FIRST INSTALLMENT BE READ HERE:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
THIRD INSTALLMENT CAN BE READ HERE:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Attributed to Benjamin Franklin
Part 6: DOMESTIC STATE TERRORISM
“What one can blame them [German politicians and populace] for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the government took “decisive measures.”
– German Lawyer Sebastian Haffner, lamenting on the restricted civil liberties imposed under Hitler in response to the terrorist bombings of the German Parliament building in Berlin. The reduction of civil liberties after the Reichstag attack is seen by historians as the first in a series of steps taken by Hitler, which eventually led to the destruction of the German democracy.
“If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.”
Rep. Barbara Jordon, July 25th, 1974
Back in the States, the Bush administration continued to engage in blatantly unconstitutional activities in the self-proclaimed “War on Terror,” under the banner of the newly formed “Unitary Executive Theory.” This theory, constructed by right wing members of the Alberto Gonzalez Justice Department, under the direction of the Vice President’s office, effectively asserts the President of the United States has limitless powers in all foreign and domestic affairs in accord with his role as Commander-In-Chief. This theory has no basis in the U.S. Constitution, which implicitly gives Congress the power to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces.” In response to the “rules” imposed by Congress, President Bush has taken to releasing executive “signing statements,” which effectively tell Congress that he will only comply with laws that he agrees with, while summarily ignoring those with which he finds fault. The Unitary Executive Theory is a dictatorship by any other name. The standard definition of a dictatorship is as follows: An autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
Rep. John Conyers in his ongoing report of potential Bush Administration crimes:
“The misconduct found is not only serious, but widespread. The laws implicated by the Bush administration’s actions include federal laws against making false statements to congress; federal laws and international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other government employees; Executive Orders concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence; federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of interest; FISA laws; communications privacy laws; the National Security Act; and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. All told, some 26 separate laws and regulations have been implicated by the actions of various individuals within the Bush administration. Significantly, none of the misconduct has been independently reviewed by the Executive Branch, Congress or the Courts.”
In addition to working outside the parameters set forth in the Constitution, the Administration and its supporters continue to obfuscate the war debate behind the classic mantra of “support the troops.” The slogan is nothing more than a red herring meant to ward off criticism of policy, which has thus far proven all too successful in its goal.
Every warmongering leadership in history used the “support the troops” mantra in one form or another to silence meaningful debate on a war policy. Hitler’s supporters used it repeatedly prior to unleashing WWII on the rest of humanity. They often claimed that those questioning Hitler’s policies were guilty of being “unpatriotic,” “anti-German,” or “not good Germans,” and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the “patriotic necessity” of “supporting the valient men in uniform.”
Part 7: FROM THE SAME FOLKS WHO SOLD YOU THE WAR IN IRAQ
“I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state. If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth. And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps. It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law… The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment… What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable.”
- Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, at an American University symposium on Sept. 20, 2007
Do you think the neo-con agenda stops at a "democratic" Iraq? No. They have made it clear that Iran is the next target, and the propaganda campaign has begun in earnest. The current cheerleading for war with Iran holds remarkable similarities to the lead up to the Iraq debacle. Unfortunately, most of the evidence used to debunk the lies put forth by the Bush Administration prior to the Iraq invasion appeared many months after the invasion had already taken place. This evidence usually consisted of a combination of leaked documents, whistle-blower testimony, lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act and appallingly belated reports from investigative journalists. In the case of Iran, we don’t have much “insider” information as to what intelligence reports the White House currently knows and how that information is being manipulated in an effort to sell yet another war for oil, but we do have plenty of circumstantial information currently at our disposal that leads us to that conclusion.
Largely spearheaded once again by Dick Cheney, the vast array of unsupported “evidence” includes accusing the largely Shia nation of Iran of supporting the mostly Sunni “terrorists” (mostly “liberated” Iraqi citizens) attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as the obligatory “mushroom cloud” references in regards to Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. All alleged “proof” put forth so far has rested on unsubstantiated claims made by government officials, once again dutifully reported by the corporate media, in a virtual replay of the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. It seeems the mainstream media either never learns, or is in favor of the imperial agenda. Either way, the 4th estate has failed in its duty to provide a fair and balanced counterpoint to the powers-that-be, to the detriment of the democracy and the world in general.
