George Galloway, A Man For All Seasons

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

When the issue of Galloway's meetings with Saddam Hussein is raised, including before the U.S. Senate, Galloway has argued that he had met Saddam "exactly the same number of times as U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns."

Views on Blair and Bush--

At the national conference of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, on 30 June 2003, he apologised for describing George Bush as a "wolf", saying that to do so defamed wolves:

"No wolf would commit the sort of crimes against humanity that George Bush committed against the people of Iraq."

On 20 November 2004, George Galloway gave an interview on Abu-Dhabi TV in which he said:
“The people who invaded and destroyed Iraq and have murdered more than a million Iraqi people by sanctions and war will burn in Hell in the hell-fires, and their name in history will be branded as killers and war criminals for all time. Fallujah is a Guernica, Falluaja is a Stalingrad, and Iraq is in flames as a result of the actions of these criminals. Not the resistance, not anybody else but these criminals who invaded and fell like wolves upon the people of Iraq. And by the way, those Arab regimes which helped them to do it will burn in the same hell-fires.”

On 20 June 2005, he appeared on Al Jazeera TV to lambast these two leaders and others:
“Bush, and Blair, and the prime minister of Japan, and Silvio Berlusconi, these people are criminals, and they are responsible for mass murder in the world, for the war, and for the occupation, through their support for Israel, and through their support for a globalised capitalist economic system, which is the biggest killer the world has ever known. It has killed far more people than Adolf Hitler. It has killed far more people than George Bush. The economic system which these people support, which leaves most of the people in the world hungry, and without clean water to drink. So we're going to put them on trial, the leaders, when they come. They think they're coming for a holiday in a beautiful country called Scotland; in fact, they're coming to their trial....Ancient freedoms, which we had for hundreds of years, are being taken away from us under the name of the war on terror, when the real big terrorists are the governments of Britain and the United States. They are the real rogue states breaking international law, invading other people's countries, killing their children in the name of anti-terrorism, when in fact, all they're achieving is to make more terrorists in the world, not less, to make the world more dangerous, rather than less.”

Galloway has accused Tony Blair of "waging war on Muslims at home and abroad".

On 3 February 2006, Galloway was refused entry to Egypt at Cairo Airport and was detained "on grounds of national security", where he had been invited to 'give evidence' at a 'mock trial' of Bush and Blair. After being detained overnight, he said Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak "apologised on behalf of the Egyptian people", and he was allowed to enter the country. After initial derogatory comments from Galloway and a spokesman from his Respect party regarding Mubarak's pro-western stance and ties to Bush and Blair, Galloway later commented: "It was a most gracious apology which I accept wholeheartedly. I consider the matter now closed".

In an interview with Piers Morgan for GQ Magazine in May 2006, Galloway was asked whether a suicide bomb attack on Tony Blair with "no other casualties" would be morally justifiable "as revenge for the war on Iraq?". He answered "Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable, and morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq as Blair did."

In the House of Commons, on the day of the 7 July 2005 London bombings that killed 56 and injured hundreds, and following a visit to the Royal London Hospital in his constituency where many of the victims had been taken, Galloway condemned the attacks strongly, but argued that they could not be separated from the hatred and bitterness felt among Muslims because of injustices in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, including injustices, he said, suffered as a result of British foreign policy:

"I condemn the act that was committed this morning. I have no need to speculate about its authorship. It is absolutely clear that Islamist extremists, inspired by the al-Qaeda world outlook, are responsible. I condemn it utterly as a despicable act, committed against working people on their way to work, without warning, on tubes and buses. Let there be no equivocation: the primary responsibility for this morning's bloodshed lies with the perpetrators of those acts... The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), in an otherwise fine speech, described today's events as "unpredictable". They were not remotely unpredictable. Our own security services predicted them and warned the Government that if we [invaded Iraq] we would be at greater risk from terrorist attacks such as the one that we have suffered this morning... Despicable, yes; but not unpredictable. It was entirely predictable and, I predict, it will not be the last."

Winding up the debate for the government in the last moments allotted, Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram described Galloway's remarks as "disgraceful" and accused Galloway of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood." No time remained for Galloway to intervene and he ran afoul of the Deputy Speaker when trying to make a point of order about Ingram's attack. He later went on to describe Ingram as a "thug" who had committed a "foul-mouthed, deliberately timed, last-10-secondssmear." The men had previously clashed over claims in Galloway's autobiography.

Galloway is Vice-President of the Stop the War Coalition (StWC). He is actively involved, often speaking on StWC platforms at anti war demonstrations. During a 9 March 2005, interview at the University of Dhaka campus Galloway called for a global alliance between Muslims and progressives: "Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries."

On 17 May 2005, the committee held a hearing concerning specific allegations (of which Galloway was one part) relating to improprieties surrounding the Oil-for-Food programme. Attending Galloway's oral testimony and inquiring of him were two of the thirteen committee members: the chair (Coleman) and the ranking Democrat (Carl Levin).

Upon Galloway's arrival in the US, he told Reuters, "I have no expectation of justice from a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of a neo-con George Bush". Galloway described Coleman as a "pro-war, neo-con hawk and the lickspittle of George W. Bush", who, he said, sought revenge against anyone who did not support the invasion of Iraq.

In his testimony, Galloway made the following statements in response to the allegations against him:
“Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader, and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf. Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.”

