2006/12/25
Конфликт (Conflict) - Soviet animation
| One of the greatest anti-war cartoons. Knowlege of Russian not required. | |
2006/12/22
11 anos de anti-war
A fonte de notícias, comentários e artigos, numa perspectiva libertarian-conservative (a algumas contribuições fora desta área). Suponho que mesmo os seus críticos terão de reconhecer que se propuseram fazer um trabalho difícil (e ingrato?) . É sempre difícil argumentar contra as paixões ideológica-morais ou histerismo securitário ou contra a lógica do bom império. A política externa não tem dois pólos de idealismo versus realismo. Como em tudo, é entre estatismo-intervencionista e não-intervencionismo. Defesa? A territorial no território. Prudência e consciência que os povos e nações não são entidades passíveis de moldar, prever. E que os conflitos entre Estados, disputam não direitos de propriedade mas simples status-quos de domínios. Não são questões de direito. Apenas de decidir quem exerce o monopólio da violência num dada área geográfica. Todas as guerras civis e entre Estados disputam "apenas" esse monopólio.
Eric Garris "On December 21, 1995, Antiwar.com was born. On that day, I made the first posting to the site. Since then, we have continued to upgrade, adding daily news updates starting in 1998, going to round-the-clock coverage during the Kosovo War in 1999. Today, Antiwar.com is a major force on the Web, reaching an average of 100,000 unique visitors every day. Thanks to all the readers and contributors for your continued support."
Eric Garris "On December 21, 1995, Antiwar.com was born. On that day, I made the first posting to the site. Since then, we have continued to upgrade, adding daily news updates starting in 1998, going to round-the-clock coverage during the Kosovo War in 1999. Today, Antiwar.com is a major force on the Web, reaching an average of 100,000 unique visitors every day. Thanks to all the readers and contributors for your continued support."
Conservative case against Neo-cons
Neo-cons addled by war fever
At the outbreak of World War I, the streets of the great cities of Europe were filled with cheering crowds, who welcomed that indescribable catastrophe as if it were a particularly exciting sporting event. A dark truth about human beings is that, at some perverse level of our psyches, we like war.
Nothing illustrates this better than the willingness of intelligent people in the grip of war fever to make arguments that, in any other mood, they would recognize as absurd.
Consider that the conservative case for the Iraq war violated the core principles of conservative political thought in the most outrageous possible way. That case was put forth on the basis of the following assumptions.
First, people the world over are basically the same, in that they have an unquenchable longing for freedom. Differences in culture, religion, history, institutions, and so forth are merely superficial. Deep in their hearts, all men are part of a universal brotherhood, although this truth is obscured by corrupt leaders, who manipulate the passions and fears of the public to keep themselves in power.
Second, it's only necessary to have the will to engage in revolutionary action, including the willingness to employ the transformative and cleansing power of righteous military force, to sweep the corrupt social order aside, and allow the universal longing for freedom, brotherhood and democracy to flourish.
Thus, this transformation merely requires sufficiently courageous and steadfast political leaders, who understand that evil will be defeated and a new age of human flourishing will emerge, as long as they maintain the will to lead the world into the golden future they have glimpsed.
Anyone who thinks this is an exaggerated description of the Bush administration's view of foreign policy should go back and read the president's second inaugural address. It should be unnecessary to point out that every aspect of this view is, from the standpoint of classic conservative political theory, completely insane.
Indeed, the neo-conservative project to liberate the Middle East was always based on the most brazen contradictions. On the one hand, it was claimed that Middle Eastern societies were so hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional that they could never be reformed from within, and would therefore remain hotbeds for terrorism.
On the other, the Iraq war was sold by these same people on the grounds that it would be a "cakewalk." Overthrow Saddam Hussein, and freedom and democracy would spring forth out of what a few weeks earlier had been a hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional political culture. The theory, you see, was that people the world over are basically the same, and have an unquenchable longing for freedom, etc., etc.
In short, the passion for war among conservatives was so intense that they never noticed their two main arguments for invading Iraq flatly contradicted each other.
If anything, the "liberal hawk" case for the war was even crazier. Various liberal supporters of the war took the view that, although the Bush administration was arguably the most corrupt and incompetent in modern American history, it was nevertheless a good idea to entrust it with the task of fighting a pre-emptive war which would, among other things, require reconstructing an entire nation more or less from scratch.
Neither the neo-conservative architects of the Iraq war nor its liberal hawk supporters were stupid or ignorant. They were, and are, generally intelligent, very well-educated, and quite thoughtful people. So how did they come to advocate positions that, under normal circumstances, they would consider delusional?
Part of the answer has to do with the disturbing fact that, despite their pious protests to the contrary, the cheerleaders for this war affirmatively wanted it to happen. This is merely the latest example of how our lust for the violent excitement of war is every bit as powerful as our desire for sex - and far more dangerous.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado.
At the outbreak of World War I, the streets of the great cities of Europe were filled with cheering crowds, who welcomed that indescribable catastrophe as if it were a particularly exciting sporting event. A dark truth about human beings is that, at some perverse level of our psyches, we like war.
Nothing illustrates this better than the willingness of intelligent people in the grip of war fever to make arguments that, in any other mood, they would recognize as absurd.
Consider that the conservative case for the Iraq war violated the core principles of conservative political thought in the most outrageous possible way. That case was put forth on the basis of the following assumptions.
First, people the world over are basically the same, in that they have an unquenchable longing for freedom. Differences in culture, religion, history, institutions, and so forth are merely superficial. Deep in their hearts, all men are part of a universal brotherhood, although this truth is obscured by corrupt leaders, who manipulate the passions and fears of the public to keep themselves in power.
Second, it's only necessary to have the will to engage in revolutionary action, including the willingness to employ the transformative and cleansing power of righteous military force, to sweep the corrupt social order aside, and allow the universal longing for freedom, brotherhood and democracy to flourish.
Thus, this transformation merely requires sufficiently courageous and steadfast political leaders, who understand that evil will be defeated and a new age of human flourishing will emerge, as long as they maintain the will to lead the world into the golden future they have glimpsed.
Anyone who thinks this is an exaggerated description of the Bush administration's view of foreign policy should go back and read the president's second inaugural address. It should be unnecessary to point out that every aspect of this view is, from the standpoint of classic conservative political theory, completely insane.
Indeed, the neo-conservative project to liberate the Middle East was always based on the most brazen contradictions. On the one hand, it was claimed that Middle Eastern societies were so hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional that they could never be reformed from within, and would therefore remain hotbeds for terrorism.
On the other, the Iraq war was sold by these same people on the grounds that it would be a "cakewalk." Overthrow Saddam Hussein, and freedom and democracy would spring forth out of what a few weeks earlier had been a hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional political culture. The theory, you see, was that people the world over are basically the same, and have an unquenchable longing for freedom, etc., etc.
