Oportunities to divide the middle east nations are always observed and exploited by the Major capitalists, and their client states. Oil control equals power in todays world. OPEC, is allowed to exist as they dance to the US tune. Sour notes by Iran, Iraq and Nigeria and Venezuala always risk their usefulness to their controling audience ie. US, Japanese, Britain, Australia, Korea and soon to be China. Irv
-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Apr 15, 2007 1:03 AM >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Subject: [Biofuel] Iran May Be The Greatest Crisis Of Modern Times > >http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17522.htm > >Iran May Be The Greatest Crisis Of Modern Times > >By John Pilger > >04/12/07 "ICH" --- - In a cover piece for the New Statesman, John >Pilger evokes the memory of Germans 'looking from the side' at >Bergen-Belsen to describe the challenge facing us in the West as the >Bush/Blair 'long war' becomes 'perhaps the greatest crisis of modern >times'. > >The Israeli journalist Amira Hass describes the moment her mother, >Hannah, was marched from a cattle train to the Nazi concentration >camp at Bergen-Belsen. "They were sick and some were dying," she >says. "Then my mother saw these German women looking at the >prisoners, just looking. This image became very formative in my >upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side'." > >It is time we in Britain and other Western countries stopped looking >from the side. We are being led towards perhaps the most serious >crisis in modern history as the Bush-Cheney-Blair "long war" edges >closer to Iran for no reason other than that nation's independence >from rapacious America. The safe delivery of the 15 British sailors >into the hands of Rupert Murdoch and his rivals (with tales of their >"ordeal" almost certainly authored by the Ministry of Defence - until >it got the wind up) is both a farce and a distraction. The Bush >administration, in secret connivance with Blair, has spent four years >preparing for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Forty-five cruise missiles >are primed to strike. According to Russia's leading strategic thinker >General Leonid Ivashov: "Nuclear facilities will be secondary >targets... at least 20 such facilities need to be destroyed. Combat >nuclear weapons may be used. This will result in the radioactive >contamination of all the Iranian territory, and beyond." > >And yet there is a surreal silence, save for the noise of "news" in >which our powerful broadcasters gesture cryptically at the obvious >but dare not make sense of it, lest the one-way moral screen erected >between us and the consequences of an imperial foreign policy >collapse and the truth be revealed. John Bolton, formerly Bush's man >at the United Nations, recently spelled out the truth: that the >Bush-Cheney-Blair plan for the Middle East is an agenda to maintain >division and instability. In other words, bloodshed and chaos equals >control. He was referring to Iraq, but he also meant Iran. > >One million Iraqis fill the streets of Najaf demanding that Bush and >Blair get out of their homeland - that is the real news: not our >nabbed sailor-spies, nor the political danse macabre of the >pretenders to Blair's Duce delusions. Whether it is treasurer Gordon >Brown, the paymaster of the Iraq bloodbath, or John Reid, who sent >British troops to pointless deaths in Afghanistan, or any of the >others who sat through cabinet meetings knowing that Blair and his >acolytes were lying through their teeth, only mutual distrust >separates them now. They knew about Blair's plotting with Bush. They >knew about the fake 45-minute "warning". They knew about the fitting >up of Iran as the next "enemy". > >Declared Brown to the Daily Mail: "The days of Britain having to >apologise for its colonial history are over. We should celebrate much >of our past rather than apologise for it." In Late Victorian >Holocausts, the historian Mike Davis documents that as many as 21 >million Indians died unnecessarily in famines criminally imposed by >British colonial policies. Moreover, since the formal demise of that >glorious imperium, declassified files make it clear that British >governments have borne "significant responsibility" for the direct or >indirect deaths of between 8.6 million and 13.5 million people >throughout the world from military interventions and at the hands of >regimes strongly supported by Britain. The historian Mark Curtis >calls these victims "unpeople". Rejoice! said Margaret Thatcher. >Celebrate! says Brown. Spot the difference. > >Brown is no different from Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and the >other warmongering Democrats he admires and who support an unprovoked >attack on Iran and the subjugation >of the Middle East to "our interests" - and Israel's, of course. >Nothing has changed since the US and Britain destroyed Iran's >democratic government in 1953 and installed Reza Shah Pahlavi, whose >regime had "the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no >valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture" that was >"beyond belief" (Amnesty). > >Look behind the one-way moral screen and you will distinguish the >Blairite elite by its loathing of the humane principles that mark a >real democracy. They used to be discreet about this, but no more. Two >examples spring to mind. In 2004, Blair used the secretive "royal >prerogative" to overturn a high court judgment that had restored the >very principle of human rights set out in Magna Carta to the people >of the Chagos Islands, a British colony in the Indian Ocean. There >was no debate. As ruthless as any dictator, Blair dealt his coup de >grâce with the lawless expulsion of the islanders from their >homeland, now a US military base, from which Bush has bombed Iraq and >Afghanistan and will bomb Iran. > >In the second example, only the degree of suffering is different. >Last October, the Lancet published research by Johns Hopkins >University in the US and al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad which >calculated that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the >Anglo-American invasion. Downing Street officials derided the study >as "flawed". They were lying. They knew that the chief scientific >adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Sir Roy Anderson, had