--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
Greetings from the Center for an Informed America
(http://davesweb.cnchost.com/). Please forward this newsletter widely.
If this was forwarded to you and you would like to receive future
mailings, e-mail (mailto:dave@;davesweb.cnchost.com) a request to be
added to this mailing list.
NEWSLETTER #19
October 21, 2002
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr19.html
Greetings, once again, to all subscribers! It's been kind of a long
week, hasn't it?
Perhaps it is time to take an honest, unflinching look at where we stand
as citizens of these United States as we near the halfway mark of The
Smirk's first term in office.
The 'economy' is clearly not looking very good. By that, I mean that
unemployment is on the rise
(http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05C.jobless.up.htm), as is poverty
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/pov-m14.shtml), while
healthcare coverage is on the decline
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/insu-o17.shtml); the nation
is facing record deficits, millions of Americans' retirement savings
have been plundered, and social spending is being further gutted
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/medi-o10.shtml).
But it is not really fair to say that the 'economy' is in trouble. I
know that that is what any number of progressive commentators would like
you to believe -- that the system is in a state of crisis, which is
purportedly why the Bush mob is desperately searching for a war that
will bolster our shaky economy.
But if the economy is in crisis, then it is a planned crisis. As near as
I can tell, the system is functioning exactly as it was set up to
operate: wealth is being consolidated into the hands of the few at a
rate never before seen in modern history. That, you see, is how the
system is supposed to work.
And it is working beautifully right now. Even as the working people of
this country are seeing their jobs taken away and their savings looted,
those doing the looting are accumulating unfathomable wealth and being
handed massive tax breaks.
What we call 'capitalism' is a system based entirely on exploitation and
oppression. It is a system that, by design, allows the powerful few at
the top of the food chain to extract wealth from the labors of others.
It is, in a very real sense, a system of 'legalized' theft that exists
solely so that the powerful can prey upon the weak.
It is a cold and soulless system that enshrines personal greed as a
defining moral principle and is, at its heart, fundamentally corrupt.
The current corporate 'scandals' are not, in other words, some kind of
aberration. They are merely exposures of how the system really operates
behind closed doors.
Anyway, the point that I started to make is that the 'economy' is
actually humming along quite nicely for all of those who really matter.
For the vast majority of us, however, the economic picture is looking
increasingly bleak And in a society indoctrinated to believe that
occupation and income are the only true measures of a man (and, to some
extent, of a woman, though we do live within a decidedly paternalistic
social order), that means that the huddled masses will grow increasingly
restless.
Coupled with the current economic climate, we are about to enter into a
war which will soon reveal itself to be an exceedingly bloody affair.
For this is not to be, as The Smirk has claimed, "a new kind of war,"
but will in fact be a very old-fashioned kind of war: the kind where
both sides suffer substantial casualties.
This is going to be the kind of war that the American people will
quickly remember they have no stomach for. The kind of war where people
actually die -- and not some less-than-human people who don't look like
us, don't talk like us, don't think like us, and don't, as Washington
likes to claim, "have the same respect for human life that we do."
Americans have an amazing capacity for remaining unaffected by the
deaths of legions of foreigners -- by either denying that there are
actual human beings at the receiving ends of all those 'smart bombs'
that we see hitting their targets with pinpoint accuracy on CNN, or by
blaming the victims of U.S. aggression for their own deaths.
But when it is America's sons and brothers and husbands and fathers that
are being shipped back in body bags, the same rules do not apply.
Many of those who pollsters tell us now support the impending war with
Iraq will continue voicing their support even after the body bags begin
rolling off the cargo planes -- and even after it becomes clear, despite
the heavy veil of U.S. propaganda, that Iraqi civilians are being
slaughtered by the tens of thousands.
And make no mistake about it, there will be an extraordinarily high
tally of civilian casualties. That is why the propaganda war is already
operating at a fever pitch. The Los Angeles Times recently ran an
article claiming that Saddam is arming tribal militias to help repel the
U.S. invasion.