In short, the passion for war among conservatives was so intense that they never noticed their two main arguments for invading Iraq flatly contradicted each other.
If anything, the "liberal hawk" case for the war was even crazier. Various liberal supporters of the war took the view that, although the Bush administration was arguably the most corrupt and incompetent in modern American history, it was nevertheless a good idea to entrust it with the task of fighting a pre-emptive war which would, among other things, require reconstructing an entire nation more or less from scratch.
Neither the neo-conservative architects of the Iraq war nor its liberal hawk supporters were stupid or ignorant. They were, and are, generally intelligent, very well-educated, and quite thoughtful people. So how did they come to advocate positions that, under normal circumstances, they would consider delusional?
Part of the answer has to do with the disturbing fact that, despite their pious protests to the contrary, the cheerleaders for this war affirmatively wanted it to happen. This is merely the latest example of how our lust for the violent excitement of war is every bit as powerful as our desire for sex - and far more dangerous.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado.
2006/12/21
Islamofobia
"As fobias europeias O Observatório Europeu do Racismo e da Xenofobia divulgou um relatório que aponta para um aumento da islamofobia, narra episódios de vandalismo contra centros islâmicos e mesquitas e casos de violência e ameaças contra muçulmanos e pede às autoridades que reforcem as políticas de integração, evitando a discriminação no emprego e no mercado da habitação."
Nota1: e posso fazer notar a ironia de algum anti-anti-semitismo-islamofóbico? Do tipo que pretende misturar os conflitos de soberania e domínio territorial com a ideologia medieval da alqaeda, ou misturar o conservadorismo islâmico com os regimes autoritários (por acaso até seculares constituindo uma barreira ao extremismo religioso), etc. Confundir os seus rituais e leis praticadas ao nível comunitário e familiar, com a capacidade de o impôr (ou sequer vontade ou objectivo de...) às outras comunidades religiosas, pelo menos fora do seu espaço natural...
Nota2: Não sabemos nós que os pequenos passos do anti-semitismo começaram por ser imperceptíveis e inconscientes, e baseados também na estranheza e conservadorismo do judaísmo ortodoxo, dos seus rituais e leis bíblicas do antigo testamento, do medo pelo desconhecido dos Guetos medievais (onde detinham a capacidade de aplicar a sua própria lei teocrática civil e criminal), dos seus tabus (como não andar à luz do dia a certas horas, etc), da forma como se vestem e comportam...parecem-me começar a existir paralelos.
Nota3: Dito isto, sou contra "autoridades que reforcem as políticas de integração, evitando a discriminação no emprego e no mercado da habitação." A discriminação privada é um direito, um regulador natural da ordem social. O problema da discriminação põe-se do lado da estatização e imposição por via legislativa da discriminação negativa e positiva. As leis de segregação, ou as leis de favorecimento de certas raças e etnias para a entrada em universidades ou quotas de emprego.
Nota4: Quanto à imigração, esse é um problema real quando é o Estado mesmo que passivamente a impôr uma política de fronteira aberta. De qualquer forma, a melhor forma de minorar os fluxos de imigraçao é o Comércio Livre.
Nota1: e posso fazer notar a ironia de algum anti-anti-semitismo-islamofóbico? Do tipo que pretende misturar os conflitos de soberania e domínio territorial com a ideologia medieval da alqaeda, ou misturar o conservadorismo islâmico com os regimes autoritários (por acaso até seculares constituindo uma barreira ao extremismo religioso), etc. Confundir os seus rituais e leis praticadas ao nível comunitário e familiar, com a capacidade de o impôr (ou sequer vontade ou objectivo de...) às outras comunidades religiosas, pelo menos fora do seu espaço natural...
Nota2: Não sabemos nós que os pequenos passos do anti-semitismo começaram por ser imperceptíveis e inconscientes, e baseados também na estranheza e conservadorismo do judaísmo ortodoxo, dos seus rituais e leis bíblicas do antigo testamento, do medo pelo desconhecido dos Guetos medievais (onde detinham a capacidade de aplicar a sua própria lei teocrática civil e criminal), dos seus tabus (como não andar à luz do dia a certas horas, etc), da forma como se vestem e comportam...parecem-me começar a existir paralelos.
Nota3: Dito isto, sou contra "autoridades que reforcem as políticas de integração, evitando a discriminação no emprego e no mercado da habitação." A discriminação privada é um direito, um regulador natural da ordem social. O problema da discriminação põe-se do lado da estatização e imposição por via legislativa da discriminação negativa e positiva. As leis de segregação, ou as leis de favorecimento de certas raças e etnias para a entrada em universidades ou quotas de emprego.
Nota4: Quanto à imigração, esse é um problema real quando é o Estado mesmo que passivamente a impôr uma política de fronteira aberta. De qualquer forma, a melhor forma de minorar os fluxos de imigraçao é o Comércio Livre.
2006/12/20
Judeus no Irão
Iran's proud but discreet Jews
By Frances Harrison BBC News, Tehran
The Jewish presence dates back nearly 3,000 years.Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel.
About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots.
By Frances Harrison BBC News, Tehran
The Jewish presence dates back nearly 3,000 years.Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel.
About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures - as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots.
2006/12/19
Problemas de linhas
Panel slams inclusion of pre-1967 borders in school maps
By Or Kashti, Haaretz Correspondent
The Knesset Education and Culture Committee decided on Monday to summon Education Minister Yuli Tamir to answer questions about her decision to include Israel's pre-1967 border in textbook maps.During the session, Kadima party and right-wing MKs lashed out at Tamir for her decision made two weeks ago to include the so-called Green Line border which excludes the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights from Israel.National Religious Party Chairman MK Zevulun Orlev presented the committee with the 1967 Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee decision to remove the Green line -as well as the pre-1948 British Mandate border- from all but historical maps.
By Or Kashti, Haaretz Correspondent
The Knesset Education and Culture Committee decided on Monday to summon Education Minister Yuli Tamir to answer questions about her decision to include Israel's pre-1967 border in textbook maps.During the session, Kadima party and right-wing MKs lashed out at Tamir for her decision made two weeks ago to include the so-called Green Line border which excludes the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights from Israel.National Religious Party Chairman MK Zevulun Orlev presented the committee with the 1967 Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee decision to remove the Green line -as well as the pre-1948 British Mandate border- from all but historical maps.
Nagasaki bombing labelled a crime
"One of Japan's most senior politicians has said the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945 was impermissible from a humanitarian point of view.
Stronger stance
After the nuclear attacks in 1945, the Japanese wartime government condemned the bombings as crimes against international law.
But later on the authorities gave up any idea of pursuing the issue of criminality.