He questioned the reliability of evidence given by former Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, stating that the circumstances of his captivity by American forces calls into question the authenticity of the remarks.

Galloway also denounced the invasion of Iraq as having been based on "a pack of lies" in his Senate testimony. The U.S. media, in reporting his appearance, emphasized his blunt remarks on the war. The British media gave generally more positive coverage; TV presenter Anne Robinson said Galloway "quite frankly put the pride back in British politics" when introducing him for a prime time talk show.

The transcript of George's evidence to the Senate was added to the Senate Committee's website and then removed approximately 24 hours later. There is now just the comment on the website that "Mr Galloway did not submit a written statement".

His autobiography, I'm Not The Only One, was published on 29 April 2004. The book's title is a quotation from "Imagine" by John Lennon. Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram applied for an interim interdict to prevent the book's publication. Ingram asserted that Galloway's text, which stated that Ingram "played the flute in a sectarian, anti-Catholic, Protestant-supremacist Orange Order band", was in bad faith and defamatory, although Ingram's lawyers conceded that for a year as a teenager he had been a member of a junior Orange Lodge in Barlanark, Glasgow, and had attended three parades. The Judge, Lord Kingarth, decided that he should refuse to grant an interim interdict, that the balance of the arguments favoured Galloway's publisher and that the phrase "sectarian, anti-Catholic, Protestant-supremacist" was fair comment on that organisation. Although Ingram was not and never had been a flute-player, the defending barrister observed that "playing the flute carries no obvious defamatory imputation ... it is not to the discredit of anyone that he plays the flute." The judge ruled that Ingram should pay the full court costs of the hearing.

======================================================

Source:
http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/130905Galloway.htm

On Friday 9th September Alex Jones was joined on air by member of Parliament and prominent antiwar activist George Galloway for a riveting one on one interview.

on The Emerging Controlled Police State:
Mr Galloway discussed the rising tide of anti-Iraq war protest, the snarling Neo-Cons' plan for world war and the possibility of staged government terror attacks to justify the invasion of more countries.

Mr Galloway kicked things off by asserting that the recent purposeful botch job on the part of FEMA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and the heavy handed police state-like crackdown in New Orleans has backfired on the political elite.

"The United States today looks like a country run by dangerous malevolent incompetants...There is a stain on the reputation of your great country and by association mine" Said Mr Galloway.

We have extensively covered the purposeful incompetence of the federal response in New Orleans and the jackbooted-thuggery that is being advertised all over the nightly news, forwarding the agenda to once again normalize such repressive authoritative behaviour. Mr Galloway described the aftermath of Katrina as:

"A bizarre catalogue of incompetence and malevolence and racism and all the worst things about the US today... and now as we are beginning to pick up, there is more to it than meets the eye and it may be being seized upon as a big diversion. If it was it hasn't worked, it just compounds people's feeling that the US is run by these ghoulish, Marie Antoinette incompetents."

Mr Galloway went on to describe the state that the Neo-Con greed and war machine has got itself into:

"On the surface they appear to be gliding serenely like a swan but underneath they are paddling like hell just to stay afloat because they run the risk of being thrown out."

But Mr Galloway was also quick to point out that you cannot slip a cigarette paper between the two opposition parties both in the United States and Great Britain. There is no opposition, both countries operate under a duopoly, both parties run along parallel lines. We have to constructively approach how we vote and who we empower.

Mr Galloway's Respect Party, whom he represents in the London Constituency of Bethnal Green is an example of such a constructive movement. Respect knows it is never going to win a majority vote but is there simply to keep the powers that be in line, bringing them to book so to speak on important and far reaching issues that may otherwise go relatively unchallenged.

"The danger is that when the state begins to be such a miserable abysmal failure that people turn not to progressive forces of leadership but to the kind of brown shirted aggressive forces...".Galloway comments.

on Government Engineered Terrorism:

Previously Mr Galloway has suggested that there is a very real danger of the government engineering a situation where terror attacks can be manufactured and seized upon to forward the pre-planned agenda abroad and at home. On Friday Mr Galloway elaborated on these comments:

"There is a very real danger because you have elements within the state, you have the Richard Pearle 'axis of evil' snarling 'you're next' at this country or that country and yet the circumstance on the ground, the political collapse of the Bushites in the United States, the resistance in Iraq having taken such a terrible toll...is making the idea of another war simply ridiculous...and yet there are those in this Neo-Con, Zionist, Christian Fundamentalist axis that really are itching to get as much of this agenda pushed on whilst they still have the reins of power. So you cannot discount some kind of provocation being staged by those elements who want to propel the US into an even more disastrous invasion"

Mr Galloway suggests that it is not beyond the realms of imagination for a situation to arise where the power hungry elite in the US uses staged provocation to drag Iran into a geopolitical set-to, using Israel as the hammer. If this were to happen, the consequences could be as far reaching as to start a third world war which would be devastating for humanity.

This would provide the authorities with the perfect excuse to set up a police state domestically to regulate the activities of everyone and have complete control.

"...That's right, it's Orwellian, it's 1984, the permanent division of the world into warring blocs, for the profit of a few at the cost of the misery of the many, and we have to refuse this in every way we can." Galloway states.

