Thursday, September 30, 2010
HUMOUR:
FLYING PIGS IN AFGHANISTAN:
Click on the graphic for better viewing.
Labels: Afghan War, Afghanistan, American imperialism, cartoons, humour, jokes, militarism, US military, war
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
HUMOUR:
YES WE CAN ?
Labels: Afghan War, Afghanistan, American imperialism, Barack Obama, cartoons, humour, jokes, militarism, US military, war
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
WORLD NEWS AND POLITICS:
PAKISTAN FLOODS IN PERSPECTIVE:
The slow moving disaster in Pakistan changes its numbers every day. As I write today there are an estimated 20 million people affected. The reported death rate of 1,600 seems to have its meter stuck. The reason is that calculating those effected is simple. Simply take the pre-flood population of areas now underwater if you want a measure of the affected. Death rates are much harder to estimate in a country where the means of communication have basically been cut off in the flooded areas and huge numbers of people are on the move. The figure of 1,600 is undoubtedly far lower than the actual toll by at least an order of magnitude ie 16,000 is probably a low estimate while 160,000 is probably too high. While this is not of the same magnitude as the 1938, 1931, and 1887 floods in the Huang He (Yellow) river basin in China even the probable lower number easily earns this flood a place amongst the worst floods in history. For more info on the largest floods in history see here, here and here.
Still, this is certainly the largest recorded flood in the country of Pakistan. Members of Winnipeg's Pakistani community have been fund raising for disaster relief since the beginning. This has mostly been done through the Association of Pakistani Canadians, 348 Ross Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3E 0L4. Phone # 204-943-6928. Get in touch with them if you would like to donate. The funds raised will go via the Red Cross (forwarded to the Pakistani Red Crescent), and Human Concern International. You might also donate via these organizations. The latter is particularly interesting as they claim that 95% of funds donated go directly to relief work, something that might give some pause in the case of other charities.
All that being said there is something quite disturbing about the response or lack thereof of the international community to the Pakistani floods. Molly reproduces below one anarchist comment on this from the website of the Irish Workers' Solidarity Movement. In actial fact the glaring contrasts between the response of international governments and their spending on what they consider important is far more glaring than the following suggests. I'll speak more about this at the end of this post.
PAPAPAPAPA
Response to Pakistan floods shows barbarism of system
Date: Tue, 2010-08-17 14:31
Radio, television and newspaper reports of the recent devastating floods in Pakistan are at last beginning to refer to the sheer scale of the problems faced by the victims. Figures for the number of people affected vary widely. According to the Irish Minister of State for Overseas Development Peter Power, reported in today’s (Tuesday) Irish Times, “the United Nations estimated that 40 million people had been left homeless; that eight million of those were in urgent need of immediate food and shelter; and that the combination of rising water and humidity had made a cholera epidemic a real danger”. RTE’s website says “Aid agencies are saying that the world does not fully understand the scale of the flooding disaster ….. One fifth of the country has been hit by severe flooding, with more than 20m people affected…..The UN believes up to 3.5m children are now at risk of contracting water-borne diseases….”.
Whatever the numbers, it is clear that the devastation caused is unprecedented. Apart from the immediate short-term needs in terms of shelter, food and clean water, the Pakistani poor and working class are facing food shortages, higher food prices and increased poverty and deprivation for considerable time to come. Already the price of vegetables has increased by about 100%, sugar has gone up by over 20%, and the price of other staple foodstuffs has rocketed. Transport prices too have soared as operators exploit the desperation of those trying to flee the devastated areas.
Caught between the authoritarianism of a corrupt government which spends huge amounts annually on its military - the defence budget for 2010/11 increased by 17% to 442.2billion rupees (over 4billion Euros) – and the authoritarianism of the Taliban ‘rebels’, the ordinary people of Pakistan face a seemingly hopeless situation. Protests have broken out across the country demanding much-needed aid and support for the victims.
The United Nations Secretary General has announced its biggest ever relief effort and made an appeal for $460million (€358million). The response of the world’s governments has been pathetically slow with less than a quarter of this amount pledged.
It’s worth stopping for a moment and considering a couple of figures – Pakistani government military spending this year at €4billion will be over 10 times the total flood relief pledged by the United Nations. The Irish government meanwhile will throw €24billion (do the maths – that’s over 60 times the total flood relief pledged by the United Nations!) down the Anglo Irish Bank black hole and into the pockets of wealthy speculators.
And they tell us that capitalism works!
PAPAPAPAPA
Here are some facts that put what is happening in Pakistan and the world's response to it in perspective:
>>The article above mentions the yearly military budget for Pakistan. Right next door to this country the US military is waging what may turn out to be its longest war ever. In 2009 the USA spent $3.6 billion a month on this war. According to an article in USA Today the cost by February of this year had climbed to $6.7 billion a month, and by the end of 2010 the Afghan war will be costing $8.9 billion a month. The estimated cost in 2011 will be $9.75 billion a month. So far the USA has pledged (not delivered yet) $70 million. Take out your handy dandy calculators. That 70 million amounts to a little less than 4/5ths of one percent of what the US is presently spending per month on their operations in Pakistan's neighbour. I think this shows just how "seriously" the US takes the welfare of people in Pakistan.