Today the phrase the government more often uses to describe the attack is "regrettable".
Mr Nakagawa appears to be going further, saying they were impermissible on humanitarian grounds. " BBC News
Stronger stance
After the nuclear attacks in 1945, the Japanese wartime government condemned the bombings as crimes against international law.
But later on the authorities gave up any idea of pursuing the issue of criminality.
Today the phrase the government more often uses to describe the attack is "regrettable".
Mr Nakagawa appears to be going further, saying they were impermissible on humanitarian grounds. " BBC News
Eleições no Irão
Não sei se são os conservadores iranianos que estão a ser derrotados ou se serão os neo-conservadores. Não era suposto o Irão ser uma Tirania infinita?
Destaque. O anti-imperialismo americano
e liberal clássico
The Anti-Imperialist League and the Battle Against Empire
By Thomas E. Woods
The Conquest of the United States by Spain
By William Graham Sumner
The Anti-Imperialist League and the Battle Against Empire
By Thomas E. Woods
The Conquest of the United States by Spain
By William Graham Sumner
2006/12/13
Guerra Regional?
Report: Saudis may back Sunnis, Saudis fear U.S. pullout from Iraq could lead to massacre of minority Sunnis.
2006/12/12
Why are Jews at the 'Holocaust denial' conference?
BBC
Why are Jews attending a conference on the Holocaust in Tehran at which star guests include deniers of the genocide? Clue: they also want an end to the Israeli state.
A handful of Orthodox Jews have attended Iran's controversial conference questioning the Nazi genocide of the Jews - not because they deny the Holocaust but because they object to using it as justification for the existence of Israel.
With their distinctive hats, beards and side locks, these men may, to the untrained eye, look like any other Orthodox believers in Jerusalem or New York. But the Jews who went to Tehran are different.
Some of them belong to Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City), a group of a few thousand people which views Zionism - the movement to establish a Jewish national home or state in what was Palestine - as a "poison" threatening "true Jews".
WHO, WHAT, WHY?
A feature to the BBC News Magazine - aiming to answer some of the questions behind the headlines
A representative, UK-based Rabbi Aharon Cohen, told the conference he prayed "that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely the state known as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved".
In its place, Rabbi Cohen said, should be "a regime fully in accordance with the aspirations of the Palestinians when Arab and Jew will be able to live peacefully together as they did for centuries".
Neturei Karta believes the very idea of an Israeli state goes against the Jewish religion.
The book of Jewish law or Talmud, they say, teaches that believers may not use human force to create a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah.
An opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust
Manouchehr Mottaki
Iranian foreign minister, describing the conference
Iran defends Holocaust conference
But how does Neturei Karta and other Orthodox Jews such as Austria-based Rabbi Moishe Ayre Friedman justify attending such a controversial conference?
Rabbi Friedman told BBC Radio Four's PM programme that he was not in Tehran to debate whether the Holocaust happened or not, but to look at its lessons.
He says the Holocaust was being used to legitimise the suffering of other peoples and he wanted to break what he called a taboo on discussing it.
The main thing, he argued, was not Jewish suffering in the past but the use of the Holocaust as a "tool of commercial, military and media power".
In what many other Jews would consider the height of naivety, he commended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for wanting "a secured future for innocent Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere".
In his speech to the conference, Neturei Karta's Rabbi Cohen said there was no doubt about the Holocaust and it would be "a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of the crime in any way".
However, he also argued that the genocide had been divine will. "The Zionists, with their secular pompous approach behave in complete opposition to this philosophy and dare to say 'Never Again'.
"They have the audacity to think that they can prevent the Almighty from repeating a Holocaust. This is heresy."
Neturei Karta have been condemned by other Orthodox Jews as an extreme fringe movement while the Tehran conference has been denounced by the Israeli parliament.
Why are Jews attending a conference on the Holocaust in Tehran at which star guests include deniers of the genocide? Clue: they also want an end to the Israeli state.
A handful of Orthodox Jews have attended Iran's controversial conference questioning the Nazi genocide of the Jews - not because they deny the Holocaust but because they object to using it as justification for the existence of Israel.
With their distinctive hats, beards and side locks, these men may, to the untrained eye, look like any other Orthodox believers in Jerusalem or New York. But the Jews who went to Tehran are different.
Some of them belong to Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City), a group of a few thousand people which views Zionism - the movement to establish a Jewish national home or state in what was Palestine - as a "poison" threatening "true Jews".
WHO, WHAT, WHY?
A feature to the BBC News Magazine - aiming to answer some of the questions behind the headlines
A representative, UK-based Rabbi Aharon Cohen, told the conference he prayed "that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely the state known as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved".
In its place, Rabbi Cohen said, should be "a regime fully in accordance with the aspirations of the Palestinians when Arab and Jew will be able to live peacefully together as they did for centuries".
Neturei Karta believes the very idea of an Israeli state goes against the Jewish religion.
The book of Jewish law or Talmud, they say, teaches that believers may not use human force to create a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah.
An opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust
Manouchehr Mottaki
Iranian foreign minister, describing the conference
Iran defends Holocaust conference
But how does Neturei Karta and other Orthodox Jews such as Austria-based Rabbi Moishe Ayre Friedman justify attending such a controversial conference?
Rabbi Friedman told BBC Radio Four's PM programme that he was not in Tehran to debate whether the Holocaust happened or not, but to look at its lessons.
He says the Holocaust was being used to legitimise the suffering of other peoples and he wanted to break what he called a taboo on discussing it.
The main thing, he argued, was not Jewish suffering in the past but the use of the Holocaust as a "tool of commercial, military and media power".
In what many other Jews would consider the height of naivety, he commended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for wanting "a secured future for innocent Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere".
In his speech to the conference, Neturei Karta's Rabbi Cohen said there was no doubt about the Holocaust and it would be "a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of the crime in any way".
However, he also argued that the genocide had been divine will. "The Zionists, with their secular pompous approach behave in complete opposition to this philosophy and dare to say 'Never Again'.
"They have the audacity to think that they can prevent the Almighty from repeating a Holocaust. This is heresy."
Neturei Karta have been condemned by other Orthodox Jews as an extreme fringe movement while the Tehran conference has been denounced by the Israeli parliament.
The Taliban's Book of Rules
Newsweek A nine-page pamphlet offers some chilling--and revealing--insights about Afghanistan’s former rulers
From the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [Mullah Omar]Layeha (rulebook) to the Mujahideen.
Rules for mujahideen. Each mujahid is obliged to obey the following rules:
1. A person with responsibility (only commanders) is allowed to give an invitation to those Afghans who are supporting infidels to join the way of the true Islam2. To those who leave the infidels we will grant security for him and his property. But if he has some personal dispute, or somebody has some claim against him, he has to face our judiciary system.3. Each mujahideen who is in contact with supporters of the current regime and who invites them to join the true Islam has to inform his commander. 4. Those who accept the invitation to join the true Islam but aren't loyal and become traitors will lose their contract with us and will not be protected by us. There is no way to give them another chance.