Why is Iran our "Enemy"?
In order to fully understand why our nation is beating the drums of war with Iran, we need to begin with our relationship with Iran since the end of WWII.
In 1953, the CIA backed a military coup (with help from the British Secret Service) that deposed the democratically elected Iranian parliament, which resulted in the installation of a brutal dictator (and CIA puppet) who repressed the Iranian population while catering to the United States multi-national corporations for the better part of 25 years. It need not be mentioned how we would react if another country backed a coup that overthrew our own democracy, forcing us to live under a ruthless dictator for several generations, while systematically stealing our precious resources. In any case, the years of repression led to a rise in Islamic fundamentalism. Religious extremism relies on anger and hopelessness as its greatest recruitment tool, and the decades of U.S.-supported repression took its toll on the Iranian people. The Islamic revolution in 1979 removed the United States puppet and resulted in the much talked about hostage crisis. Once again, looking in context at the egregious U.S. meddling in Iran, can we really complain about the taking of our embassy in Tehran? Especially when one considers the fact that the President Carter, in the midst of the uprising, sent a General to the embassy in Tehran to help facilitate yet another military coup, to re-install the Shah. I'm not condoning the hostage taking, but merely putting into correct context.
Anyway, the new Iranian government was deemed a United States enemy, with a stated goal of "regime change" happening almost instantaneously. We then backed Saddam Hussein with military supplies and know-how, massive financial "grants" and logistical support in his illegal invasion of Iran a few years later. Close to a half million Iranians died in the war with Iraq, in large part due to the U.S. support. It need not be mentioned how we would feel if another country supported a massive illegal invasion of our homeland, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead Americans.
As if backing the illegal Iraq invasion wasn’t enough, the United States added insult to injury by escalating the conflict and therefore the massive death count by playing both sides of the war through the illegal selling of arms to Iran during what came to be known as the Iran/Contra scandal. The funds acquired from the illegal arms sales to Iran were used to pay for yet another illegal endeavor; the proxy war against the peasants in Nicaragua, who were guilty in the eyes of the Reagan administration of having the audacity to want to control their own natural resources, instead of merely catering to U.S. multi-national corporations, as is the correct “order of things.” This war resulted in the United States being condemned as a terrorist State by the United Nations.
In 1988, the United States shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing all 290 passengers. Vice President George H.W. Bush later stated at a news conference that he “will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are.” Need we articulate what the reaction of the American public would be had the reverse happened to us?
After the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the Iranian government proved to be a great ally to the United States in its attempts to bring al Qaeda to justice. They volunteered intelligence information as to the wherabouts of al Qaeda operatives, as well as turned over captured al Qaeda prisoners to U.S. officials for questioning. The Iranian public took to the streets in vast numbers in solidarity with the American people.
Later, George W. Bush thanked the Iranian government after they helped the U.S. topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by infamously labeling them part of an “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and North Korea. This absurd charge ignored the fact that those three nations had little contact with one another and what contact they did have, especially in the case of Iran and Iraq under Saddam, would not qualify as friendly and therefore could hardly be termed an “axis” of any kind. This double-cross created an enormous firestorm in Iran, as the hardliners used it as leverage against the moderate Iranian President, pointing out that they had always stated that you could not trust the United States government.
Nevertheless, in 2003, the moderate Khatami government in Iran offered to completely suspend nuclear enrichment as well as open all areas of disagreement with Washington to negotiations. This included all nuclear issues, the Israeli/Palestinian issues and support of Hezbollah. The only condition placed on such negotiations was a halt to the threats of attack by Washington and removal of Iran from the “axis of evil.” Not only does the Bush administration reject the offer, they didn't even respond to it, and reprimanded the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. One has to question the true motivations of an administration that rejects such a pragmatic offer with such blatant contempt.
