Do You Really Want the Truth About 9/11 and Election Fraud - - See OIL EMPIRE for much more information

First Strike Nukes On 'Table' : Audio:

Physics professor Jorge Hirsch discusses America's nuclear weapons policy toward non-nuclear states.

Alan Greenspan Claims Iraq War Was Really For 0il   Lambasts Bush on economy

America's elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush's economic policies.

Greenspan Misses Cheney's Memo: Spills the Beans on Oil

For those still wondering why President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney sent our young men and women into Iraq, the secret is now "largely" out.
No, not from the lips of former secretary of state Colin Powell.  It appears we shall have to wait until the disgraced general/diplomat draws nearer to meeting his maker before he gets concerned over anything more than the “blot” that Iraq has put on his reputation.

US Capitalist System Spins Out of Control

The US capitalist system is a sacred religion, a dogma that cannot be questioned, but is out of control and leading to global environmental destruction as Sullivan illustrates. However its offspring - the military-industrial-political complex - is also out of control, breeding wars and new arms races which threaten to destroy the world in the nearer future. The economic system and values of global humanity keep accelerating this self-destructive system. Increasingly the bulk of human resources go into preparing for, and fighting, endless wars based on lies and myths.

Why do we sell them our souls?

It is painfully obvious that America is a land that worships the market economy. Big money is God here. Big money is all powerful, omnipotent. All solutions, as perceived by the captains of business, therefore, must be market based. Moreover, in the moribund perceptions of the ruling elite, the market must be totally unfettered. It must exist beyond the pale of conscience, bearing no responsibility to the people, or to the earth that sustains it. It must answer only to the bottom line and reject all other input—a function that it has executed only too well.

The US military and civilian war makers in Washington have learned lessons from the Vietnam War - how to minimize domestic outrage and protest. One tactic is to strictly control the media and reportage of their bombing raids on civilian centres - and the casualties of innocent men, women and children in Iraq. What the US people don't know about, they can't protest or be spurred to action. The Pentagon doesn't want another Vietnam, where US barbarity was featured in the Press and TV every night. The US people could not stomach this and responded with giant demonstrations which helped stop the war.

Three years have passed since most Americans came to the conclusion that the Iraq war was a "mistake." Reporting the results of a Gallup poll in June 2004, USA Today declared: "It is the first time since Vietnam that a majority of Americans has called a major deployment of US forces a mistake." And public opinion continued to move in an antiwar direction. But such trends easily coexist with a war effort becoming even more horrific.

Whereas the CIA and it's interests in using Sudan as a source of intelligence for the Iraq war is featured in this article, there is not a word about the very great interest the US has in Sudan's oil. This oil interest and the policies that flow from it, are mentioned in some of the other articles on this site. The immorality and two-faced policies of the US toward Sudan and the very low priority it gives to the genocide against Darfur, indicates that Oil takes priority over the blood of men, women and children in Darfur. That the following article only mentioned the CIA spy interests and not a word about oil seems to indicate that the media prefers not to alert it's readers about this vitally important connection in the formation of US foreign policy.

Khartoum supplies information to the CIA on insurgents in Iraq.
Sudan has secretly worked with the CIA to spy on the insurgency in Iraq - an example of how the United States has continued to cooperate with the Sudanese regime even while condemning its role in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Darfur.
President Bush has condemned the killings in Darfur as genocide and has imposed sanctions on Sudan's government. But some critics say the administration has soft-pedaled the sanctions to preserve its extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan.

America is failing in Iraq, even while it destroys the nation it invaded. It is destroying itself, its economy and any pretence at civilized values, while it claims to be spreading 'freedom and democracy'. In fact it is spreading death, destruction and corrupted client regimes it labels as 'democratically elected'.

America is a modern Rome: an arrogant empire that does not understand the limits of power. I guess no empire really does. This is why they rise and fall. It is not an American trait; it is the nature of unchecked power. Yet in his book, Murphy tries to construct a moral ethos for American hegemony and aggressive drive to dominate the world. Unfortunately the basic pre'ise of his argument goes against history.

While America fought lost wars, The Bear was awakened! Moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar one provides needed balance, but also might precipitate a new kind of Cold War over oil and gas. Russia is using energy as its means of regaining international prestige.
One of the main reasons for NATO expansion, from America's strategic point of view, was to prevent Russia from restoring its former influence. But Moscow's new diplomatic offensive has made large holes in America's containment policy.

The following is a number of articles dealing with global oil resources and the policies of different nations toward these resources. Of particular interest is the battle between states for control of Sudan's oil - one of the richest oil fields in Africa. At the same time the Government of Sudan is commiting genocide against the population of Darfur. That results in two-faced policies by governments wanting good relations with Sudan to get access to it's oil, while appearing to pacify human rights organizations by condemning Sudan for its genocide against the population of Darfur. As in Iraq, it seems to be the oil interests that triumph over human rights.