>>To add injury to insult the USA has not even called at least a temporary halt to its remote controlled terrorism in Pakistan. Just last Saturday US missiles fired from a drone killed 12 people in the village of Issori in North Waziristan.
>>Meanwhile each and every US military helicopter that arrives in Pakistan is sure to get its own golden glowing press release. At the same time as its missiles were raining down on Issori last Saturday a "wonderful" total of 2 came to flood aid. On Monday this was doubled to an "astounding" total of four. I wonder how many US helicopters are in Afghanistan. Surely the US military could at least slow down on its attacks on wedding parties and other such things to divert a few more of them to Pakistan. There'll still be crowds of Afghans left over to attack later after all.
>>Finally, in perhaps the starkest light, the pledged US aid to Pakistan is almost exactly the same as another sum that was recently in the news. The 70 or 76 million dollars is about the same sum that Madonna recently paid in a divorce settlement to be able to ditch her latest husband. That says it all.
Labels: American imperialism, imperialism, international aid, international politics, natural disasters, Pakistan, Pakistan floods, US military, WSM
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
AMERICAN POLITICS:
WHAT WILL OBAMA DO ON FOREIGN POLICY ?:
The following article from the COAT site tries to extrapolate what the foreign policy of an Obama Administration will be like, given the past pronouncements of the President-Elect. The answer...not that much different from what has gone before. No doubt the "tone" will be different, but the substance will remain the same- the preservation of empire. One has to, of course, take Obama's past positions with the usual wheelbarrow full of salt reserved for the promises of any politician, but there is no reason to doubt that the next US Preident is any more dishonest than others. Thus, what he has said before is likely to be, in general terms, the way he will conduct himself in office. What will this be like ? Read on.
The cartoon above, by the way, is from the Tales of the Iraq War blog by the Brazilian cartoonist Latuff. Also needless to say Molly doesn't agree with the following author's hope that the inevitable disappointment with Obama in power will lead to a "Third Party" in the USA. However realistic or unrealistic this hope may be it is something quite different from what Molly hopes for. It also leads to the inevitable question..."Would a 'Third Party' be any different in power ?". The experience of us colonials who have multiparty systems suggests otherwise.
...........................
A Rough Guide to Obama, on $2.3 billion a day*:
By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)
Did you know that President-elect Obama:
**voted for every one of President Bush's Iraq-War funding increases?
**believes Bush's "surge" in Iraq has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" and has proclaimed his "absolute" belief in the "War on Terror"?
**criticized the Iraq War because it is "unwinnable," not because it is illegal, immoral and has killed one million Iraqis?
**will probably leave 140,000 private contractors (mercenaries) and as many as 60,000 to 80,000 regular US troops in Iraq?
**praised President Bush, Sr., and the 1991 Gulf War saying: "I think that when you look back at his foreign policy, it was a wise foreign policy. In how we executed the Gulf War.... I think George H.W. Bush doesn't get enough credit for...his foreign policy team and the way that he...prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us $20 billion dollars. That's all it cost. It was extremely successful."
**is willing to bomb Iran and that he won't rule out a first strike nuclear attack?
**wants to send an additional 10,000 US troops to fight the war in Afghanistan?
**wants to expand the Afghan war with unilateral air strikes to bomb Pakistan?
**supported Israel's war against Lebanon?
**supports Ballistic Missile Defense?
**favours military expenditures on warplanes that he says "provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power."
**voted for the Patriot Act II, the Wall Street bailout, building a border wall with Mexico and immunity for corporations that conducted electronic eavesdropping on Americans?
**wants continued sanctions against Cuba?
**called President Chavez an "enemy of the US" and wants sanctions against Venezuela?
By Richard Sanders, coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)
Did you know that President-elect Obama:
**voted for every one of President Bush's Iraq-War funding increases?
**believes Bush's "surge" in Iraq has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" and has proclaimed his "absolute" belief in the "War on Terror"?
**criticized the Iraq War because it is "unwinnable," not because it is illegal, immoral and has killed one million Iraqis?
**will probably leave 140,000 private contractors (mercenaries) and as many as 60,000 to 80,000 regular US troops in Iraq?
**praised President Bush, Sr., and the 1991 Gulf War saying: "I think that when you look back at his foreign policy, it was a wise foreign policy. In how we executed the Gulf War.... I think George H.W. Bush doesn't get enough credit for...his foreign policy team and the way that he...prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us $20 billion dollars. That's all it cost. It was extremely successful."
**is willing to bomb Iran and that he won't rule out a first strike nuclear attack?
**wants to send an additional 10,000 US troops to fight the war in Afghanistan?
**wants to expand the Afghan war with unilateral air strikes to bomb Pakistan?
**supported Israel's war against Lebanon?
**supports Ballistic Missile Defense?
**favours military expenditures on warplanes that he says "provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power."
**voted for the Patriot Act II, the Wall Street bailout, building a border wall with Mexico and immunity for corporations that conducted electronic eavesdropping on Americans?