Of course, the past masters of government sponsored terrorism were the Zionists, who created the condition in the Arab countries, and in some European countries to stampede the Jewish populations out of the countries they had been living in for many hundreds years and get them into a Zionist state. Galloway comments:

"Suddenly Jewish people who had been the victims of Christian persecution suddenly saw their Synagogues being blown up, their countries being attacked and all kinds of provocations being staged so packed their bags and moved to occupied Palestine, then to be called Israel."

on The Neo-Con War mentality:

It's well documented that the United States has adopted such provocation "dirty tricks" before and during the Vietnam war and ever since.

"It's always the case that in a big and complex State machine, there are all sorts of elements, they don't have to be endorsed by all of the political leadership, they can be people representing a trend in the political leadership." Galloway states. He went on to once again lambaste the disgusting Neo-Conservative war crazed movement that had recently attempted to falsify documents to implicate Mr Galloway in the very corruption that they consistently revel in:

"I 've already mentioned this hideous character Richard Pearle. I saw him the other day actually snarling 'you're next', threatening people with American military power, a man who couldn't punch his own way out of a wet paper bag, but ready to fight to the last with other people's last drop of blood. These people make my blood boil and they ought to make every right thinking person feel that way. We deserve better than to be governed by these gangsters."

Mr Galloway went on to describe how it is always the elite draft dodging spoon-fed weaklings that strive for this kind of dominance over all, sacrificing the lives of others whilst swaggering around in their own bomber jackets playing up to the act.

Returning to staged terrorism and Zionism Mr Galloway pointed out that Zionism has nothing to do with Jewishness. The Zionist movement, as it is well documented, funded Hitler before World War Two and many of the figurehead of Zionism were not and are not Jews.

"The reality is these people have used Jewish people, and they have used them with this ideology of Zionism, to create this little Hitler State on the Mediterranean, to act as an advance guard for their own interests in the Arab world, and we're all paying for it, the Palestinians have paid for it, the Arabs have paid for it, and now the American people are paying for it, and why should we? We don't want to live our lives in a permanent state of warfare and division."

The danger in the Arab world is that the people their know we are not evil and corrupt like our governments are, but they also know that we democratically elect our governments, Galloway goes on to decree. They are supposed to act on our behalf and that's why this corrupt version of "democracy" is being flatly rejected across the Arab world.

Mr Galloway concluded by asserting that we do have the power to change things, we are in the majority:

"The United States was a country built out of nothing and a country that went to the stars. The people of the United States are great 'can-do' people and they ought to be able to use the Constitution which the founding fathers gave them to organise their political power to change things."

Al-Qaeda Warns Of Attacks 'Worse Than 9/11'

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070530/wl_mideast_afp/qaedaattacksusmideast_070530103055;_ylt=AjwmHKOssyq0m2p6RTFXeTUUewgF

DUBAI (AFP) - An American member of Al-Qaeda warned in an Internet video that US President George W. Bush' should withdraw all his troops from Muslim land or face attacks worse than September 11. Adam Gadahn, a convert to Islam who has been indicted for treason by a US jury, issued a list of demands which he said were not up for negotiation.

"Your failure to heed our demands means that you and your people...will experience things that will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11, and Virginia Tech," he said in the video posted on Tuesday.

"You're losing on all fronts and losing big time," said Gadahn, who is the English-language spokesman for Osama bin Laden's terror network.

The tape entitled "Legitimate Demands" was produced by As-Sahab, a media outfit that specialises in Al-Qaeda online material.

Gadahn -- sporting a headress, glasses and long beard -- said Bush had "embroiled his nation in a series of unwinnable and bloody conflicts in the Islamic world."

He also called on the United States to cease support for the "bastard state of Israel" and the "56-plus apostate regimes of the Muslim world" and to free all Muslims from its prisons.

"We don't negotiate with war criminals and baby killers like you. No, these are legitimate demands which must be met," he said.

Gadahn -- also known Azzam al-Amriki and Azzam the American -- has appeared in several videotapes for Al-Qaeda since 2004, praising the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington and threatening new terror onslaughts.

In October 2006, he became the first person to be charged in the United States with treason since the World War II era. The charge carries a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum penalty of death.

Gadahn, who is believed to be in Pakistan, has a one million dollar reward for his capture and appears along with bin Laden on a US "Wanted" poster featuring 26 "faces of global terrorism". His last appearance in a video was in September last year.

Gadahn was born in 1978 in southern California, the son of a 1960s Jewish rock musician who later converted to Christianity and became a rural goat farmer.

His conversion to Islam came after he began attending the Islamic Centre of Orange County, where he is believed to have come under the influence of two foreign-born Islamic radicals.

Gadahn is believed to have left California for Karachi in 1998 and gradually fell out of contact with relatives in the United States.

His reference to Virginia Tech was to the shooting of 32 people at the university by a Korean-born gunman who then turned the gun on himself.

Al-Qaida Video Threatens Attacks On U.S.

by: ANNA JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_american_video

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - An American member of al-Qaida warned President on Tuesday to end U.S. involvement in all Muslim lands or face an attack worse than the Sept. 11 suicide assault, according to a new videotape. Wearing a white robe and a turban, Adam Yehiye Gadahn, who also goes by the name Azzam al-Amriki, said al-Qaida would not negotiate on its demands.

"Your failure to heed our demands ... means that you and your people will ... experience things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th and Virginia Tech," he said in the seven-minute video.

Gadahn, who has been charged in a U.S. treason indictment with aiding al-Qaida, spoke in English and the video carried Arabic subtitles. The video appeared on a Web site often used by Islamic militants and carried the logo of al-Qaida's media wing, as-Sahab.