5. A mujahid who kills an infidel who has joined the mujahideen's side will lose our support. Islamic law should punish him.6. If a group leader (or any ordinary Talib) wants to leave his district to join a unit in another district he is allowed, but he should get permission from his senior leader.7. If a mujahid captures any foreign invader without the permission of the movement leader he mustn't exchange the prisoner with another prisoner or for money.
8. The provincial, district or regional commander in charge is not allowed to sign an individual contract with an NGO [non-governmental organization] or make a deal for money with the NGO. This matter has to be decided by the shura.9. No person in a position of responsibility is allowed to use jihadi equipment and property for his personal interest.10. Each mujahid is responsible to his commander for the money he spends and the equipment he uses. 11. Mujahideen are not allowed to sell any kind of equipment without the permission of the provincial leader in charge.12. One group of mujahideen is not allowed to invite mujahideen of another group to join it in order to increase the group's membership. But if there is good reason (lack of personnel) this might be allowed. But a written permission is necessary and the mujahideen who join a new group should leave their weapons with their old group.13. Weapons or equipment confiscated from the infidels, or allies of the infidels, should be evenly distributed among the mujahideen. 14. If someone who is working with the infidels wants to cooperate with the mujahideen, nobody is allowed to kill him. If somebody kills him he will face the Islamic sharia court.15. If any mujahideen or commander is disturbing innocent people he should be warned by his leader. If he doesn't change his behavior he should be expelled from movement.16. It is strictly forbidden for mujahideen to raid houses and take weapons by force from civilians without the permission of the district or provincial commander.17. Mujahideen have no rights to take the money or personal belongings of the people.18. As under the earlier [Mullah Omar] regime, mujahideen should avoid smoking cigarettes. 19. Mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys without beards to the battlefield or to their homes.20. If a member of the opposition, or the government, wants to surrender to the Taliban we can consider their conditions but the final decision has to be made by the military council.21. People with a bad reputation or who have killed civilians during the Jihad must not be permitted to join the Taliban movement. But if the Supreme Leader [Mullah Omar] forgives such a person he should stay at home. 22. If a mujahid is found guilty of a crime and his group leader discharges him, then other Taliban groups are not allowed to accept that person. If he wants to join the Taliban again he should come back to his own group and ask for forgiveness first.
23. If a Mujahid faces an issue not described in this book, the regional commander should find a solution in consultation with the group.24. Working for the current puppet regime is not permitted, either in a madrassa [religious school] or as a schoolteacher, because that provides strength to the infidel system. In order to strengthen the new Islamic regime, Muslims should hire a religious teacher and study in mosque or another suitable place and the textbooks used should be from the mujahid [anti-Soviet war] time or the Taliban time.
25. Those who are working in the current puppet regime as a madrassa teacher or schoolteacher should be warned. If he doesn't stop he should be beaten. But if a teacher is teaching against the true Islam he should be killed by the district commander or a group leader.26. The NGOs that came in the country under the infidel's government are just like of the government. They came here under the slogan of helping the people but in fact they are part of this regime. That'swhy their every activity will be banned, whether it is building a road, bridge, clinic, school or madrassa or anything else. If a school matches these conditions it should be burned. If it is told to close but doesn't it should be burned. But before burning it all religious books should be taken out.27. Before someone is found guilty of being a spy, and can be punished, no commander or person of responsibility is allowed to interfere. Only the district general commander is allowed to do so. In court evidence has to be brought forward that might prove the accused person to be a spy. The persons who bring forward the evidence should be a mentally well and have a good religious reputation. They must not havecommitted a big crime. The accused should be punished only after the whole case is closed and he is found guilty.28. No lower commander is allowed to interfere in the civil, common disputes of the people. If people insist [on intervention] the case should be brought in front of a district or regional commander. But he should present the case to the religious scholars or the jirga [council]. If they can't find a solution the case should be taken to very well known scholars. 29. Every mujahid group is committed to keep watchful guards on duty day and night.30. The above 29 rules are compulsory. Whoever violates any of them should be treated according the Islamic prince’s rules.
This layeha is for the mujahideen who are sacrificing their lives for Islam and Almighty Allah. These are complete guidelines for the progress of the Jihad, and mujahideen should follow these rules. Thisis the responsibility of Jihadis and the faithful.
From the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [Mullah Omar]Layeha (rulebook) to the Mujahideen.
Rules for mujahideen. Each mujahid is obliged to obey the following rules:
1. A person with responsibility (only commanders) is allowed to give an invitation to those Afghans who are supporting infidels to join the way of the true Islam2. To those who leave the infidels we will grant security for him and his property. But if he has some personal dispute, or somebody has some claim against him, he has to face our judiciary system.3. Each mujahideen who is in contact with supporters of the current regime and who invites them to join the true Islam has to inform his commander. 4. Those who accept the invitation to join the true Islam but aren't loyal and become traitors will lose their contract with us and will not be protected by us. There is no way to give them another chance.
5. A mujahid who kills an infidel who has joined the mujahideen's side will lose our support. Islamic law should punish him.6. If a group leader (or any ordinary Talib) wants to leave his district to join a unit in another district he is allowed, but he should get permission from his senior leader.7. If a mujahid captures any foreign invader without the permission of the movement leader he mustn't exchange the prisoner with another prisoner or for money.
8. The provincial, district or regional commander in charge is not allowed to sign an individual contract with an NGO [non-governmental organization] or make a deal for money with the NGO. This matter has to be decided by the shura.9. No person in a position of responsibility is allowed to use jihadi equipment and property for his personal interest.10. Each mujahid is responsible to his commander for the money he spends and the equipment he uses. 11. Mujahideen are not allowed to sell any kind of equipment without the permission of the provincial leader in charge.12. One group of mujahideen is not allowed to invite mujahideen of another group to join it in order to increase the group's membership. But if there is good reason (lack of personnel) this might be allowed. But a written permission is necessary and the mujahideen who join a new group should leave their weapons with their old group.13. Weapons or equipment confiscated from the infidels, or allies of the infidels, should be evenly distributed among the mujahideen. 14. If someone who is working with the infidels wants to cooperate with the mujahideen, nobody is allowed to kill him. If somebody kills him he will face the Islamic sharia court.15. If any mujahideen or commander is disturbing innocent people he should be warned by his leader. If he doesn't change his behavior he should be expelled from movement.16. It is strictly forbidden for mujahideen to raid houses and take weapons by force from civilians without the permission of the district or provincial commander.17. Mujahideen have no rights to take the money or personal belongings of the people.18. As under the earlier [Mullah Omar] regime, mujahideen should avoid smoking cigarettes. 19. Mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys without beards to the battlefield or to their homes.20. If a member of the opposition, or the government, wants to surrender to the Taliban we can consider their conditions but the final decision has to be made by the military council.21. People with a bad reputation or who have killed civilians during the Jihad must not be permitted to join the Taliban movement. But if the Supreme Leader [Mullah Omar] forgives such a person he should stay at home. 22. If a mujahid is found guilty of a crime and his group leader discharges him, then other Taliban groups are not allowed to accept that person. If he wants to join the Taliban again he should come back to his own group and ask for forgiveness first.
