TS Picks

Post Information
Print & pdf

bb2.jpg

1. Haunted by Spirits : An Introduction to John McCain

2. A Neocon Curtain Call : Rami G. Khouri, Agence Global

3. The Fringe Benefits of Failure, and the Importance of Imagination : J.K. Rowling’s commencement address given at Harvard

4. Interrogation for Profit : NYT Editorial

5. Obama’s Victory? How Big? How Far? : Immanuel Wallerstein, Agence Global

6. Blackwater’s Private Spies : Jeremy Scahill, The Nation

7. BBC uncovers lost Iraqi billions : BBC News



Comments

No, I Can’t!

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Uri Avnery

israhell.jpgAFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.

And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.

That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.

IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.

Read more



Comments

TS Picks

Post Information
Print & pdf

animals_banner.jpg

1. Separatism and Empire Building in the 21st Century : James Petras, Dissident Voice

2. A View from the Arab World : Rami G. Khouri, Agence Global

3. President Met Disgraced Lobbyist At Least Six Times : ABC News

4. Myth of the world’s oil shortage : The Frost Blog

5. The West’s self delusion : Robert Fisk

6. Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control : Patrick Cockburn

7. Death of the left : Yasmin AliBhai-Brown



Comments

The War, the Truth, and the New York Times

Post Information
Print & pdf

Now that every one and Charlie’s aunt knows of the crimes of America’s ruling cabal, how about finally asking to bring out the hangman’s ropes?

By Anwaar Hussain

media_monkeys.jpgSo finally the truth is acknowledged by the mother of all main stream media, the New York Times.

The June 6 editorial, ‘The Truth About the War’ of the media giant begins with these words, “It took just a few months after the United States’ invasion of Iraq for the world to find out that Saddam Hussein had long abandoned his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. He was not training terrorists or colluding with Al Qaeda. The only real threat he posed was to his own countrymen.” That it took more than five years for the leading light of a servile American media to finally find it out, is a fact glossed over most shamelessly.

Truth told late is worse than a murderous lie, is all that one can say to the NYT. It is a dishonest admission coming rather late for a million plus human beings. The icing on this deceitful piece of reporting is the ending of the Op-Ed. It says, “We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public - or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true - to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough.”

BAD ENOUGH! Did I read it right? That’s it? BAD ENOUGH! Would you believe it? A million murdered Iraqis, 4000 dead US soldiers, obliterated Iraqi cities, DU shot-up environment, countless crippled and maimed human beings, innumerable shattered lives and how does the NYT express its outrage; by calling it ‘bad enough’? “Sorry mommy, I just killed a million people.” “That’s bad. Don’t do that again, now eat your spinach” eh? Bad enough!? Someone hand me the sick bag please.

Read more



Comments

TS Picks

Post Information
Print & pdf

banner2.jpg

1. What Do You Call a Terror(Jihad)ist? : NYT Op-Ed

2. Indefensible spending : America’s massive military budget is irrational, costly and dangerous. Why isn’t it a campaign issue?

3. Don’t Get Burned! : How to Protect Yourself From Raytheon’s Pain Gun

4. Kohn Signals Wall Street May Get Permanent Access to Fed Loans : Bloomberg News

5. Coming Late to the Table : Bob Herbert, NYT

6. How the War Ends in Iraq : Immanuel Wallerstein, Agence Global

7. Violence Is the Norm of ‘Security’ States : Rami G. Khouri, Agence Global




Comments

Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras - May 2008

Wars in an imperialist democracy cannot simply be dictated by executive fiat, they require the consent of highly motivated masses who will make the human and material sacrifices. Imperialist leaders have to create a visible and highly charged emotional sense of injustice and righteousness to secure national cohesion and overcome the natural opposition to early death, destruction and disruption of civilian life and to the brutal regimentation that goes with submission to absolutist rule by the military.

Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War From Pearl Harbor to 911

 

The need to invent a cause is especially the case with imperialist countries because their national territory is not under threat. There is no visible occupation army oppressing the mass of the people in their everyday life. The ‘enemy’ does not disrupt everyday normal life - as forced conscription would and does. Under normal peaceful time, who would be willing to sacrifice their constitutional rights and their participation in civil society to subject themselves to martial rule that precludes the exercise of all their civil freedoms?

The task of imperial rulers is to fabricate a world in which the enemy to be attacked (an emerging imperial power like Japan) is portrayed as an ‘invader’ or an ‘aggressor’ in the case of revolutionary movements (Korean and Indo-Chinese communists) engaged in a civil war against an imperial client ruler or a ‘terrorist conspiracy’ linked to an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial Islamic movements and secular states. Imperialist-democracies in the past did not need to consult or secure mass support for their expansionist wars; they relied on volunteer armies, mercenaries and colonial subjects led and directed by colonial officers. Only with the confluence of imperialism, electoral politics and total war did the need arise to secure not only consent, but also enthusiasm, to facilitate mass recruitment and obligatory conscription.

Read more



Comments

Military or Market-Driven Empire Building: 1950-2008

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras

Picture by Carlos Latuff.

Military or Market-Driven Empire Building 1950-2008

Introduction

From the middle of the 19th century but especially after the Second World War, two models of empire building competed on a world scale: One predominantly based on military conquests, involving direct invasions, proxy invading armies and subsidized separatist military forces; and the other predominantly based on large-scale, long-term economic penetration via a combination of investments, loans, credits and trade in which ‘market’ power and the superiority (greater productivity) in the means of production led to the construction of a virtual empire.

