The Grand Ayatollah of Nuclear Menace

As we all know only too well, the United States and Israel would hate to see Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Being “the only nuclear power in the Middle East” is a great card for Israel to have in its hand. But — in the real, non-propaganda world — is USrael actually fearful of an attack from a nuclear-armed Iran? In case you’ve forgotten…

In 2007, in a closed discussion, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that in her opinion “Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel.” She “also criticized the exaggerated use that [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.” ¹

2009: “A senior Israeli official in Washington” asserted that “Iran would be unlikely to use its missiles in an attack [against Israel] because of the certainty of retaliation.” ²

In 2010 the Sunday Times of London (January 10) reported that Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam, war hero, pillar of the Israeli defense establishment, and former director-general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, “believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make nuclear weapons.”

Early last month, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told a television audience: “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No, but we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability.” ³

A week later we could read in the New York Times (January 15) that “three leading Israeli security experts — the Mossad chief, Tamir Pardo, a former Mossad chief, Efraim Halevy, and a former military chief of staff, Dan Halutz — all recently declared that a nuclear Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel.”

Then, a few days afterward, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an interview with Israeli Army Radio (January 18), had this exchange:

Question: Is it Israel’s judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?

Barak: People ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now … in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case.

Lastly, we have the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, in a report to Congress: “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. … There are “certain things [the Iranians] have not done” that would be necessary to build a warhead. ⁴

Admissions like the above — and there are others — are never put into headlines by the American mass media; indeed, only very lightly reported at all; and sometimes distorted — On the Public Broadcasting System (PBS News Hour, January 9), the non-commercial network much beloved by American liberals, the Panetta quote above was reported as: “But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us.” Flagrantly omitted were the preceding words: “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No …” ⁵

One of Israel’s leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, was interviewed by Playboy magazine in June 2007: Read more È

It is More Like ‘Them’ vs. ‘You’

The Decision-Makers-of-Wars have decided to end one in 2013. That is, after twelve years, after they made the decision to make that war in the first place. No talk of terrorists, wins, or liberation – no more. At least on that one. Same as the other one. The one that they ended with no WMD, no terrorists, and no democracy; only with added massive civilian casualties, fallen and injured soldiers, and loss of billions of dollars- leaving behind a civil-war-torn nation in rubbles. And it looks like the Decision-Makers-of- Wars will be announcing another war to make. Just like the other ones, and the ones before that. And then there is you, my friends- my loyal patriotic American veterans and all those-that-are-yours.

I want you to take a few minutes and take a look at those involved in making decisions to make wars and continue those wars. Please do it. You don’t have to place them under a microscope or analyze them for hours. Just engage in a cursory evaluation. They are alive and well. They still have their legs. Yes. They all possess two legs. They still have their arms; and, their eyes, ears, and all ten fingers. They still get to see and be with their sons and daughters- that is, fully alive offspring. And their children too have their arms, legs, eyes, ears, and all ten fingers. Their wallets are thick, very thick, and have been getting thicker; nonstop. They are all much richer than they were before each one of these wars. Read more È

A Brilliant Statement from a Not-So-Brilliant Man

A few days ago presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich told the people of Florida about his plans for a permanent colony- base on the Moon, and promised to work toward turning the satellite into the 51st US state. I, and many others, including our leaders and representatives, thought we already had one- a 51^st State. Our current president, Barack Obama, has publicly and repeatedly recognized the 51^st State. So did our previous president, George W. Bush. The United States Congress has been treating ‘it’ as such. The ordinary but informed public has acknowledged ‘it’ for years. Thus, there was not anything new or groundbreaking about the notion of a 51^st state in Gingrich’s recently publicized statements and promises. That was not what quickly grabbed my attention. And certainly that was not what I consider a brilliant idea coming from a not so brilliant man. What I considered brilliant, both as an idea and a solution to a major problem, was sending the 51^st state up to the moon.

For years I have been thinking and pondering about possible solutions to our 51^st state, considered by many in the world as the greatest threat to global peace and security- far more dangerous than Iraq, Iran or North Korea. For a very long time I have been searching for a possible answer to stopping what world human rights organizations consider a major human rights violator. I know I am not among the minority when it comes to this 51^st state, which has been declared a “ Nightmare for Human Rightsâ€�, even inside the walls of the timid United Nations. As a life-long advocate for children, how could I not seek solutions to the 51^st state problem, known for its ongoing torture, abuse and imprisonment of children? I even thought about relocating the 51^st state from its current location, and considered various spots ruled by the 51^st state’s creators and backers. Read more È

You Only Get to place your Bet while the Cock-Owners Take it All

I was overseas during the most intense stage of the 2008 US Presidential Election; thankfully. However, I was not completely spared from this ludicrous ‘politics the American way’ even outside the country- think CNN international, think Wall Street international edition … basically think the inability to escape it all thanks to the globalization of the news, more like Americanization of the global news. The around the clock coverage of elections a la USA was booming in the background, more like foreground, of every single international (Western) hotel and resort, tourist hangout cafes and bars, and airport lounges. And I heard many comments from ‘outsiders’ on the ridiculously long, expensive, and show-like phony distraction called Presidential Election USA. Of course, deservedly, many of those comments were ‘snarly.’ Some were plain witty and truthfully hilarious-muckraking a la Brits.