"Black gold" often brings hardship and misery to the societies where it is found. Petroleum-producing countries are plagued by corrupt and authoritarian governments, lopsided and unsustainable economic development and violent conflict. Foreign powers and their huge multinational oil companies often maneuver for control of the oil fields through clandestine operations or outright military intervention. In addition, disaffected rebels challenge governments in hope of winning a share of the lucrative oil revenues.

This article by Professor Hossein-zadeh is a masterpiece which illuminates how the military-industrial-political complex works. It shows why it is a far greater threat today than when President Eisenhower warned about it in his farewell speech in 1961. Its short term success depends on the creation of new enemies and threats. These are used to justify wars, increasing military power, arms racing and military spending. In the long run this run-away situation will degrade and may destroy America . So long as this system rules it will gain momentum and strength and be more difficult to reverse. Always new enemies and crisis will be invented to curb popular pressures for change and reform. And the American people can always be fooled into submission by an array of threats, crisis, lies and tricks invented by highly skilled manipulators and propagandists. I think a useful analogy might be to compare the US to a speeding locomotive, out of control with the driver paralysed due to a heart attack. The throttle is jammed in maximum speed position so the locomotive is accelerating. Eventually it goes off the rails or blows up.

How recent U.S. wars of choice, driven largely by war profiteering, are plundering not only defenseless peoples and their resources abroad, but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home.

A selection of excellent articles from the best Journalists gathered for your information.

Sheila Samples has issued a very powerful call to "Impeach Cheney Now" before he is able to initiate even bigger crimes against America and the world.
The US war planned for Iran is next on Cheney's list. If he gets away with this one, we may have past the point of no return.
There would be no going back or investigation. Iran and the Middle East would be in flames with millions dead and dieing. The world would be totally at the mercy of a series of disastrous consequences amid the confusion that would follow. Any ideas of Impeachment then, would just be a joke.
Pre-emptive impeachment action now is the only way future major crimes could be prevented.

Recently, Nova M Radio's Mike Malloy suggested the lethargy that appears to have descended on the American people is more "rage fatigue" than a lack of knowledge or comprehension of the damage wrought by this administration. I agree, although for many of us, rather than fatigue, it's more an inability to "focus" on any single atrocity about which to be enraged. There are just too many incoming horrors at any one time. We are in the throes of a national paralysis....
Dick Cheney must be impeached -- now -- before he lashes out from the dark side, and Iran is aflame; its terrified citizens displaced, dying -- dead.

It was obvious from the beginning in 2003, when independent experts and everyone in the peace movement warned that possession of Iraq's oil was Bush's main reason for making war on Iraq. The media dutifully suppressed peace movement warnings at that time, and still do. Their loyalty is to the Bush regime and repeating its lies. They have a de facto ban on any other explanations of Bush's lengthy conspiracy and wars.

The Howard Government has today admitted that securing oil supplies is a factor in Australia's continued military involvement in Iraq.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war, as "energy security" and stability in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation's future.
Speaking ahead of today's key foreign policy speech by Prime Minister John Howard, Dr Nelson said defence was about protecting the economy as well as physical security.

Robert Fisk shows how our media completely misrepresent the situation in Palestine and the Middle East generally. The media's aim is to please the US-Israeli war machine by repeating their lies and propaganda, thus facilitating further Israeli conquest of Palestinian lands - such as levelling Arab homes and building new Jewish settlements on Arab lands, and generally oppressing the Arab citizens of the Israeli-occupied territory.  With their discreditted Abbas regime now installed in the Western Bank, the US-Israeli war machine, and their media can portray it as ' the Government' . They can now increase their war on the popular elected Hamas-controlled Gaza by aiding the Abbas regime militarily, and  oppressing the Arab citizens of the Hamas-controlled area. As Washington's Israeli-influenced neocons might say, from now on it's going to be a 'cakewalk' to gain complete Israeli control of the area.

Welcome to 'Palestine'

How troublesome the Muslims of the Middle East are. First, we demand that the Palestinians embrace democracy and then they elect the wrong party - Hamas - and then Hamas wins a mini-civil war and presides over the Gaza Strip. And we Westerners still want to negotiate with the discredited President, Mahmoud Abbas. Today "Palestine" - and let's keep those quotation marks in place - has two prime ministers. Welcome to the Middle East.

The Battle of Gaza

In less than 24 hours of fierce street-fighting, Bush's proxy-army in Gaza was routed by armed units of Hamas. It was a stunning defeat for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and for US-Israeli policymakers who have done everything in their power to overturn the “free and fair” election of the Hamas government. For now, Hamas has reestablished its authority in Gaza although Abbas is still working frantically with Bush and Olmert to consolidate his power in the West Bank. ...
The forces that Bush has put in motion will inexorably lead to the decline of “superpower rule” and the dismantling of the US imperium. The transition is already visible. The battle of Gaza is just a macrocosm of a much larger phenomenon which now extends from Mogadishu to Kabul.

World's Greatest Oil Consumer and Polluter

.... America has become a 'Frankenstein-of-perpetual-war' creature, created by the machinations of Bush's neocon complex. Congress, elected to stop the Iraq war and correct any Administration excesses, and crimes, has lost any will to stop any present or future planned wars. Basically it is very much under the domination of the Bush executive and ideology.

