTON - What you see here is rarely caught on tape — a spy in action.
"This is Pollard actually in the act of stealing highly classified information," says formal Naval investigator Ron Olive. "1500 top secret documents in a matter of seconds."
Olive helped catch Jonathan Pollard and has written a book about the Navy intelligence analyst who spied for Israel.

Over 18 months, he stole an estimated 1 million documents, including sensitive intelligence about the Soviet Union and the Middle East, potentially compromising sources and methods.
"It devastated the national security of this country," says Olive.

Though Pollard confessed to the crime, leaders of Israel and Pollard's supporters in the U.S. have vigorously lobbied to get him released from prison or pardoned, arguing that he was, after all, spying for a friend of the U.S., not a sworn enemy.

Pollard was sentenced to life in prison and has served 20 years.

"He has served longer than any American in history for spying for an ally, and every day he spends in prison now is a day of injustice," says Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz.
But prosecutors and those familiar with the still-classified details of what Pollard gave the Israelis for $54,000 in cash and gifts say that a pardon is unthinkable.

"It was the closest guarded secrets that this country had," says Olive.

The Israeli government says it will continue to work for Pollard's release on humanitarian grounds.

Wikipedia: In 1951, an eccentric pro-democratic nationalist, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected its first Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh alarmed the West by his nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later renamed BP), which controlled all of the country's oil reserves. Britain immediately put an embargo on Iran. Members of the British Intelligence Service approached the United States under President Eisenhower in 1953 to join them in Operation Ajax, a military Junta to overthrow Iran’s democracy. President Eisenhower agreed, and authorized the CIA to take the lead in the operation of overthrowing Mossadegh and reinstalling a US friendly monarch. The CIA faced many setbacks, but eventually succeeded and the end of Iranian democracy became an early notch in the young organization’s belt.

FOTO - Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh founder of Iran's first democratic government, overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953

Regardless of this setback, the covert operation soon went into full swing, conducted from US Embassy in Tehran under the leadership of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.. Agents were hired to facilitate violence; and, as a result, protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. The operation was successful in triggering a coup, and within days, pro-Shah tanks stormed the capital and bombarded the Prime Minister's residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on 19 August 1953. He was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison.

We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us.

Clyde Wilson [professor of history at the Universityof South Carolina, editor ofThe Papers of John C.Calhoun, author of CarolinaCavalier, and a contributingeditor for Chronicles):

The likenesses between Neocons and Nazis: the same worship of force and equation of force with morality; the same disdain for other people’s ideas and interests and presumption of special and superior vision; the same contempt for law, tradition, and the opinion of the civilized world; the same forced redefinition of history according to a European ideology; the same racialist disdain for the inferior breeds—in this case Muslims; the same manipulation of the public with exaggerated and misplaced fears; the same reliance on propaganda slogans and disregard of truth; the same preference for the Leader over democratic process; the same boastful launching of illegal wars of aggression; the same blundering in military action and occupation.

On the other hand, the Neocons have a point when they claim the mantle of Lincoln. Such is the hold of Lincoln’s fraudulent sainthood on the American consciousness that many people, especially liberals, are deeply offended at having Bush likened to Lincoln. Granted: Unlike the Bush boy, Lincoln was intelligent, literate, professionally successful, and a shrewd politician who manipulated others rather than being manipulated by them. But their presidencies do bear a strong family resemblance: launching of an unnecessary war of aggression, a war largely fueled by greed, government-worship, and the blasphemous equation of God and America; repeated miscalculations in the conduct of the war; disregard for the lives and property of civilians; evasion and misrepresentation of constitutional limitations and abuse of civil liberties; a giant step toward transforming the republican United States into an empire.

Allowing that the 19th century had not perfected the instruments of totalitarianism that we now enjoy, perhaps we should admit that Junior Bush is merely fulfilling an American tradition.

William S. Lind interjects the idea of fourth-generation warfare, arguing that Iraq War and the fight against al-Qaeda are radically different from most of America's conflicts.

"Fourth Generation war is the greatest change since the Peace of Westphalia, because it marks the end of the state’s monopoly on war. Once again, as before 1648, many different entities, not states, are fighting war. They use many different means, including "terrorism" and immigration, not just formal armies. Differences between cultures, not just states, become paramount, and other cultures will not fight the way we fight. All over the world, state militaries are fighting non-state opponents, and almost always, the state is losing. State militaries were designed to fight other state militaries like themselves, and against non-state enemies most of their equipment, tactics and training are useless or counterproductive.[133]"

Thus Lind claims that the U.S. is bogged down fighting al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents because it planned these fights using an outdated worldview. Washington military planners did not fully understand that these new enemies fight without clear ties to existing nation-states.[191][192] A big part of this problem is because American military and industrial still operate as if they are preparing to fight conflicts like the two World Wars.[134] Lind warns that this century may see weak forces defeat the strong.[135]

A quem ainda vão prestar homenagem po serem capazes de ser uma voz minoritária, até ostracizada pelo mainstream, mas que nunca perdeu o norte.

Wikipedia:

Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is an anti-authoritarian[1] right wing movement based primarily in the United States that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity.[2] Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture -- an identity that is both collective and personal.”[14] It is not an ideology and has no party line.[15]

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often focus on their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially on issues like immigration, affirmative action, foreign wars, and welfare.[3] They also criticize social democracy, which some refer to as the therapeutic managerial state[16], the welfare-warfare state[17] or polite totalitarianism.[18] They see themselves as the legitimate heir to the American conservative tradition.[4]

Paul Gottfried is credited with coining the term in the late 20th century.[5] He says the word originally referred to various Americans, such as traditionalist Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anticommunism during the Cold War.[6] It then began referring to the conservative opposition to neoconservatism. The movement itself began in 1986.[19]

Paleoconservatism incubated in the pages of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.[20]. Patrick J. Buchanan was heavily influenced by its articles[7] and helped create another paleocon organ, The American Conservative.[21] Its concerns overlap those of the Old Right that opposed the U.S. New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s,[8] as well as the American social conservatism of the late 20th Century.[9]

Uma guerra instigada por magnatas da imprensa, apelando ao patriotismo e libertação de Cuba do jugo da Coroa Espanhola. Acabaram a anexar as Filipinas e a combater implacávelmente os insurgentes durante 2 anos.