backed the >survey, describing its methods as "robust" and "close to best >practice", and other government officials had secretly approved the >"tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones". The >figure for Iraqi deaths is now estimated at close to a million - >carnage equivalent to that caused by the Anglo-American economic >siege of Iraq in the 1990s, which produced the deaths of half a >million infants under the age of five, verified by Unicef. That, too, >was dismissed contemptuously by Blair. > >"This Labour government, which includes Gordon Brown as much as it >does Tony Blair," wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, "is >party to a war crime of monstrous proportions. Yet our political >consensus prevents any judicial or civil society response. Britain is >paralysed by its own indifference." > >Such is the scale of the crime and of our "looking from the side". >According to the Observer of 8 April, the voters' "damning verdict" >on the Blair regime is expressed by a majority who have "lost faith" >in their government. No surprise there. Polls have long shown a >widespread revulsion to Blair, demonstrated at the last general >election, which produced the second lowest turnout since the >franchise. No mention was made of the Observer's own contribution to >this national loss of faith. Once celebrated as a bastion of >liberalism that stood against Anthony Eden's lawless attack on Egypt >in 1956, the new right-wing, lifestyle Observer enthusiastically >backed Blair's lawless attack on Iraq, having helped lay the ground >with major articles falsely linking Iraq with the 9/11 attacks - >claims now regarded even by the Pentagon as fake. > >As hysteria is again fabricated, for Iraq, read Iran. According to >the former US treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, the Bush cabal decided >to attack Iraq on "day one" of Bush's administration, long before 11 >September 2001. The main reason was oil. O'Neill was shown a Pentagon >document entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts", >which outlined the carve-up of Iraq's oil wealth among the major >Anglo-American companies. Under a law written by US and British >officials, the Iraqi puppet regime is about to hand over the >extraction of the largest concentration of oil on earth to >Anglo-American companies. > >Nothing like this piracy has happened before in the modern Middle >East, where Opec has ensured that oil business is conducted between >states. Across the Shatt al-Arab waterway is another prize: Iran's >vast oilfields. Just as non-existent weapons of mass destruction or >facile concerns for democracy had nothing to do with the invasion of >Iraq, so non-existent nuclear weapons have nothing to do with the >coming American onslaught on Iran. Unlike Israel and the United >States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation >Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed >routine inspections under its legal obligations. The International >Atomic Energy Agency has never cited Iran for diverting its civilian >programme to military use. For the past three years, IAEA inspectors >have said they have been allowed to "go anywhere". The recent UN >Security Council sanctions against Iran are the result of >Washington's bribery. > >Until recently, the British were unaware that their government was >one of the world's most consistent abusers of human rights and >backers of state terrorism. Few Britons knew that the Muslim >Brotherhood, the forerunner of al-Qaeda, was sponsored by British >intelligence as a means of systematically destroying secular Arab >nationalism, or that MI6 recruited young British Muslims in the 1980s >as part of a $4bn Anglo-American-backed jihad against the Soviet >Union known as "Operation Cyclone". In 2001, few Britons knew that >3,000 innocent Afghan civilians were bombed to death as revenge for >the attacks of 11 September. No Afghans brought down the twin towers. >Thanks to Bush and Blair, awareness in Britain and all over the world >has risen as never before. When home-grown terrorists struck London >in July 2005, few doubted that the attack on Iraq had provoked the >atrocity and that the bombs which killed 52 Londoners were, in >effect, Blair's bombs. > >In my experience, most people do not indulge the absurdity and >cruelty of the "rules" of rampant power. They do not contort their >morality and intellect to comply with double standards and the notion >of approved evil, of worthy and unworthy victims. They would, if they >knew, grieve for all the lives, families, careers, hopes and dreams >destroyed by Blair and Bush. The sure evidence is the British >public's wholehearted response to the 2004 tsunami, shaming that of >the government. > >Certainly, they would agree wholeheartedly with Robert H Jackson, >chief of counsel for the United States at the Nuremberg trials of >Nazi leaders at the end of the Second World War. "Crimes are crimes," >he said, "whether the United States does them or whether Germany does >them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct >which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." > >As with Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld, who dare not travel to >certain countries for fear of being prosecuted as war criminals, >Blair as a private citizen may no longer be untouchable. On 20 March, >Baltasar Garzón, the tenacious Spanish judge who pursued Augusto >Pinochet, called for indictments against those responsible for "one >of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human >history" - Iraq. Five days later, the chief prosecutor of the >International Criminal Court, to which Britain is a signatory, said >that Blair could one day face war-crimes charges. > >These are critical changes in the way the sane world thinks - again, >thanks to the Reich of Blair and Bush. However, we live in the most >dangerous of times. On 6 April, Blair accused "elements of the >Iranian regime" of "backing, financing, arming and supporting >terrorism in Iraq". He offered no evidence, and the Ministry of >Defence has none. This is the same Goebbels-like refrain with which >he and his coterie, Gordon Brown included, brought an epic >bloodletting to Iraq. How long will the rest of us continue looking >from the side? > >First published in the New Statesman > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