**wants continued sanctions against Cuba?
**called President Chavez an "enemy of the US" and wants sanctions against Venezuela?
Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other examples from Obama's statements, his voting records, his financial backers and his selection of advisors and staff that expose very regressive positions on foreign policy and domestic issues. (Check out the links to an initial list of articles below.)
Some rationalize their support for Obama by saying he is less pro-war than McCain or Bush. Others may argue with contention that Obama even is pro-war. At different times, and with different audiences, Obama has taken completely contradictory stands on many important issues. How do we interpret this behaviour? Are we believe all of his progressive-sounding rhetoric on "hope" and change," and simply ignore as inconvenient his many "right-wing," pro-war positions?
As Obama himself has said in his latest book The Audacity of Hope: "I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." As James Krichick said in the New Republic, "Obama is, in his own words, something of a Rorschach test."
Sam Smith puts it this way in an article called "Can we talk about the Real Obama now?":
"Obama has left the same kind of vacuum. His magic, or con, was that voters could imagine whatever they wanted and he would do nothing to spoil their reverie. He was a handsome actor playing the part of the first black president-to-be and, as in films, he was careful not to muck up the role with real facts or issues that might harm the fantasy. Hence the enormous emphasis on meaningless phrases like hope and change."
(Undernews (online report of the Progressive Review), November 5, 2008.)
Obama's rhetoric on the Iraq War is a case in point. Many mistakenly see him as as anti-war "peace candidate" who will pull the US military out of Iraq. Unfortunately, the truth about his position on this subject is far more complicated.
"In an interview with Amy Goodman, Sen. Obama stated his intention of leaving 140,000 private contractors in Iraq because “we don’t have the troops to replace them.” He also stated the need to keep an additional “strike force in the region … in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity."
Matt Gonzalez, "The Trail of Broken Promises," CounterPunch, October 29, 2008.
Colin Kahl, the coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq policy wrote a paper for Center for a New American Security, saying that between 60,000 and 80,000 US troops should stay in Iraq until the end of 2010.(James Kirchick, "Who has Obama's ear?," Politico, April 15, 2008.)
Another insight into Obama's position on the Iraq war is revealed in his appointment of Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate. Stephen Zunes, in "Biden, Iraq, and Obama's Betrayal," (Foreign Policy In Focus, August 24, 2008) says that
"Obama's selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. "The veteran Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.
"Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administrations decision to invade that oil-rich country." (Emphasis added)
Leaving aside the Iraq War there is plenty for peace activists to be concerned about in Obama's overall agenda for the US military. For example, as Obama wrote in an article called "Renewing American Leadership":
"To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . . We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability..."
(Foreign Affairs, May 31, 2007.)
And, here's what the official website of the Obama-Biden campaign says about what they'll do to when elected to "rebuild the military for 21st century tasks":
***Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.
**Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. Obama and Biden have committed to a review of each major defense program in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios in the post-9/11 world.
**Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.
**Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama and Biden will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.
**National Missile Defense: An Obama-Biden administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.
A 21st Century Military for America
Particularly revealing is the section above called "Preserve Global Reach in the Air" which concludes with the assertion that the US needs to invest in multi-billion dollar warplane programs because they "provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power."
The idea that Obama is anti-war is a powerful myth that will impede the peace movement's ability to mobilize opposition to the inevitable continuation of US militarism and imperialism. President Obama may then prove to be more of an obstacle to peace than a true agent of change moving the US economy away from a world in which corporations seek profit through predatory wars. Obama's deceitful image as peacemonger will allow him to get away with policies and actions that would not be countenanced for an instant if they had come from the likes of McCain or Bush. This blindspot for Obama's pro-war agenda will not only hamper the ability of US peace activists to speak out, organize and protest, it will also help to dampen the efforts of many others around the world.
There is a potential silver lining to this situation. As President Obama and his government begin to carry forward their efforts to "extend global power," liberal activists will hopefully begin to concede that Obama is not the peace president they had expected him to be. As the campaign hype and honeymoon fade away, disappointment in Obama's rhetoric and hypocrisy may transform into a realization that the US is in dire need of a strong "third party" to give voice to the aspirations for peace held by so many millions of Americans. Perhaps this disillusionment in the Democratic Party will begin to open up new possibilities for the election of some future US president who really does stand for peace. But don't hold your breath!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
* Under President Obama, the US military budget may well be spending about $2.3 billion a day. The 2008 US military budget is $696 billion. Obama says he will increase military spending and will add 65,000 troops to the Army and 27,000 Marines. Every increase of 1,000 army troops adds about $2 billion per year, while every addition of 1,000 Marines adds $1 billion/year. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327888,00.html That means Obama's proposal could add $157 billion, bringing the total to $857 billion per year, which means about $2.3 billion per day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Resources:
^African People's Solidarity Committee, "Obama Exposed" and "Obama Fact Sheet"
^"Quentin Young, Early Supporter of Obama, Now Disappointed and Saddened," Corporate Crime Reporter, January 28, 2008.
^Shaun Booth, "Barack Obama: A Hawk in Dove’s Clothing," Political Lore, January 18th, 2008.