Exclusive: Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Relationship with AIPAC: The Department of Justice is investigating whether Rep. Jane Harman and the pro-Israel group worked together to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee

As We Go Marching · John T. Flynn

Um dos muitos erros irreparáveis de "Bush", e que acontece também na sequência dos erros de "Clinton" em forçar o intervencionismo da NATO na Sérvia e arredores, foi envolver a NATO em operações de ocupação e sustentação de regimes.

Sabemos com acabam esses ímpetos humanitários e libertadores: os soldados ficam sobre fogo cruzado por todas as partes. No ínicio, os "insurgentes" são fáceis de distinguir do resto da população, depois com o tempo já não só "Talibans" que se envolvem, as baixas laterais aumentam, os laços familiares e tribais fazem com que por nenhuma ou todas as razões, a oposição à ocupação alargue, no meio de contradições e complexidades impossíveis de discernir. Na fase final, as baixas começam a acelerar e o colapso do argumento moral entre em decadência.

O distanciamento e negação da realidade começa a operar e depois começa adisfuncionalidade completa da razão e moral. Vasco Rato diz que o perigo está no Afeganistão (mas que perigo os Talibans vão invadir o Ocidente? Ou a NATO foi criada para defender os direitos das muilheres no deserto tribal?) e isso justifica tudo.

NATO Operations Kill 22 Civilians in Afghanistan

George Winston Bush? Invocations of Munich and a parade of new Hitlers won’t be enough to convince Americans that this is a good war, by Leon Hadar, The American Conservative

"(...) Nor does the term “War on Islamo-Fascism” make much historical sense in the context of the war of terrorism and U.S. policy in the Middle East.

First, the term seems to jumble together secular nationalist regimes and movements, like the Ba’ath in Iraq and Syria, with religious fundamentalist governments and groups—the radical anti-American (Sunni) al-Qaeda and the Lebanese-based (Shi’ite) Hezbollah; the fundamentalist Sunni Wahabbi movement that is headquartered in pro-American Saudi Arabia and the Shi’ite clerics that rule in Tehran; the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood movement (including Hamas in Palestine) and the Shi’ite clerics in power in (pro-American?) Baghdad.

The Islamo-Fascism label seems to be applied to movements and governments that have nothing in common with each other—much less European fascism.

Unlike al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Hezbollah, the fascist movements in Europe in the 1930s were rooted in modern and secular Western ideologies, and their economic nationalist agendas had won many followers in the democratic nations, including the U.S., then beset by the Great Depression.

While fascism had strong atavistic roots, not all the political parties associated with it were anti-Semitic. Italy’s Fascist intellectual and political leadership included quite a few Jews, and Mussolini didn’t adopt anti-Jewish policies until he decided to form a military alliance with Hitler when he was under pressure from the Nazi leader.

Moreover, Western leaders, including Churchill, regarded Mussolini for a long time as a potential ally against Nazi Germany. Here is what Churchill said about Il Duce in 1938: “It would be a dangerous folly for the British people to underrate the enduring position in world history which Mussolini will hold; or the amazing qualities of courage, comprehension, self-control, and perseverance which he exemplifies.”

In fact, Churchill and his other World War II allies maintained close links to the pro-Fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal and succeeded in persuading them not to enter the war on the side of Hitler. (Spain and Portugal also helped save thousands of European Jewish refugees fleeing the advancing German armies; the two governments also joined the pro-American NATO alliance after the war.)

Americans may also forget that the pro-Hitler collaborationist Vichy regime was acknowledged as the official government of France by the United States and other countries, including Canada, even when they were at war with Germany. And can anyone imagine a contemporary Western musician idolizing our latest “Islamo-Fascist” enemy, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the way Cole Porter lyrics, adapted by P.G. Wodehouse for the 1935 London production of “Anything Goes,” did: “You’re the top! You’re the Great Houdini! You’re the top! You are Mussolini!”

But then we shouldn’t forget that Saddam Hussein, the ex-president of Iraq and the leader of its Ba’ath Party—whose political platform mishmashes Arab nationalist, Communist, and Fascist ideological orientations—was for most of the 1980s a strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East. Hence Ronald Reagan ended up providing the man who would become Hitler with economic and military assistance to help him fight Iran’s mullahs and in the process encouraged Saddam to launch what would become the bloodiest war in the modern history of the Middle East. And guess who was dispatched then by Washington to make those deals with Saddam? A hint: it’s a current U.S. defense secretary who has been comparing critics to those who appeased Hitler.

If the Bushies insist on continuing to mention the war, we can urge them to imagine the following scenario that includes all the historical analogies that neoconservative ideologues like to apply—World War II, Hitler, appeasement. As American and Allied forces invade Nazi Germany in 1945, Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and several SS troops flee to Fascist Spain, where they hide in the Pyrenees Mountains and mount guerrilla attacks against the free French government. The American response? To ask Generalissimo Francisco Franco if he would be kind enough to send some of his forces to catch those Nazis. Does this sort of alternate history remind you of a certain U.S. administration that allowed Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda associates to flee to Pakistan, where they are now hiding as Washington continues to plead with the military dictator who rules Pakistan to try to capture the evil ones who were actually responsible for the 9/11 terror acts? Where is your umbrella, George Chamberlain?"

E se não o matarem a tempo, será demasiado arriscado por a hipótese de poder voltar a liderar se não o Iraque, uma partição Sunita? Alguém vê outra melhor hipótese de combater a influência Iraniana e acabar com o terrorismo do tipo da AlQaeda? Poderá ser outro caso de "sindroma" Kaddafi?

AMMAN (Reuters) - In an open letter,

Saddam Hussein' told Iraqis "victory was at hand" and urged insurgents to show magnanimity to opponents, saying he himself forgave Iraqis who aided the killers of his two sons.

Saddam urged his Sunni minority community, the backbone of the insurgency, to even forgive Iraqi informants who helped U.S. troops track down and kill his two sons, Uday and Qusay, in a gunbattle at a house in Mosul in 2003.

"When you achieve victory and it is close.. remember you are God's soldiers which means you should show genuine forgiveness and put aside revenge over the spilled blood of the sons of Saddam Hussein," Saddam wrote.