Gadahn, who appeared in an al-Qaida video last September in which he called on Americans to convert to Islam, demanded that Bush remove all U.S. military and spies from Islamic countries, free all Muslims from U.S. prisons and end support for Israel. He said a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq alone would not satisify al-Qaida. Ben Venzke at IntelCenter, a U.S. government contractor that monitors al-Qaida messages, said the group likely did not believe any of its demands would be met.

"It essentially allows al-Qaida to say that it has provided fair warning and is thus no longer responsible for the outcome," Venzke said in a statement.

Gadahn, a California native, is the first American to be charged with treason in more than 50 years and could face the death penalty if convicted. He also was indicted on a charge of providing material support to terrorists.

A LETTER THAT WAS NEVER PUBLISHED BY ANY OF THE WEST'S CONTROLLED/PIMPED MEDIA WHORES



Supreme Taliban Leader Mullah Omar Issues Statement Calling For Unity in Afghanistan, Iraq

15 May, 2007

Source:
IraqWar
http://www.kavkazcenter.com
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2007/05/15/8276.shtml



The Commander of the Faithful and Supreme Taliban Leader Mullah Muhammad Omar issued a statement yesterday calling for unity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Warning that a large part of America's strategy is to divide the fighting forces, the Amir Al-Mumineen calls for all to unite under the flag of Islam.



A Message From The Commander Of The Faithful To The Mujahideen Of Afghanistan And Iraq.

In The Name Of Allah, The Most Gracious The Most Merciful!

We praise Him and send blessings on His Prophet Kareem!

To Proceed:

O dear Muslim brothers and Muslim sisters, you know very well that Muslims today are facing a number of challenges as the result of American politics, stubbornness, and pride.

This devourer of the world on the one hand is attacking the Muslims in armed attacks using various types of weapons including biological weapons and is building monstrous prisons for the Muslims like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and Bagram.

On the other hand, it is trying to plant hypocrisy among the Muslims by developing ways to create an atmosphere of non-confidence within their ranks and is using Muslims by trying to invoke tribes and tongues and against each other.

Therefore it becomes obligatory on Muslims in all parts of the world to protect themselves and is an absolute duty just the same way it becomes obligatory on every Muslim to close all openings for the mean and cunning enemy so as not to give it the opportunity to open the fire of creating differences between the Muslims.

A large part of the American policy in Iraq is to divide the Muslims by name such as Ahl Al Tashee'(Shia) and Ahl As Sunnah (Sunnis) and in Afghanistan it is by Pashtun, Tajik, Hazarah, and Uzbek in an effort to reduce the severity and power of national uprising and armed resistance.

I am completely sure that the disciplined armed resistance of the heroic Mujahideen in Iraq, and the national standing in the face of the foreign occupation in Afghanistan under a single leadership has made the enemy largely nervous.

And they are now like those who are drowning, trying to grab hold of anything within arms reach.

They try to scare the local civilians by bombing them with heavy bombs and some times in the name of the tribe and area they come forward with a different faces.

However it is very pleasing and satisfying that many of their plans have now failed.

The locals have rejected the "Greats" among those who the occupiers have appointed but most importantly, they have obtained greater wisdom knowing that Islamic closeness with each other, national unity and brotherhood is a severe necessity.

I have issued a serious order to the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate to open their hearts to all the Islamic groups and people of the tribes and locations and to unite with all of them to form a single hand.

We must make relentless efforts so that the public will step away from befriending the enemy and stand by the side of the Mujahideen.

The politics of the Islamic Emirate is to set up an Islamic government, which is the wish of all the individuals in Afghanistan, which will be free from foreign intervention, which deals with wisdom with its neighbors and the world in the light of the Islamic rulings and international laws.

The Islamic Emirate does not interfere illegally in the internal affairs of other countries and does not accept the illegal interference of other countries in its matters as well.

We are, with all our strength and effort, carrying out Jihad to free our Beloved Afghanistan from foreign occupation and to provide the facility of free living, development, and peace for our citizens.

I strongly urge all the people of knowledge, Jihad, politics and national struggle to stretch their hands to their brothers to free the country and to establish an Islamic nation so that those painful events that occurred in the 1980's after the defeat of the Soviet Union never happens again, may Allah not permit it.

It is also necessary that in future Muslim blood not be spilled as the result of differences in names Mullah or Mujahid or in sect or leadership.

This is our policy, and it is on this basis that we shall work and it is for the world and the people not to consider the saying of any person as the policy of the Islamic Emirate.

The policy of the Islamic emirate is only published by the officially assigned speakers by the Islamic emirate.

In the same way I hope that the Iraqi brothers will leave aside the differences of the name of Ahl At Tashee and Ahl As Sunnah behind and stand united against the occupying enemy.Victory is not possible without unity.

And peace be unto you.

The servant of Islam,
Amir Al-Mumineen Mullah Muhammad Omar, Mujahid ,
25 Rabi Al-Akhir 1428
May 12, 2007

Spy Drones Added To Britain's "Surveillance Society"

by: Luke Baker

May 23, 2007

Source:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/tc_nm/britain_surveillance_dc



LONDON (Reuters) - It could be the 4 million closed-circuit television cameras, or maybe the spy drones hovering overhead, but one way or another Britons know they are being watched. All the time. Everywhere.