^Michel Chossudovsky, "The Democrats endorse the 'Global War on Terrorism': Obama 'goes after' Osama," Global Research, August 29, 2008.
^August Cole, "Obama Adviser Doesn't Expect Defense Cuts," Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2008.
^Robert Dreyfuss, "Obama's Evolving Foreign Policy," The Nation, July 1, 2008
^Tom Eley, "Barack Obama and the War In Iraq," World Socialist Web, February 14, 2007.
^Glen Ford, "Obama surrenders on military spending," The Progressive, January 15, 2008.
^Chris Floyd, "The Bagman Cometh: Obama Embraces War Criminal's Endorsement," Empire Burlesque, October 19, 2008.
^Chris Floyd, "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq," Baltimore Chronicle, September 5, 2008.
^Joshua Frank, "It Could be a Long, Hard Struggle: A Look Under the Hood of an Obama Administration," November 6, 2008.
^Matt Gonzalez, "The Trail of Broken Promises," CounterPunch, October 29, 2008.
^Glenn Greenwald, "The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending," Jan. 2, 2008.
^William D. Hartung, "Dems: What about the Military Budget?" Foreign Policy In Focus, February 21, 2008
^Joseph Gerson, "Obama's Foreign & Military Policies: Old Wine in a New Bottle?" Common Dreams, April 23, 2007.
^Margaret Kimberley, "Freedom Rider - Obama's Iraq Fairy Tale," Black Agenda Report, July 9, 2008.
^James Kirchick, "Who has Obama's ear?," Politico, April 15, 2008.
^Tom Mackaman, "Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran," World Socialist Web, October 1, 2004.
^Pam Martens, "Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street," CounterPunch, May 5, 2008.
^"Sen. Barack Obama Speaks Out on the Iraq War, Race, Hillary Clinton and Pastor Jeremiah Wright," CNN Larry King Live, March 20, 2008.
^The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever The Politics Demand, John McCain's team. (This contains dozens of contradictory statements made by Obama regarding various aspects of the Iraq war.)
^Ralph Nader, "Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama," November 3, 2008.
^Johnny Peepers, "Obama’s Pro-War Chief of Staff: Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel," Dillsnap cogitations, November 2008.
^St. Pete for Peace, "If you voted for Obama, this is what you voted for," November 2008.
^News release, Greens Warn Antiwar Americans Against Wasting Votes on Pro-War Democrats, US Green Party, July 28, 2008.
^Kevin Zeese, "Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?," Voters for Peace, April 2008.
* Under President Obama, the US military budget may well be spending about $2.3 billion a day. The 2008 US military budget is $696 billion. Obama says he will increase military spending and will add 65,000 troops to the Army and 27,000 Marines. Every increase of 1,000 army troops adds about $2 billion per year, while every addition of 1,000 Marines adds $1 billion/year. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327888,00.html That means Obama's proposal could add $157 billion, bringing the total to $857 billion per year, which means about $2.3 billion per day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Resources:
^African People's Solidarity Committee, "Obama Exposed" and "Obama Fact Sheet"
^"Quentin Young, Early Supporter of Obama, Now Disappointed and Saddened," Corporate Crime Reporter, January 28, 2008.
^Shaun Booth, "Barack Obama: A Hawk in Dove’s Clothing," Political Lore, January 18th, 2008.
^Michel Chossudovsky, "The Democrats endorse the 'Global War on Terrorism': Obama 'goes after' Osama," Global Research, August 29, 2008.
^August Cole, "Obama Adviser Doesn't Expect Defense Cuts," Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2008.
^Robert Dreyfuss, "Obama's Evolving Foreign Policy," The Nation, July 1, 2008
^Tom Eley, "Barack Obama and the War In Iraq," World Socialist Web, February 14, 2007.
^Glen Ford, "Obama surrenders on military spending," The Progressive, January 15, 2008.
^Chris Floyd, "The Bagman Cometh: Obama Embraces War Criminal's Endorsement," Empire Burlesque, October 19, 2008.
^Chris Floyd, "Surge Protectors: Obama Embraces Bush-McCain Spin on Iraq," Baltimore Chronicle, September 5, 2008.
^Joshua Frank, "It Could be a Long, Hard Struggle: A Look Under the Hood of an Obama Administration," November 6, 2008.
^Matt Gonzalez, "The Trail of Broken Promises," CounterPunch, October 29, 2008.
^Glenn Greenwald, "The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending," Jan. 2, 2008.
^William D. Hartung, "Dems: What about the Military Budget?" Foreign Policy In Focus, February 21, 2008
^Joseph Gerson, "Obama's Foreign & Military Policies: Old Wine in a New Bottle?" Common Dreams, April 23, 2007.
^Margaret Kimberley, "Freedom Rider - Obama's Iraq Fairy Tale," Black Agenda Report, July 9, 2008.
^James Kirchick, "Who has Obama's ear?," Politico, April 15, 2008.
^Tom Mackaman, "Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran," World Socialist Web, October 1, 2004.
^Pam Martens, "Obama's Money Cartel: How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street," CounterPunch, May 5, 2008.
