isn't it double standard and discrimination on the basis of cast or either??? if not then what???

Posted by: | April 22,

You are exactly right, it is an American double-standard. The United State government is still fully involved with the Iranian government, just as it was with Saddam before deciding to take down the Iraqi Baathist government.

Iran is only doing one thing wrong, it is no longer, since the fall of the late Shah (Iran's former Maliki), acede to the will of the United States of America - and it should not do so!

Sadly however, you are wasting words. American sycophants know what you know albeit they will never admit to the truth. Why? Because they have staked out an American position and they will fight for it, lie for it and some will die for it if necessary.

They call that being patriotic!

Rev

And if were Dems involved doing the same thing - would you feel the same way about it?

Plainfacto

You are exactly right, because I am not a Democrat. Now can you ever get past being a closet Republican?

an american political scientist Mr.Norman Finkelstien appeared on future tv lebanon some times in january 2008, and praised hizbs.

Laden family still allowed to have billions of dollars of business in united states, while this is the same family, whose members were organized 911 event which killed thousands of innocent americans.

so, the question is: ladens can still do business in usa but iranians are banned.

iran praises hizbs, thats why iran is terrorist and all iranians should face the concequences, while Mr. Norman niether is declared terrorist nor banned in usa.

isn't it double standard and discrimination on the basis of cast or either??? if not then what???

//When your children do the wrong thing do you rationalize their behavior PF. These folks will never repent until they are confronted with the truth\\ -The Rev

And if were Dems involved doing the same thing - would you feel the same way about it?

//then please recall 1950s, when popular Mosaddiq's govt of iran was removed ??? what was the crime of iranian nation then???\\ -Hussain Mehdi

Sure. Why didn't Iranians ever stop to consider that the Russians may have done this - to upset the delicate balance between our two countries? Russia was always trying to get in the way of our business and ruin it in the height of the 'cold war' years.

The Russians had done this to us on many fronts during these times - it was not uncommon. As we say in the US 'you got played'. Look into it, if you wish...

Well Dimitry, Hesballah is still doing a lot of mischief. Mischief; wow - is that an understatement.

Yes, it is possible for Iran to come around the way we would hope. The sensationalist press seem to think so - or at least they believe they can sell it to the public. I don't know if this latest balderdash is gov't propaganda - or media madness. Sometimes it can be a bit of both.

I still think it is in our best interest - and the best interest of US/Iran relations - to expose our comrade Ruskies/Mossadeq dirty work through the press, and upset their little cozy tea party.

respectable Plainfacto !

debate is debate. debate is not a midium to condemn others but debate is a medium to make people thinking.

if, you are want recall something...

then please recall 1950s, when popular Mosaddiq's govt of iran was removed ??? what was the crime of iranian nation then???

targetting and killing all passengers of an iranian passenger plane was what? if not a peace effort.

providing chemicals to saddam to use against innocent iranians was what, if not a peace effort...?

you mention embassy matter, but what about that embassy's efforts to topple another iranian govt to fix shah again ???

you talk hizbs, but would you like to mention even a single effort by UNO or usa govt to improve the most deprived shia community in lebanon before 1980 ???

when, people are deprived of their rights than you keep quite, but when people show reaction then you call them "evils" ??

if, you had advised lebanesegovt then (as you advise lebanese govt today to counter hizbs)to treat all communities equally, then purhaps, there would have been a different middle east today.

Palestine issue has not been created by today's iranian govt, but it is there for more than fifty years. there has been violance, so, who provided them arms then, as you blame that iran is providing aids now ??

hiding one fact and showing another fact can not resolve the problem. if, you are sincere in resolving problems, then go into the miseries of common people.

Any nation wants its borders to be secure. When Cuba tired of US hegemony and decided to fight back, the US threatened to blow Russian ships out of the water and embargoed Cuba. And that cuban embargo has lasted now for nearly 50 years.

England and the USA have interfered in the internal affairs of both Iraq and Iran for nearly a century now, and the bullies that we are - we dare neighboring countries to resent or resist what we are doing.

The moral relativists in America would sing a completely different tune if the tables were turned! The latter do not believe in right, they believe in American right and America and Israel's right to exist!

You are making very broad judgements and sweeping statements about Repubs that are unfair and - for the most part - unfounded.

Plainfacto

If that is the case, I am not alone. The majority of the American people overwhelming rejected the Republicans in the last election, and our allies are sick of them too.

Senator McCain said that if he were elected, one of the first things that he would do would be to try to repair relations with (our old European) allies.

When your children do the wrong thing do you rationalize their behavior PF. These folks will never repent until they are confronted with the truth. You should not be a an enabler, for if anything I was kind to them!

==Beirut '83.
The 'great satan' campaign.
The '78 hostages/Tehran embassey
To name but a few memorable events that you chose to forget.
Isn't that enough?==

'83....'78....That's quite a few years ago.

We seem to be pretty good friends with China, with Vietnam, several other places that seemed to be very nasty enemies a few years ago.

Iran and Cuba seem to be long-term exceptions, where grudges are held and nurtured, transferred from one generation of American leaders to the next. Seem quite irrational to me, for a world's only hyper-power to continue squeezing a small impoverished island nation and to setup a third world country that has not started a war of aggression against their neighbors in hundreds of years as the greatest threat to our interests worldwide.

Wouldn't be a propaganda campaign to demonstrate an external enemy to an ignorant and fearful population, would it?

Dear Hussein Mehdi:
Beirut '83.
The 'great satan' campaign.
The '78 hostages/Tehran embassey
To name but a few memorable events that you chose to forget.
Isn't that enough?

No one hates the Iranian people; but they hate their government and their Mullahs.
Hesballah continues to incite violence in Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip, and elsewhere.
There is no real excuse, but real propaganda..
You remebered what is good propaganda against the US; not what hurt the US.

No Iranian was involved in 911, but iran is enemy?

Iran condemned 911 from the first minute, but iran is enemy?

All major Iranian cities saw pouring and gathering of Iranians in large numbers to protest 911, but iran is enemy?

It was iran that helped to organize elections and in creation of a popular govt in Afghanistan after 2001, with all available means, but iran is enemy?

It was iran that helped to stabilize Iraq in regard to maintaining peace, elections, creating popular govt with all available resources, but iran is enemy?

It was iran that recognized both Iraq and Afghanistan and opened embassies there, but iran is enemy?

All independent reports suggest that iran's atomic research is peaceful and according to the standards and laws of iaea, but iran is enemy?

Those, who do not yet recognize current status of Afghanistan and Iraq, are friends???

Those, who have no embassies in Iraq and Afghanistan, are friends???

Those, who are exploitative, are friends?

This is the chart of Mr. Bush's justice.

//A person is not absolved simply because they say, I am not a ..!\\ -The Rev

A person is defined by what they do - right?