Additionally, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA and 2005 Nobel Laureate, proposed putting all weapons-grade fissile material production under international control and supervision, while allowing any nation that wanted the materials for peaceful use to apply for it. The only nation to agree to the very practical idea was Iran. The only nation on earth. During the same IAEA meetings in Vienna, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa, decreeing that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. Furthermore, the EU made a deal with Iran (a country that hasn’t invaded another nation in over 250 years) to guarantee "security" (read: no U.S. invasion) in exchange for a halt in uranium production. Washington forced the EU to back out of the deal.
Where did this lead? Khatami, who took a huge risk in taking a diplomatic stance with Washington in the face of severe hardline opposition, was humiliated and the moderates lost the next election to Ahmadinejad. Unlike in our ally countries like the arch-repressive Saudi Arabia and the brutal despotism in Egypt, Iran actually holds elections, with limited but very real consequences. Hardline President Ahmadinejad won the election, and the nuclear power program then began in earnest.
Even with the election of a hardliner President, Iran continued its diplomatic overtures. In 2006, Iran’s supreme leader had agreed to abide by the tenets of the Arab peace initiative, also known as the “Saudi Plan,” which is a two-state solution that respects Israel’s right to exist as a free and sovereign nation within the pre-war 1967 borders. This news was, as is usually the case, largely ignored by the U.S. corporate media.
In any case, here we are, on the verge of war with our "enemy," Iran. So why is Iran our enemy, anyway? What are the real reasons?
Iran has the oil and is not under the thumb of Washington, making them a de facto "enemy" of the U.S. and the West in general. Israel, the United States militant ally in the region, has always longed to install its own puppet government in Lebanon to make the "refugee problem" much simpler to "solve". Iran has ties to Hezbollah, which has successfully defied Israels imperialist ambitions in Lebanon. Therefore, Iran is only our enemy and Israel's enemy in so much as they have proven to be a serious obstacle to imperial aggression, and not because they pose any serious threat to the United States or Israeli homelands.
Let's logically look at the Iranian "threat". What would happen to Iran if they attacked either Israel or the United States, either directly or through a secondary agent? The answer is simple; they would be wiped from the face of the earth in a few hours. Israel has the capability to do this all by themselves. The United States clearly could do it as well. So, an attack by Iran would essentially be a call for mass suicide by the Iranian government. That makes little sense. As nasty as the Iranian government can be to its own population, they haven’t given the slightest hint that they are in fact a suicidal nation. What makes a lot of sense, in fact it's as clear as day at a mere glance, is the concept that Iran is only our "enemy" because they refuse to cater to U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the region.
Let's look at the nuclear threat that has everyone up in arms. Iran has maintained the right to produce nuclear power, which is in fact their right under the existing Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaties (In fact, the Iranian nuclear power program first began in the 1970’s under the guidance and approval of none other than Dick Cheney, then serving as Chief-of-Staff to President Ford). No independent monitor has found any proof that Iran have moved in the direction of nuclear weaponry, yet the U.N. still has been bullied into sanctioning them. As recently as September 2007, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there is no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iran.
ElBaradei:
"I repeat: we have not seen any undeclared facilities operating in Iran. We have not seen any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized. We have not received any information to that effect. So while we are still concerned about the nature of the Iranian program, I do not believe, at this stage, that we are facing clear and present danger that requires that we go beyond diplomacy."
That assessment has been reaffirmed in an official IAEA report in November 2007. And in the most recent development, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program has finally been released, after over a year of Bush administration delays. The document, released publicly on December 3rd, 2007, declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform enriched material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003. Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The assessment, once again, stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric put forth by the usual neo-con suspects.
Meanwhile, it is common knowledge that Israel has stockpiled an enormous nuclear arsenal at Iran's doorstep, thanks to the U.S.A, in violation of those same NPT's. When the U.N has repeatedly called for sanctions to be brought against Israel, the U.S. has vetoed those proposed sanctions in an egregious double standard that is almost never commented on in the United States corporate media. In November 2007, Israel displayed “chutzpah” of the highest caliber by publicly lamenting that the head of the IAEA is “sticking his head in the sand over Iran’s nuclear programme.” Additionally, the U.S. has recently entered into negotiations with India with a goal toward providing India with the technical know-how and resources to begin a large-scale nuclear weapons program, again in direct violation of those same NPT’s.