(http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-tribes14oct14004436,0,1403442.story)
The purpose of such disinformation couldn't possibly be any more obvious
-- the message being that there are no actual civilians in the nation of
Iraq -- everyone is an armed combatant. And since there are no
civilians, there certainly can't be any civilian casualties.
The White House and the Pentagon will not be able to fully hide the
extreme cost of this war in human lives. As the war quickly degenerates
into a grueling bloodbath, the propaganda will be flying fast and
furious. The American people, promised a quick and painless war, will
listen attentively as Washington patiently explains what went wrong:
"Unfortunately, we are facing a situation that, while taken into
consideration in the planning of this war, everyone falsely assumed that
we would not have to face. We all knew, of course, that Saddam was a
monster, but no one really wanted to believe that even a madman like him
would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own people to protect his
troops. But that is exactly what he has chosen to do. And in doing so,
he has also put American servicemen in harm's way. But America will not
lose its resolve. To the contrary, the manner in which Hussein has
chosen to wage this war illustrates just how important it is for America
to rid the world of this menace once and for all."
That is approximately the line that will be sold to the American people,
and many will find comfort in such words: "It's not our fault that
'enemy' civilians are being slaughtered on a scale not seen since the
Vietnam War. It's Saddam's fault. He's using his own people as human
shields."
But for many other Americans, the propaganda will not be enough to sell
the war. Some will simply not believe Washington's self-serving lies.
Others will ultimately decide that the price we will be asked to pay is
simply too high. And these people will become increasingly vocal, as
will the countless Americans who increasingly fall victim to the
economic machinations of Team Bush.
Many of these Americans, from both camps, will eventually decide to take
to the streets to allow their voices to be heard. But they have a big
surprise waiting for them, as they quickly discover that the rights that
they assume they have as Americans have been sacrificed to the entirely
fraudulent 'War on Terrorism.'
The right to peacefully assemble to address legitimate grievances with
the government? The right to free speech? Don't go looking for them,
because you won't like what you find.
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/prot-s28.shtml,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/10/12/MN121765.DTL,
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/14/jailed.protesters.ap/index.html,
and http://thememoryhole.com/policestate/protesters-filmed.htm)
How about the right to be secure in one's own home? Or the right to an
attorney? Or the right to protection from unlawful prosecution? Or the
right to a fair trial? Or the right to protection from unreasonable
search and seizure? Don't go looking for any of them either.
Rights such as those are but memories now. And the reason that those
rights no longer exist has nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and
nothing to do with ensuring the security of this nation, and everything
to do with laying the groundwork for the backlash against the unchecked
military aggression and predatory economic policies of the Bush regime.
To make a long story short then, the shit is necessarily going to hit
the fan relatively soon, and the squatters in the White House are well
aware of that fact. But they are not about to back off. It is abundantly
clear from their actions that the police-state agenda is on the
fast-track -- and nothing is going to slow it down.
Indeed, anything and everything will be used to advance the agenda. We
don't yet know who the 'DC sniper' is, but we already know at least one
of the goals served by the series of shootings -- justification for
taking a large step towards formally dismantling the Posse Comitatus
Act.
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/mili-o18.shtml)
Actually, it seems unlikely that we will ever know who the DC sniper
really is. But here are some tips for police investigators: give some
thought to looking for a highly trained assassination team. The team
will likely include a couple of skilled sharpshooters, as well as
support personnel to scout locations, monitor escape routes, watch for
potential witnesses and perform other such mundane tasks. The team will
have received extensive training in the mechanics and logistics of
completing covert assassination missions.
You might want to think about consulting with your new partners from the
Pentagon to see if any such Special Forces teams are currently deployed
in the DC area. That might be a good starting point. Either that, or you
could just frame some hapless patsy who can't shoot well enough to hit
the broad side of a fucking barn. Either way works for me.