The mistrust of Hilary - if that is what you are referring to - isn't a mistrust of women per se. It is a mistrust of this particular woman. Or a mistrust in Anne Coulter because of what she say/does - not because she is a woman.

If it is what defines a person - Hilary for exmple - I don't trust her because she wants to grab guns, insists on health care in a way that is not affordable, and many other ill-concieved plans for programs/ideas that do not bode well for America. It has not a THING to do with the fact that she is a woman - it has everything to do with the way she percieves wrongly how to administrate this gov't. And that is enough for me to NOT vote for her if she should become the Dems candidate.

You are making very broad judgements and sweeping statements about Repubs that are unfair and - for the most part - unfounded. Some may be accused of befriending the KKK in the past; but that boat has long sailed. Back in the early twentieth century, many candidtates were ushered into various offices because they enjoyed the support of those dxxchebag racist groups. But like I said - I belive that ship has long sailed away.

Real Americans support and defend the Constitution. The need to see that Americans are allowed to have the freedom of their daily lives pursued without fear of oppression - or even terrorist attacks - sometimes means going the extra distance to ensure that it can be maintained and reasonably achieved.

Plainfacto

I was referring to the pedant basis for American Foreign Policy towards Iraq, which is a microcosm of its policy toward all other nations of the world.

America simply intends to remain atop the world order, by any means necessary! If you are a nation that will comply, you have nothing to worry about, otherwise...!
In its current permutation, the honor of American moral relativism rests squarely on the shoulders of Republicans.

It was never a matter of what was right; to Republicans all that mattered was we are America and therefore 'we are right'!
Republicans will never change course until they manage to deal with their KKK mentality and acknowledge that they are wrong.

Even Trent Lott of if we had simply listened to Strom fame! You will be offended by this, but American Foreign Policy is simply about 'White Supremacy'!
Thank God that Senator McCain spoke about yesterday, with regard to Bush and Rumsfeld's failings. He admitted on the This Week Show, that he was as frustrated as everyone else, for about 4 years altogether.

Republicans are responsible for the 2003 invasion debacle and America's current occupation of Iraq?

Republicans blocked subsequent efforts by Democrats in the House and Senate to ameliorate the out of control situation in Iraq.

The Republicans received a 'thumpin' and were replaced in 2006 (GWB admitted that); and the public held the Republicans responsible for the debacle in Iraq and replaced them with Democrats.

Many of the Republicans who have remained are in the process of leaving. They are scurrying away in the manner of former Entomologist Senator Tom Delay - like the roaches that they are.

What a bunch of unprincipled individuals, some of them. The rest, well, their distinguished careers, agree with them or not, have been destroyed by GWB, and their cooperation with GWB.

It seems to me that you are employing a Republican ploy, i.e., when you are wrong, they include everyone else in their failings, rather than simply admitting to have made an egregious error!

Or to put it another way, if I am going down, everyone else is going down with me!

-----------------------
A person is not absolved simply because they say, I am not a ..!

Racism and misogyny are symptomatic of a much deeper pathology.

An individual will say, I am not a racist because of the following: I have friends who are.., I have ... in my neighborhood. I worship with ...., I am married to a ..., therefore I cannot be a ...!

And the same individual will say I am not misogynist because of the following: I have friends who are..., my mother is ...., my wife and daughters are....! So how can I be a misogynist.

If you ask the mother, wife, daughter or friends, is my... a misogynist, many will answer, of course he is!

Think about it!

==As expected, you never did have a good grip when it comes to dealing with people you don't like - like me - for example. ==

I know it must be hard for you to envision, but my post had literally nothing to do with you.

I made several general points about demonizing your adversary by painting them as "irrational", leading to a shift of public opinion towards the use of military force, due to perception of the futility of negotiation with "suicidal fanatics".

This is an important point to make and to discuss, as it drives much of the current military/political decision making both in the US and in Israel. Given the heavy manipulation of public opinion the Pentagon is engaged in, a clear understanding of what is factual information and what is PR spin is extremely important. Therefore, a logical approach to threat definition and management is key. It is inappropriate to simply accept tendentious and dubious claims of Iran's leadership suicidal tendendcies, their eagerness to unleash armageddon on their nation and their near-total inabiltiy to be deterred. When the world's only hyperpower, having digested a large oil-producing nation, claims with a serious face that another oil-rich neighbor is bucking for an all out war with us and we just have to respond forcefully before it is "too late", I remain...unconviced.

You responded, predictibly, with an ad hominem defense of...yourself.

Do you have ANYTHING to add to the debate?

//What I know of Persians tells me that they are in fact very pragmatic and business oriented, lurid stories of human wave attacks during Iran/Iraq in the neocon press notwithstanding.\\ =Dimitry

What you are attempting to do, is imply that I have racist tendencies twards people that I do not understand. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I have known many Iranians here in the US over the last three decades - I don't have have problem one with any of them. But as for how I feel about the IRGC and Hesballah, and what they have been up to over the last twenty-five years - that is another story.

As far as to what I wrote about the Basij 'human wave attacks'; that is already a matter of history. That particular part of history - and other parts like it - becomes advantageous for you to attempt to say don't exist or is simply unimportant to validate your slant. You are aligning yourself to the same rash of 'media mania' that the press practices ('there is no better story than a sensational one; how else can we trowel this garbage out?' -a paraphrase of Wm Randolph Hearst) - which has done much to distort the truth to your/their own liking.

I believe that it is important to consider all that history has to offer and then let the chips fall where they may.

As expected, you never did have a good grip when it comes to dealing with people you don't like - like me - for example.
It figures...

More good stuff from the Times:

-------------------------------------------
...
On Aug. 3, 2005, 14 marines died in Iraq. That day, Mr. Cowan, who said he had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the "twisted version of reality" being pushed on analysts in briefings, called the Pentagon to give "a heads-up" that some of his comments on Fox "may not all be friendly," Pentagon records show. Mr. Rumsfeld's senior aides quickly arranged a private briefing for him, yet when he told Bill O'Reilly that the United States was "not on a good glide path right now" in Iraq, the repercussions were swift.

Mr. Cowan said he was "precipitously fired from the analysts group" for this appearance. The Pentagon, he wrote in an e-mail message, "simply didn't like the fact that I wasn't carrying their water." The next day James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, presided over another conference call with analysts. He urged them, a transcript shows, not to let the marines' deaths further erode support for the war.

"The strategic target remains our population," General Conway said. "We can lose people day in and day out, but they're never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen."

"General, I just made that point on the air," an analyst replied.

"Let's work it together, guys," General Conway urged.
...
-------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=9&hp
-------------------------------------------
"The strategic target remains our population," General Conway said.

That's the money quote, right there. Isn't it illegal for the Pentagon to engage in domestic psypops?