The latest gizmo to be employed in what civil liberty campaigners are calling Britain's "surveillance society" is a small, remote-controlled helicopter that can hover above inner city streets and monitor suspected criminals.

Unveiled in the north of Britain this week, it could be introduced across the country if deemed a success, fuelling an already intense debate over whether the "Big Brother" world George Orwell predicted is now truly upon us, or whether such scrutiny is merely essential for security in the modern era.

"For us, this is a cost-effective way of helping to catch criminals," said Simon Byrne, a senior police officer in the Merseyside district who launched the spy drone project.

Britain is now the most intensely monitored country in the world, according to surveillance experts, with 4.2 million CCTV cameras installed, equivalent to one for every 14 people.

So blanketing is the surveillance that the average resident of London runs the possibility of being photographed up to 300 times a day just moving around the capital, civil liberties campaigners Liberty say.

The pervasiveness of the cameras, combined with the government's plans to introduce digital identity cards for all citizens in the coming years and expand its DNA database, has led to calls for a halt until the impact can be better studied.

In a report issued earlier this year, the Royal Academy of Engineering warned that increased monitoring of society actually risked provoking a breakdown in trust between individuals and the state, eventually causing more harm than good.

"The state should remain the ultimate protector of citizen rights to privacy and should not garner new powers to invade the privacy or increase surveillance without strong justification," it said in a study filled with carefully measured language.


"SOCIAL SUICIDE"

As well as civil liberty campaigners growing increasingly alarmed at the tightening web of surveillance, some police officers have also expressed concern, saying excess monitoring is disrupting otherwise tranquil communities.

The deputy chief constable of Hampshire, a leafy county west of London, said this week he feared Britain was becoming an Orwellian society, with quiet villages now wired with cameras.

"I really don't think that's the kind of country that I want to live in," Ian Redhead told BBC television.

The conundrum for many is that while they don't want to feel constantly under surveillance themselves, they don't mind demanding the benefits of CCTV if it might do some good.

When the Cutty Sark, a famous 19th century trading ship, went up in flames on Monday in a possible arson attack, the first call by angry citizens was to urge on the police to study footage to see if any perpetrators could be spotted.

Perhaps the greatest perversity about the explosion of surveillance is that experts say it doesn't necessarily do any good. While crime has gone down in some areas, studies show that it's seldom due to the presence of CCTV cameras. In fact, there is evidence that cameras can provoke more criminal behavior.

"If people start to feel they are constantly under surveillance, the feeling of being watched starts to create the behavior that the surveillance was there to prevent," said Kirstie Ball, an expert in the impact of surveillance on society and a professor at the Open University Business School.

"Once you feel the screws are being turned, that your every move is being pinned down, you actually start trying to find ways to get around what's become a pervasive system."

An irony is that while most people don't want to feel monitored or observed by a government, many will reveal lots about themselves on Web sites and reality-style TV programmes, getting titillation from what would otherwise be an irritation.

Yet ultimately, she worries that the breakdown in trust that can be created between individuals and the state by excess surveillance is the greatest long-term worry.

"It can actually make for a slow social suicide," she said.

Author Unbowed About Jesus Revelations

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Source:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070425/2/138cl.html

A new book and television documentary claiming Jesus Christ's tomb has been discovered and that he and Mary Magdalene had a son has drawn worldwide scepticism from religious and scientific groups.

But the man behind the controversial claim says he stands behind his work and so far the critics have failed to "punch any holes" in his evidence.

The Jesus Family Tomb, written by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino and released in Australia this month, details their journey to prove a connection between a first century burial tomb in Jerusalem and Jesus and his family.

The story began in 2003 when, while studying some ancient burial boxes, or ossuaries, Jacobovici came across one with the inscription "Jesus son of Joseph".

A Palestinian Jewish antiquities expert told Jacobovici that along with that ossuary were 10 others in the same family tomb including ones inscribed Joseph, Matthew, and two marked Mary.

However, he told Jacobovici the find was unremarkable in that all names, especially Mary, were common at the time and one of the Marys was written as Mariamne - a name not associated with Jesus.

But the coincidence of all those names grouped together sparked Jacobovici's interest and a quick internet search found recent academic research which he said lent weight to the claim that Mary Magdalene may have used the name Mariamne.

The book further says another ossuary found in the same tomb had the inscription "Judah, son of Jesus".

That no one had ever heard of Jesus' son could be explained so the authors say by the fact that it was common practice for children of people seen as a threat to the Roman powers to be executed along with their parents.

Therefore the existence of the son may have been a carefully guarded secret among Jesus' followers.

Despite early evidence of one of the major discoveries of all time, film maker and journalist Jacobovici says he remained sceptical about what he had found.

"The part of me as a human being gets excited but the other part that is a journalist has to always be sceptical.

"So when I saw the first ossuary with the inscription 'Jesus son of Joseph' part of me said 'Wow', but the other part of me said 'hold on'."

He hired a statistician who calculated the chances of all those names appearing within the same tomb at about one in 600.

Jacobovici also had DNA from the ossuaries labelled Jesus and Mariamne tested, showing neither were related - something he says would not have been expected from a family tomb and pointed to the possibility they were married and had a child.

Jacobovici insisted the evidence proved the book was no fantasy like the Da Vinci Code - which claimed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had a daughter, whose lineage still survived today.

"This is not a product of my imagination - people can huff and they can puff, but the tomb is a fact.