By the way, the anti-Iranian propaganda hit its peak with the corporate media firestorm over Iranian President Ahmadinejad allegedly saying, "Israel must be wiped off the map," which, it turns out was conveniently mistranslated in the U.S. and Israel. What he actually said, which was barely reported after the fact, was "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of history". Much different. It was clearly a shot at the current Israeli leadership and its illegal and immoral occupation of Palestinian territory, not the civilian population. Additionally, the statement was not even his own; he was reading a quote made by the Ayatollah nearly twenty years earlier.
In any case, one needs to just look at the facts to see that WE are the threat to Iran, and not the other way around. If Iran's greatest resource were pistachios and coffee beans, would they be our enemy? Of course not.
But getting back to the nuclear issue for a moment, one has to ask, why would Iran want a nuclear arsenal, if indeed they do? What would be the reason? The answer is simple and can be found by taking a comparative look at how the U.S. government handled two of the three members of the "axis of evil".
North Korea has a modest nuclear arsenal and therefore will not be attacked by the United States. Instead, we are forced to deal with North Korea through diplomatic means. Iraq had no such deterrent, and therefore was attacked as a first resort. What lesson did this teach Iran? What lesson did it teach the rest of the world? The United States, the leading Rogue State on the planet earth, perhaps in human history, will attack wherever and whenever they see a potential threat, real or imagined, unless there is a nuclear deterrent. Essentially, George Bush's unilateral, illegal invasion has basically told the world to acquire nuclear weapons, or else face the consequences. Would you blame Iran for wanting a nuclear deterrent under this scenario? Should they be punished for a situation that we created?
What a mess.
What can we do about this horrible situation that Bush has placed us in? Plan A would have us invade Iran. The war plans have already been drawn up and were leaked to the British Press. It entails a blitz of cruise missiles and bunker-busters, many with "low-yield" nuclear payloads, targeting weapons systems, defense systems, government buildings, infrastructure, etc the likes of which make the initial "shock and awe" of 2003 seem like child's play. This will result in enormous casualties, including tens of thousands of civilians, with many more likely over time (the Iraqi civilian death toll has surpassed one million as we speak), as well as creating an explosion of regional instability throughout the Middle East. At the same time, we would step up our hypocritical support of anti-Iranian terrorist operations in southern Iran, in hopes of creating a coup that would install a "friendly" government, one who would keep the population in line, while catering to our corporate needs, as is the usual M.O.
Iran would attempt a relatively modest retaliation, targeting our soldiers in Iraq and possibly the State of Israel, causing untold additional numbers of civilian casualties, as well as thousands of additional American casualties. Iran will also take the handcuffs off of the formidable Sadr militia in Iraq, which has been chomping at the bit to drive the U.S. out of the country. A battle with the extremely popular Sadr will enflame Shia passions nationwide, resulting in an explosion of anti-American backlash in the highly Shia country. U.S. soldiers would "defensively" kill thousands of additional "liberated" Iraqi citizens, making a bad situation infinitely worse. Iran would also call upon the warlords in Afghanistan to "make things difficult" for the Americans in Afghanistan, where they already have their hands full. This escalation would also inevitably lead to thousands of additional dead soldiers and civilians.
Israel will use the Iranian attack as a call to "defense" (in spite of the fact that Israel is pushing for a U.S. led attack against Iran more than anyone) and unleash an overwhelming attack both on Iran AND the nation of Lebanon, adding thousands to the civilian death toll. At this point, Israel will no longer be shackled by the constraints of world public opinion and will implement the already existing plan to annihilate Hezbollah and replace the elected government of Lebanon with a puppet government that will allow them to "solve" the "Palestinian refugee problem" once and for all. Israel will also use the window of opportunity to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Turkey will launch their own invasion of northern Iraq against the Kurdish population, leading to tens of thousands of additional civilian casualties.
Saudi Arabia will have their hands full trying to ruthlessly contain the Shia rebellion that will no doubt erupt in their oil-producing region. Syria, Jordon, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt will be flooded with refugees from Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, causing a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions. Millions will be at risk of starvation. Millions more will be homeless. Additionally, civilian uprisings in Pakistan will threaten to unhinge the already precarious Musharef regime, resulting in a potential coup within a nuclear-enabled state by radical Islamists.