==Could it be possible that 'the dastardly Iraqis/Iranians' (as Dimitry put it twards me earlier) - apart form the US gov't and its allies - are forcing a situation that inevitably leads us into this war?==

This could be - if Iranians are irrational. This idea lurks behind everything you write about them.

My experience tells me to be highly suspicious of claims of utter unreasonableness by an "adversary", which are often used to foment public opinion in favor of war. We just can't reason with these people, we have to just put them in their place, teach them a lesson, they only understand the language of force. The above has been heard so many times from our beloved government and their allies that it has practically become a cliche.

What I know of Persians tells me that they are in fact very pragmatic and business oriented, lurid stories of human wave attacks during Iran/Iraq in the neocon press notwithstanding.

So your continuous attempts to paint them as Armageddon seeking lunatics that are itching to be fried by Israeli nuclear bombs seem to be either a concerted propaganda effort or the musings of a fully propagnadized mind. A VRIO or a fool, if you will.

Apropo current discussion about message management and psyops by the government - how do they get these consultants on TV to deliver their talking points?

-------------------------------------------
...
In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment -- the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld's private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals to duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself.

"Oh, you have no idea," Mr. Allard said, describing the effect. "You're back. They listen to you. They listen to what you say on TV." It was, he said, "psyops on steroids" -- a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. "It's not like it's, 'We'll pay you $500 to get our story out,' " he said. "It's more subtle."

The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.

In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat. The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda; an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive "war of liberation."

At the Pentagon, members of Ms. Clarke's staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.

"You could see that they were messaging," Mr. Krueger said. "You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over." Some days, he added, "We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You'd look at them and say, 'This is working.' "

On April 12, 2003, with major combat almost over, Mr. Rumsfeld drafted a memorandum to Ms. Clarke. "Let's think about having some of the folks who did such a good job as talking heads in after this thing is over," he wrote.
...
------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=5&hp
-------------------------------------------

A definite "must read". All eleven pages.

//And depending upon their decision, everyone else becomes their potential victims - individual foes, other nations, citizens of the republic and those who are obligated to fight for or against those who wield the power of the republic!\\ -The Rev

You can't say that it is exclusively Repubs that are to blame. Or are you blaming the New World Order, Skull 'n Bones, Rhodes Scholars, Steven Colbert(ha!), or the entire Western Society as a whole? All of these groups have more Dems than Repubs; aren't they just as equally guilty and fallable? I mean, you distincly believe that the Repubs are to blame, but in honesty you know that isn't so.

History says that Woodrow Wilson (WWI) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (WWII) were both Dems. And we both know this. I don't want to go to this arguement to point this out, but sometimes it helps to remember it to put it all back into perspective.

Isn't Al Sadr presently giving an ultimatum to Maliki, the US, and the UK for a real war? Could it be possible that 'the dastardly Iraqis/Iranians' (as Dimitry put it twards me earlier) - apart form the US gov't and its allies - are forcing a situation that inevitably leads us into this war? The military/geopolitical/economical aspects we face are forces that also strongly influence our hand to do what we must to be prudent and responsible to OUR people; isn't that their ultimate responsibility to do as they see fit in these regards?

Both you and Dimitry believe that the Dems/Repubs are equally to blame. But if you wanted to be truely fair about blame - it is high time to admit that our adversaries have not been at all righteous as well. That would be fair to say - by not obviously/conspicuously leaving them ou of the equasion...

==How many armed foreign ships and boats are operating in Iraqi territorial waters? What are they doing? Or should those details even be considered at all?==

Quite a few, I think, mostly US and UK and some Australians as well. They patrol against terrorist infiltration, I guess, and protect the oil infrastructure. Also, a lot of US/UK supplies are coming through Basra, so they support those operations. Their presence, can be greatly reduced or eliminated with the removal of the American military presence in the country.

American Foreign Policy...
... is based upon American moral relativism; that is to say that the survival of America and its ideals, moral and immoral, is tantamount and all that matters in the universal scheme.

The danger of republicanism (American style) is that incredible condigned power, as a result, has been transfered into the hands of a small number of individuals who can choose to use unlimited power (power sufficient to destroy humanity) in order to wreak havoc on others - even though the empowered individuals may lack compassion or the requisite understanding or knowledge to know when and when not to wield such power!

And depending upon their decision, everyone else becomes their potential victims - individual foes, other nations, citizens of the republic and those who are obligated to fight for or against those who wield the power of the republic!

What is happening to Iraq given the actions of those who are in power in America is that the nation and people of Iraq, the adjoining countries in the region, the American military and the American people are all powerless victims as a result of the power that has been placed into the hands of the potentiated in America!

Dimitry writes:

-- This difficult and dangerous situation is best resolved by taking armed foreign ships out of Iraqi territorial waters and encouraging Iran and Iraq to negotiate a binding treaty. ---

How many armed foreign ships and boats are operating in Iraqi territorial waters? What are they doing? Or should those details even be considered at all?

//As a matter of practice and policy, the US Navy routinely makes "freedom of navigation" transits each year through many disputed waterways around the world As a matter of practice and policy, the US Navy routinely makes "freedom of navigation" transits each year through many disputed waterways around the world...just to keep them open..\\ -Frank

I'd buy that for a dollar.
And - Frank comes up with the right answer this time! Good insight came to the cause of this tempest-in-a-teacup Naval exercise.

But as you and I know Frank, there are - and always will be - those who feel it is their job to treat the military with contempt.

This time, your politicking paid off.
Not always the case...

==For clarification, as part of the Freedom of Navigation program, the US Navy proposes the their freedom of navigation transits to higher authority.==

Please see below. This point has really nothing to do with the situation under discussion. There is no claim of "international waters" here. The disputed line of demarcation is the dividing line between two territorial waters.

==Actually, it is.

As a matter of practice and policy, the US Navy routinely makes "freedom of navigation" transits each year through many disputed waterways around the world (most notable is the Taiwan Straits, which the US considers international waters, and the PRC considers territorial waters).

Such transits are usually made under the philosophical assumption that rights not exercised are rights reliquished. Specifically, "The United States also believes that unchallenged excessive maritime claims may, in time, become valid through acquiescence. Accordingly, it is necessary for maritime nations, such as the United States, to protest excessive coastal claims through diplomatic channels and to exercise their navigation and overflight rights in the disputed regions."==

Actually, it is not, and it would help for you to look at the map.

The British have never made claims of operating in "international waters". These are territorial waters, either Iran's or Iraq's. The non-existant border is a regional boundary between Iran's and Iraq's coastal water, and as such doesn't fall under the main kind of international/territorial disputes that you described.