Fighting Wars for Oil to Fight Wars

Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis – either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.
Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. That's greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million – and yet it's a gross underestimate of the Pentagon's wartime consumption.

The new surge to 200,000 US troops in Iraq plus thousands of mercenary contractor-soldiers, the biggest US Embassy in the world, permanent US military bases and the Bush administration's new admission that they may occupy Iraq for as long as they occupied South Korea, 60 years, are all hard evidence that the Bush neocon administration never intended to leave Iraq . As seen below the US Democrats reinforce the Bush regime on this, and will keep on funding the war for as long as it takes.
The US and UK may soon make war on Iran to try and add this country to their joint imperial conquest.

Iraq Occupation Coming to a Head Over Oil

The situation in Iraq is coming to a head. Oil workers have been on strike for three days and are being threatened by the Iraqi government and surrounded by the Iraqi military. The Parliament passed a resolution urging an end to the U.S. occupation and has refused to act on the oil law the U.S. is demanding. Both the Democrats in Congress and the Bush Administration have united around the passage of the oil law as the top benchmark for the Iraqi government.

Here is another classic case of US demonising and subverting a small oil-producing country - Venezuela.
Iraq is suffering from a completely unjustified illegal US war based on lies and similar demonisation before the US bombing and invasion. Is Venezuela also on the Bush military hit list and soon to suffer from similar covert or overt military US action?
Pelosi demonstrates that whoever Bush chooses as an enemy, the US Democrats also adopt as an enemy. They justified the war on Iraq, and the Democratically-controlled Congress is continuing to fund it. Most Democrats have indicated that they back a US war on Iran which would spark a series of disasters. The US Democrats don't seem concerned about that, or the lies upon which it is based.
It will be a sad day for humanity if Bush tries to subvert and/or invade this small South American Democracy.

Letter to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

Madam Speaker Pelosi,
I am writing in the opportunity to respond to your May 30 statement on Venezuela's decision not to renew the broadcast license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). In it, you accused President Hugo Chávez of engaging in efforts to “suppress the media.” I would like to assure you that the decision was made in full accordance with Venezuela's laws and does not represent a threat to the country's vibrant media or the ability of the Venezuelan people to receive information and opinion that is critical of the government. Equally, and as many observers have pointed out, since President Chavez came to power the government has tried to democratize the media to foster a diversity of voices to combat the historical monopoly on the broadcasting of information that causes so much harm to any democracy.

This excellent article is full of useful facts about Iran and its history as well as today's war threats against it from the Bush regime.
There are many things people can do to help prevent a war which could have disastrous long-term effects on the world.
These are listed in the article.
Larry will speak on the threats of a US war on Iran and its effects anywhere in New Zealand if sponsors look after any travel and accommodation costs. email Larry at webenquiry@nuclearfree.org.nz

Oil and social gains: Why the U.S. is targeting Iran

Why is Iran increasingly a target of U.S. threats? Who in Iran will be affected if the Pentagon implements plans, already drawn up, to strike more than 10,000 targets in the first hours of a U.S. air barrage on Iran?

While the polls show that most Americans reject Bushism, there is little questioning, action against, or even awareness of the obvious fascist trends and what might follow.

Dark Secrets at the Front

Prisoners and interrogators are both brutalized in a war that changes who we are.
..."Less than half of other soldiers and Marines (in Iraq) believed that non- combatants should be treated with dignity and respect and well over a third believed that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow team member.

Rep. Jim McDermott has done a great service for all Americans by exposing in Congress how the US acting through its State Department and the C.I.A. overthrew the democratically-elected Mossedagh government in Iran in 1953. He exposed that now the Bush regime has authorised the C.I.A. to do it again. I have included 3 of the very excellent comments on this article that follow this article. 

Editor's note: After a week that saw Democrats cave to the White House in the worst possible way on Iraq, we thought this speech, offered on the House floor by Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wa., last Wednesday, was worth highlighting. In a brief, five-minute commentary, McDermott does something almost unheard of in Washington: He looks at an issue in its larger historical context instead of pretending it just sprung up overnight like mushrooms after a rainfall.
Mr. Speaker: This president and vice president have vowed to repeat the mistakes of history, and they have put into motion a plan to do just that in Iran, even as the House is about to send the president a box of blank checks for Iraq, against the will of the American people.

Chalmers Johnson is an eminent US historian and gives us a comprehensive look at the American Empire today. In any kind of a normal world run by normal human beings with some established values and standards, the present disastrous trends would continue. Bush and his Republicans would be overwhelmingly voted out of office in 2008. But this is not a normal world and the Bush regime is run by people with few or no values and standards.

I According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll , released on April 26, 2007, some 78% of Americans believe their country to be headed in the wrong direction. Only 22% think the Bush administration's policies make sense, the lowest number on this question since October 1992, when George H. W. Bush was running for a second term -- and lost. What people don't agree on are the reasons for their doubts and, above all, what the remedy -- or remedies -- ought to be.