"I call on you to apply justice in your Jihad (holy war) and not be drawn to recklessness and urge you to be forgiving rather than tough with those who have lost the path," he added.

The former leader said he resorted to an open letter for the first time since his trial began in October 2005 on charges of crimes against humanity to give his message without censorship.

But Saddam warned his supporters excessive force against opponents who failed to support the insurgency would only lose the anti-U.S. resistance widespread popular support.

"There should be no settling of scores...and you should not attack for the sake of attacking when an opportunity arises while you are carrying a gun."

[Começando pelo fim e algo que é bom lembrar]: João Paulo II opôs-se, com todos os meios ao seu alcance, à invasão do Iraque. Para ele, como já tinha escrito numa mensagem em 1980, "a verdade e a força da paz". A mentira e a força da guerra.

(...) Sabia-se que havia tensões entre a Administração Bush e as agências de espionagem. Agora, parece que explodiram. Bush teima em repetir que os EUA estão a ganhar a guerra contra o terrorismo. No entanto, 16 organismos de espionagem concluíram que a guerra no Iraque, longe de fazer recuar o terrorismo, serviu para o exacerbar e propagar. O radicalismo islâmico difundiu-se por toda a parte. Para Bruce Hoffman, catedrático de estudos de segurança da Universidade Georgetown, a conclusão geral que brota dos documentos é esta: "Não dispomos de balas suficientes para todos os inimigos que criámos."(...)

2. Ian Buruma, professor de Democracia, Direitos Humanos e Jornalismo, no comentário a um livro recente - The Greatest Story ever Sold (A Maior História Alguma Vez Vendida) - de Frank Rich, toca directamente nessa questão. A realidade já não interessa para a forma como o mundo funciona hoje. O império cria a sua própria realidade. E o mais inquietante, insiste Buruma, é que esta arrogância vai no mesmo sentido de muitos outros fenómenos: "A destruição pós-moderna da verdade objectiva, os bloguistas e os fala-baratos das talk radios (rádios de opinião), que apontam o caminho aos meios de comunicação, as empresas jornalistas compradas por grupos de entretenimento, os meios cada vez mais numerosos e aperfeiçoados de manipulação da realidade" (I).O tema da obra de Frank Rich é, precisamente, sobre a criação de uma realidade falsificada. Não é, em primeiro lugar, uma obra de análise política ou geopolítica. Não se detém sobre os argumentos a favor ou contra a deposição de Saddam Hussein, sobre as consequências da intervenção militar dos EUA no Médio Oriente, nem sobre a ameaça do extremismo islamita. Mas sabe que George W. Bush e o seu conselheiro político jogaram com os medos e o patriotismo para ganhar as eleições. O vice-presidente, Dick Cheney, e os seus apoiantes neoconservadores eram partidários de uma guerra no Iraque muito antes dos atentados de 11 de Setembro de 2001, a fim de mudar o xadrez do Médio Oriente. Se acreditavam numa redistribuição das cartas nessa zona, para lutar contra o terrorismo, enganaram-se redondamente.(...)

No final de 2001, Dick Cheney assegurou que a ligação entre o Iraque e Mohamed Atta, um dos terroristas do 11 de Setembro, era absolutamente verídica. No Verão de 2002, declarou que Saddam Hussein persistia em querer dotar-se de armas nucleares e não havia qualquer dúvida de que possuía armas de destruição maciça. Referiu-se, ainda, a tubos de alumínio que Saddam Hussein tencionava utilizar, para enriquecer urânio, a fim de fabricar uma arma nuclear. Os iraquianos, disse ele, tinham obtido esse urânio no Níger. Em Outubro de 2002, o Presidente Bush declarou: "Perante a escalada do perigo, não podemos permitir- nos esperar pela prova definitiva, que poderá apresentar-se sob a forma de um cogumelo atómico.

"Hoje, sabemos que não havia nada de verdade nessas afirmações. Serviram, no entanto, para justificar a entrada na guerra.Segundo Rich, os jornais mais sérios publicaram as afirmações da Casa Branca na primeira página, relegando as interrogações para a última. Não faltará quem diga que mexer nessa pouca-vergonha serve, apenas, para desprestigiar os jornais mais reputados, mais sérios, do mundo anglófono e, finalmente, para oferecer munições aos inimigos dos EUA e fortalecer o antiamericanismo.É precisamente o contrário. É urgente obrigar os meios de comunicação e, em particular, os jornais de grande prestígio a verem-se ao espelho das mentiras que são capazes de difundir e apoiar.(...)"

Alguém vai dar crédito a todos liberais/libertarians e mesmo à direita ("unpatriotic conservatives") que combateram a racionalidade e a ética antes, durante e depois do "Iraque"? E que nem sequer se vergaram ao discurso de Collin Powell na ONU?

Não. David Frum, VDH, Kristoll e o resto da pandilha de "humanitarians with guided bombs" vão continuar a descobrir perigos escondidos por todo o planeta (a ameça islâmica como antes era a conspiração judaica, ou como escreveram sobre a China-perigo-amarelo mais-vale-atacar-agora-do-que-mais-tarde ou outra qualquer), até que o "Império do Bem" pela terceira vez consiga lançar mais uma bomba nuclear.

"They love the bomb" de tal forma que só eles a querem ter. É aquela coisa do anel de Tolkien. "Frodo failed. Bush has the Ring"

Blair devastated as Army chief savages his approach to Iraq

"The authority of Tony Blair was left battered last night as he attempted to play down a rift with the head of the British Army over his unprecedented warning that the presence of foreign troops was "exacerbating" the security situation in Iraq

The devastating assessment by General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, infuriated ministers and caused alarm in Washington.

British soldiers respond to Army chief: 'At last, someone told the truth'

I'm overjoyed that someone in a senior position has finally had the moral fortitude to forget the spin, forget the politics and just stand up and speak the truth - Danvnuk

Right, when B'liar is put up against the wall, can I shoot him?????? - The matelot

After years and years, AT LAST someone at the top has had the b@lls to stand up and be counted. If he gets the sack, watch out for fireworks - Brandt

At last, someone who had integrity and genuine concern for his men and his country - Hansvonhealing

Fazem parte de uma vasta conspiração para fazer acreditar que o Estado tem uma vasta capacidade de planear e executar grandes planos de acção, e de ainda por cima correrem bem.