The problem, as I have described, but you either misunderstood or ignored, is that we have a situation of having foreign Navies operate in Iraqi territorial waters, with the line of demacration taking significance as an effective international boundary between potentially hostile powers. This difficult and dangerous situation is best resolved by taking armed foreign ships out of Iraqi territorial waters and encouraging Iran and Iraq to negotiate a binding treaty.

Rev writes:

-- I would be concerned if as the leader of a nation, I was constantly being upstaged given the professionalism and astutness of the military cabinet officials and others under my Command. --

Perhaps. Though, unlike you, I wouldn't be too concerned in all but a few cases. I think it depends on the leader in question.

Specifically, for a leader to think that they are being "upstaged" strikes me of arrogance and conceit. Not good qualities in a leader. I prefer my leaders to be more humble and secure.

Dimitry,

Rereading your comments, I see now that I failed to read them carefully enough, and missed a key caveat you provided; e.g., " ... unless ordered to."

For clarification, as part of the Freedom of Navigation program, the US Navy proposes the their freedom of navigation transits to higher authority. Where they are then approved or denied before execution. So, in that respect, I take your point. Though there clearly is a diffence between proposing transits as part of a formal program designed to preserve navigation rights and what you have suggested motivated the incident last year.

Dimitry writes:

-- It is not in their organizational character to play footsy with a potential adversary by fooling around with effectively international maritime borders ... --

Actually, it is.

As a matter of practice and policy, the US Navy routinely makes "freedom of navigation" transits each year through many disputed waterways around the world (most notable is the Taiwan Straits, which the US considers international waters, and the PRC considers territorial waters).

Such transits are usually made under the philosophical assumption that rights not exercised are rights reliquished. Specifically, "The United States also believes that unchallenged excessive maritime claims may, in time, become valid through acquiescence. Accordingly, it is necessary for maritime nations, such as the United States, to protest excessive coastal claims through diplomatic channels and to exercise their navigation and overflight rights in the disputed regions."

www.dod.mil/execsec/adr95/appendix_i.html

==I do not, however, find your argument that "What it smacks of ...is a (US) top-mandated scheme to provoke an international incident" all that compelling.==

I generally have a high opinion of the proffessionalism of the US Navy. My company builds very expensive equipment for them and I am generally very happy with them as an educated customer. My understanding is that the US Navy is very much a rules-based organization, which values adherence to legalities and traditions. UK Navy is likely even more so. It is not in their organizational character to play footsy with a potential adversary by fooling around with effectively international maritime borders, unless ordered to. It is, however, a sure fire way to create friction and potentially, an armed standoff.

==One final point regarding the demarcation of territorial waters in that region. It seems to me that there surely must be some form of demarcation in place ... even if not agreed to officially by both Iran and Iraq ... just as a matter of practicality. A "frontier" of sorts. (Perhaps an extension of the one-time-agreed-to Algiers Accord seaward??)==

I don't know, but that would be a matter for Iran and Iraq - the border only makes sense in the context of their relations. The problem is the US/UK Navies are operating in the Iraqi territorial waters and the line of demarcation, if one even exists, in effect starts to serve as an internatinal border. That's why I find it highly dubious that both the US and UK Navies would be so careless.

==I understand that you may not thing it relevant to the point you are making, but I suspect the location of that unofficial line/lane of demarcation is particularly relevant day-to-day on the deckplates of the ships (both military and commercial) plying those waters.==

One way to make it irrelavant, is to remove foreign armed vessels from the region and let Iran and Iraq negotiate an actual treaty.

It's the difference between professionals who have devoted... over understanding nuance and intricacy.

Frank

I agree, and what I am about to say is not intended to take a jibe at Mr. Bush.

Having said that, I would be concerned if as the leader of a nation, I was constantly being upstaged given the professionalism and astutness of the military cabinet officials and others under my Command!

This was is a DIASTER!!! Wrong war for us, Right war for Iranians. Proof:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=506

Pull TROOPS OUT NOW!

This was is a DIASTER!!! Wrong war for us, Right war for Iranians. Proof:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=506

Pull TROOPS OUT NOW!

Rev writes:

-- You have to give it to General Petraeus and company, these fellows seem to be extremely bright! The Executive Branch on the other hand - did someone get 'left back', or were they simply passed on regardless of their marks? --

It's the difference between professionals who have devoted their live to studying and understanding the military implications of geo-politcial policies; and politicians (on both sides of the aisle) who value political expediency over understanding nuance and intricacy.

Dimitry writes:

-- Neither our fake line, nor Iranian fake line, nor any pundit interpretation thereof changes the facts of this case. --

And some of those facts would be that Iran captured a group of British sailors for incursing "in their territorial waters."

Don't you think "capturing" Sailors in waters which, as you point out, have no officially agreed to territorial demarcation, is a bit provocative? Maybe even over-the-top? Surely there may have been other options. Escorting them out, perhaps?

That said, clearly there is a mutually adversarial relationship between Iran and the US/UK. And I have gone on record elsewhere in comments to this blog that, in my opinion, explicitly calling for Iran's 'regime change' within the pages of our National Security Strategy is beyond provocative.

And I won't dispute that the White House seized upon the incident to further it's adversarial rhetoric against Iran.

I do not, however, find your argument that "What it smacks of ...is a (US) top-mandated scheme to provoke an international incident" all that compelling.

One final point regarding the demarcation of territorial waters in that region. It seems to me that there surely must be some form of demarcation in place ... even if not agreed to officially by both Iran and Iraq ... just as a matter of practicality. A "frontier" of sorts. (Perhaps an extension of the one-time-agreed-to Algiers Accord seaward??)

I understand that you may not thing it relevant to the point you are making, but I suspect the location of that unofficial line/lane of demarcation is particularly relevant day-to-day on the deckplates of the ships (both military and commercial) plying those waters.

Dimitry,

I simply hope that the silent majority in America, the ones who have been brainwashed into believing that standing by and watching their own government murder and create mayhem around the world will understand, that is not what it means to be patriotic!

There is a higher principle invovled here. Now how do we get Americans to stop consuming long enough to take a proactive stance, and get behind a principle for once? Ours is supposed to be a government of the people, by and for the people - clearly something has gone wrong!

And what did GWB tell the American people to do during Christmas 2006? He said, ah don't worry about anything [Iraq], just go on with your Christmas shopping! And the Americn people went shopping while innocent human beings were being slaughtered given their government's directive!

If their is such a thing as comeuppance, perhaps that will explain why the American economy is hurting now!

The fact is that Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Admadinajab, UBL..., have not wiped out as many people in the past 5 years, as our government has ordered to be wiped out!

The Rev wonders if he has been placed on the subversive list for telling the truth yet?

Neither their fake line, nor our fake line, matters-- the U.S. is always wrong!

The CJCS seems to be doing his job, advising his boss that we need more troops to meet current and future national security requirements.

WilcoxP,

Particularly if the current or new CIC intends to stay with current policy!