The recent of Saddam Hussein may have turned "regime change" into a contemporary buzzword, but it's been a tactic of American foreign policy for more than 110 years. Beginning with the ouster of Hawaii's monarchy in 1893, Kinzer runs through the foreign governments the U.S. has had a hand in toppling.

Two of the important US objectives in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq is to build permanent military bases in Iraq to act as a centre of US military activities in the region, and occupation of the country, and to secure a permanent share of Iraq 's oil for US corporations. By sheer brutality, wanton destruction, mass murder (655,000 dead), torture and imprisonment of Iraqis they are achieving their goals. That 26 million Iraqis live there and own the country is an inconvenient reality that the Bush Administration is dealing with in its own usual way. By the creation and use of death squads (the Salvador option) and orchestrating an Iraqi civil war, they can create the kind of chaos they need to justify to Americans that 'we must stay in Iraq to help our allies defeat the evil al-Qaeda terrorists'.

Something really momentous took place inside Iraq's Green Zone last week and if you're looking for a full report on it in the U.S. major media save yourself the trouble. As far as they are concerned, the fact that over half of Iraq's parliament joined in a call for setting a withdrawal date of the “coalition” force from their country, it was a non-event worthy of scant or belated mention. Likewise was the story of how the Senate in Afghanistan voted the same day to call for the exodus of the occupation forces from that country as well. Some major newspapers have yet to record that fact.

This is a great interview with a long term investigative journalist who knows his Washington subject and their history going back to the 70s and 80s. It gives a new perspective on important events.
One point I question is his assertion that al-Qaeda wants US troops to stay in Iraq so they can be destroyed. I think it may be more true that the CIA and neocons may wish us to think al-Qaeda wants the US troops to stay etc. It is part of US strategy, I believe to stay in Iraq indefinitely and that's one reason they have built new permanent US military bases in Iraq and the biggest US embassy in the world in Baghdad.

Robert Parry of ConsortiumNews.com discusses the need he found to create a new home for investigative reporting back in the 1990s, explains the role of the old Iran-Contra criminals in running the war party today, evidence of George Bush Sr.'s role, the narrative of the “crazy” Iranian regime which was apparently plenty sane enough when this same crew sold them weapons to use against Iraq who the U.S. was also backing in the 1980s, the October Surprise, how Bush claims to follow the advice of his generals as he replaces them with ones sure to “agree” with him that the answer in Iraq is to escalate, why al Qaeda wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq, why they did 9/11 in the first place, the crazy theory that the President has unlimited power over an unlimited area forever, and the media narrative that Bush is some great decisive leader even though he is an idiot and a coward and their suppression of the story of the Florida recount in the election of the year 2000.

This American organization is doing it's best to awaken America to the catastrophic threat that the Bush Administration is planning a war on Iran. The military is in place and the demonization of Iran is continuing, just like Bush did before he invaded, bombed, occupied etc Iraq and killed 600,000 innocent people. If you wish to learn more, and help, contact the Stop War on Iran organization.

6:30 pm, Judson Memorial Church Assembly Hall, 239 Thompson St., (Washington Sq. Park South & Thompson) in Manhattan
Join us for a forum and discussion on the growing threats and ongoing attacks by the U.S. against the people of Iran.
Why has the U.S. targeted Iran for “regime change?”
Why is the U.S. backing terrorist attacks inside Iran, including kidnappings, assassinations, and car bombings?
What's behind the massive U.S. military buildup in the Gulf, including 2 aircraft carrier groups and hundreds of attack aircraft?
How is the demonization of the people of Iran and their democratically-elected President part of the Bush Administration's drive to war?
What can you do to help the campaign to stop a new war in the Middle East?
         for more information - stopwaroniran.org or American-Iranian Friendship Committee

If you do a search of "False Flag Operations" on Google, you will get the first page as shown below of some 1,150,000 entries.
...... Some Homework For Those Who Have The Time - If you read some of the attached articles and decide to try this idea, please let me know the results - whether favourable or not favourable. Who was approached; their reactions; was anything published or not, and in what media and date.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,150,000 for False Flag Operations .

This appeal is from General Wesley Clark's website. It is unusual to have a 4-Star US General campaigning to prevent a war.
He certainly has an illustrious record as head of NATO attacking the Serbian invasion of Kosovo.  I think his accusations against Iran are quite wrong, but he is condemning the Bush regime's push for a war with Iran. He is advocating peaceful discussions with Iran with a view to resolving differences. He is recommending people take action to help bring this about. All this is good and should be supported. People may disagree with Clark on many points, as I do, but we are lucky to have him on the side of peace when the Bush Administration is working toward a catastrophic war with Iran.