Now ... where was I? Oh yes, I remember now. I was saying that
propaganda alone is not going to be sufficient to sell brutal and
nakedly imperialistic military actions, and a transparently fraudulent
and predatory economic system. Team Bush will therefore have to utilize
the same strategy on the home front that they are using to get their way
in Afghanistan and Iraq: brute force.
And that is, as best I can remember, the main point I was trying to
make. And now, it is time once again to dip into that deep well of
knowledge known as Time Magazine, as we once again pay a visit to their
"Man of the Year" archives.
The year in question is 1951, and during that year - in case you've
forgotten, or weren't yet alive - a grave new threat arose that was of
considerable concern to one of Washington's favorite mouthpieces -- so
much so that Time chose Iran's popular new head of state, Mohammed
Mossadegh, as their Man of the Year.
(http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1951.html)
Mossadegh was not named Man of the Year to honor him, of course. No, it
was more of an attempt to demonize him. And Time's editors struggled
mightily to achieve that goal, but largely failed, due primarily to the
fact that Mossadegh was, as even Time acknowledged, "such a kindly old
fellow (in some respects)."
Time also granted that "the old nobleman became the most world-renowned
man his ancient race had produced for centuries." Quickly added,
however, was that Mossadegh "increased the danger of a general war among
nations, impoverished his country and brought it and some neighboring
lands to the very brink of disaster."
Actually, Mossadegh did no such thing. What he did do was to attempt to
throw off the yoke of Western colonial rule. And for that he was hailed
as a hero by the Iranian people, and by oppressed peoples throughout the
Middle East and around the world. As Time stated: "his people loved all
that he did, and cheered him to the echo whenever he appeared in the
streets."
Unable to portray Mossadegh as a monster, Time instead attempted to
present him as a hopeless eccentric whose eccentricities somehow
imperiled global stability. Throughout the article, Time resorted
repeatedly to the rather childish practice of name-calling -- dubbing
Mossadegh a "dizzy old wizard" and "an appalling caricature of a
statesman," while even claiming at one point that "he fibs about his
age."
As a side note, I should probably clarify here that it is childish when
Time resorts to name-calling, but it is witty and insightful political
commentary when I do it. I just wanted to clear that up, before moving
on.
Time assured America that what it termed Mossadegh's "peculiar" methods
of governing were no laughing matter, but were in fact of grave
international concern: "Behind his grotesque antics lay great issues of
peace or war, progress or decline, which would affect many lands far
beyond his mountains."
Mossadegh, you see, had influence far beyond Iran's borders: "There were
millions inside and outside Iran whom Mossadegh symbolized and spike
for, and whose fanatical state of mind he had helped to create. They
would rather see their own nations fall apart than continue their
present relations with the West."
But why would discontinuing "their present relations the West"
automatically ensure that their nations would fall apart? And, more
importantly, why did people "spike" in those days, rather than "spoke"?
And what the hell does "cheer to the echo" mean?
Time seemed to have a little trouble defining exactly what type of
threat to the world Mossadegh posed. Much to the consternation of the
magazine's editors, no doubt, Mossadegh couldn't be branded with that
handy label that served so well throughout the so-called Cold War:
"Communist."
As Time explained: "Communism encouraged this state of mind, and stood
to profit hugely from it. But Communism did not create it. The split
between the West and the non-Communist East was a peril all its own to
world order, quite apart from Communism. Through 1951 the Communist
threat to the world continued; but nothing new was added--and little
subtracted. The news of 1951 was this other danger in the Near and
Middle East."
Ahh, yes, this largely undefined "other danger" -- for anyone who
refuses to serve as a tool of Western imperialism is certainly a
"danger." That much, apparently, is a given.
What was needed, according to Time, was for America to draw up a
comprehensive policy for dealing with this new 'threat' that had emerged
in the Middle East. The problem was that "the West had not yet developed
the moral muscle to define its own goals and responsibilities in the
Middle East."