I almost never disagreed with the outsiders’ assessment of and take on our painfully long, money-driven and for-show-scripted presidential election season. However, I slightly differed in one characterization:

Many referred to our uber costly and glitzy presidential race as ‘A Dog & Pony Show.’ I certainly saw, and still see, the appropriateness of this characterization of our presidential race: A Dog & Pony Show. But I had, and still have, my own characterization that applies equally well, and actually goes even deeper: A One-Man-Owned Cock Fight.

A Cock Fight is a contest in which gamecocks usually fitted with metal spurs are pitted against each other. Here is a bit more expanded description: Read more È

Let’s Make This Principled & Consistent; Let’s Go to War with All!

Our nation is famous for many things. Things that it is known for. Things that in one way or another represent it. Things that become synonymous with America or being Americans. Our foreign policy and our presidents are no exception. If you were to ask the recipients of our foreign policy there would be one adjective they’d all agree upon. Unanimously. There is one common and unanimously agreed upon ‘thing’ when it comes to US foreign policy and practices: It is called Hypocrisy. Granted there are slight variations here and there, but the never changing and ever present hypocrisy always remains.

Read the newspapers and watch the coverage of international news broadcast on our networks and cables. There it is. Glaring hypocrisy. Every single day. Hundreds of times a day. Listen to presidential and state department briefings and statements. There it is. Filled with it. Shameless hypocrisy. Check out our congressional records. Day in and Day out. Ever present. Consistent hypocrisy.

I could set up a whole new website to track US foreign policy hypocrisy examples, and it would be filled with them, tens of pages a day, and hundreds of instances. You don’t even need to have a well-developed hypocrisy-detector. It is so bold and obvious even way below-average processing minds can detect it! I am very serious.

This morning I found at least 32 bold examples of our hypocrisy-ridden foreign policy, practices and rhetoric. And I was not even looking for them. They were everywhere: mainstream, pseudo-alternative streams, semi-alternative streams … You name it! I wanted to pick one and showcase it. I could have picked any of them: Bahrain, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Israel, Turkey … Basically any of our ‘intimate allies’ in ‘this and that’ part of the world. You name it. However, I exercised a bit of self-restrain and settled for one. And, here it is [All Emphasis Mine]: Read more È

Does Mr. Obama, the Peace Laureate, believe the words that come out of his mouth?

“Most people don’t understand what they have been part of here,” said Command Sgt. Major Ron Kelley as he and other American troops prepared to leave Iraq in mid-December. “We have done a great thing as a nation. We freed a people and gave their country back to them.”

“It is pretty exciting,” said another young American soldier in Iraq. “We are going down in the history books, you might say.” (Washington Post, December 18, 2011)

Ah yes, the history books, the multi-volume leather-bound set of “The Greatest Destructions of One Country by Another.” The newest volume can relate, with numerous graphic photos, how the modern, educated, advanced nation of Iraq was reduced to a quasi failed state; how the Americans, beginning in 1991, bombed for 12 years, with one dubious excuse or another; then invaded, then occupied, overthrew the government, tortured without inhibition, killed wantonly, … how the people of that unhappy land lost everything — their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women’s rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives … More than half the population either dead, wounded, traumatized, in prison, internally displaced, or in foreign exile … The air, soil, water, blood, and genes drenched with depleted uranium … the most awful birth defects … unexploded cluster bombs lying anywhere in wait for children to pick them up … a river of blood running alongside the Euphrates and Tigris … through a country that may never be put back together again.

Read more È

Maybe This is What Market Discipline Means

Take yourself back to the early 1900s.  You are rich, and you just bought a ticket on a worldwide tour offered by a touring company.  But then the tour company goes bankrupt.  Assume it had enough cash on its balance sheet just before its bankruptcy to refund the advance you gave them.  Except for one thing — they also owed money to the same bank where they deposited the money you sent them.  And the bank said no, sorry, that money of yours isn’t there anymore, and the tour company bankruptcy trustee can’t get it either. 

A few years later, in 1913, in Studley v. Boylston National Bank, these basic facts were the nature of the case, and the Supreme Court of the United States effectively ruled against you, citing ‘the absurdity of making A pay B when B owes A.’  This important decision helped cement something called the ‘right of set-off,’ with the Supreme Court concluding:

“But to deny the right of set-off, in cases like this, would in many cases make banks hesitate to honor checks given to third persons, would precipitate bankruptcy and so interfere with the course of business as to produce evils of serious and far-reaching consequence.�

But you are left wondering whether making A pay B is really all that absurd.  Why should the bank get money before you do?  Was it those ‘evils of serious and far-reaching consequence?’ 

OK, now let’s get out of the time machine, at least until a few months ago.   In October 2011, one of the largest futures brokerage companies in the world files for bankruptcy protection – less than a year after the Federal Reserve Bank of New York grants the organization ‘primary dealer’ status, allowing the organization to trade directly with the Federal Reserve.  Then, all hell breaks loose.  One estimate comes out that the company, MF Global, ‘lost’ about $600 million in customer funds.  Then, another estimate has it that the amount ‘lost’ is closer to $1.2 billion.  The company’s CEO then testifies before the United States Senate, stating that “I simply do not know where the money is.�

Read more È