Please join the Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans at VoteVets.org and me -- sign the petition to President Bush today.  Urge him to work with our allies and use every diplomatic, political, and economic option at our disposal to deal with Iran.  War is not the answer.
All Americans want to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and interfering on the ground inside Iraq. Yet President Bush's saber rattling gives the US little additional leverage to engage and dissuade Iran, and, more than likely, simply accelerates a dangerous slide into war. The United States can do better than this.
See also: The Danger of Silence by Wesley Clark, Huffington Post, March 7, 2007

Every leader who wants his people to support and fight in his wars appeals to their 'patriotism'. He also uses other trigger words and values to invoke patriotic fervour such as "defending our liberties, freedoms and democracy".
He tries to sell the idea that to be ''patriotic' a citizen must accept the leaders definitions of who is the enemy and how he must be defeated.
As George Bush told Americans when he announced his 'war on terror'  "You are either with us or with the terrorists". There are no doubts, questions or choices. To be patriotic means following the leader and accepting his lies.

If people object to Bush's illegal wars, his supporters call them unpatriotic or treasonous. If they protest against Israeli war policies and territorial expansion, they are called anti-Semitic.  Every dictatorship, or democracy engaged in illegal wars has appealed to people's 'patriotism' or love of country, to gain public support for their wars and to suppress criticism. Dictators and their supporters do not consider facts or consequences. In war it is all the way with the leader, no matter, why, where, how or any possible consequences. People who say stop, no, or the war is not justified, are condemned as 'unpatriotic'.

This expert analysis of US policy increases our understanding of US policies toward the Middle East, Iran and war. After building a convincing case that the Bush Administration will attack Iran. Paul Street still thinks they will not be that crazy. The majority of 'expert' commentators, certainly those on this site, believe they will.  All the military preparations have been made and the forces are in position. Daily Bush demonises Iran and invents new lies  that can be used to justify attack - as he did before he attacked Iraq. It is important that Bush be stopped before he launches an attack.

... God knows there are a large number of reasons for a rational White House NOT to attack. United States and global public opinion is opposed to a U.S. assault on Iran .  So are European and other leading and allied governments, the U.S. intelligence community and much of the nation's military leadership.  According to a February 25th London Times report, “most senior [United States] commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a strike against Iran”...

Paul Wolfowitz is a leading neo-conservative and one of the architects of the illegal war on Iraq. He was appointed by Bush to head the World Bank where he is now in deep trouble, as revealed by this article in the New York Times.
He wants to retain his job in spite of the fact that he is dragging the bank's name through the mud and they want him to resign.

The U.S. Defense Department ordered a contractor to hire a World Bank employee and girlfriend of then-Pentagon No. 2 Paul Wolfowitz in 2003 for work related to Iraq, the contractor said on Tuesday.
A spokeswoman for Science Applications International Corp., or SAIC, said the Defense Department's policy office directed the company to enter a subcontract with Shaha Riza, under which she spent a month studying ways to form a government in Iraq.

Placing US anti-missile defence systems in European countries is a multi-message to Russia, and another indication that the US is restarting the international arms race and a new cold war. If the US launches a pre-emptive nuclear war on Iran, as much expert testimony indicates, and it looks like it may go global, they may implement global pre-emptive nuclear strikes against some other nuclear weapon states. Bush, as Commander In Chief of US military forces, has the legal right (made law by Congress) to launch pre-emptive nuclear war. He may also introduce nuclear weapons into conventional weapon wars.

... It all sounds like the speech made by Colin Powell during his tenure as U.S. Secretary of State at a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. In it, he argued Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the world community was obliged to stop their proliferation and use. The upshot of all that is well known: Such weapons were never found anywhere in Mesopotamia.

Here is a UPI article that shows German enthusiasm for a US missile defence system. As might be expected, the German conservatives welcome a new arms race and cold war in Europe. By embracing Bush's and the media lies about an alleged threat from Iran, they have the flimsy excuse. In the short term they may hope for new opportunities for profits. In the long run it can lead to crippling wars, if not nuclear war. I would think that the lessons of history and the potential for far greater wars than World War II, would have taught the Germans some useful lessons. Apparently not.

Iran's latest claim that it is capable of enriching uranium on an industrial level has encouraged proponents of U.S. plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe, but Moscow is still not amused. After Tehran's nuclear threats, members of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives even said more countries in Europe should think about participating in the U.S. anti-missile system.

This article by Gorbachev is the most comprehensive article on the subject of US attempts to sell missile defence to European countries. I am amazed that they seem to be buying this expensive and dangerous fraud. It means less independence for Europe, huge expenditure,  more US domination and agenda, and an increase in the likelihood of crippling wars. How could Europeans accept American lies and propaganda and do such a self-destructive act as install missile defence systems? It makes no sense particularly after they have had the example of US lying to justify their illegal war on Iraq with over 600,000 people killed

KALININGRAD, April 12 (RIA Novosti) - Deployment of U.S. missile-defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic is an attempt by the U.S. to control Europe, the former Soviet president said Thursday. "It is all about influence and domination in Europe," Mikhail Gorbachev said. "I believe it is wrong that America did not even bother to consult its NATO allies."

Here is the fourth authoritative article showing how the US is starting a new cold war in Europe by installing missile defence systems in European nations.
Allegedly against Iran, the missile shields are aimed at Russia and are designed to frustrate a Russian missile response to a US pre-emptive nuclear strike...
We must recognise and confront these disastrous, very threatening developments and try to help stop the Bush Administration before it is too late.