And until "the West achieved enough moral clarity to construct a just
and fruitful policy toward the East," the region would remain "in
turmoil." We certainly, in other words, couldn't leave it to the peoples
of the Middle East to govern themselves. Only a fool would suggest such
a thing. Clearly, only the West could provide the guidance to lift these
heathens out of their backward existence.
The question naturally arises as to what exactly it was that Mossadegh
had done to so endanger world stability. What sort of dangerous policies
was it that so worried Time Magazine? The answer finally comes about 2/3
of the way through the Time article:
"On March 8, the day after Ali Razmara, Iran's able, pro-Western
Premier, was assassinated, Mossadegh submitted to the Iranian Majilis
his proposal to nationalize Iran's oil. In a few weeks a wave of
anti-foreign feeling, assisted by organized terrorism, swept him into
the premiership."
And there, in a nutshell, was the reason for Time's and Washington's
concerns: Mossadegh had chosen to stop the brazen exploitation of Iran's
natural resources by foreign interests, and to instead use the wealth
derived from such resources for the good of the people occupying the
land that contained the oil. What a bizarre concept.
And Mossadegh was quite serious about nationalizing Iran's petroleum
industry. He "was committed to nationalization--and much to the surprise
of the British, he went through with it, right down to the expulsion of
the British technicians without whom the Iranians cannot run the Abadan
refinery."
Of course, Mossadegh was so crazed that he actually thought the Iranian
people could run the industry themselves, free of outside influence.
Time though knew better. Time knew that the unwashed masses of Iran were
far too ignorant to run the oil industry properly.
The 'news' magazine listed four results of this hare-brained scheme of
Mossadegh's, though only the first one is of any significance: "the West
lost the Iranian oil supply."
So, clearly, the West had a big problem on its hands with Mohammed
Mossadegh. And the 'problem' was spreading: "The Iranian crisis was
still bubbling when Egypt exploded with the announcement that it was
abrogating its 1936 treaty with Britain. The Egyptian government
demanded that British troops get off the soil of Egypt."
Contrary to the assertions of Time, the West did though have a Middle
East policy -- a policy of conquest and control. The problem was that it
couldn't be fully implemented until the West figured out what to do
about an even bigger problem -- a guy by the name of Joseph Stalin, who
held the rampant imperialism of the West largely in check for eight
years following World War II.
Fortunately for the U.S. then, Stalin died on March 5, 1953, under
conditions that to this day are shrouded in mystery. Almost immediately,
plans were put into effect in Washington to deal with the Mossadegh
'problem,' followed by a rapid proliferation of other covert activities
designed to gain Western control over various other parts of the world.
On April 4, 1953, less than a month after Stalin's demise, CIA Director
Allen W. Dulles approved expenditures of $1 million to be used "in any
way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh� in Iran -- so that the
West could once again seize control of Iran's oil fields.
The U.S. and the UK had occupied Iran in August of 1941. Heading the
U.S. military mission was a man whose name should be at least vaguely
familiar to most Americans: General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Iran's ruling
regime was ousted and the Western powers took control of the nation's
oil industry.
As a brief aside, Schwarzkopf's claim to fame prior to leading the World
War II mission to Iran was leading the police investigation that
railroaded Bruno Richard Hauptmann for the kidnapping and murder of the
son of native fascist Charles Lindbergh.
For a decade after Schwarzkopf's incursion into Iran, control of the
country's precious oil reserves was maintained by the Anglo-Iranian Oil
Company, with the emphasis on "Anglo." All that changed, of course, when
Mossadegh reclaimed Iran's oil resources for the people of Iran in 1951.