Throughout the 19th to the middle of the 20th centuries, European and US empire building resorted to the military route, especially in Asia, Africa, Central America, North America and the Caribbean. By far the British and US colonized the greatest territories through military force, followed by the introduction of state directed mercantile systems, the Monroe doctrine for the US and imperial preference for the British. South America following independence became the site of the growth of market powered empire building. British and later US capital successfully captured the commanding heights of the economies, especially the agro-mining and petroleum export sectors, trade, finance and in some cases attached customs and treasury to cover debt collection. As late developing capitalist countries and emerging imperial powers (EIP), the US, Germany and Japan faced the hostility of the established European empires and limited access to strategic markets and raw materials.

Read more



Comments

Salvador Allende and Hugo Chavez: Similarities and Differences on the “National Road to Socialism”

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras

I have known and advised three left wing presidents including President Papandreou (Greece 1981-85), President Salvador Allende of Chile (1970-73) and President Hugo Chavez.

Prof. Petras on Venezuelan TV 2008

Picture: Prof. Petras in a recent interview on Venezuelan TV, 2008. Some of his recent interviews on Venezuelan Media can be viewed here (Spanish).

Both Allende and Chavez share many strategic goals and embrace policies favoring the working class, peasantry and the urban poor. They also pursued programs regaining national control over the strategic sectors of the economy, redistributing land (agrarian reform), reallocating budgetary expenditures in favor of social programs for the poor and pursuing independent anti-imperialist foreign policies.

In broad historical and sociological terms, they also share a common belief in constitutional, electoral processes, in a multi-party system, a mixed economy and independent trade unions, business and civic associations.

Despite the convergences and similarities between Allende and Chave, there are important political differences, which account for their different trajectories. Chavez proceeded toward political change before undertaking a deep socio-economic structural transformatio, thus creating a solid constitutional and political framework. Allende, on the other hand, accepted the existing political system and proceeded to implement radical socio-economic changes. As a result, Allende constantly faced political blockages, institutional obstacles that limited his capacity to realize the full potential of the structural changes. In contrast, Chavez’ political reforms led to the compatibility between political institutions and socio-economic change - minimizing opposition obstructionism.

Read more



Comments

Rules of Engagement for America’s Victims

Post Information
Print & pdf

By Anwaar Hussain

soldier.jpgIf by a quirk of fate, America’s victim nations get together, pronounce ‘enough is enough’ and proceed to invade and occupy America, what would their Rules of Engagement be during the occupation. The scribe has chalked out just a few on the exact same lines as America has them for her forces in Iraq. Here is how these go;

GENERAL GUIDANCE: This establishes the Rules of Engagement (ROE) for all the Victim Nations’ Forces (VICFORs) operating within the geographical confines of their former tormentor, the United States of America. Those forces not under immediate threat from the USA may establish more restrictive ROE in accordance with their national caveats. Conflicting ROE will be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the Victim Nations Central Command (VENTCOM). (To avoid any confusion, special attention must be given to Further Explanation (FE) given within the brackets at the end of most of the ROE)

VICTIMS’ NATIONS’ (VICNATs) NATIONAL POLICY. The VICNATs National Policy is to take the initiative within the limits allowed by these ROE during the occupation of the United States of America.

VICNATs MILITARY POLICY. # Commanders have the inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all appropriate action in self defense against the roving bands of former US Military Forces (FE: emphasis added on the word ‘roving’ and not on words ‘military’ and ‘forces’).

# Inside the geographical confines of the United States of America strikes on infrastructure, lines of communication and economic objects should, to the extent possible, disable and disrupt rather than destroy (FE: a wanton destruction in the heat of the moment may be overlooked on a case-by-case basis).

# Civilian structures, especially cultural and historic buildings in cities like Washington D.C., New York and Boston are protected structures (FE: Not in cities like Los Angeles and San Fransisco that the VENTCOM does not fancy). Additionally, nonmilitary structures, civilian population centers, churches and other religious places, hospitals and facilities displaying the red cross, are also protected structures and will not be attacked except when they are being used for military purposes (FE: which they often will be).

Read more



Comments

General Petraeus: Zionism’s Military Poodle. From Surge to Purge to Dirge

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras

When President Bush appointed General David Petraeus Commander (head) of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, his appointment was hailed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post as a brilliant decision.

Zionism’s Military Poodle - From Surge to Purge to Dirge General Petraeus: “President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders promised to end their support for the special groups but the nefarious activities of the Quds Force have continued.”

Senator Joseph Lieberman: “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?”

General Petraeus: “It certainly is…That is correct.”

General Petraeus testimony to the US Senate, April 8-9, 2008.

“The Israeli flag is proudly displayed above the Sacred Ark alongside the American flag…”( in an orthodox synagogue in wealthy Georgetown, Washington DC. The entrance fee to the synagogue is $1000 for a single holiday.) “On each Sabbath the prayers include the benediction for the Israeli Jewish soldiers and the prayer for the welfare of the Israeli government and its officials. Many Jewish American Administration pray there. They not only don’t try to conceal their religious affiliation, but go to great lengths to demonstrate their Judaism since it may help their careers greatly. The enormous Jewish influence in Washington is not limited to the government. In the Washingtonian, medias a very significant part of the most important personages and of the presenters of the most popular programs on the TV are warm Jews…and let us not forget,in this context, the Jewish predominance in the Washingtonian academic institutions.”

Avinoam Bar-Yosef (the Israeli daily newspaper) Ma’riv September 2, 1994 (translated by Israel Shahak). Read more



Comments



Anwaar’s articles appear simultaneously here at Truth Spring and at Soul Vibes in The Pakistan Tribune.


US loses its status as economic world power
DAVOS, Switzerland, 2008
.: ARTICLE BLOCKED :.
ON MARCH 2008
Who links to my website?