Much of Europe is arguing over a Washington proposal to plant in Poland fewer than a dozen antimissile missiles that might not work, to guard against an Iranian threat that may not exist.

Each of the Democratic Presidential candidates are willing to launch a  nuclear war on Iran, as indicated by their comments below, supposedly to prevent them from making nuclear weapons. However I cannot believe that these three leading Democratic candidates for the US Presidency do not know simple well-established and easily verified facts on Iran.

.... A year ago, writing in the New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: “One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.”
For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all “options” should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten -- and possibly follow through with -- first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington's policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.

Guantanamo Bay and similar US prisons in countries using torture, are an important part of the Bush regime's plan for US global domination.
The destruction of civil rights, habeas corpus, imprisonment with our charge or trial, torture, rendition and murder are indications that Bush is introducing fascist-type controls in the US.
Guantanamo Bay and similar US prisons are established to spread hatred and fear of the US , make new enemies and terrorise the world's population.

Conditions for detainees at the US military jail at Guantanamo Bay are deteriorating, with the majority held in solitary confinement, a report says.
"Some inmates are dangerously close to full-blown mental and physical breakdown" - UK director Kate Allen Amnesty International

The human cost of King George's wars is spelled out by Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq 3 years ago. The agony of the Sheehan family can be multiplied a million times by Bush's murders of Iraqis. And perhaps millions of times if he escalates his wars to Iran and other countries. 

Three years ago today I was a "normal" American mother with four children, a marriage of almost 27 years and a boring 8 to 5 job. On April 3, 2004 I went to a nearby mall and bought a new outfit for work and two CDs: Evanescence and White Stripes. I was dreadfully worried about Casey, but I didn't know that my world was about to be turned upside down.

Bush, Blair, Howard and other leaders, boosted by US-dictated anti-Iran Security Council resolutions, are bursting with desire to bomb Iran as Pinter says... very few seem to care or think about the probable number of dire consequences and results of such barbarity. It is a few very perceptive writers on internet who care. Certainly not our crop of current world leaders. Like Tony Blair, who lies so well and convincingly for Bush, as he moves his eyebrows up and down to get our agreement.  Bush's tamed world leaders talk languidly about diplomacy as Bush and his 'coalition-of-the-willing' deploy their military forces for the long-planned assault on Iran.

Why George Bush is Insane

.... The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and it prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke.
The United States believes that the three thousand deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence.

The new Democratically-controlled Congress has totally capitulated to Bush's power, even signalling that he can proceed with his plans for a war on Iran.
The power of the Bush criminal conspiracy is virtually unlimited and is backed by at least 25% of the richest, most powerful people and institutions in America, including many who are afraid not to appear to support the many manifestations of Bushism.

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

737 US Bases in 103 countries and a defence budget larger than that of all other nations in the world. That's the US Empire.
The mission is building the US Empire through imperial conquest, using "9/11 and the war on terror" as their mantra, war cry and justification.
US Military Historian Chalmers Johnson dissects this imperial military industrial complex and predicts calamites for what may be next.
" If there weren't terrorists, Bush and Cheney would have had to invent them? " asks Karlin.

I believe that we're close to a tipping point right now. What happened to the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 could easily be happening to us for essentially the same reasons. Imperial overreach, inability to reform, rigid economic ideology. ... The world's balance of power didn't change one iota on September 11, 2001. The only way we could lose the power and influence we had at that time was through our own actions, and that's what we did. -- Chalmers Johnson, author of Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic
Has our "leadership" traded democracy for empire? Have their over-bloated egos convinced them that they are the world's newly crowned colonial kings? Author Chalmers Johnson is certainly not given to wearing rose-colored glasses. As he concludes in his newest book, Nemesis: "... my country is launched on a dangerous path that it must abandon or else face the consequences."

The Bush regime would not have built such a huge embassy (see below) if it had not planned to occupy Iraq indefinitely. It is a demonstration that that the talk of withdrawing US troops at some point has always been a diversion and never a serious intention of the Bush regime.
This Imperial complex of 21 buildings on 104 acres in the heart of Baghdad , with 5,000 employees, must be intended to be much more than just an embassy to Iraq . It looks like some kind of permanent headquarters for the US in the Middle East - perhaps a centre for directing most regional  US operations in the area.

The headline reads: "Thousands of angry Iraqis pillage billion-dollar U.S. Embassy in Baghdad." The article details the ransacking of the grandiose American Embassy by Iraqi mobs.
This is the story I expect to read one day within the next decade.
In the 1950s, when I was in high school in Baghdad, my friends and I admired the technological advances of America and the West. But we resented the colonial tendencies of the West (especially, at the time, those of the British). Many demonstrations were held in front of the British and American embassies. The Iraqis are a proud people, and they resented foreigners meddling in their affairs. And the British were, in reality, running the country through a puppet regime.

Greg Palast spell's out the real motives of the Bush regime. It's Iaq's oil and a secret plan of the Houston oil moguls. From the oil moguls standpoint the Iraq war is going very well and according to plan  - to limit production in order to keep the price of oil as high as possible. Exxon-Mobil reported the highest profit of any corporation in history  a record $10 billion in profit last quarter. As Bush said: "Mission Accomplished".