23. If a Mujahid faces an issue not described in this book, the regional commander should find a solution in consultation with the group.24. Working for the current puppet regime is not permitted, either in a madrassa [religious school] or as a schoolteacher, because that provides strength to the infidel system. In order to strengthen the new Islamic regime, Muslims should hire a religious teacher and study in mosque or another suitable place and the textbooks used should be from the mujahid [anti-Soviet war] time or the Taliban time.
25. Those who are working in the current puppet regime as a madrassa teacher or schoolteacher should be warned. If he doesn't stop he should be beaten. But if a teacher is teaching against the true Islam he should be killed by the district commander or a group leader.26. The NGOs that came in the country under the infidel's government are just like of the government. They came here under the slogan of helping the people but in fact they are part of this regime. That'swhy their every activity will be banned, whether it is building a road, bridge, clinic, school or madrassa or anything else. If a school matches these conditions it should be burned. If it is told to close but doesn't it should be burned. But before burning it all religious books should be taken out.27. Before someone is found guilty of being a spy, and can be punished, no commander or person of responsibility is allowed to interfere. Only the district general commander is allowed to do so. In court evidence has to be brought forward that might prove the accused person to be a spy. The persons who bring forward the evidence should be a mentally well and have a good religious reputation. They must not havecommitted a big crime. The accused should be punished only after the whole case is closed and he is found guilty.28. No lower commander is allowed to interfere in the civil, common disputes of the people. If people insist [on intervention] the case should be brought in front of a district or regional commander. But he should present the case to the religious scholars or the jirga [council]. If they can't find a solution the case should be taken to very well known scholars. 29. Every mujahid group is committed to keep watchful guards on duty day and night.30. The above 29 rules are compulsory. Whoever violates any of them should be treated according the Islamic prince’s rules.
This layeha is for the mujahideen who are sacrificing their lives for Islam and Almighty Allah. These are complete guidelines for the progress of the Jihad, and mujahideen should follow these rules. Thisis the responsibility of Jihadis and the faithful.
Realistas versus Idealistas
Estranho. Ninguém comentou ter aparecido a prova (pelos Russos) de que Churchill (e os aliados) aprovou a presença de Estaline nos países Bálticos, porque, na sua tradicional germanofobia que perdeu a europa na primeira e o mundo na segunda, era preciso combater a influência alemã. É costume começar-se a falar de Churchill com "sejam quais tenham sido os seus erros...". Aparentemente, não param de aumentar.
Helena Matos uma vez escreveu sobre como quem escolhe entre dois monstros acaba com Vichy. Não, quem escolheu realisticamente Estaline para combater idealisticamente Hitler acaba com Estaline. Realistas e idealistas, todos perderam.
Clint Eastwood Makes a Huge Anti-War Statement With 'Iwo Jima'
FoxNews: "Clint Eastwood’s new movie, his second release of the fall, is called "Letters From Iwo Jima." It’s a masterpiece — no kidding — considering that it’s over two hours long, filmed in black and white and spoken almost entirely in Japanese by a nearly all-Japanese cast.More importantly, "Letters From Iwo Jima" is the biggest, most propulsive anti-war statement to come out of mainstream Hollywood in years. It’s even more sharply pointed because it comes from Eastwood, long a Reagan Republican and probably considered by most Americans to fall to the right in contemporary politics.(...)But what I think will make the difference for "Iwo Jima" is that it arrives just at the right time politically in this country. "Flags of Our Fathers" had a hard time finding an audience because people thought it was rah-rah patriotic. It wasn’t, but the marketing department had trouble communicating its sometimes ambiguous message."Iwo Jima" should be easy: War is hell. That’s it. And at the end of 2006, with soldiers coming home in body bags, this should be pretty simple to grasp.Eastwood doesn’t mind if that’s how "Iwo Jima" is viewed. "All war is bad," he told me, "and it’s not a matter of Democrat or Republican. The parties are so screwed up right now."So here comes Eastwood into the Oscar race for the third time in four years. The whole thing just got a lot more interesting, that’s for sure!"
Nota: Mudando de assunto ou talvez não, a direita ainda não conseguiu livrar-se de complexos anti-esquerda que a faz pensar por oposição ao que outros pensam e dizem. Não era assim com outros conservadores como Robert Taft, Russel Kirk, Robert Nisbet, para quem a guerra representava talvez, em si um programa de desconstrução revolucionária da civilização, ainda que não intencional, do qual tendem a nascer outros monstros, mesmo que se consigam "vitórias totais" nos inimigos originais. A história da WWI e WWII deveria parecer clara sobre o assunto mas é curioso, como mesmo sobre os mesmos factos indisputáveis (isto, porque alguns enredos históricos ainda estão em disputa) alguém consegue ver vitórias outros derrotas (estes, tendem a ser minoritários). A verdade é que ninguém aceita fácilmente "derrotas" por um lado, e por outro que não seja possível atribuir um bem claro (a que ele próprio possa pertencer), incluindo pôr em causa a sabedoria e personalidades de conhecidos estatistas. O culto da personalidade é muito comum. Humano, demasiado humano. As guerras serão inevitáveis? Talvez. Mas porque não limitá-las ao mínimo possível? Os mais próximos que cuidem dos seus ditadores. Os mais próximos que cuidem das suas disputas de "status quos" sobre linhas de fronteira e território, direitos históricos and all that. Outra lição que me parece clara é que quem toma a iniciativa pode conseguir ganhos de curto prazo, mas é quem adia e espera, e actua em defesa no seu território, que acaba com os melhores resultados de longo prazo, mesmo se já irremediávelmente invadidos. "Um ataque a um é um ataque a todos" e o "prevencionismo" deve ser o caminho mais curto para a destruição da civilização, o verdadeiro instrumento invisível do diabo que tece todos os enredos para instituir a mais alargada ausência de Direito (por definição, o estado de guerra) e completa destruição possível.
Clint Eastwood Makes a Huge Anti-War Statement With 'Iwo Jima'
FoxNews: "Clint Eastwood’s new movie, his second release of the fall, is called "Letters From Iwo Jima." It’s a masterpiece — no kidding — considering that it’s over two hours long, filmed in black and white and spoken almost entirely in Japanese by a nearly all-Japanese cast.