Otherwise, we could reduce our troop requirements if we would learn to respect the sovereignty of other nations and people, and then adhere to the rule of law ourselves!

I would hate to be tasked with the responsibility of defending a nation, that makes a habit out of going out and starting fights with other nations!

"Balance" is a popular word these days inside the Joint Chiefs of Staff office. I believe GN Casey, CSA, used the term, "out of balance" when he reported to the house armed service committee on the state of Army readiness in Feb. Now it seems that Adm Mullen has picked up on it. What does it mean? It means we do not have enough soldiers, marines, airmen and navy guys to meet the nations security requirements. I would argue that it is the responsibility of the executive office to determine our nations security requirements and to ensure that we have enough folks in uniform to meet those requirements. The CJCS seems to be doing his job, advising his boss that we need more troops to meet current and future national security requirements.

What is the opposite of balance?

Ans. Imbalance, which in human terms is a polite way of saying that one is off of her or his rocker; the elevator doesn't quite reach the floor; or that one is not the sharpest tool in the tool shed or knife in
the drawer!

The American Military Corporation is beset with preserving itself and at the same time keeping its sanity. Senator McCain is the military's best bet for self-preservation, however, that is not all that matters.

Senator McCain simply needs to be given the office of Secretary of Defense over the The War Department; 911 proved that the Defense Department doesn't know a thing about defending a nation.

Now invading an doccupying other countries, they are good at that! Nation building? Nope, they are not very good at that either!

Americans have been encouraged to join the military, one of America's last bastions for earning a recession proof of income, and the military is always hiring.

Why? America will always be at war unless we change our leadership! What is truly out of balance is American foreign policy and its inchoate and retrograde leadership in DC.

You have to give it to General Petraeus and company, these fellows seem to be extremely bright! The Executive Branch on the other hand - did someone get 'left back', or were they simply passed on regardless of their marks?

>> Was that "5 year old" comment meant as some sort of dig or insult at me?

It sure wasn't at you, it's at those who thought creating borders are as simple as drawing lines on a map.

Regarding your bottom line, although Dimitry's point here is not "why it happened", rather "how it was perceived and used", but I kind of agree with your assumption that Iranians were trying to show force, which again is understandable to me, when you have enemies all around you, if you give in to a simple point like Brits patrolling waters they consider theirs, then you should give in to everything else too, one by one. Also, from Iranians point of view, the Brit/American behaviour means they're trying to make this new border the de facto standard border, which they don't agree (hence a dispute).

==I seem to recall that when the initially advertised position of the capture of the Royal Navy boats put them on the Iraqi side of the notational TTW boundary, the Iranians changed the geographic location of the capture to put them on the Iranian side. Why do you suppose they did that? Wouldn't that action suggest that they knew of, and accepted even if only temporarily, the TTW boundary?==

There is no legal significance to any of the things that transpired on TV after this incident. Maritime treaties demarcating international and territorial waters are notoriously difficult to hammer out and there isn't one for this region. Neither our fake line, nor Iranian fake line, nor any pundit interpretation thereof changes the facts of this case. The fact that our and British government and military officials publicly claimed otherwise simply attests their ignorance or or more likely, obfuscation.

M writes:

-- First and foremost, there's no Northern Arabian Gulf. The body of water is called Persian Gulf. Second, Saddam tore off Algiers Accord when he invaded Iran. So you're wrong (if you think the write of that article is right) that both Iran and Iraq didn't honor it. Saddam didn't, and it was his pretext to attack Iran. He did it on TV.--

Thank you for the clarification.

-- Third, Algiers Accord divides Arvand Rud (a.k.a Shat-al-Arab) according to Thalweg line. Thalweg line can not be defined in sea. You can't extend the line, you can't extend the accord. Algiers Accord simply does not apply to the sea. --

Again, you are correct. See my 17 Apr, 3:08 PM for additional detail regarding the role UNCLOS plays.

-- However, you can draw as many lines as you want on a map and make assumptions, specially if you're 5 years old. --

Was that "5 year old" comment meant as some sort of dig or insult at me? If so, why? Not sure that sort of comment has a place in this discussion.

Arkin you're wrong! It's not that the establishment is failing to take responsibility for what it did wrong! It caused the chaos to crack down on the American public much like Hitler did with the Reichstag fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire)!!!

How can you say that they failed to prepare for 9/11? They were having drills on the morning of 9/11 which anticipated using planes as weapons! They were aware of the possibility(Project Bojinka)!

Let's get it right...9/11 was an inside job(able danger, molten metal, free fall collapse, wtc7,etc, etc, etc)!!!

Now we're spending 12 billion dollars per month for both "wars", the Pentagon wants to fund foreign militaries and America is in a recession heading into a depression!

Get ready for a new currency!!!

www.gangstergovernment.com

Dimitry --

I seem to recall that when the initially advertised position of the capture of the Royal Navy boats put them on the Iraqi side of the notational TTW boundary, the Iranians changed the geographic location of the capture to put them on the Iranian side. Why do you suppose they did that? Wouldn't that action suggest that they knew of, and accepted even if only temporarily, the TTW boundary?

>> There was/is an internationally recognized maritime demarcation line; e.g., the one established by the Algier Accord. We didn't make that up. Iran and Iraq did. In 1975.

You're wrong Frank, on many points.
First and foremost, there's no Northern Arabian Gulf. The body of water is called Persian Gulf.
Second, Saddam tore off Algiers Accord when he invaded Iran. So you're wrong (if you think the write of that article is right) that both Iran and Iraq didn't honor it. Saddam didn't, and it was his pretext to attack Iran. He did it on TV.
Third, Algiers Accord divides Arvand Rud (a.k.a Shat-al-Arab) according to Thalweg line. Thalweg line can not be defined in sea. You can't extend the line, you can't extend the accord. Algiers Accord simply does not apply to the sea.
However, you can draw as many lines as you want on a map and make assumptions, specially if you're 5 years old.

Regarding the Algiers Accord and UNCLOS.

* The 1975 agreement settled a dispute over the Shatt al-Arab waterway by following the thalweg or, deepest part of the river, and dividing it. This is a common means of establishing a border where the river forms the boundary between two countries, as is the case with the Danube in Europe.

* The dispute between Iraq and Iran over the Shatt al-Arab waterway has been going on since 1639. The 1975 Algiers Accord resolved the division of the waterway between the two land masses but did not clear up the sea frontier.

* What happens, in the absence of any other treaty, law or international convention is that a straight line extension of the same angle as the land boundary is drawn out to seaward for 12 miles. With no other means of determining the actual boundary, that is the only method of being able to resolve the territorial waters of two adjacent countries.