It's STILL The Oil: Secret Condi Meeting on Oil Before Invasion

Four years ago this week, the tanks rolled for what President Bush originally called, “ Operation Iraqi Liberation ” — O.I.L. - I kid you not.
And it was four years ago that, from the White House, George Bush, declaring war, said, "I want to talk to the Iraqi people." That Dick Cheney didn't tell Bush that Iraqis speak Arabic … well, never mind. I expected the President to say something like, "Our troops are coming to liberate you, so don't shoot them."
Instead, Mr. Bush told, the Iraqis,"Do not destroy oil wells." Nevertheless, the Bush Administration said the war had nothing to do with Iraq's oil.

The slow genocide of US and UK involvement in Iraq even before they backed Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran, ending in one million killed, was followed by the lst Gulf war, then the starvation sanctions against Iraq which killed millions, and the lie-based US-UK invasion and bombing and occupation of Iraq since 2003. It is a shocking record of Western duplicity, barbarism and deception. Most people in the US-UK had no idea of the murderous extremes their leaders had implemented on the Iraqis. Barry Lando's article is an eye-opener - an astonishing record of mass murder by a series of US-UK leaders mouthing platitudes about 'freedom, liberty and democracy' as they implemented policies which would kill and starve millions of Iraqis and their children. It will ruin the future of millions of the next generation. Their use of DU munitions alone will poison the land, kill and infect the people for endless generations to come.

4 years later: Let's leave the Iraqis alone, shall we?

It's time for the Iraqis to cease their bloody sectarian rivalries, disband their ruthless militias and death squads and take responsibility for their country's fate. Why should American boys continue dying to save Iraqis from their own perverse selves?
It's a view expressed by all sides in the U.S. four years after the 2003 invasion. The problem is it shows no understanding of Iraq's nightmarish past and calamitous psychological present. l

This article shows how the nuclear power industry is spending millions on public relations to revise the image of nuclear power from something dangerous, not to be touched,  to something clean, green and desirable. The way the PR companies, and the media, use the industry's ex-Greenpeace spokesman - and will not reveal what they pay him - is most instructive. The comments following the original version are excellent and contain many provoking pros and cons of the debate. Serious nuclear power researchers should read these, and develop counter arguments, if they wish to be able to answer the pro-nuclear lobbyists.

"We just find it maddening that Hill & Knowlton , which has an $8 million account with the nuclear industry, should have such an easy time working the press," concluded the Columbia Journalism Review in an editorial in its July / August 2006 issue.
The magazine was rightly bemoaning the tendency of news outlets to present former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore and former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman as environmentalists who support nuclear power, without noting that both are paid spokespeople for a group bankrolled by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI represents nuclear power plant operators, plant designers, fuel suppliers and other sectors of the nuclear power industry. Hill & Knowlton is NEI's public relations firm, though it's not the only firm working to build support for nuclear power.

I wonder why top politicians in the US and other countries, top military people, government executives and ordinary informed citizens, don't speak out and take action before it's too late, to Impeach Bush before he starts a new war that could easily escalate and destroy our world. The only chance to do something constructive to prevent this disaster is before Bush starts it. That's now.
Once started, it's too late. No turning the clock back. The war momentum will take over then and a series of devastating disasters will rapidly follow.

Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.
Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

A new US hydrogen bomb will add momentum to the new nuclear arms race. The US disregard of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - making more bombs rather than nuclear disarmament as promised, and Bush's threat to bomb a non-nuclear nation - Iran - will convince other nations that their security lies with adding to and modernising their own nuclear arsenals.

A U.S. plan to develop a new hydrogen bomb could spark production of new nuclear weapons by other countries, including several foes of the Bush administration, warn some of the nation's leading arms control and disarmament advocacy groups.

Seymour Hersh again warns about the new Middle East strategy of the Bush Administration which has brought it "closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims".
He doesn't mention past colonial efforts of the UK and US to dominate Iran and its oil by using the CIA to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran Mossedagh, and replace him with a US puppet the Shah with his dreaded Savak secret police and its torture and assassinations. Finally the 1979 Iranian revolution kicked the Shah and the US out and the new religious government came to power. The Iranians gained control of their own oil resources and their own government.

Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
A Strategic Shift
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The "redirection," as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

Here is the best article so far, that spells out the probability that the US will stage a 'False Flag' operation, in which Iran is blamed for an attack on US territory or military forces, in order to supply the Bush regime with a pretext for attacking Iran. The larger the Bush-staged attack and the more casualties, the more people will be outraged and believe Bush and his war propaganda that Iran is guilty of this crime, and that Bush could never do such a murderous act on his own people. If the mass media in the US and in US-owned or influenced media in other countries, repeats without question this gigantic lie, as they have similar lies about the so-called Iraq threat since 2001, then it is likely that most of the population will believe the lie.