More importantly, "Letters From Iwo Jima" is the biggest, most propulsive anti-war statement to come out of mainstream Hollywood in years. It’s even more sharply pointed because it comes from Eastwood, long a Reagan Republican and probably considered by most Americans to fall to the right in contemporary politics.(...)
But what I think will make the difference for "Iwo Jima" is that it arrives just at the right time politically in this country. "Flags of Our Fathers" had a hard time finding an audience because people thought it was rah-rah patriotic. It wasn’t, but the marketing department had trouble communicating its sometimes ambiguous message.
"Iwo Jima" should be easy: War is hell. That’s it. And at the end of 2006, with soldiers coming home in body bags, this should be pretty simple to grasp.
Eastwood doesn’t mind if that’s how "Iwo Jima" is viewed. "All war is bad," he told me, "and it’s not a matter of Democrat or Republican. The parties are so screwed up right now."
So here comes Eastwood into the Oscar race for the third time in four years. The whole thing just got a lot more interesting, that’s for sure!"
More importantly, "Letters From Iwo Jima" is the biggest, most propulsive anti-war statement to come out of mainstream Hollywood in years. It’s even more sharply pointed because it comes from Eastwood, long a Reagan Republican and probably considered by most Americans to fall to the right in contemporary politics.(...)
But what I think will make the difference for "Iwo Jima" is that it arrives just at the right time politically in this country. "Flags of Our Fathers" had a hard time finding an audience because people thought it was rah-rah patriotic. It wasn’t, but the marketing department had trouble communicating its sometimes ambiguous message.
"Iwo Jima" should be easy: War is hell. That’s it. And at the end of 2006, with soldiers coming home in body bags, this should be pretty simple to grasp.
Eastwood doesn’t mind if that’s how "Iwo Jima" is viewed. "All war is bad," he told me, "and it’s not a matter of Democrat or Republican. The parties are so screwed up right now."
So here comes Eastwood into the Oscar race for the third time in four years. The whole thing just got a lot more interesting, that’s for sure!"
2006/12/11
Destaque
Imperialism and the Logic of War Making, Joseph T. Salerno
Praxeology and War
The Meaning of Imperialist War
War Making and Class Conflict
Democracy and Imperialist War Making
Severing The Sinews of Imperialist War
Conclusion
Notes
(...)
""The economist Joseph Schumpeter was one of the few non-Marxists to grasp that the primary stimulus for imperialist war is the inescapable clash of interests between rulers and ruled. Taking an early mega-state, Imperial Rome, as his example, Schumpeter wrote:
"Here is the classic example … of that policy which pretends to aspire to peace but unerringly generates war, the policy of continual preparation for war, the policy of meddlesome interventionism. There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest — why, then it was national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall upon the Roman people. [No] attempt [can] be made to comprehend these wars of conquest from the point of view of concrete objectives…. Thus there is but one way to an understanding: scrutiny of domestic class interests, the question of who stood to gain…. Owing to its peculiar position as the democratic puppet of ambitious politicians and as the mouthpiece of a popular will inspired by the rulers [the Roman proletariat] did indeed get the benefit of the [war] booty. So long as there was good reason to maintain the fiction that the population of Rome constituted the Roman people and could decide the destinies of the empire, much did depend on its good temper…. But again, the very existence, in such large numbers, of this proletariat, as well as its political importance, was the consequence of a social process that also explains the policy of conquest. For this was the causal connection: The occupation of public land and the robbery of peasant land formed the basis of a system of large estates, operating extensively and with slave labor. At the same time the displaced peasants streamed into the city and the soldiers remained landless — hence the war policy.
The latifundian landowners were, of course, deeply interested in waging war…. . The alternative to war was agrarian reform. The landed aristocracy could counter the perpetual threat of revolution only with the glory of victorious leadership. [I]t was an aristocracy of landlords, large-scale agricultural entrepreneurs, born of struggle against their own people. It rested solely on control of the state machine. Its only safeguard lay in national glory…. An unstable social structure of this kind merely creates a general disposition to watch for pretexts for war — often held to be adequate with entire good faith — and to turn to questions of foreign policy whenever the discussion of social problems grew too troublesome for comfort. The ruling class was always inclined to declare that the country was in danger, when it really was only class interests that were threatened.""
Praxeology and War
The Meaning of Imperialist War
War Making and Class Conflict
Democracy and Imperialist War Making
Severing The Sinews of Imperialist War
Conclusion
Notes
(...)
""The economist Joseph Schumpeter was one of the few non-Marxists to grasp that the primary stimulus for imperialist war is the inescapable clash of interests between rulers and ruled. Taking an early mega-state, Imperial Rome, as his example, Schumpeter wrote:
"Here is the classic example … of that policy which pretends to aspire to peace but unerringly generates war, the policy of continual preparation for war, the policy of meddlesome interventionism. There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest — why, then it was national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall upon the Roman people. [No] attempt [can] be made to comprehend these wars of conquest from the point of view of concrete objectives…. Thus there is but one way to an understanding: scrutiny of domestic class interests, the question of who stood to gain…. Owing to its peculiar position as the democratic puppet of ambitious politicians and as the mouthpiece of a popular will inspired by the rulers [the Roman proletariat] did indeed get the benefit of the [war] booty. So long as there was good reason to maintain the fiction that the population of Rome constituted the Roman people and could decide the destinies of the empire, much did depend on its good temper…. But again, the very existence, in such large numbers, of this proletariat, as well as its political importance, was the consequence of a social process that also explains the policy of conquest. For this was the causal connection: The occupation of public land and the robbery of peasant land formed the basis of a system of large estates, operating extensively and with slave labor. At the same time the displaced peasants streamed into the city and the soldiers remained landless — hence the war policy.
The latifundian landowners were, of course, deeply interested in waging war…. . The alternative to war was agrarian reform. The landed aristocracy could counter the perpetual threat of revolution only with the glory of victorious leadership. [I]t was an aristocracy of landlords, large-scale agricultural entrepreneurs, born of struggle against their own people. It rested solely on control of the state machine. Its only safeguard lay in national glory…. An unstable social structure of this kind merely creates a general disposition to watch for pretexts for war — often held to be adequate with entire good faith — and to turn to questions of foreign policy whenever the discussion of social problems grew too troublesome for comfort. The ruling class was always inclined to declare that the country was in danger, when it really was only class interests that were threatened.""
Pearl Harbor Archive
Contents
Articles, Debates, Interviews, Transcripts
Book Reviews
Books
World War II (OnPower.org)
2006/12/05
Utopianism II
During last summer's Israeli-Hezbollah war, Condi Rice assured us that we were witnessing the "birth pangs of a new Middle East."