^"Sen. Barack Obama Speaks Out on the Iraq War, Race, Hillary Clinton and Pastor Jeremiah Wright," CNN Larry King Live, March 20, 2008.
^The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever The Politics Demand, John McCain's team. (This contains dozens of contradictory statements made by Obama regarding various aspects of the Iraq war.)
^Ralph Nader, "Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama," November 3, 2008.
^Johnny Peepers, "Obama’s Pro-War Chief of Staff: Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel," Dillsnap cogitations, November 2008.
^St. Pete for Peace, "If you voted for Obama, this is what you voted for," November 2008.
^News release, Greens Warn Antiwar Americans Against Wasting Votes on Pro-War Democrats, US Green Party, July 28, 2008.
^Kevin Zeese, "Is It Time for the Peace Movement to Start Protesting Senator Obama?," Voters for Peace, April 2008.
#######
Over the past year, John Pilger has written numerous columns critiquing Obama hawkish policies, including:
1)Bringing down the new Berlin Walls
13 Feb 2008 ... One of Barack Obamas chief whisperers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan, which spawned jihadism, ...
2)The danse macabre of US-style democracy
23 Jan 2008 ... Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, another bomber, is anti-feminist. ...
3)In the great tradition, Obama is a hawk
12 Jun 2008 ... The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US...
4)The invisible government
16 Jun 2007 ... Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, We must not rule out military ...
5)Obama, the prince of bait-and-switch
24 Jul 2008 ... Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan ...
6)A murderous theatre of the absurd
11 Sep 2008 ... At home, Obama offers no authentic measure that might ease Americas grotesque inequality, such as basic health care. ...
7)The new world war - the silence is a lie
24 Sep 2008 ... The change candidate for president, Barack Obama, had already called for an invasion and more aircraft and bombs. The ironies are searing. ...
8)The diplomacy of lying
23 Oct 2008 ... The beatification of President Barack Obama is already under way; for it is he who challenges America to rise up [and] summon the better ...
Over the past year, John Pilger has written numerous columns critiquing Obama hawkish policies, including:
1)Bringing down the new Berlin Walls
13 Feb 2008 ... One of Barack Obamas chief whisperers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan, which spawned jihadism, ...
2)The danse macabre of US-style democracy
23 Jan 2008 ... Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom who would bomb Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, another bomber, is anti-feminist. ...
3)In the great tradition, Obama is a hawk
12 Jun 2008 ... The foregone nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US...
4)The invisible government
16 Jun 2007 ... Obama writes that while he wants the troops home, We must not rule out military ...
5)Obama, the prince of bait-and-switch
24 Jul 2008 ... Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan ...
6)A murderous theatre of the absurd
11 Sep 2008 ... At home, Obama offers no authentic measure that might ease Americas grotesque inequality, such as basic health care. ...
7)The new world war - the silence is a lie
24 Sep 2008 ... The change candidate for president, Barack Obama, had already called for an invasion and more aircraft and bombs. The ironies are searing. ...
8)The diplomacy of lying
23 Oct 2008 ... The beatification of President Barack Obama is already under way; for it is he who challenges America to rise up [and] summon the better ...
#######
Free sample copy: If you live in Canada and haven't previously received a free sample copy of COAT's magazine, Press for Conversion!, then just send your name, street address and postal code to overcoat@rogers.com and we'll mail you a complimentary copy.
Free sample copy: If you live in Canada and haven't previously received a free sample copy of COAT's magazine, Press for Conversion!, then just send your name, street address and postal code to overcoat@rogers.com and we'll mail you a complimentary copy.
Labels: american elections, American imperialism, American politics, Barack Obama, COAT, militarism, opinion., US military
Saturday, August 02, 2008
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS-ECUADOR:
UNCLE SAM GETS THE BOOT FROM ECUADOR:
The following article is from the School of the Americas Watch website.
..........................
U.S. Military Must Leave Manta Air Base :
U.S. Military officials announced yesterday that they will lose access to the Manta military base in Ecuador. President Raphael Correa has resolved not to renew the U.S. lease on that facility when it expires in 2009.
U.S. Military officials announced yesterday that they will lose access to the Manta military base in Ecuador. President Raphael Correa has resolved not to renew the U.S. lease on that facility when it expires in 2009.
Grassroots resistance by anti-militarization activists against the U.S. military presence in the South American country has taken place ever since U.S. military started their operations. The controversy grew louder following the U.S. military's participation in the March 1st bombing of a FARC guerrilla camp in the Ecuadoran jungle, for which Manta is believed to have provided logistical support for the Colombian helicopters.
Some sources report that the U.S. military will try to relocated the base to La Guajira, Colombia, close to the Venezuelan border.