In June of 1953, the chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division,
Kermit Roosevelt, arrived in Tehran to direct a coup. Kermit was, for
the record, a grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a cousin of that
consummate 'liberal Democrat,' Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Kermit's coup plan had been approved by John Foster Dulles --
Eisenhower's Secretary of State and the brother of CIA Director Allen
Dulles. Another conspirator in the planning of the coup was Schwarzkopf,
who from 1942 to 1948 trained and reorganized the Iranian National
Police. The result of his efforts was the dreaded SAVAK, which by 1976
was reported by Amnesty International to have the worst human rights
record on the planet.
Also assisting in planning and financing the coup was the ever-popular
Rockefeller family, whose Standard Oil Company had, shall we say, vested
interests in the region. Others notables assisting in the plotting
and/or execution of the coup were Herbert Hoover, Jr., a highly placed
CIA asset and the son of former President Hoover, and CIA asset Loy
Henderson.
The coup commenced on August 15 and by August 19 had succeeded in
deposing Mossadegh. Taking his place was Shah Pahlavi, who happened to
have a large portion of his soiled personal fortune deposited in the
Rockefeller family's Chase Manhattan Bank.
On August 21, the CIA pumped millions of dollars into Iran to prop up
the illegitimate new regime. Hoover quickly put together a consortium to
handle the marketing of all Iranian oil, while SAVAK terrorized the
Iranian people into compliance. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Time Magazine described the reacquisition of Iran's oil wealth by the
West in slightly different terms. In yet another Man of the Year
offering, this time honoring none other than John Foster Dulles (1954),
Time hailed one of Dulles' "clear-cut gains" as Secretary of State:
"After three years of shutdown and stalemate at Abadan (caused by the
stubborn egotism of 1951's Man of the Year Mohammed Mossadegh), Iran
agreed to let foreign firms (chiefly British) resume operating the
Iranian oil industry, which the Iranians were incapable of operating.
The agreement was prodded, adjusted and pushed through by Loy Henderson,
the U.S. Ambassador, and Special U.S. Emissary Herbert Hoover, Jr., now
Under Secretary of State."
(http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1954.html)
So you see, Iran simply "agreed to let foreign firms ... resume
operating the Iranian oil industry." Because, of course, they had no
idea how to do it themselves. They just needed a little prodding and
pushing -- with a little mass murder and torture thrown in for good
measure.
Another "clear-cut gain" of Dulles' State Department was posted when
"Jacobo Arbenz' Communist-dominated government of Guatemala, the only
Red bastion in the western hemisphere, was overthrown by the
anti-Communist forces of Castillo Armas."
This is another interesting bit of historical myth-making on the part of
Time's editors. What actually happened was that the Dulles-run CIA
launched another coup that ousted the democratically elected Arbenz.
Arbenz had become the president of Guatemala in 1951 in a landslide
election victory. Like Mossadegh, who gained power the same year, Arbenz
had widespread popular support. Also like Mossadegh, Arbenz was of
considerable concern to Washington.
In June of 1954, one year after the Iran coup, another CIA team,
directed by Eisenhower and the Dulles boys, set their sights on toppling
the Arbenz government. Once again, it was a decidedly bloody affair,
this time involving massive aerial bombardment by U.S. aircraft and
repeated nuclear threats.
When it was all over, Arbenz was dead and a decidedly fascistic U.S.
puppet, General Castillo Armas, had been installed in power to head up a
noticeably undemocratic military regime.
And what, you may be wondering, had Arbenz done to so provoke the wrath
of Washington? If you're guessing that it had something to do with
nationalizing the natural resources of the nation of Guatemala, then
you're catching on to how this game is played.
If Arbenz and Mossadegh were around today, their countries would be
labeled as "rogue" nations, or as "terrorist-sponsoring" regimes --
which generally means nations that refuse to recognize that America has
the God-given right to extract profit from every square inch of the
globe.
That, you see, is how the 'rule of law' operates: if a 'common criminal'
sees something in a store window that he wants, and chooses to just take
it, then that is a serious crime; but if the United States sees
something that it wants and just takes it, killing thousands, perhaps
millions, in the process, then that is bringing democratic reform to the
rest of the world.