(...) Cheney was summoned to Riyadh to assure the king that the United States was not going to scuttle Iraq – else the Saudis would have to intervene to save the Sunnis in the sectarian civil war sure to follow. The king was telling the veep: If you go, a regional and sectarian war will follow you out.
In Somalia, the Union of Islamic Courts is consolidating control. In Bahrain, the Sunni-ruled sheikdom that is home to the U.S. Gulf fleet, elections brought Shia victories in 16 of 17 legislative races they contested. Liberals and women were routed, with 17 of 18 woman candidates defeated. The lone victor ran unopposed.
King Abdullah of Jordan warns of the prospect of three simultaneous wars – in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. The king did not include the five-year war in Afghanistan, where opium exports have reached record highs and British troops, following Pakistan's example, are concluding local armistices with the Taliban.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah is demanding the government cede it veto power, or it will bring down the regime with the kind of street action our protégés used in Beirut, Belgrade, Kiev, and Tbilisi.
Anbar province has been virtually ceded to the insurgents and their al-Qaeda allies. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have fled Iraq to Syria and sanctuary. The Kurds are carving out their own country, including Kirkuk, in anticipation of a breakup.
U.S. forces are being moved into the capital for what appears to be a final Battle of Baghdad to prevent a takeover by the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, our old nemesis, now said to be the most powerful and popular figure in the Shia provinces south of the capital, whence our British cousins will soon be departing.
Bush's meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shia cleric who heads the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which runs the Badr Brigades, is not unrelated to the rise of Hakim's bitter rival, Sadr. There may soon be a whole lot of shakin' going on in Baghdad.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process," it is as close to comatose as it has been since before Oslo.
Israel's economic blockade of Hamas, following Hamas' election victory, brought rockets down on Israeli towns north of Gaza and a bloody re-intervention by Israeli troops. Ehud Olmert's war to smash Hezbollah ended in smashing Lebanon and a moral victory for Hezbollah, which withstood five weeks of air strikes and a feckless Israeli invasion.
Diplomatically, America has never been weaker in the Middle East, Israel has never been more beleaguered, the Hezbollah-Syria-Iranian axis never stronger, and our friends in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf states never more apprehensive.
Nor are the trends hopeful. The Afghan and Iraqi wars Bush launched never looked more certain to end in U.S. defeats.
What is the cause of the impending collapse of the U.S. position across the Middle East? We put democratist ideology ahead of national interests. We projected our ideas of what is right, true, and inevitable onto people who do not share them. We tried to impose our will with our military power, which is more effective at killing Arab enemies than winning Arab hearts.
America is failing in the Middle East because our leaders of both parties will not look at the region through Arab eyes. What Bush saw as a glorious liberation of Iraq, Arabs saw as an invasion. Where Bush sees in Israel a model of democracy, Arabs see a pampered agent of U.S. imperialism, persecuting and dispossessing the Palestinian people.
"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in … the Middle East, and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all the people."
So Condi Rice hubristically declared in Cairo in 2005.
Since then, those elections that Rice demanded have advanced toward or into power the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the radical Shia in Iraq, and Ahmadinejad in Iran.
But at least Bush and Rice have solved the stability problem." The Stability Problem, Solved
by Patrick J. Buchanan
(...) Cheney was summoned to Riyadh to assure the king that the United States was not going to scuttle Iraq – else the Saudis would have to intervene to save the Sunnis in the sectarian civil war sure to follow. The king was telling the veep: If you go, a regional and sectarian war will follow you out.
In Somalia, the Union of Islamic Courts is consolidating control. In Bahrain, the Sunni-ruled sheikdom that is home to the U.S. Gulf fleet, elections brought Shia victories in 16 of 17 legislative races they contested. Liberals and women were routed, with 17 of 18 woman candidates defeated. The lone victor ran unopposed.
King Abdullah of Jordan warns of the prospect of three simultaneous wars – in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. The king did not include the five-year war in Afghanistan, where opium exports have reached record highs and British troops, following Pakistan's example, are concluding local armistices with the Taliban.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah is demanding the government cede it veto power, or it will bring down the regime with the kind of street action our protégés used in Beirut, Belgrade, Kiev, and Tbilisi.
Anbar province has been virtually ceded to the insurgents and their al-Qaeda allies. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have fled Iraq to Syria and sanctuary. The Kurds are carving out their own country, including Kirkuk, in anticipation of a breakup.
U.S. forces are being moved into the capital for what appears to be a final Battle of Baghdad to prevent a takeover by the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, our old nemesis, now said to be the most powerful and popular figure in the Shia provinces south of the capital, whence our British cousins will soon be departing.
Bush's meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shia cleric who heads the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which runs the Badr Brigades, is not unrelated to the rise of Hakim's bitter rival, Sadr. There may soon be a whole lot of shakin' going on in Baghdad.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process," it is as close to comatose as it has been since before Oslo.
Israel's economic blockade of Hamas, following Hamas' election victory, brought rockets down on Israeli towns north of Gaza and a bloody re-intervention by Israeli troops. Ehud Olmert's war to smash Hezbollah ended in smashing Lebanon and a moral victory for Hezbollah, which withstood five weeks of air strikes and a feckless Israeli invasion.
Diplomatically, America has never been weaker in the Middle East, Israel has never been more beleaguered, the Hezbollah-Syria-Iranian axis never stronger, and our friends in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf states never more apprehensive.
Nor are the trends hopeful. The Afghan and Iraqi wars Bush launched never looked more certain to end in U.S. defeats.
What is the cause of the impending collapse of the U.S. position across the Middle East? We put democratist ideology ahead of national interests. We projected our ideas of what is right, true, and inevitable onto people who do not share them. We tried to impose our will with our military power, which is more effective at killing Arab enemies than winning Arab hearts.
America is failing in the Middle East because our leaders of both parties will not look at the region through Arab eyes. What Bush saw as a glorious liberation of Iraq, Arabs saw as an invasion. Where Bush sees in Israel a model of democracy, Arabs see a pampered agent of U.S. imperialism, persecuting and dispossessing the Palestinian people.
"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in … the Middle East, and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all the people."
So Condi Rice hubristically declared in Cairo in 2005.
Since then, those elections that Rice demanded have advanced toward or into power the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the radical Shia in Iraq, and Ahmadinejad in Iran.
But at least Bush and Rice have solved the stability problem." The Stability Problem, Solved
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Utopianism
"Neoconservatism is actually a more extreme form of revolutionary utopianism than that of the Bolsheviks and the Jacobins. The Soviet Communist Party was content with trying to remake Russians. The Jacobins ran out of steam early, and Napoleon reinstituted the old order, dispensing titles of nobility and crowning himself emperor. Only neoconservatives are sufficiently ignorant and delusional as to believe that America's overthrowing an Arab leader will result in Arab states reconstituting themselves in the West's image.