Ainda assim, parece-me que "Bush" ou alguém devia explicar isto (um ano antes do início da guerra).

Alguns defendem a tese que é um caso em que "Bush" (uma simplificação para caracterizar a estratégia da política externa dos EUA pós 11/9) não pode ser culpado.

Também se ironiza sobre possível crítica à recusa em os EUA seguirem conversações bilaterais com a Coreia do Norte em vez de multilaterais, porque contradiz os críticos dos EUA que o acusam de unilateral.

Como por vez acontece (e cada vez com mais frequência), um excesso de querer dizer o contrário da esquerda (eu diria também de muitos liberais/libertarians e uns quantos conservadores não-intervencionistas e quem sabe ainda uns tantos realistas), não é garantia de acertar.

O Coreia é um problema americano que lá resolveu intervir para salvar os Coreanos de si mesmo (e resultado da destruição total do Japão na WWII e vitória total de Estaline ter deixado a Ásia, para além de metade da Europa, refém do comunismo, quer militarmente quer porque as próprias populações/intelectuais o abraçavam - não tinha sido Estaline aliado e o principal responsável pela ofensiva? E o vencedor?) e estacionar por lá 30 000 homens. Representou o primeiro acto de Guerra sem Declaração de Guerra pelo Congresso Americano como manda a Constituição.

Antes do 11/9 os sinais de normalização abundavam. Lembro-me bem que a Coreia do Norte tinha até anunciado a criação de uma zona especial liberalizada à semelhança do que a China já tinha começado a fazer. Os sinais abundavam.

E parece evidente que é um caso de necessidade de negociação bilateral para normalização de relações diplomáticas e não multi-lateral.

Bom, mas depois...foi o "axis-of-evil" do nosso neo-con-canadiano-David-Frum e um completo histerismo sobre a possibilidade de proliferação e difusão de Estados para bandos armados de tecnologia nuclear.

Qual tem sido na prática os resultados: A Coreia escala, o Irã escala. Os EUA numa posição de inferioridade militar (Iraque) e de fraqueza porque óbviamente os custos de uma intervenção nos dois casos implica um preço bem alto a pagar.

Como já disse, o perigo é despoletar um ponto de não retorno, como muitos nas histórias das guerras, sabendo-se do que se pode esperar de inesperado de um animal ferido e cercado.


Kim Dae-jung Blames US for Nuke Crisis

Former President Kim Dae-jung said yesterday that North Korea’s proclaimed nuclear test on Monday proved the failure of the hostile policy of the United States, not the engagement policy of South Korea.

He called for bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang to resolve the nuclear crisis.(...)

Urging the Kim Jong-il regime to stop provocative acts, Kim also launched a strong criticism against the Bush administrati

on, which has been stepping up pressure on the isolated country under a hard-line policy.
He argued that Pyongyang’s nuclear test, along with other actions in the past several years such as the withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the annulment of the 1994 Geneva Accord, proved the failure of the U.S.’ North Korea policies.

``Former President Bill Clinton had almost normalized the North Korea-U.S. relations by accepting the North’s demand for bilateral talks,’’ he told the audience. ``But President Bush neglected the call and brought about today’s failure.’’"

"(...) The theoretical analogue of such a concert against "aggression" is held to be combating criminal action against individuals. A robs or murders B; the local police, appointed defenders of the right of person and property, leap to the defense of B and act to apprehend and punish A. In the same way, "peace-loving" nations are supposed to band together against "aggressor" nations or states. Hence, Harry Truman's otherwise mystifying insistence that the U.S. war against North Korea was not a war at all but a "police action."

The deep flaw in all this is that when A robs or murders B, there is a general agreement that A is in the wrong, and that he has indeed aggressed against the person and just property rights of B.

But when State A aggresses against the border of State B, often claiming that the border is unjust and the result of a previous aggression against country A decades before, how can we say a priori that State A is the aggressor and that we must dismiss its defense out of hand? Who says, and on what principle, that State B has the same moral right to all of its existing territory as individual B has to his life and property?

And how can the two aggressions be equated when our global democrats refuse to come up with any principles or criteria whatsoever: except the unsatisfactory and absurd call for a world State or blind reliance upon the boundary status quo at any given moment?

What, then, is the answer? What national boundaries can be considered as just?

In the first place, it must be recognized that there are no just national boundaries per se; that real justice can only be founded on the property rights of individuals. If fifty people decided voluntarily to set up an organization for common services or self-defense of their persons and properties in a certain geographical area, then the boundaries of that association, based on the just property rights of the members, will also be just.

National boundaries are only just insofar as they are based on voluntary consent and the property rights of their members or citizens. Just national boundaries are, then, at best derivative and not primary.

How much more is this true of existing State boundaries which are, in greater or lesser degree, based on coercive expropriation of private property, or on a mixture of that with voluntary consent! (...)

But wasn't the Wilsonian attempt to impose national self-determination and draw the map of Europe a disaster? And how! But the disaster was inevitable even assuming (incorrectly) good will on the part of Wilson and the Allies and ignoring the fact that national self-determination was a mask for their imperial ambitions.

For by its nature, national self-determination cannot be imposed from without, by a foreign government entity, be it the United States or some world League.The whole point of national self-determination is to get top-down coercive power out of the picture and, for the use of force to devolve from the larger entity to more genuine natural and voluntary national entities.

In short, to devolve power from the top downward. Imposing national self-determination from the outside makes matters worse and more coercive than ever. Moreover, getting the U.S. or other governments involved in every ethnic conflict throughout the globe maximizes, rather than minimizes, coercion, conflict, war, and mass murder.

It drags the United States, as the great isolationist scholar Charles A. Beard once put it, into "perpetual war for perpetual peace."

Referring back to political theory, since the nation-state has a monopoly of force in its territorial area, the one thing it must not do is ever try to exercise its force beyond its area, where it has no monopoly, because then a relatively peaceful "international anarchy" (where each State confines its power to its own geographical boundary) is replaced by an international Hobbesian chaos of war of all (governments) against all.