Arbenz had announced his intention to nationalize the assets of United
Fruit, which had close ties to both the Dulles brothers and the
Rockefeller family. At the time that Arbenz took office, United had a
stranglehold on the nation of Guatemala; it owned the country's
telephone and telegraph facilities as well as nearly every mile of its
railroads, administered its only important Atlantic harbor, monopolized
its banana exports, owned an enormous portion of the land, and paid out
over half of the country's total wages, while paying negligible taxes
and export duties.
This sweetheart deal had come courtesy of John Foster Dulles and
Sullivan & Cromwell, who had 'negotiated' a ninety-nine-year 'lease' for
United Fruit in 1936. Financing for the deal had been provided by the
Nazi-controlled J. Henry Schroder Banking Co., for whom Allen Dulles was
both a legal advisor and a director.
Just two years after the bloodbath in Guatemala, Kermit Roosevelt was
assigned by the Eisenhower administration to plot yet another coup, this
time directed against the nation of Syria. Kermit was assisted in the
operation by fellow CIA asset Archibald Roosevelt, yet another grandson
of Teddy.
And so began an endless series of bloody coups, rigged elections, and
assassinations -- all aimed at bringing all of the world under the
control of the West, even while Western leaders justified their actions
with claims that it was the Soviet Union that had its sights set on
world domination. Strangely though, Time had earlier admitted, in yet
another Man of the Year offering (1942), that Stalin was
"concentrat[ing] on building socialism in one state," and wanted "no new
territories except at points needed to make Russia impregnable against
invasion."
(http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1942.html)
It is also interesting to note that, even in the midst of demonizing
Stalin in an earlier Man of the Year offering (1939), Time begrudgingly
admitted that after twelve years of his rule, "There were accounts of
big dams built, large factories going up, widespread industrialization,
big collective-farming projects. Five-Year plans were announced. Free
schools and hospitals were erected everywhere. Illiteracy was on the way
to being wiped out. There was no persecution of minorities as such. A
universal eight-hour and then a seven-hour day prevailed. There were
free hospitalization, free workers' summer colonies, etc."
(http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1939.html)
That same MOY article also made a passing reference to "Soviet Russia's
meticulously fostered reputation of a peace-loving, treaty-abiding
nation," and noted that "Soviet Russia had definitely gained some
measure of respect for its apparent righteousness in foreign affairs. It
had supported against reactionary attacks popular governments in
Hungary, Austria, China, Spain." The U.S., meanwhile, had sat idly by,
pretending as though its hands were tied by international treaties --
treaties that were specifically crafted to justify inaction by the West
as fascism spread across Europe and Asia.
The specific treaty that supposedly bound the hands of the West was the
1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, coauthored by U.S. Secretary of State Frank
Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand. Briand was, by the
way, a political crony of Pierre Laval, a notorious fifth-columnist who
sold his country out to the Nazis and who was, curiously enough,
showered with praise as Time's Man of the Year for 1931.
(http://www.time.com/time/special/moy/1931.html)
It should go without saying that the excerpts from Time's two profiles
of Stalin sound nothing like the dreaded "Stalinism" that we all love to
hate. Instead, we find a peace-loving, treaty-abiding nation that
consistently sides with the people to oppose fascist regimes, that
offers free, quality education and healthcare for all, that has
guaranteed worker protections, and that is known for racial tolerance.
Compare that with what we have now: a war mongering, outlaw nation that
consistently backs brutal, fascistic regimes against the will of the
people, that barely bothers to fund public education and that offers
medical care only to those who can afford the exorbitant fees charged
for such services, that has declared war on labor by invoking the
Taft-Hartley Act under entirely contrived circumstances, and that could,
shall we say, use a little work in the area of racial tolerance.