"The ossuaries in it are a fact. The inscriptions on six of them are a fact. The Jesus son of Joseph inscription is a fact," Jacobovici said.

"(The group names on the ossuaries) is not only not common, it's not even rare. It's unique."

However criticism of the book and documentary has been overwhelming.

At last count about 44,000 websites had been created concerning the find, with the majority ridiculing Jacobovici and his colleagues.

"I'm not naive, I know that if you make a claim that you've found the tomb of Jesus and his entire family practically, including his DNA, people are going to take notice and some people are going to be very very critical."

But Jacobovici said what had surprised him was how little response there had been to what he called "the hard facts" of his investigation.

"A lot of it has been just personal, from people you would think were scholars - which in a way makes me feel good.

"It makes me feel good because it means we really did our job well," he said.

"And if there was one hole to punch in it they would have punched it.

"But nobody's been able to punch any holes in our investigation, so when people start saying 'Hey, you did it for the money', for me it puts a smile on my face because to me they've got nothing."

Jacobovici predicted eventually there would be more research conducted around the Jerusalem tomb, now that his team had opened this particular religious can of worms.

"I think there's going to be more attempts to study the tomb closer - for example with infrared technology to see if there are more inscriptions on the wall.

"Because potentially it could say Jesus was the best bread maker in Jerusalem and that would be the end of the story. Or it could say Jesus, King of the Jews; or Jesus, Messiah," he said.

"You can only ridicule the messenger for so long, but I think also serious people are beginning to weigh in and they are beginning to say, 'Well these guys have brought this up. Why don't we have some follow up'?

"I think that's going to happen and when it does happen I hope to be there and do my job as a film-maker, writer, journalist, and see this job to the end."

Michael Moore Responds to Treasury Secretary's Investigation Threat

by: Michael Moore

May 12, 2007

Source:
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/51794/



Under investigation by the Bush Dictatorship for taking ill 9/11 clean up workers to Cuba for better treatment than they received in America, Moore answers, "I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide."



Open Letter from Michael Moore to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson


Secretary Henry Paulson
Department of the Treasury


Secretary Paulson,

I am contacting you in light of the document sent to me dated May 2, 2007, which was received May 7, 2007 indicating that an investigation has been opened up with regards to a trip I took to Cuba with a group of Americans that included some 9/11 heroes in March 2007 related to the filming of my next documentary, on the American Healthcare system. SiCKO, which will be seen in theaters this summer, will expose the health care industry's greed and control over America's political processes.

I believe that the decision to conduct this investigation represents the latest example of the Bush Regime's abusing the federal government for raw, crass, political purposes. Over the last seven years of the Bush Dictatorship, we have seen the abuse of government to promote a political agenda designed to benefit the conservative base of the Republican Party, special interests, and major financial contributors. From holding secret meetings for the energy industry to re-writing science findings to cooking the books on intelligence to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, this Regime has shown time and time again that it will abuse its power and authority.

There are a number of specific facts that have led me to conclude that politics could very well be driving this Bush Regime investigation of me and my film.

First, the Bush Regime has been aware of this matter for months (since October 2006) and never took any action until less than two weeks before SiCKO is set to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival and a little more than a month before it is scheduled to open in the United States.

Second, the health care and insurance industry, which is exposed in the movie and has expressed concerns about the impact of the movie on their industries, is a major corporate underwriter of Herr Fuhrer George W. Bush and the Republican Party, having contributed over $13 million to the Bush campaign in 2004 and more than $180 million to Republican candidates over the last two campaign cycles.

It is well documented that the industry is very concerned about the impact of SiCKO. They have threatened their employees if they talk to me. They have set up special internal crises lines should I show up at their headquarters. Employees have been warned about the consequences of participating in SiCKO. Despite this, some employees, at great risk to themselves, have gone on camera to tell the American people the truth about the health care industry. I can understand why that industry's main recipient of its contributions -- Herr Fuhrer Bush -- would want to harass, intimidate, and potentially prevent this film from having its widest possible audience.

And, third, this investigation is being opened in the wake of misleading attacks on the purpose of the Cuba trip from a possible leading Republican candidate Fred Thompson, a major conservative newspaper The New York Post, and various right wing blogs.

For five and a half years, the Bush Regime has ignored and neglected the heroes of the 9/11 community. These heroic first responders have been left to fend for themselves, without coverage and without care. I understand why the Bush Regime is coming after me -- I have tried to help the very people they refuse to help, but until George W. Bush outlaws helping your fellow man, I have broken no laws and I have nothing to hide.

I demand that the Bush Regime immediately end this investigation and spend its time and resources trying to support some of the real heroes of 9/11.

Sincerely,

Michael Moore

Preventing War with Iran

by: Noam Chomsky

April 07, 2007

Source:
http://www.alternet.org/
http://www.alternet.org/story/50197/


Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements - from Washington and Baghdad - about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble.

What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.

This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed - or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.

In this case, however, even ridicule - notably absent - would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush Regime and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.


"The Iran effect"

The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."

What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim - though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush Regime against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.

Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through - as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.

The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam - fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites - nuclear and otherwise - in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."

Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.

As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.


Promoting democracy - at home

These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion - this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.

We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).

Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over US$100,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.

The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.

If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.

Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years - with scattered and temporary exceptions - and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus.

Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.

Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species.