In short, given the existence of nation-states, they should (a) never exercise their power beyond their territorial area (a foreign policy of "isolationism"), and (b) maintain the right of secession of groups or entities within their territorial area.The right of secession, if fearlessly upheld, implies also the right of one or more villages to secede even from its own ethnic nation, or, even, as Ludwig von Mises affirmed in his Nation, State, and Economy, the right of secession by each individual.

If one deep flaw in the Wilsonian enterprise was its imposition of national self-determination from the outside, another was his total botch of redrawing the European map. It is difficult to believe that they could have done a worse job if the Versailles rulers had blindfolded themselves and put pins arbitrarily in a map of Europe to create new nations." Murray N. Rothbard

Parece querer lançar a confusão nos liberais tipo os-neo-cons-nem-são maus-rapazes-eu-se-pudesse-também-era um-não-que-não-me esforce-e-saddam-nao-tinha-armas-mas-queria-ter-por-isso-lançar-o-caos-esta-perfeitamente-desculpado-nao-estao-a-ver-como-o-irao-e-coreia-se-acagaçaram-logo?

Neocons Call for Action Against North Korea

* Os misseis falham as rotas
* O ensaio nuclear parece ter sido pouco nuclear
* Os Chineses e Japoneses já estão por lá para se preocuparem com o assunto
* O regime saberá que mesmo com a possbilidade de infligir grandes danos em situação de guerra, dificilmente aguentará o pós-guerra

O verdadeiro perigo é criar o incentivo a acção irracionais mesmo do ponto de vista do interesse do regime. A escalada de sanções, colocando os custos sobre a população o que em última análise acaba a sustentar o regime, pode criar condições para que um animal ferido e cercado num canto, tome a iniciativ de atacar.

N. Korea Threatens Nuke Attack Over Sanctions

O único perigo no assunto da Coreira do Norte é não perceber que se trata de um regime paranóico que pode tornar-se pouco racional. A ameaça de escalada não tem eficácia. Só alimenta a paranóia.

Dizer que "Bush" tem razão (ou seja, não negociar, impor sanções, etc) tem tanta validade como dizer que não a tem dado os resultados obtidos.

Chris Hedges:"... Those who do not take this apocalyptic rhetoric seriously have ignored the twisted pathology of men like Elliott Abrams, who helped orchestrate the disastrous and illegal contra war in Nicaragua, and who now handles the Middle East for the National Security Council. He knew nothing about Central America. He knows nothing about the Middle East. He sees the world through the childish, binary lens of good and evil, us and them, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. And it is this strange, twilight mentality that now grips most of the civilian planners who are barreling us towards a crisis of epic proportions.

These men advocate a doctrine of permanent war, a doctrine which, as William R. Polk points out, is a slight corruption of Leon Trotsky’s doctrine of permanent revolution. These two revolutionary doctrines serve the same function, to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to silence domestic critics who challenge leaders in a time of national crisis. It works. The citizens of the United States, slowly being stripped of their civil liberties, are being herded sheep-like, once again, over a cliff.

But this war will be different. It will be catastrophic. It will usher in the apocalyptic nightmares spun out in the dark, fantastic visions of the Christian right.(..)

“As a people we are enormously forgetful,” Dr. Polk, one of the country’s leading scholars on the Middle East, told an Oct. 13 gathering of the Foreign Policy Association in New York. “We should have learned from history that foreign powers can’t win guerrilla wars. The British learned this from our ancestors in the American Revolution and re-learned it in Ireland. Napoleon learned it in Spain. The Germans learned it in Yugoslavia. We should have learned it in Vietnam and the Russians learned it in Afghanistan and are learning it all over again in Chechnya and we are learning it, of course, in Iraq. Guerrilla wars are almost unwinnable. As a people we are also very vain. Our way of life is the only way. We should have learned that the rich and powerful can’t always succeed against the poor and less powerful.”

Posted in Peace, Cognition, Communication :

In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers.

The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer’s finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. And so on.

The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other’s fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied.

Volunteers typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods.

Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating.

Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.

“He who cast the first stone probably didn’t,” by Daniel Gilbert

A nova arma dos (novos)? conservadores e simbolo da superioridade das democracias-liberais.

Danes warned of new cartoon: DENMARK'S Foreign Ministry warned Danish citizens against travelling to several Muslim countries and Israel today after the latest Prophet Mohammad cartoon controversy. The warning comes after Danish state TV aired amateur video footage showing members of the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party (DPP) youth wing taking part in a competition to draw images mocking the Prophet at a summer camp in August.

Olmert to Christians: "Jerusalem will not be divided In a recorded address delivered to a gathering of 5,000 Christian believers who arrived in Israel for the Sukkot holiday in conjunction with the International Christian Embassy, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stressed the importance of keeping the city of Jerusalem unified as the capital of the Jewish People.

In his address, which was received with cheers by the exuberant crowd, Olmert referred to Jerusalem as “the City of God” which God has chosen to be the capital of the Jewish People. “She will remain the capital of the Jewish People forever. There is no power in the world that could change that. We are completely committed to the promise of keeping Jerusalem unified and undivided for eternity as the capital of the Jewish People,” Olmert said in his address. "

Facto1: Anexação de Jerusalem
Facto2: Explicação - a minha religião é melhor do que a tua

Anexar o centro, entre outras coisas, do cristianismo, e evocar o Deus do antigo testamento, seria motivo de acusações de extrema-direita, nacionalismo e fundamentalismo, noutro caso qualquer. Mas não aqui. Como se as cruzadas, tendo sido feitas contra árabes nunca o iriam ser feitas contra judeus se fosse caso disso. Quanto a muitos cristãos (e os ateus-cristãos), tudo perfeitamente normal. Mais vale uma religião de vê Jesus como uma fraude do que outra que lê como um profeta. O legado judaico-cristão parece um pouco desiquilibrado e tendo em conta a emergência da Àsia como a provável civilização do próximo milénio mais valia insistir no legado monoteista judaico-cristão-muçulmano.

NEW YORK -- Two major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University historian from speaking at the Polish consulate here last week, saying the academic was too critical of Israel and American Jewry.

The historian, Tony Judt, is Jewish and directs New York University's Remarque Institute, which promotes the study of Europe. Judt was scheduled to talk Oct. 4 to a nonprofit organization that rents space from the consulate. Judt's subject was the Israel lobby in the United States, and he planned to argue that this lobby has often stifled honest debate.
An hour before Judt was to arrive, the Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk canceled the talk. He said the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee had called and he quickly concluded Judt was too controversial.