Labels: American imperialism, Ecuador, militarism, US military
Thursday, July 10, 2008
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-CZECH REPUBLIC:
ANARCHISTS PROTEST VISIT OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE TO PRAGUE:
The following is from the A-Infos website. It's a brief description of the anarchist role in the protests that greeted the visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Prague to sign an agreement with the government of the Czech Republic allowing the US to build a radar installation on Czech soil as part of the "missile defence" project that President Bush wishes to leave as a poisoned legacy of his term of office. The actual interceptor missiles are planned to be based in Poland. Public opinion polls have found that up to 70% of the Czech population is opposed to the base, but the government continues on irregardless. The website of the Czechoslovak Anarchist Federation has a much longer article on the events, but it is unfortunately entirely in Czech. Still, it is worth looking at for the graphics alone. The following differs from the original because it has been slightly edited for English grammar and spelling-including the utterly forgiveable misspelling of Rice's bizarre first name.
......................................
Prague, Czech Republic: Anarchists Protest Condoleezza Rice:
On the Tuesday 8th of July, a group of anarchists around the CZECHOSLOVAK ANARCHIST FEDERATION (CSAF), welcomed the U.S. ministress of foreign affairs(Secretary of State-Molly) in front of the Cerninsky Palace in Prague, where Rice, along with Czech companion “Earl” Karel Schwarzenberg, signed a contract about building the U.S. Military radar base in theCzech republic. The anarchists greeted Rice with shouting like: “Rice go home!“ “Anarchists against radar”
---- A Friendly welcome by the anarchists waited for Minister Schwarzenberg as well, who was hit by tomatoes. Then, the “ reception committee” joined the anarchist block on the demonstration of the alliance of “NE zakladnam” (NO to the bases). Around three thousand people joined this demonstration. With never-ending yells, they went through the centre of town down to Prague castle and settled themselves near the place, where the U.S. ministress dined along with Czech representatives of government, who are constantly and arrogantly overlooking the opinion of the majority of people about the presence of U.S. army base.
..............................
Lest you think that this is one more example of "anarchists blowing their own horn" here is an item from the English language 'Prague Daily Monitor' showing that the mass media had to pay attention to the anarchists' role as well. The following has also been slightly edited for English grammar.
.........................
Hundreds of people protest in Prague against US radar base:
Prague, July 8 (CTK) - Hundreds of people came to Prague's Wenceslas Square yesterday to protest against the signature of the treaty on stationing a U.S. radar base on Czech soil and they followed with a march to Prague Castle.
Prague, July 8 (CTK) - Hundreds of people came to Prague's Wenceslas Square yesterday to protest against the signature of the treaty on stationing a U.S. radar base on Czech soil and they followed with a march to Prague Castle.
The treaty was signed in Prague today by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Czech counterpart Karel Schwarzenberg.
The police estimated the number of protesters at 1800 while the organisers from the No to Bases group speak about 3000 people.
The Prague police spokeswoman told CTK no incidents had been reported during the demonstration.
During the unannounced march the participants blocked traffic at some places in Prague for several tens of minutes.
Close to Prague Castle the riot police blocked the demonstrators' access to the area around Prague Castle and the Foreign Ministry where a reception was held in Rice's honour in one of the palaces in the neighbourhood.(Molly Note-there's a certain irony in this as these palaces are basically Hapsburg creations. May the US Empire become such a distant memory in years to come as the Austro-Hungarian Empire has become)
No to Bases spokesman Jan Tamas tried to break through the police barrier and hand over a letter for Rice, but failed.
He said he will therefore try to hand it to the U.S. embassy together with a gift - a piece of barbed wire from the site of the future radar base.
The demonstrators shouted slogans like "Shame to the government," "We do not want the radar here," "We will not be silent," "Topolanek out."
Topolanek is Czech prime minister.
Tamas said protests will continue and that the activists will try in parliament to prevent the building of the base.
To take effect, the treaty has to be ratified by parliament and signed by the Czech President.
The demonstrators called for a referendum to be held on the radar base. They said some 100,000 people have signed a referendum petition, and that seven million out of the ten million Czech citizens are opposed to the base.
The protest action brought together Communists, Greens as well as anarchists. Jan Neoral, mayor of Trokavec, a village close to the site of the future radar base, was also present.
Communists (KSCM) chairman Vojtech Filip and Social Democrat Jan Kavan, former foreign minister and former U.N. General Assembly President, were observing the protest action.
The Prague demonstration was supported by several tens of people outside the Czech embassy in Warsaw.
They also called for a referendum to be held on the stationing of the other part of the U.S. anti-missile system in Europe - interceptor missiles in Poland.
............................
A Final Molly Note:
While looking things up for this blog Molly found that googling "+"Condoleezza Rice" +protests" produced 1,340,000 hits. Given this statistic Molly hazards a guess that Rice probably has the title of "most unpopular woman in the world" sewed up tightly. One wonders if anyone predicted this in her high school yearbook.
Labels: anarchism, Czech Republic, militarism, Prague, protests, US military
Friday, June 27, 2008
ITALY:
COURT DECISION BLOCKS CONSTRUCTION OF US BASE EXPANSION IN VICENZA:
Some news items just keep coming over and over. It's been almost two years since Molly and the wife visited Venice, and at that time the planned construction of an addition to the US military base at the Italian city of Vicenza, in the Veneto, was very much in the news. One of the prominent items (from what I could gather from the Italian newspapers, not much ,because even though I can read French and Spanish, I can't read Italian) was that many were annoyed because the Pope made a special visit to the region to support the local conservatives- who obviously supported the base expansion. The city of Vicenza has been the site of numerous protests against this base,and the locals have elected municipal officials who are opposed to it.