* Iran claims a 12 mile territorial limit. The baseline, or point of origin for that measurement correctly is a mudflat which only dries at low tide. However, it'a a bit more complicated than just accepting Iran's claim of incursion by British forces into "their" territorial waters (as defined by that baseline extension out 12 miles). Specifically, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait are all signatories of the UN Convention of the Law Of The Sea. Under UNCLOS, Iran has the right to establish a 12 mile territorial limit to seaward from the low tide mark of their land in accordance with the convention. But so does Kuwait, and that causes a problem because if both enforce a 12 mile limit in all seaward directions from their land mass. Iraq is totally cut off from the Persian Gulf. That is prohibited by the same convention Part II, Section 2, Article 7, para 6. (e.g.. "The system of straight baselines may not be applied by a State in such a manner as to cut off the territorial sea of another State from the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.") Essentially, what that says is that Iran (or Kuwait, for that matter) cannot use the measurement that would give them a territorial sea in all directions to seaward, 12 miles from the baseline. They are not allowed to cut off Iraq and must accept prior use by Iraq as a means of establishing a boundary.

-- We "extended" that tennuous and fought over line into the open water, where it never even applied, didn't bother to tell anyone where our "notional" new boundary was, then claimed the "enemy" crossed it
That goes back to the original event. --

As I recall, it was Iran that claimed the British naval forces entered their terrritorial waters, not the other way around.

Though I won't argue against the possibility of deliberate deception by the US and British government (I'm not blind or stupid), I lean towards a different possibility, which I find more probable.

Iran has a full grasp of international conventions and, like most countries, plays to a grand strategy. Rather than the US and UK 'engineering' the incident to provoke Iran (as you hypothesize), I believe the incident was more a deliberate attempt by Iran to take advantage of the chaotic situation in Iraq, and Iraq's wweak governance, to assert their century old claims over those disputed waters.

==I don't dispute that the episode's PR was was mishandled. Rather, I dispute your characterization that the government "lied". By definition, a "lie" is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. You assertion that the government lied is predicated on your assumption of motive (e.g., to deceive). I guess I don't have the same ability to read other people's minds that you do==

Well, Frank, you would note that I was always carefull to include the /or mistaken qualifier to my posts. I don't know if the incident was a result of deliberate dissembling or spectacular incompetence.

I do know that most proffessionals that went on TV to declare that the sailors were nabbed in "international waters" were almost certainly knew that to be a lie. Most sailing types who have operated in that region know full well how undemarcated that maritime region really is.

I also know that the US Navy is quite meticulous in maintaining full knowledge of the legal geographic environment in which our naval vessels operate and has excellent information on the EXACT legal status of this region. They are also on record advocating advanced state of military to military contacts, in order to diffuse any incident early and without use of force. So it would be highly unlikely, that the US Navy would setup our own bogus "international boundary", not share it with Iran, then play "gotcha" with the Iranians, without a clear authorization from very high up. When they do it, like with Lybia, it is usually on orders. I had an aquaintance, who was a Navy man on one of those ships at that time and did not re-enlist as the result of that sordid episode.

==There was/is an internationally recognized maritime demarcation line; e.g., the one established by the Algier Accord. We didn't make that up. Iran and Iraq did. In 1975. ==

No, Frank, try to resist the propaganda and use your head!

The Algiers Accord doesn't go out into the open water from the waterway for which it applies, however tennuously.

We "extended" that tennuous and fought over line into the open water, where it never even applied, didn't bother to tell anyone where our "notional" new boundary was, then claimed the "enemy" crossed it!

By any reasonable standards, and certainly by standards of international maritime law, what we did is leagally meaningless and likely fraudulent and dangerous. What it smacks of, given US Navy's usually meticulous and legal approach to all things that have to do with international boundaries is a top-mandated scheme to provoke an international incident. Doing what we have done, where we have done it, it was only a matter of time before a dangerous international incident was to occur. And surely it did, in short order.

It amazes me that there are still people in the US who think the government tells the truth. Our government has the notion that they are a better judge of what we need to know than we are. I woke up in 1968 when then prez LBJ told a reporter quite brusquely that " there are no B-52's in Thailand and there will be no B-52's in Thailand. I don't know how to make it any plainer"! Needless to say, when I went on R&R to Bangkok the B-52's were lined up as far as one could see at Udapauh (sp?) airbase and were cycling in and out about every 60 seconds. This government is no different than NK or the Russians or Venezuela for that matter. The Pols are basically without scruples and have a degree of arrogance that is sickening. I tend to have more faith in the Chinese. If they tell you something you might want to look out. However, I'm sure they are the same. You cannot be an honorable person and willingly immerse yourself in politics. The 2 are mutually exclusive.

"It's not that the brass intentionally trumpets threats to get what it wants."

Why is it not that? The civilian leadership sure doesn't have a problem with that methodology.

Also: these days "balance" seems to mean "validates my opinion."

Dimitry writes:

-- The "takeaway" for you, from this episode, isn't that your government lied to you ... --

I don't dispute that the episode's PR was was mishandled. Rather, I dispute your characterization that the government "lied". By definition, a "lie" is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. You assertion that the government lied is predicated on your assumption of motive (e.g., to deceive). I guess I don't have the same ability to read other people's minds that you do.

Dimitry writes:

-- ... Since there isn't a internationally recognized maritme demarcation line, we make one up by ourselves ... --

There was/is an internationally recognized maritime demarcation line; e.g., the one established by the Algier Accord. We didn't make that up. Iran and Iraq did. In 1975.

=="Since the outset of the Iraq-Iran War there has been no formal ratified TTW [territorial waters] agreement in force between Iraq and Iran . . . In the absence of any formal agreement, the coalition tactical demarcation (the Op Line) is used as a notional TTW boundary. It is a US NAVCENT [US Naval Forces Central Command] construct based on an extension of the Algiers accord demarcation line beyond the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab [waterway] into the NAG [northern Arabian Gulf]."==

I ended my citation of the article at the end of the actual text and did not add all the quotes that followed, but that's a real gem, isn't it?

Let's see - we start patroling a disputed and tense maritime region close to nations that were at war recently and where we are currently occupying a large country and are fighting an insurgency. Since there isn't a internationally recognized maritme demarcation line, we make one up by ourselves, with no consultation or notification to anyone except our military partners. When a country with whom we have very tense relations, imprisons British sailors, just on "our" side of this internationally unrecognized and legally meaningless "our" boundary, of which we never even notified them, we feign outrage and claim to have been abducted in "international waters", essentially a bold face and dangerous lie, that can easily lead to a military confrontation. Our governments send officers and officials armed with maps and laser pointers to convince the gullible MSM and the public that the incident deed indeed occur in international waters and is essentially a case of Iranian military piracy on the high seas. Based on these false, misleading and/or mistaken assertions, a public outrage is created and support of government policy of having Western navies essentially take control of a disputed and tense maritime region grows. The entire "crisis" appears to have been created and/or leveraged for political gain with British and US government as key particpants.