"The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure," Kasprzyk said. "That's obvious -- we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that."

Judt, who was born and raised in England and lost much of his family in the Holocaust, took strong exception to the cancellation of his speech. He noted that he was forced to cancel another speech later this month at Manhattan College in the Bronx after a different Jewish group had complained. Other prominent academics have described encountering such problems, in some cases more severe, stretching over the past three decades. (...)

Judt has crossed rhetorical swords with the Jewish organizations on two key issues. Over the past few years he has written essays in the New York Review of Books, the London Review of Books and in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz arguing that power in Israel has shifted to religious fundamentalists and territorial zealots, that woven into Zionism is a view of the Arab as the irreconcilable enemy, and that Israel might not survive as a communal Jewish state.

The solution, he argues, lies in a slow and tortuous walk toward a binational and secular state.
He has, of late, defended an academic paper -- co-authored by professor Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and John J. Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago -- which argues the American Israel lobby has pushed policies that are not in the United States' best interests and in fact often encourage Israel to engage in self-destructive behavior.(..)"

Com tanta condenação de um ensaio nuclear ainda mal conhecido, ainda vão conseguir que a China "intervenha" invocando "legítima defesa" e em nome da "paz".

FPBlog: The newest Atlantic has a piece by Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack that takes a look at where the estimated 1.2 million refugees from the Iraq war have headed and what the large-scale exodus could portend for the region. If history is any indication, the ramifications could prove catastrophic. Byman and Pollack remind us of the continuing tremors caused by the displacement of Palestinian refugees and caution that the current Iraqi refugee crisis could prove even more destabalizing. They write:

Refugees...can...corrode state power from the inside, fomenting radicalization of domestic populations and encouraging rebellion against host governments. The burden of caring for hundreds of thousands of refugees is heavy, straining government administrative capacity and possibly eroding public support for regimes shown to be weak, unresponsive, or callous. And the sudden presence of armed fighters with revolutionary aspirations can lead disaffected local clans or co-religionists to ally with the refugees against their own governments, especially when an influx of one ethnic or religious group upsets a delicate demographic balance, as would likely be case in some of Iraq's neighbors.

With over 700,000 Iraqis in Jordan (a country of 6 million), 450,000 in Syria, significant numbers in Lebanon, Iran, and Kuwait, and no sign of a drop off in sectarian violence in Iraq, the real instability may lay ahead.

Por outro: WASHINGTON (AFP) - An immediate pullout of US troops would unleash an civil war that could engulf the entire Middle East, former senior US statesman James Baker warned. "I think that if we picked up and left right now that you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen," Baker told ABC television on Sunday.

Mas é o mesmo em todos os cenários internacionais...you name it... Onde que que apareçam, são impedidos de sair senão é a Guerra Civil.

Mas não foram os EUA a ter uma "Guerra Civil"- por sinal a mais mortífora de que existe memória (600 000 mortos, equivalente a 4 M com a população de hoje) ? Não deveria ter o Império Britânico interferido "humanitáriamente"?

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the lead Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee: “The world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq."

Também não teria sido má ideia no Afeganistão terem usado operações especiais para aniquilar Bin Laden. É mais fácil vigiar um regime no poder - Taliban ou outro - do que provávelmente estar a contribuir para algo inesperado se passe algures entre o Afeganistão e o Paquistão, devido ao alargamento e endurecimento de uma operação que vai acabar a combater todas as tribos - o que parece ser destino dos salvadores internacionais em todos os lados.

Um dos problemas dos neo-conservadores é conseguirem reduzir a zero qualquer tipo de reflexão por parte de todos, isto é, mesmo os não neo-conservadores. No Afeganistão é tudo Taliban, isto é, quem morre, é Taliban por definição. Está resolvido o problema moral. A missão da NATO é matar tantos quantos puder. Quem morrer, é porque é Taliban. Por mim, a NATO deixou de ter qualquer validade (cruzes credo, como se pode sobreviver sem a NATO? como pode a Suiça sobreviver?). Juntando o caso Sérvia com o Afeganistão e a estratégia de rodear a Rússia, a NATO passou a ser um passivo-agressivo compulsivo, mais uma vitória neo-conservadora. Por mim, que tenho uma costela conservadora, prefiro reter apenas a nossa aliança com o Reino Unido [os americanos não sabem onde fica Portugal], a ser evocada apenas no limite dos interesses. Deixem os outros salvar o mundo. Provávelmente vão acabar a destrui-lo.

Bombing Pakistan Back to the Stone Age by Eric Margolis "...Tribal politics lie at the heart of their dispute. The 30 million Pashtuns (or Pathans), the world’s largest tribal society, are divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan by an artificial border, the Durand Line, drawn by divide-and-conquer British imperialists.

Pashtuns account for 50–60% of Afghanistan’s 30 million people. Taliban is an organic part of the Pashtun people. The western powers and their figurehead ruler, President Karzai, are not just fighting “Taliban terrorists,” but a coalition of Pushtun tribes and other allied nationalist movements. In effect, most of the Pashtun people.

The other half of the divided Pashtuns live just across the Durand Line in Pakistan, comprising 15–20% of its population. Pashtuns occupy many senior posts in Pakistan’s military and intelligence services. Pashtuns, including anti-western resistance fighters, never accepted and simply ignore the artificial border bifurcating their tribal homeland.

Washington keeps demanding Musharraf crack down on Pakistan’s pro-Taliban Pashtuns. But Washington fails to understand that too much pressure on these fierce warriors could quickly ignite a major historic threat to Pakistan’s national integrity: a Pashtun independence movement seeking to join the Pashtun of Afghanistan and Pakistan in a new state, Pashtunistan.

Growing tribal unrest in Pakistan’s strategic province of Baluchistan, where support of Taliban runs high, further threatens to destabilize the fragile nation.