There has been a recent court decision in Italy calling a halt to construction of the base on environmental and procedural grounds. The following story of this victory for the people of Vicenza is from the Polish anarchist news service Centrum Informacji Anarchistycznej.
......................................
On Friday, June 20, just days before the area known as Dal Molin was to be turned over to the U.S. military as the site for a second base in Vicenza,Italy, the administrative court of the Veneto region ruled to suspend all work. In the case filed by Codacons, a consumer and environmental advocacy group, the court´s findings included failure to consult the local population with regard to the decision for the new base, as required by a Memorandum of Understanding between Italy and the U.S. The court further ruled the apparent "verbal" approval of the project - no formal act has ever been presented - by the former Prodi government to be extra ordinem and "absolutely incompatible in view of the importance of the matter and the traditional principals of administrative law."
The court went on to find that neither the environmental impact of the new base, including increased traffic and pollution, nor the serious risks posed by the base to major groundwater sources that supply the northeast of Italy have been sufficiently evaluated. The bidding process for the construction work, which has already been awarded, was also found to be in violation of Italian and European regulations.
The court´s ruling represents an important victory for the people of Vicenza,who have been working to block construction of the new U.S. military base for over two years. Since May 2006, when news of the secretive project began to leak, the people have criticized the complete lack of transparency and democratic practices on the part of both the local and national governments. And there was a price to pay for the local city government.
In elections held in April, in contrast to national trends where the center-right parties trounced the left, the people of Vicenza elected the mayoral candidate for the center-left coalition, Achille Variati, after he had promised to hold a local referendum that would finally allow the people to express themselves and to revoke the previous city council´s vote on the Dal Molin project.
In fact, on June 26, Vicenza city council, which includes newly-elected member Cinzia Bottene of the No Dal Molin movement, will vote on Dal Molin, and a mass mobilization will take place on the square below as the people remind their representatives of the promises made during the election campaign.
The people of Vicenza have also repeatedly expressed alarm over the environmental impact of the base. Their concerns have been largely shrugged off by both Italian and U.S. authorities, despite the fact that this past March the pipeline that supplies the U.S. air base at Aviano with kerosene from the port of Livorno and the U.S. base at Camp Darby, broke near Vicenza and contaminated the Astichello and Bacchiglione rivers.
The court´s ruling, together with the recently declassified report by the U.S.Air Force regarding U.S. nuclear weapon sites in Europe which revealed"that most sites require significant additional resources to meet DOD security requirements," confirm the people´s concerns, and then some!
The struggle is far from over. Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa has already declared that the newly-elected Berlusconi government will appeal the court´s decision and has every intention of maintaining its "obligations"to the U.S.
But the people remain no less determined to block the construction and defend their territory. The court´s ruling merely confirmed everything they have been saying for the past two years. And on June 30, as the Dal Molinarea is scheduled to pass from the Italian military to civilian control, the movement will be there to make sure the court´s ruling is respected and that not one stone is moved.
Stephanie Westbrook
U.S. Citizens for Peace & Justice - Rome
Labels: Italy, militarism, protests, US military, Veneto, Vicenza
Sunday, September 23, 2007
ITALY:
A REPORT FROM VINCENZA, ITALY AND THE NO DAL MOLIN FESTIVAL AGAINST U.S. MILITARY EXPANSION AND WAR:
In the Fall of 2006 Molly and the wife visited the city of Venice. At that time the planned expansion of the US military base on Vicenza(in the 'Veneto'-the area of Venice) was in the news, most particularly in connection with a Papal visit to that city that was widely seen as giving support to conservative forces in Italia. The news was also very much mixed up with further reports of corruption on the part of then Italian President Silvio Bertusconi (corruption in Italian politics ? Is this "news" ?). The Vicenza base is presently a major staging area for the US military in its adventures in the Middle East. If the planned expansion goes through the Vicenza base will be the largest US military presence in Europe. Since the beginning of the plan there has been mass opposition to this project. Despite this the present "centre-left" government of Italia seems intent on continuing the work of their conservative predecessors. The latest event happened from September 6th to 18th under the heading of the No Dal Morin Festival. It included international speakers, and 300,000 people attended. The festival culminated with three days of direct action. A full report on the festival can be seen at the Anarkismo.net site at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6417
Labels: anarchism. Italy, anarkismo.net, demonstrations, events, US military, Vinenza
Friday, February 02, 2007
"SET PHASERS TO COOK THEIR ASS"
CAPTAIN "GW" KIRK
The US military has recently unveiled a new "ray gun" that is supposed to be something new and wonderful in "active denial systems" and "non-lethal crowd control". The item is one of a trio of boondoggle projects that the US military has been throwing taxpayer dollars at in the past decade. One is a "bacterial squirt" capable of turning jet fuel into useless jelly. Another is the much mocked "gay spray" that supposedly turns enemy soldiers into homosexuals. Hopefully inducing them to stop and bugger each other before they overrun the position held by "dem true blue Gawd feerin Christian boys frahm Kansas". One fears for the boys from the USA if they are just too damn cute for their own good. Only female soldiers could save GW's butt then.