Now bear with me here, because I'm just thinking out loud, but it seems
to me that 'Stalinism,' even as presented through the biased eyes of
Time, would be a vast improvement over this fabulously 'free' and
'democratic' system that we now have. And it seems kind of funny to me,
quite frankly, that we have all been taught to so thoroughly and
universally despise the one man on the world stage who could honestly
claim credit for doing what the U.S. likes to pompously boast of:
defeating the fascist powers of Europe.
Any reasonably honest reading of history reveals that it was the Red
Army that crushed the Nazi war machine, with only nominal 'help' from
the West coming late in the fourth quarter. And it was Joseph Stalin who
commanded that Red Army. According to Time, Stalin put in sixteen-hour
days personally directing the war effort, while living in a modest
three-room apartment.
This may not be a 'politically correct' statement, but the world owes an
incalculable debt of gratitude to Joseph Stalin for slaying the fascist
beat -- or at least sending it underground until, in case you haven't
noticed yet, it recently resurfaced.
Having, I would think, generated a sufficient amount of hostile e-mail
with that digression, let's return once again to "the world according to
Time," whose glowing tribute to John Foster Dulles proclaimed: "The U.S.
needed all its strength and confidence to handle 1954's struggle with
Communism, which has been the overriding issue of every year since
1945." And it would, of course, remain the alleged "overriding issue"
for decades to come.
It was an issue that justified, among other things, "the free world's
grim dependence on massive atomic retaliation," which Dulles never
attempted to veil. Indeed, by 1954, Dulles "was able to report to the
U.S. that plans for Europe's defense had entered a new phase." And what
phase might that be, you may be wondering? According to Time: "Tactical
atomic weapons."
It's kind of funny, by the way, that the Time article makes no less than
eight references to "the free world." It kind of makes you wonder why,
if it is so free, they have to keep reminding people of that fact.
As Time noted, NATO (itself largely a Dulles creation) had adopted John
Foster's tactical atomic weapons plan "within 30 minutes. It provided
for consultation prior to the use of nuclear weapons by NATO forces, but
it did not set rigid rules or tie the hands of such non-NATO forces as
the U.S. Strategic Air Command."
Of course it didn't. It certainly wouldn't do to have the hands of the
U.S. tied when it comes to the deployment of weapons of mass
destruction. Everybody knows that.
Despite all of Dulles' allegedly stellar accomplishments, Time dutifully
reported that there were "two major setbacks of 1954." One of these
wasn't actually a setback at all, however, but was in fact a planned
occurrence to justify the rearming of Germany, just a decade after the
genocidal reign of the Nazi regime had been shut down.
As Time informed its readers, 1954 saw "the death of the European
Defense Community." The only alternative on the horizon, of course, was
"to rearm and grant sovereignty to West Germany under a different set of
agreements." What other choice, after all, was there? And so, Time
assured us, "Somehow, the rearmament of Germany will begin in 1955,
whatever stand France takes."
I guess they got off pretty easy. Much easier than, say, Iraq, which
can't even think about rearming more than a decade after its military
defeat. But then I guess Iraq's crimes were much more serious than Nazi
Germany's ... or something like that.
The other major setback for the rabidly "anti-Communist" (frequently a
euphemism for "Fascist") John Foster Dulles was "the defeat in
Indo-China." The French had, it will be recalled, suffered a major
defeat in their attempts to pacify by force the people of Vietnam.
As Time lamented, there "was scant hope that the Communists could be
prevented from swallowing up all of Viet Nam. There was great danger in
the aura of success that surrounded the Communists in the Far East." The
U.S. would soon be passed the baton by the French, setting the stage for
one of the bloodiest chapters in American history.
And that, I suppose, will have to suffice for this week's rather
long-winded history lesson, as I have a lot of other stuff that I want
to get to. But this newsletter has, once again, ran much too long, and
so I will once again have to split it in two, and post the second half
in a few days. Stay tuned ....
(Permission is hereby granted for this material to be widely
distributed, provided that the content is not altered in any way.)
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