President Musharraf has bent over so far backwards to comply with Washington’s highly unpopular demands that he has deeply angered his people, who increasingly call him a tool of the west. Karzai is seen the same way by many Afghans. Yet US (and now Canadian) policy depends on the survival of these two colorful but increasingly "isolated leaders." Bombing Pakistan Back to the Stone Age by Eric Margolis

How Al Qaeda views a long Iraq war "...But a letter that has been translated and released by the US military indicates that Al Qaeda itself sees the continued American presence in Iraq as a boon for the terror network, which has recently shown signs of expanding into the Palestinian territories and North Africa.

"The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness … indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest,"

says the writer, who goes by the name Atiyah. The letter, released last week, was recovered in the rubble of the Iraqi house where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by a US bomb in June."

A confirmação que a morte de Zarqawi pode ter sido um favor à Al Alqaeda.

He strongly warned Zarqawi against assassinating Sunni leaders. Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization that has been trying to use minority Sunni anxiety in Iraq to build support. The letter also called the Zarqawi-organized bombing of three hotels in Jordan in 2005 a "mistake," arguing that expanding Iraq's jihad beyond its borders too soon will cost them public support.
At one point, Atiyah muses that perhaps Zarqawi should step down from his leadership role, "if you find at some point someone who is better and more suitable than you. (...)

Katz and others say Muhajir is eager to mend fences with Sunni leaders, because he knows that if Al Qaeda loses the support of Sunni tribes, it will be in a very tenuous position.
"Al-Muhajir took another step toward undoing some of the alienation Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had created in Iraq's Sunni community,"...

"When Zarqawi was killed, people said that was the end of the insurgency and the end of the mass killings. But in fact we've seen mass killings increase dramatically since," says Katz. "Al Qaeda in Iraq played an important role at the beginning of the war. Zarqawi set up something that hadn't existed before, but at this stage the infrastructure is set up very nicely."

Não conhecia este detalhe ... fica-se sem palavras.

Lewrockwell: "Like most libertarians, I've always admired the Amish for their refusal to engage in welfare or warfare. They will not take a dime of other people's money via the government, nor kill for the Pentagon. And their faith, dignity, and forgiveness since the horrific school murders have been quite something. For example, they dedicated a portion of the donations they received for the families of their dead and wounded, to the welfare of the murderer's widow and children. And what can be said about the 13-year-old Amish girl who, to delay the killing of the younger children, and perhaps save them, said, "Shoot me first"? Actually, something has already been said, in John 15:13."

"The relationship between soldiers and the civilians in charge of reconstruction had faltered in the aftermath of previous U.S. military operations in Haiti, Kosovo, and Somalia. Iraq, however, was supposed to be different. It was supposed to be a chance to get militarycivilian cooperation right. But, from the start, policies concocted by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), headquartered inside Saddam’s marblewalled Republican Palace, rarely played out on the ground as CPA leader Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III and his subordinates expected. Bremer’s first official act upon arriving in Baghdad was to fire tens of thousands of Baathists from their government jobs. But what about the 15,000 teachers that included? What about the top managers at the Ministry of Health? Or the hundreds of old soldiers who had been made honorary senior members of the party after spending years in Iranian prisonerofwar camps?" By Rajiv Chandrasekaran, FOREIGN POLICY

Iraq entering 'decisive' six months: US General Casey

Tal como Tom Friedman: New York Times foreign affairs columnist. Via FAIR.

* "The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."(New York Times, 11/30/03)

* "What I absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a UN-approved Iraqi-caretaker government made up of—I know a lot of these guys—reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? Can we let this play out, please?" (NPR's Fresh Air, 6/3/04)

* "What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."(CBS's Face the Nation, 10/3/04)

* "Improv time is over. This is crunch time. Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile."(New York Times, 11/28/04)

* "I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election—that's my own feeling— let alone the presidential one."(NBC's Meet the Press, 9/25/05)

* "Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time."(New York Times, 9/28/05)

* "We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together."(CBS's Face the Nation, 12/18/05)

* "We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq, OK, because I feel like this election—you know, I felt from the beginning Iraq was going to be ultimately, Charlie, what Iraqis make of it." (PBS's Charlie Rose Show, 12/20/05)

* "The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it—and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful."(New York Times, 12/21/05)

* "I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand." (Oprah Winfrey Show, 1/23/06)

* "I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, Bob. We've got for the first time an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi constitution. Either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case America will stick with it, or they're not, in which case I think the bottom's going to fall out."(CBS, 1/31/06)

* "I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq." (NBC's Today, 3/2/06)

* "Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us."(CNN, 4/23/06)

* "Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months—probably sooner—whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out."(MSNBC's Hardball, 5/11/06)*Corrected version 5/17/06 "

US evangelists 'join campaign to keep Kosovo within Serbia'

"Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, outspoken and influential televangelists in the US, are joining forces with Serbia's Christian Orthodox church to campaign against independence for the mainly Muslim province of Kosovo, according to the spiritual leader of the Serb minority there.

Bishop Artemije, the most senior Orthodox cleric in Kosovo, said the two Christian broadcasters had promised to alert their followers and exert their influence.

"They point out that they have friends at the highest level of government and will urge them to help us so that Kosovo remains in the borders of Serbia," he said.

Diplomats in Washington say that whipping up Christian fervour in the US reflects the increasingly vitriolic and intolerant debate within Kosovo that occasionally spills over into violence. Efforts on both sides are intensifying as the ethnic Albanian majority - overwhelmingly secular but with a majority tracing Muslim roots - lobbies hard for full independence. (...)"

"LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A senior British Cabinet minister said Muslim women who wore full veils made community relations "more difficult," sparking criticism on Friday from Islamic groups.

Former foreign secretary Jack Straw, now Leader of the House of Commons, said a veil was "a visible statement of separation and difference" and that he felt much more comfortable dealing with people with their faces uncovered.

Writing in his local paper, Straw said he was concerned that "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult."

Software Being Developed to Monitor Opinions of U.S.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — A consortium of major universities, using Homeland Security Department money, is developing software that would let the government monitor negative opinions of the United States or its leaders in newspapers and other publications overseas.

Such a “sentiment analysis” is intended to identify potential threats to the nation, security officials said. (..)

Ultimately, the government could in a semiautomated way track a statement by specific individuals abroad or track reports by particular foreign news outlets or journalists, rating comments about American policies or officials."

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

"PARADISE, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A grieving grandfather told young relatives not to hate the gunman who killed five girls in an Amish schoolhouse carnage, a pastor said on Wednesday.