Your conclusion: "Them nasty Iranians".

My conclusion" "I expect my government to tell me the truth and not to behave in a manner that encourages needless military confrontation."

Des Brown is in the US right now. I doubt any of our valiant reporters will dare ask him about this shamefull incident.

Enough said.

==Bottom Line: A disputed boundary has existed since 1975. And Iran's claims to those waters appear just as dubious as Iraq's. The capture of the British forces by Iranian forces appear (to me) to have been a deliberate attempt by Iran to take advantage of the chaotic situation in Iraq and assert their claim over those disputed waters - and deny Iraq an outlet to the sea.==

Obviously, that's your bottome line - you seem quite uninterested in the PR dynamic we see time and time again - a villainous act by the "enemy" is claimed, based on assurances by authority figures of the "enemy" being in the wrong. A public relations coup is created and milked for all its worth, in order to manufacture public outrage and sometimes military retaliation and always support for the sitting government. Later on, when everyone is watching American Dolt, a 12th page correction is issued, admitting in so many words, that the "enemy" may have had a legitimate case, our "assurances" were either diliberately false or mistaken, and the whole thing is murky and unclear.

That's called "manufacturing consent" and you, as most authority-leaning types, have been successfully "manufactured". The "takeaway" for you, from this episode, isn't that your government lied to you, isn't that your military failed to follow any reasonable protocols in a tense region, isn't the shamefull parade of talking heads with lines on maps and "proof", but rather, the original thrust of the propaganda campaign - dastardly Iran trying to mess with us and our Iraqi "allies". Your mind is made up, so there is no sense trying to confuse it with the facts. That's really dumb, but unfortunately all to common in the West today.

Dimitry writes:

-- Now it turns out to have been...lies, all lies. --

And here's what you've neglected to write (also from that same Timeonline article):

Des Browne, Defence Secretary, House of Commons, June 16, 2007

"Since the outset of the Iraq-Iran War there has been no formal ratified TTW [territorial waters] agreement in force between Iraq and Iran . . . In the absence of any formal agreement, the coalition tactical demarcation (the Op Line) is used as a notional TTW boundary. It is a US NAVCENT [US Naval Forces Central Command] construct based on an extension of the Algiers accord demarcation line beyond the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab [waterway] into the NAG [northern Arabian Gulf]."

The Algier Accord was signed by Iraq and Iran in 1975. However, the treaty was not honored by either side, resulting in the Iran-Iraq war that began in 1980. The main points of the dispute concerned the Shatt El Arab, a waterway that is Iraq's only outlet to the sea, as well disputed islands and territories. In part, the dispute arose because of the shifting course of the Shatt El Arab. Even after the war, the disputes have not been totally resolved.
(www.mideastweb.org/algiersaccord.htm)

Bottom Line: A disputed boundary has existed since 1975. And Iran's claims to those waters appear just as dubious as Iraq's. The capture of the British forces by Iranian forces appear (to me) to have been a deliberate attempt by Iran to take advantage of the chaotic situation in Iraq and assert their claim over those disputed waters - and deny Iraq an outlet to the sea.

We had a lively discussion a year ago about those dastardly Iranians who seized noble British sailors in international waters to cause trouble for the altruistic Western powers. Any number of high ranking officers and a multitude of talking heads armed with maritime maps have repeatedly vouched that the incident occured in "international waters". Now it turns out to have been...lies, all lies:

-------------------------------------------
Report reveals Iran seized British sailors in disputed waters

Dominic Kennedy

Fifteen British sailors and Marines were seized by Iran in internationally disputed waters and not in Iraq's maritime territory as Parliament was told, according to new official documents released to The Times.

The Britons were seized because the US-led coalition designated a sea boundary for Iran's territorial waters without telling the Iranians where it was, internal Ministry of Defence briefing papers reveal.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act detail for the first time the blunders last spring that led to what an all-party committee of MPs came to describe as a "national embarrassment".

The captured 14 men and one woman were paraded on Iranian TV for a fortnight before being freed a year ago by a smiling President Ahmadinejad, who gave them new suits and bags of presents.

Newly released Ministry of Defence documents state that:

-- The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi;

-- The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was;

-- The Iranian Revolutionary Guards' coastal protection vessels were crossing this invisible line at a rate of three times a week; It was the British who apparently raised their weapons first before the Iranian gunboats came alongside;

-- The cornered British, surrounded by heavily armed Iranians, made a hopeless last-minute radio plea for a helicopter to come back and provide air cover.

Iran always claimed that it had arrested the Britons for violating its territorial integrity.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, repeatedly told the Commons that the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters.

The MoD, in a televised briefing by Vice-Admiral Charles Style, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, produced a map showing a line in the sea called "Iraq/Iran Territorial Water Boundary". A location was given for the capture of the Britons inside what the chart said were "Iraq territorial waters". But the newly released top-level internal briefing accepts that no such border exists.

The report, addressed to Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, blames the incident on the absence of an agreed boundary and a failure to coordinate between Iraq, Iran and the coalition.

Under the heading "Why the incident occurred", the report examines the history of a border that has been disputed since a treaty between the Persian and Ottoman empires in 1639.

Professor Robert Springborg, of the School of Oriental and African Studies, said yesterday that it was negligent to fail to clarify with the Iranians where the notional boundary was.
-------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3761058.ece
-------------------------------------------

Adm. Mullen, please start preparing for the coming food wars. Hearts and minds need food.

What will it take in the final analysis for America to enforce its indefensible worldwide hegemonistic policy, Iraq is only a cog in the wheel?

I was staying, temporarily, in the DC-metro region when 9/11 occured (fighters flying overhead and all). It was the day that the President hid, America's military (led by Rumsfool) and all of America's expensive defense appartus summarily failed.

Satellites, submarines, frigates, destroyers, UAVs, surveillance, NORAD, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, the government..., they all failed, and Rumsfool couldn't defend his own headquarters.

The military remains in Iraq because nothing has been resolved, Iraq is simply being occupied by a superior military force. And what will happen if that force were to leave? Wammo!

The military has once again been tasked to defend an indefensible policy by yet another incompetent Republican administration in DC.

1). America's military leaders know that they have lost the enthusiastic support of America's historical allies (Rumsfool blew them off).
2). American policy-makers know by now that support of America's invasionist policies by the citizens of allied nations, has been lost - they never bought into it.
3). America's military realizes that except for the help of paid mercenaries, given any similar future American excursions, the American military, the UK and Israel will have to practically go it alone.

GWBs policies in Iraq have destroyed the connubial relationship and support that America was experiencing from the rest of the world the day after 9/11. He screwed that up too!