Venezuela Criticizes DEA As 'New Cartel'

by: Fabiola Sanchez, Associated Press

Monday, May 07, 2007

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us_drugs

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela on Monday said it will not allow U.S. agents to carry out counter-drug operations in the country, accusing the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration of being a "new cartel" that aids traffickers.

Justice Minister Pedro Carreno said the South American nation suspended cooperation with the agency in 2005 after determining that "they were moving a large amount of drugs." President Hugo Chavez at the time also accused the DEA of spying.

"The United States with its DEA monopolizes the shipping of drugs like a cartel," Carreno told reporters. "We determined that we were evidently in the presence of a new cartel." He did not elaborate.

U.S. officials say about 10 DEA agents have remained in Venezuela working with law enforcement contacts even after the Chavez government suspended formal cooperation.
Carreno was responding to comments by John Walters, the U.S. director of National Drug Control Policy, who told the Colombian magazine Semana in an interview published last week: "Chavez has refused to cooperate. It's a shame. Venezuela is gaining in importance for the drug traffickers."

Carreno said Venezuela is making important strides in fighting drug trafficking.

"The Venezuelan government doesn't accept blackmail," Carreno said. Security agencies are willing to follow up on any information provided to track down traffickers, he added, but "what we will not permit them to do is carry out operations in our territory."

Don't Slag Sanjaya: He's A True Star

by: ACE BURPEE

Source:
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2007/04/20/4078911-sun.html



His name has become a household word, but now the best thing to happen to television in years (for me, not so much for many others, apparently) has been kicked off American Idol.

Sanjaya Malakar's unprecedented and glorious run on the biggest TV show in the world has finally come to an end.

American Idol fans, you have your show back.

And I could not be less interested in how it turns out.


A five-pack on the would-be star:

5. Don't be mad at Sanjaya. Aren't you always telling your kids that all you're asking is that they try their best? He likes his parents, he tries hard, he's good to others. This should be your kid's role model.

4. Sanjaya was raked over the coals for apparently being a sub-par singer in what essentially is a singing competition. Since when is a good singing voice a pre-requisite for joining the music industry? Neil Young wouldn't win American Idol and he's done OK for himself.

3. If you want someone to blame for Sanjaya ruining your show, blame the guy who canceled The Gong Show in 1980. There should never have been a talent contest by any other name.

2. Do those who wanted the kid off the show also want Gabe to stop dancing? I hope not.

1. I'm going to start growing my hair and go as Sanjaya for Halloween. That's a mark of your impact on popular culture. How many other Idol contestants could be a Halloween costume? None. That means the biggest star didn't win.

Arab Street Warms To Showman Ahmadinejad

by: Andrew England (in Cairo)

Friday, April 06, 2007

Source:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a2ccdde6-e450-11db-bf06-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=fc3334c0-2f7a-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.html

On the dusty streets of Cairo, once considered the most important capital in the Arab world, Egyptians mulled over the recent performance of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, with most concluding he deserved a thumbs-up.

The Iranian President’s eye-catching showmanship as he announced the release of the 15 British sailors and marines seems to have generated admiration laced with a hint of frustration – why couldn’t Arab leaders be more like him?

The fact that Mr Ahmadi-Nejad is the leader of a Persian, predominantly Shia nation, seemed not to matter. “I consider Ahmadi-Nejad a leader of the Arab and Muslim people. He has the confidence. It angers and upsets me to no end, and a source of our Arab humiliation, that we don’t have such a leader among the Arab nations,” says Mohamed Ali, a 20-year-old student.

As Sunni Arab leaders voice concerns about sectarian tensions they say are fuelled by Iran and its interference in Iraq and Lebanon and watch Tehran’s nuclear programme with suspicion, other, ordinary Arabs see Mr Ahmadi-Nejad as a breath of fresh air.

The feelings are compounded by the perception that Sunni states, such as US allies Egypt, Jordan, and Arabia, simply follow Washington’s bidding, analysts say.

Abdullah Alshayji, a professor of international relations and head of the US studies unit at Kuwait University, says the Iranian leader strikes a balance that resonates in the Arab world: candid and outspoken in his criticism of the west and Israel, while appearing as a humble man of the people.

“We see that this could really give credence to Iran, that they are standing up to the two dominant powers,” Mr Alshayji says.

“What we see is Iran gaining the hearts and minds by standing up to the major powers, so it is likely the masses in the Arab street, or maybe the Muslim street, look at Iran as the only country that can play head to head with the these powers, while the Arab leaders cannot be counted on.”

Still, others say Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s and Iran’s image in the Arab world have been hurt by the continuing violence in Iraq and the recent street clashes in Lebanon – both countries where Iran backs Shia movements.

Iran’s growing influence in the region has also triggered reactions among the governments of Sunni states. Recent announcements by Egypt, Jordan, and the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council that they would look at developing nuclear technology were deemed in part to be a message directed at Tehran.

Arabia has also become conspicuously more active in the region, hosting last week’s Arab League summit after initially giving up its turn to hold the meeting. Riyadh has also recently brokered a deal on a Palestinian unity government, another area where Sunni states complain of Iranian interference.

Mr Alshayji says that Iran’s decision to “embrace” the Palestinian issue and support Hamas proved to be a major embarrassment to Sunni leaders.

“Iran has played very smart politics and very showmanship politics, and has been able to gain a lot of support in the Arab street,” says Prof Alshayji.

Back in Cairo, Ashraf al-Loughi, a 43-year-old carpenter, describes Mr Ahmadi-Nejad as a “decent, moderate, man who didn’t want any problems”.