"As we were standing next to the body of this 13-year-old girl, the grandfather was tutoring the young boys, he was making a point, just saying to the family, 'We must not think evil of this man,'" the Rev. Robert Schenck told CNN.

"It was one of the most touching things I have seen in 25 years of Christian ministry.""

Os Amish nunca lutaram por um Estado, e gostavam de viver livres de um, pela simples razão - julgo perceber - que é incompatível qualquer forma de Estado (= monopólio da violência) com o pacifismo. O seu comunitarismo por outro lado, assenta em propriedade real. Como disse noutro lado, o exemplo perfeito de property-right-anarchism-left-conservative.

A sua Ordem interna deriva da aplicação da desgraça individual que significa ficar sujeito ao ostracismo [The Amish are an offshoot of the Mennonites, who fled from Switzerland to Germany under persecution for refusing to join the military and for not believing in infant baptism. They split from the Mennonites in 1693, mostly because of the Amish practice of shunning.To be shunned means expulsion from the community for breaching religious guidelines. All communication and contact is cut off, even among families. Someone who joins the faith, but then denounces it and leaves, for example, would be shunned.]. Todas as Ordens sociais civis e voluntárias o fazem de uma forma ou outra (a excomunhão, etc).

Agora, experimentem rejeitar a Ordem Política e acabam mortos ou numa prisão (deixe de pagar IRS, aguarde os liquidatários da sua casa, espere pela polícia, reivindique o direito natural de resistência e...) - é essa a Paz da Democracia e Estado de Direito.

Todo o Estado (visto como esse monopólio - não como um entidade cultural "Nação") nasce e vive da violência. Todo o Estado vive de eliminar qualquer ameaça ao seu Status Quo e não passa de simples Status Quo porque não existe direito civil que suporte a sua existência - só a política, o reino da ausência de direito civil.

E a expressão Estado de Direito significa quanto muito apenas a presunção de em parte se achar conseguir dominar as formas de exercício dessa violência. Mas nunca se consegue.

...com este post de LAm. Suponho que um post idêntico substituindo "Islam" por "Jews" e com o mesmo texto, passaria óbvimente incólume por ser evidente ser apenas uma tentativa de fazer uma graça "inocente"....

Tem piada é que tanto quanto julgo perceber, os neo-nazis na alemanha e frança começaram já há algum tempo a escolher os muçulmanos como alvo. Será a aliança facista-anti-fassista?

"My fellow Americans, it’s official now: We live in a fascist nation.(...)

Secret prisons – they’re back!
Torture – we’re doing it.
Spying on all citizens.
Arrests and indefinite imprisonment without trial.
Rampant militarism.
Secret detention.
Enforced disappearance.
Denial and restriction of habeas corpus.
Prolonged incommunicado detention.
Unfair trial procedures.

Welcome to Fascist America"!by Gene Callahan.

"What people have in mind when they speak of the history of mankind is, rather, the history of the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian and Roman Empires, and so on, down to our own day. In other words: They speak about the history of mankind, but what they mean, and what they have learned about in school, is the history of political power.´

There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life. And one of these is the history of political power. This is elevated into the history of the world. But this, I hold, is an offence against every decent conception of mankind. It is hardly better than to treat the history of embezzlement or of robbery or of poisoning as the history of mankind. For the history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder (including, it is true, some of the attempts to suppress them). This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as its heroes. [The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. II, p. 270]"

È aquilo que se chama o que parece ser o paradoxo inevitável dos "humanitarians with guns"que acaba a atirar a matar contra aqueles que vieram a ajudar, e angustiado por se ver envolvido no meio dos ódios primários dos outros provavelmente exarcebados pela sua própria presença.

Tal como a ajuda internacional acaba a produzir em todo mundo cada vez mais "Estados falhados" (Palestina, Timor, Kosovo, Haiti, etc) mas pior do que isso "sociedades e comunidades falhadas" não sustentadas.


By Eric A. Posner - The writer is a professor of law at the University of Chicago and co-author of "The Limits of International Law.".

"(...) The idea that war can have a humanitarian as well as a national security justification has a long pedigree and surface plausibility. Some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century occurred in weak states whose governments could not have resisted a foreign military invasion. The genocide in Rwanda, which killed more than 800,000 people in a few months, was eventually halted by a force of Tutsi rebels; surely a Western army could have stopped it sooner. If nations can intervene at little cost to themselves because the target nations are weak and by doing so they prevent massive human suffering, then surely they should do so. The logic seems compelling

But logic is no substitute for experience, and experience shows that humanitarian war is an oxymoron.

The first blow to the idea was the failed intervention in Somalia in 1993. U.S. forces sent to maintain the peace while aid was distributed to millions of starving civilians were withdrawn after just 18 U.S. soldiers died. Policymakers drew the lesson that the American public will not tolerate casualties in a humanitarian war that has no clear national security justification. This lesson guided President Bill Clinton's refusal to authorize military intervention during the Rwandan genocide and his decision to limit U.S. military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 to high-altitude bombing, which ensured that no American pilots were killed -- at the expense of civilians on whose heads errant bombs fell. The Kosovo intervention, although regarded as a success in some quarters, has cost billions of dollars, required a seven-year occupation and could turn out to be a slow-motion version of Iraq.

The Iraq war itself has dealt the second blow. The problem with humanitarian intervention is not only that the costs are usually too high, but it turns out that the benefits usually are low. There are just too many risks and imponderables when war is used to prevent atrocities rather than to defeat an enemy. Military weapons inevitably kill civilians, and smart tyrants foil smart bombs by using their own civilians as shields. Dictators understand that a war premised on humanitarianism fails if they can make the invader kill their citizens. Removing the dictator risks civil war, which is almost always worse than the original abuses. Replacing him with another dictator only puts off the atrocities until another day. Long-term occupation breeds hostility, then insurgency and violence. In comparison with this, the original ruler might not seem so bad after all.

Saddam Hussein was an especially bad tyrant, and Iraqi civilian casualties attributable to the U.S. intervention do not yet equal what he was able to accomplish, albeit over a longer period. The Kurds and many Shiites are better off. And many Iraqis continue to think that the war was worth it, according to polls.(...)"