America only has a couple of options left, and the American military strategists know it. If things don't change, in the future the American military will either pull out the big guns and go nuclear, reactivate the draft in order to occupy more nations of the world, or the military will spread itself to thin and risk being defeated.

Well there is one other option, the next President could do what the majority of its leaders have failed to do going back to the first George, and change its venal policies.

We must become a citizen nation in the world, and stop our elected officials (quasi leaders) from trying to order and control the world!

>> When was that? I guess that I missed that day

That's the page you skipped when you were doing your extensive research about the lives of all commentators in cyberspace.

//I regard myself as a supporter of the military\\ -P J Casey

When was that? I guess that I missed that day, or it was an exceptionally small mention. Or maybe it was in your dreams. Either way - I've never seen it...

I regard myself as a supporter of the military, and have no objections to paying my fair share of taxes. However, I do not trust the industrial side of the Military/Industrial Complex. I want these people out of the logistics chain and off any advisory boards in the Pentagon. The profit motive drives the cost of making war through the roof.
Star Wars Missile Defense Systems are a waste of money. Any serious nuclear or conventional missile attack on a country would be in such numbers that it would overwhelm any air or missile defense system. Deterrence and a second strike capacity got us through the "Cold War". It still works, and why I was never seriously concerned about Iraq or Iran as a nuclear threat.
I want to see a larger army, which may help reduce the promiscuous use of firepower. Insurgencies are labor intensive.

Wow! And all this time I thought it was Cheney and Rumsfeld that were principally responsible for the mess in Iraq!

Phew! I sure am glad that Arkin has identified the proper entity on which blame can be placed -- the ENTIRE US MILITARY INSTITUTION! Thanks for clearing that up, Arkin.

I am so glad your 'inside the Pentagon' perspective is able to provide your readers such a sharply focused and finely honed assessment.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca
www.takingaimradio.com

Want to save the US economy? Spread the wealth and give workers a pay raise

By Mike Whitney
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Apr 16, 2008, 00:12

"The bright new financial system, with all its talented participants, with all its rich rewards, has failed the test of the marketplace." --Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker

A specter is haunting Wall Street -- the specter of insolvency. One major player, Bear Stearns, has already gone under, and by the looks of it, another may be on the way. It's getting ugly out there. The so-called TED spread -- which measures the willingness of banks to lend to each other -- has begun to widen ominously, suggesting that the money markets believe another body will be floating to the surface any day now.

The ongoing deleveraging of financial institutions and the persistent downgrading of assets has the Fed in a tizzy. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has backed himself into a corner by stretching the Fed's mandate to include anyone on Wall Street with a mailing address and a begging bowl. Now he's taken on the larger task of fixing the plumbing that keeps credit flowing between the various investment banks. Good luck. He's already burned through nearly half of the Fed's balance sheet of $900 billion and the banking meltdown has just begun. The IMF expects the final tally will be $945 billion, which means $3 trillion in lost loans for the banks. Bernanke better pace himself; this mess could last for years.

The US subprime fiasco has spiraled into what the IMF is calling "the largest financial shock since the Great Depression." America's capital markets are on the fritz. The corporate bond market is frozen, the banks are buckling from their losses, and the housing market is in a shambles. No one is buying and no one is lending; that's a deadly combo. Private equity deals are off 75 percent from last year and no one will go near a mortgage-backed security (MBS) with a ten-foot pole. The mighty wheel of modern finance is grinding to a standstill and no one's quite sure how to rev it up again.

The US consumer is feeling the pinch, too. His credit cards are maxed out, his student loans are overdue, his car payment is in arrears, his mortgage is entering foreclosure, and the home-equity ATM has been shut down. Now that the credit spigot has been turned off; he's really hurting, but no one is offering him a bailout or a even helping hand just a few table scraps from Bush's "surplus package." Five-hundred bucks will just about fill the tank of a normal-sized SUV; that's it. A new survey from the Pew Research Center, "Inside the Middle Class -- Bad Times Hit the Good Life," shows that working families are in debt up to their ears and that fewer Americans "believe they are moving forward" than anytime in the last half century. The study also shows that most people believe "it's harder to maintain a middle class lifestyle" and that "since 1999, they have not made economic gains." Average families are struggling just to make ends meet.

That's why so many people bought homes when they should have opened savings accounts. They thought that speculating on housing would get them a piece of the American dream. What's wrong with that? It looked like a good way to make up for the stagnant wages and crappy hours. The cheerleading TV pundits offered assurances that "housing prices never go down," but it was all baloney. Now 15 million homeowners are upside-down on their mortgages and the very same experts are scolding them for fudging the facts on their income. It's all backwards.

No wonder consumer confidence has dropped to record lows. The trust is gone. Working people have been hoodwinked one too many times. They don't need lectures on saving money; they need a raise. The bigwigs who scuttled Bear Stearns are still dining on crab cakes at the Four Seasons, while the working slob is just trying to make his way through Greenspan's nuclear winter living on beef jerky and Big Gulps. Where's the justice?

Volumes have been written about the current crisis; subprime-this, subprime that. Everything that can be said about collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), credit default swaps (CDS) and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) has already been said. Yes, they are exotic "financial innovations" and, no, they are not regulated. But what difference does that make? There's always been snake oil and there's always been snake oil salesmen. Greenspan simply raised the bar a notch, but he's not the first huckster and he won't be the last. What really matters is underlying ideology; that's the root from which this economy-busting hydra sprung. Thirty years of trickle down, supply-side gibberish; 30 years of idol worship for the waxy-haired reactionary, Ronald Raygun; 30 years of unrelenting anti-labor, free market, deregulated orthodoxy which inflated the biggest equity-zeppelin in history.

For the rest please go to:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3180.shtml

For a more nuanced view of what the actual role of the U.S. military is in today's soon-to-be-energy-starved world, try reading Michael T. Klare: Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service. He tells the complete story, not just the half that is deemed suitable for domestic consumption:

"Indeed, Iraq has developed into a two-front war: the battles for control over Iraq's cities and the constant struggle to protect its far-flung petroleum infrastructure against sabotage and attack. The first contest has been widely reported in the American press; the second has received far less attention. Yet the fate of Iraq's oil infrastructure could prove no less significant than that of its embattled cities. A failure to prevail in this contest would eliminate the economic basis upon which a stable Iraqi government could someday emerge. "In the grand scheme of things," a senior officer told the New York Times, "there may be no other place where our armed forces are deployed that has a greater strategic importance." In recognition of this, significant numbers of U.S. soldiers have been assigned to oil-security functions."

Also see Chalmers Johnson on the role the U.S. military plays in "the western Pacific" in keeping oil (and soon, liquified natural gas) shipment routes protected. At the same time, the U.S. military itself is a huge consumer of fossil fuels. The age of petroleum scarcity is now dawning...