“He released the British sailors. He had the decency to send them home,” Mr Loughi says.

Additional reporting by: Waleed Marzouk

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Apocalypse again -- Call Up The Vietnam Vets -- Where Else Can Bush Get 21,500 Trained Soldiers For His 'Surge'?

by: Paul Whitefield, Los Angeles Times
(PAUL WHITEFIELD supervises the editorial pages' copy desk.)

January 21, 2007

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-modestproposal21jan21,0,1717035.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

LISTENING TO President Bush's speech on Iraq earlier this month, my first thought was: "Where the heck are we going to get 21,500 more soldiers to send to Iraq?" Our Reserves are depleted, our National Guard is worn out, our Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the limit.

Then it hit me: Re-up our Vietnam War veterans and send them.

They're trained. They're battle-hardened. Many already have post-traumatic stress disorder. Also, some have their own vehicles — Harleys mostly, which are cheap to run, make small targets and are highly mobile. I'll even bet that lots of these guys still have guns (you know, just in case).

OK, some vets are a bit long in the tooth (or don't have teeth — because of Agent Orange?). Or their eyesight isn't what it was. Or their reflexes have slowed. But with today's modern weaponry, how well do you have to see?

Too out of shape, you say? Listen, if Rocky Balboa can step back into the ring at age 60, all these Vietnam War vets need is a little boot-camp magic and they'll be good to go. I mean, who doesn't want to drop a few pounds?

Don't want geezers fighting for us? Well, let's face it, our young people have greater value right here. Most of us want to retire and collect our hard-earned Social Security, and we need those youngsters here, working and paying taxes — lots of taxes.

Finally, these Vietnam War guys are hungry for revenge. After all, they fought in the only war the U.S. ever lost. And they didn't even get a parade. So this is their chance. We can throw them that big parade when they come marching home.

Another U.S. Base In The Indian Ocean?

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Source:
http://www.sibernews.com/news/news-feature/-200703137651/


India, from a long-term perspective, has every reason to be concerned about the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between the U.S. and Sri Lanka. THE TEN-YEAR Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) signed by the United States and Sri Lanka on March 5, which provides for among other things logistics supplies and re-fuelling facilities, has major ramifications for the region, particularly India.

However, New Delhi's silence on the development is a reflection of the changed geo-political environment in the post-Cold War era with the emergence of the U.S. as the sole superpower. The new dynamics in India-U.S. ties could be another reason for South Block's silence.

For all the sophistry and spin by the Americans, the ACSA is a military deal and, on the face of it, is loaded in Washington's favour. For the U.S., it is as good as acquiring a base in the Indian Ocean and at little or no cost. In the immediate context, the ACSA suits the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime as an advertisement of its influence with the superpower in general and in its fight against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in particular.

Just a few years ago, such an agreement would have been inconceivable given the sensitivities of India in view of the geographical proximity of Sri Lanka. For example, the grant of permission by Colombo to Voice of America to establish its transmitter in the island and the leasing of oil tanks in Trincomalee port to pro-American firms were major bones of contention between India and Sri Lanka for decades.

Both the subjects were covered elaborately in the exchange of letters between Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lanka's President J.R. Jayawardene as part of the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. The key element in the letters was the agreement that given "the importance of nurturing this traditional friendship, it is imperative that both Sri Lanka and India reaffirm the decision not to allow our respective territories to be used for activities prejudicial to each other's unity, territorial integrity and security."

The provisions of the ACSA cannot be described as being detrimental to New Delhi's interests in the current phase of its relations with Washington.

However, in a possible new context India has every reason to be concerned about the pact. A brief summary of the nature of the agreement will illustrate this.

Sri Lanka is the 90th country to sign an ACSA with the U.S.; Washington had been keen on such an agreement for years. The fact it took so long for Colombo to join the ACSA club is illuminating. The agreement provides a framework for increased inter-operability to transfer and exchange logistics supplies, and support and re-fuelling services during peacekeeping missions, humanitarian operations, and joint exercises.

The U.S. is engaged in these operations in different parts of the globe. Sri Lanka, a nation of 20 million saddled with an ethnic conflict, does not have the capabilities or infrastructure for such ventures even if it desired. The definition of some of the operations under the ASCA could be politically tricky. Iraq and Afghanistan are a case in point. Are the U.S. and its allies engaged in peacekeeping operations or waging a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer will depend on who is posing the question to whom.

The categories of allowable goods and services include food, petroleum, and transportation. Of course, the provision of weapons systems or ammunition is expressly prohibited under the agreement. There are examples galore where food and fuel have been used as weapons. Indeed, there are safeguards in the pact that logistics support allowed under it cannot be transferred beyond the forces of the receiving party without consent of the providing party. And all transactions must be mutually agreed upon before any transfer is made.

However, is a foolproof mechanism possible to ensure compliance in letter and spirit of such accords particularly for smaller countries in dealing with a superpower?

Curiously, the signatory to the document from the Sri Lankan side was Gothabaya Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary and brother of the President. The American side was represented by its envoy in Colombo, Robert Blake. The ACSA comes under the Pentagon's jurisdiction. Though the signing ceremony took place in Colombo, the Sri Lankan regime did not deem it necessary to issue any statement on the subject. The Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Information merrily circulated the press release issued by the U.S. Embassy in Colombo on the deal.