Russia will use this window of opportunity to "clamp down" on "terrorists" in Chechnya.
U.S. resentment worldwide would spike to unprecedented levels and foreign travel by American citizens would be ill advised, even to our "ally" countries in Europe and the Americas.
Here in the states, the “police state” Daniel Ellsberg warned us about would become a very real possibility. An attack on Iran and the predicted worldwide backlash could, as explained by political author Naomi Klein, prove to be the impetus that allows Bush to “suspend the (2008) elections in the name of ‘national security,’ and take the control of the government via the ‘National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51’ and ‘Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20,’ released by the WH May 9th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted.” These directives, which again received little, if any coverage in the mainstream media, call for a consolidation of power into the executive branch, relegating the judicial and legislative branches into subservient, “consultant” roles in the event of a vaguely defined “catastrophic emergency,” taking place either here or abroad.
How do you like Plan A?
Let's all try a thought experiment.
Let's pretend Iran is the greatest military force in the history of the human race.
Let's also pretend that corn and wheat are the greatest source of energy on the planet.
Let's also pretend that Iran is allied with Cuba and helped Cuba build one of the largest nuclear-enabled military machines in the history of mankind off of the Florida coast.
Let's also pretend that the U.S. has no nuclear arsenal and a decent military capability, but clearly no match for either Cuba or Iran.
Let's further imagine that the coastal waters of the both the east and west coasts of the U.S. are teeming with Iranian battle groups, all carrying nuclear capabilities and each with enough firepower to flatten most of our major cities in only a few hours.
Continuing our little thought experiment, let's say Iran is supporting anti-American militias on U.S. soil, looking to overthrow our government through a terror campaign.
Add to this the Iranian President has labeled our country "evil" and has repeatedly spoke of "regime change" within our government. He also repeatedly accuses the U.S. of trying to develop nuclear weaponry; even though international nuclear regulatory commission members have found no proof whatsoever that the U.S. is doing anything illegal.
The Iranian leadership then forces sanctions against the U.S. for (legally) pursuing nuclear power, which Iran already has in abundance on their own homeland.
Let's pretend that at this point Iran invades and occupies Canada and Mexico, killing over a million citizens and overthrowing the governments.
They follow this by lining the north and south land borders of the U.S. with a massive military build up.
The population in Canada rises up in an insurgency against the illegal invading Iranian force.
Do you help the Canadians? Who is the villain in this scenario? Who are the victims? Would you find it perfectly acceptable for Iran to launch a massive “defensive” air assault onto sovereign U.S. targets? Would Iran be correct in its claim of “self-defense"?
The point is obvious...we need to take off our “brown shirts,” stop blindly following the propaganda and start using our brains. Citizens would do well to look at the actions of their government, as opposed to listening merely to their words. Bush’s actions are in direct opposition to the claimed objectives of his words. Although he has taken hegemonic zealotry to new heights, Bush isn’t alone in perpetrating this farce. One merely has to look at the egregious United States use of its United Nations veto in regards to WMD initiatives since 1972 to see the hypocrisy and convenience of our case against the WMD “threats” formerly of Saddam Hussein and presently in Iran:
• 1979 - The USA, UK and France veto a United Nations resolution calling for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid regime in South Africa (The vote is 114 to 3); The USA, UK and France veto a United Nations resolution concerning negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race (120 to 3)
• 1980 - declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. The vote is 110 to 2; The USA and UK also veto a United Nations resolution calling for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions
• 1981 - To establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East (107 to 2 with UK); for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons (118 to 2 with UK); Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament (78 to 3 including Canada). Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons (109 to 1)
• 1982 -For a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (111 to 1); Request to USA and USSR to make public their nuclear arms negotiations (114 to 1, the USSR abstained); Prevention of arms race in outer space (138 to 1); Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons (95 to 1)
• 1983 - Prevention of an arms race in outer space (147 to 1); Prohibition of manufacture of new weapons of mass destruction (116 to 1); Reversing the arms race (133 to 1), Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons (98 to 1); Requests a study on the naval arms race (113 to 1); Disarmament and security (132 to 1)
• 1984 - Prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction (125 to 1)
• 1987 - The USA vetoes 2 United Nations resolutions supported only by France and / or the UK: Calling for a comprehensive test ban (143 to 2); Calling for a halt to all nuclear explosions (137 to 3)
• 2004 - Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency proposes that all production and processing of weapon-usable material should be under international control, with “assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies”. The Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (or Fissban) was debated by the United Nations Committee on Disarmament in November. The vote was 147 to 1, with two abstentions: Israel and UK.