Neoconservatives have demonstrated an unrivaled ability to detach themselves from reality."
Bush Is No Conservative, by Paul Craig Roberts
Follow the Polonium
AnWar: Amid all the hysteria emanating from the British tabloid press (or do I repeat myself?) over l’affaire Litvinenko, the facts are not fitting the original narrative of a KGB hit against a heroic “human rights” crusader. UPI reports the latest in this developing story:
“Russia’s nuclear agency said the country is no longer producing radioactive polonium-210, the substance that killed a former KGB spy in Britain. An unidentified spokesman for the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power in Moscow said Monday that the only facility capable of producing the isotope was closed two years ago, the Novosti news agency reported.
“The spokesman said just 8 grams of polonium-210 have been created from reserve stocks of uranium.
“‘We have supplied it (polonium-210) to U.S. companies, and there were deliveries to British firms. The 8 grams we have produced cannot have disappeared in Russia, but we do not keep track of the material after selling it,’ the source said.”
This should be relatively easy to verify, given that Russia adheres to the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear facilities are routinely inspected by the IAEA. If the Russians are telling the truth, then the polonium couldn’t have been procured in their country: if they are caught in a lie, then the cloud of suspicion hanging over the Kremlin will start emitting lightning bolts. As Antiwar.com columnist Gordon Prather points out, polonium-210 is proscribed by the NPT.
There are, however, nuclear-armed states that refuse to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty — and, in one case, won’t even acknowledge its longstanding membership in the nuclear club. Investigators hunting down the assassin’s polonium source might want to start here, and then go here.
“Russia’s nuclear agency said the country is no longer producing radioactive polonium-210, the substance that killed a former KGB spy in Britain. An unidentified spokesman for the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power in Moscow said Monday that the only facility capable of producing the isotope was closed two years ago, the Novosti news agency reported.
“The spokesman said just 8 grams of polonium-210 have been created from reserve stocks of uranium.
“‘We have supplied it (polonium-210) to U.S. companies, and there were deliveries to British firms. The 8 grams we have produced cannot have disappeared in Russia, but we do not keep track of the material after selling it,’ the source said.”
This should be relatively easy to verify, given that Russia adheres to the Nonproliferation Treaty and its nuclear facilities are routinely inspected by the IAEA. If the Russians are telling the truth, then the polonium couldn’t have been procured in their country: if they are caught in a lie, then the cloud of suspicion hanging over the Kremlin will start emitting lightning bolts. As Antiwar.com columnist Gordon Prather points out, polonium-210 is proscribed by the NPT.
There are, however, nuclear-armed states that refuse to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty — and, in one case, won’t even acknowledge its longstanding membership in the nuclear club. Investigators hunting down the assassin’s polonium source might want to start here, and then go here.
2006/12/04
Congressista Howard Buffett
"Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns."
Wikipedia: Howard Homan Buffett (August 13, 1903 – April 30, 1964) was an Omaha, Nebraska businessman and four-term Republican United States Representative. (...) Buffett is probably best-known today as the father of renowned investor Warren Buffett, the world's second-wealthiest individual. He is also remembered for his highly libertarian stance, having maintained a friendship with Murray Rothbard for a number of years.
Wikipedia: Howard Homan Buffett (August 13, 1903 – April 30, 1964) was an Omaha, Nebraska businessman and four-term Republican United States Representative. (...) Buffett is probably best-known today as the father of renowned investor Warren Buffett, the world's second-wealthiest individual. He is also remembered for his highly libertarian stance, having maintained a friendship with Murray Rothbard for a number of years.
O intervencionismo humanitário e a aliança com a Esquerda
* Resolutions passed by the conference called for unspecified adjustments to German policy in Afghanistan and opposed moving German troops to the south to fight the Taliban. But a resolution demanding a withdrawal from Afghanistan failed to win a majority. "We are responsible for the people of Afghanistan," said party co-leader Claudia Roth.
Protestos no Libano
...incluem (CNN). "Supporters of Lebanese Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun wave their national and party flags during a protest in Beirut on Sunday."
Putin?
Alexander Litvinenko terá tentado chantagear espiões e empresários "O ex-agente dos serviços secretos tinha documentos da FSB e preparava-se para montar um esquema para "fazer dinheiro"
2006/12/03
A grande guerra regional: os regimes Sunitas preparam-se?
Liberation
Revealed: Litvinenko's Russian 'blackmail plot'
Guardian: "The FBI has been dragged into the investigation of Alexander Litvinenko's death after details emerged that he had planned to make tens of thousands of pounds blackmailing senior Russian spies and business figures.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1962829,00.html
The Observer has obtained remarkable testimony from a Russian academic, Julia Svetlichnaja, who met Litvinenko earlier this year and received more than 100 emails from him. In a series of interviews, she reveals that the former Russian secret agent had documents from the FSB, the Russian agency formerly known as the KGB. He had asked Svetlichnaja, who is based in London, to enter into a business deal with him and 'make money'."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1962829,00.html
The Observer has obtained remarkable testimony from a Russian academic, Julia Svetlichnaja, who met Litvinenko earlier this year and received more than 100 emails from him. In a series of interviews, she reveals that the former Russian secret agent had documents from the FSB, the Russian agency formerly known as the KGB. He had asked Svetlichnaja, who is based in London, to enter into a business deal with him and 'make money'."
2006/12/02
"Christian Leader Aoun Says 'Corrupt' Lebanon Govt Must Go"
BEIRUT (AFP) - Lebanon's Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun has told a massive anti-government protest in Beirut that the current cabinet was corrupt and should be replaced by a new unity government.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora has "made many mistakes" and his government has "made corruption a daily affair," Aoun, a former prime minister, told the cheering crowd gathered in central Beirut's Riad Solh Square.
Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora has "made many mistakes" and his government has "made corruption a daily affair," Aoun, a former prime minister, told the cheering crowd gathered in central Beirut's Riad Solh Square.
Litvinenko may have fallen foul of ruthless Russian businessmen
Times Online
"Alexander Litvinenko may have been killed after a deal that went wrong with associates involved in the ruthless world of Russian business.
According to security sources, investigators are looking at the former spy’s dealings with Russian businessmen involved in the lucrative energy sector and the shadowy world of private security. “We are looking at a very long list of Mr Litvinenko’s friends and foes since he has been in London,” one source said. "
"Alexander Litvinenko may have been killed after a deal that went wrong with associates involved in the ruthless world of Russian business.
According to security sources, investigators are looking at the former spy’s dealings with Russian businessmen involved in the lucrative energy sector and the shadowy world of private security. “We are looking at a very long list of Mr Litvinenko’s friends and foes since he has been in London,” one source said. "