But getting back to the real world, this latest development, apparently $40 million dollars over the course of a decade in development, has been hauled out by the US Army public relations departments for demonstrations lately. Even though, like any good bureaucratic project, it was slated to be deployed in Iraq in 2005 and now will (hopefully, maybe, possibly, if enough congressmen are impressed) be ready to roll in 2010.
This directed energy weapon apparently sends a focused beam of what they call "millimeter waves" towards advancing enemies, crowds, taxpayers, those who don't vote Republican,etc which purportedly causes a "burning sensation" that will cause them to flee without any enduring injury by heating the first 1/64th of an inch of skin to about 50 degrees.
Molly really has to call a time out here. The military have gone to many lengths to give this part of the electromagnetic spectrum a new name in hopes that it won't be connected in the public mind with "microwaves" and all that that implies. "Milliwave" is hardly a widely used term to describe those parts of the EMS that lie on the border between infrared and microwave. Actually I've never heard the term before. The part of the EMS that these sort of waves lie in is usually referred to as the EHF(extremely high frequency) band of the microwave part of the spectrum. The purported "superficial" penetration of this sort of radiation is because, even though it has higher frequency and therefore more energy than photons in the usual microwave range (the average microwave oven operates at a wavelength of about 12 cm), the shorter wavelength means that it will interact with matter at a lesser depth.
Further on this "time out", one of the major contractors on this project, Raytheon, built the first microwave oven way back in 1947. Whatayoudo when almost all your competitors can build a better devise at a lower price ? In a lot of cases the solution to this problem is "get a government contract" where price, quality and deadlines mean little if anything. Other contractors involved in this development include CPI (Communications and Power Industries) of Palo Alto CA and Veridan Engineering of san Antonio TX.
But back to the main story. This devise was demonstrated to the media at the US Air Force's Moody base in the state of Georgia early in 2007, and predictably elicited the usual oohs and ahhs from the mass media. Few if any bothered to investigate the military's claims for the "safety" of the weapon even though a lot of information is available on the internet. The military, for instance, claims that it would take up to 250 seconds (a little over 4 minutes) of exposure to cause actual burns to the target. Physicist Juergen Altmann of Germany's Dortmund University, on the other hand says that the "safety range" is more like 3 1/2 seconds and that further exposure of as little as 3 to 5 seconds will produce second and third degree burns. This would probably be fatal in the majority of cases as the area of the body exposed to a beam with a diameter of 3 meters is about 50% ie everything facing the beam. Pretty well anyone with 2nd or 3rd degree burns to 20% !!!! of the body is a candidate for the ICU. Twenty is less than 50.
The difference between Dr. Juegen's statement and the military statement comes from a very simple omitted fact in the case of the military. They assume that the beam cooks the skin to 50 degrees and that it stays at 50 degrees. Dr. Jurgen points out that the longer the exposure the greater the heat. Try it in your own microwave. The wavelength of the radiation there is always the same. Uh duh. Two minutes cooking is hotter than one minute.
Jane's Defense Weekly is of the opinion that this weapon will be of limited military use ie being only a "one hit wonder" to disperse crowds that might contain gunmen. They say also that it will likely be of limited civilian law enforcement use, though the ways of the world might suggest otherwise. Look for this toy to show up on US shipments to every dictator in the world who is "on the right side according to Halliburton and Falwell".
Many others have noted other possible side effects of this weapon that the military has been careful to avoid in its press releases. For one thing its purpose of "dispersal" is rather a hit and miss affair. Unlike a hot stove element there is no useful direction to flee from a weapon of this sort. Suddenly the half of one's body pointed towards the weapon seems like it is burning. It's the same no matter which direction you run until you manage to outrun the beam's range (or until you are properly cooked if they don't turn it off fast enough). Lotsa good stampedes with lots of deaths which would, of course, be blamed on the crowd itself. also the heat flux delivered by this weapon is much higher than that known to cause corneal damage in experimental animals.
The weapon would, of course, be next door to useless in the face of a real military enemy approaching with a dispersed formation and able to call fire in on the greatly exposed units transmitting such a beam. It is, however, of great use in attacks on unarmed civilians, and that will be its real utility should it ever really get off the ground. Like all too much of military technology this devise points towards a truism that many have expressed over the years. The real and permanent enemies of any country are not the temporary foreign countries called "enemies". The real purpose of a military is to shield the rulers of a country from their own people and not from the foreigner.
MOLLY NOTE:
A lot of the information for this blog was taken from the Global Security.org website, a place that nobody in their right mind could accuse of "left-wing bias". This website is basically "technocratic" in that it will report the pros and cons of various military technologies without engaging in ideological polemic as too many sources, both left and right(including this one), do. The overall tone is, of course, that the American Empire is a great and wonderful thing, but these people engage in very little wishful thinking in their reports and often give more than one side of an item. Well worth looking at.
Labels: Global Security.org, militarism, technology, US military