• 2005 - A year later the United Nations General Assembly would offer the same resolution (179 to 2 USA and Palau) with Israel and UK abstaining.
Part 8: WAR ON TERROR? OR WAR OF TERROR?
You want to reduce terrorism and WMD proliferation? You have several choices:
The Doctrine of Empire, which involves continuing to occupy and invade Muslim countries to steal their resources and repress their populations, virtually guaranteeing terrorist "blowback" in perpetuity (just ask the CIA, FBI, NSA, Department of Homeland Security, Baker Commission etc, who all agree this is, in fact, what is happening).
Or, you can fight the root cause of terrorism and WMD proliferation by:
• U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Our illegal occupation has fueled anti-American sentiment worldwide, which has served as a beacon for terrorist recruitment.
• We agree to pay reparations to the people of Iraq, to help them rebuild what we destroyed. Additionally, we agree to support a true democracy in Iraq and not another "puppet" democracy, as is our normal policy.
• We agree to abide, once again, by international law. This includes the Geneva Convention and the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaties, which we signed but have violated repeatedly and with utter contempt for decades. Additionally, we abolish the un-democratic Security Council ‘veto’ system, which has led to egregious abuses of power by the United States and other powerful veto-holding nations.
• We demand complete nuclear disarmament in the Middle East, which essentially means removing the United States arsenal, and the Israeli and Pakistani stockpiles. We then actively become a leading force in Nuclear disarmament worldwide, instead of developing new nuclear weapons, as is our current illegal strategy. We also put all future weapons-grade fissile material production under international control and supervision, as suggested by the I.A.E.A.
• We also demand that Israel agree to the peace plan proposed in the recent Arab initiative, which calls for a two- state solution, based on the pre-June 1967 borders. This complies with international law and is a fair and just proposal for peace.
• We begin diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria and agree to help them with their nuclear energy programs in exchange for a guarantee that they will not attempt to build nuclear weapons and will allow unfettered access by nuclear inspectors (which they have both agreed to, by the way)
• At home, we put serious effort into Renewable Energy technology with the goal of lowering greenhouse gasses and replacing the 20% of the oil we require from the Middle East with homegrown alternative energy. We sign the Kyoto Protocol and demand that the world follow us as we take the lead in lowering greenhouse gasses. Specifically, we challenge China to match our environmental initiatives, as opposed to the current policy of blaming each other (with a wink) for why we cannot take the necessary steps.
• Once advances in renewable energy negate our need for Middle Eastern oil, we remove our military support from Saudi Arabia (our current supplier), and back true democratic initiatives in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. We can keep a reduced, non-nuclear military presence in ally countries (democratic allies) in the region as true "peacekeepers," as opposed to war mongerers, under the control of the U.N. Security Council.
This plan would remove any incentive for Iran or anyone else in the region to acquire nuclear weapons, and it would emasculate the fringe Islamic fundamentalists in the region, who pray on anti-American resentment and hopelessness as their biggest recruitment tool.
This would ultimately reduce anti-western terrorism to the level of a police matter, as opposed to a military matter.
Additionally, the trillions of dollars earmarked for “defense” (a euphemism for tax-subsidized corporate war profiteering) could be used to provide universal health care & free college educations to all U.S. citizens, feed and clothe the poor, rebuild New Orleans, provide grants for medical and scientific research and development, and so on.
It's a better plan than the usual imperialist warmongering strategy, which led directly to the 9/11 attacks and has killed thousands of American soldiers as well as over a million innocent Iraqi citizens.