. . . When asked why the Bush Administration was seeking to do this, she responded that it is a part of Bush's broader agenda for the Middle East to bring about a "democratization... peace and stability", to the region.      
Of course, one only has to look back to history to see the Bush Administration's real agenda behind confronting Iran. Iran is only one piece of the puzzle in a broader, century long struggle by the US, Britain, and its Western allies to secure the Middle East's oil reserves.

Professor Waddell gives a perspective on US policy toward smaller states since 1945. It is a matter of invoking the US war cry 'freedom and democracy' as a cover for invasion, regime change and setting up puppet regimes. The US "regularly brandishes the threat of recourse to "nuclear weapons" and Bush has been allowed to adjust US nuclear doctrines so that he can wage pre-emptive nuclear war, as well as introduce nuclear weapons into conventional conflicts.

. . . The aim of the United States is to protect and reinforce national interests rather than to create a better world for all humankind. It is an "imperial grand strategy" of global dimensions designed to ensure unlimited and uninhibited access, notably to strategic resources, notably energy, and to markets. Rather than to establish a direct colonial presence, the preferred strategy is to create satellite states, and this requires constant, and often repeated, military interventions in countries around the world, irrespective of their political regime. 

This paper provides new insights into why the US will not withdraw troops from Iraq. It is the new imperialism and colonialism and exploiting Iraqi oil that provides enormous profits to the 100,000 private military contractors in Baghdad , and provides billions in profits for the military-industrial complex in the US . Money is the great motivator, with no-bid contracts for chosen Pentagon suppliers. Greater war risks, the slaughter or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, morality and ethics don't matter to people participating in a gigantic profits feeding frenzy in Baghdad and Washington.

Neither the Iraq Study Group nor other establishment critics of the Iraq war are calling for the withdrawal of US troops from that country. To the extent that the Study Group or the new Congress purport to inject some "realism" into the Iraq policy, such projected modifications do not seem to amount to more than changing the drivers of the US war machine without changing its destination, or objectives: control of Iraq's political and economic policies.
In light of the fact that by now almost all of the factions of the ruling circles, including the White House and the neoconservative war-mongerers, acknowledge the failure of the Iraq war, why, then, do they balk at the idea of pulling the troops out of that country?

Professor Lustick's article below, illustrates the amazing growth in the 'War on Terror' industry throughout various sectors of American society. From Congressional estimates of 160 potential terrorist targets in 2003 to 300,000 potential fund-generating targets in 2006. From zero dollars to 650 billion dollars for anti-terrorist expenditures. It's now a huge 'pork barrel' with "thousands of interest groups crowding toward the anti-terrorism trough" according to Lustick. It's like the Tulip craze in the Netherlands in the 1600s. Anti-terrorism has now become a huge industry of vested interests depending on the continuing phoney wars on terror created by the Bush regime and its neoconservatives to justify real invasions, wars and generally enlarging real wars. As with the intended US-planned nuclear war on Iran, proof of any accusations is not required. The accusation is enough backed up by an eager mass media repeating and embellishing every lie.

The official mantra is that we fight in Iraq because it is the "central front in the War on Terror." The exact opposite is the case.
We are trapped in fighting an unwinnable - even nonsensical - "war on terror" because its invention was required in order to fight in Iraq. After years of slaughter in Iraq, the neoconservative fantasy of a series of cheap, fast, neo-imperial victories is dead. But the war on terror lives on, stronger than ever.

Considering the war is both preplanned and based on lies, it is a robbery on a gigantic scale. Will Bush and his collaborators get away with this $trillion gigantic fraud, and the totally unjustified mass killing of 655,000 Iraqi people and 3,000 unwitting US Servicemen who believe they are doing their duty?

When America invaded Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration predicted that the war would turn a profit, paying for itself with increased oil revenues. So far, though, Congress has spent more than $350 billion on the conflict, including the $50 billion appropriated for 2007.

Video Exposing Blunders of 9/11 Commission Report Airs on New Zealand Television     911 In Plane Site
The TV Channel 3 screening on Dec 16, 2006, of the Film "9/11 In Plane Site" is the first mass media exposure of serious flaws in the official story of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. Hopefully this will open the taboo subject to more exposure. There is a large body of evidence and testimony showing that 9/11 was an inside job.
This makes the whole story of Islamic terrorism and 'war on terror' an invented phoney exercise to justify a series of wars on oil-rich and oil-producing Islamic states in the Middle East. The conspirators will deal with other states, such as oil-producing Venezuela , in different ways using different excuses.

Saturday night's national airing of "In Plane Site" on New Zealand television represents a historic turning point in the global collective consciousness regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11.  After all, it was only months after the second national airing of "In Plane Site" on Australia 's Network 10, which kicked off a firestorm of debate leading to Federal Labor politician Michael Danby's demand that the programming director of Network 10 be fired for airing the program. 

Even before he was elected in 2000, Bush and his neocons were planning wars of aggression based on lies.
However, as Bush and his collaborators are the most powerful regime in the world, it's unlikely he will ever be prosecuted by the World Court, or impeached for crimes against the US Constitution by a US court. Bush has openly sneered at international law and discarded or ignored all international treaties that interfere with his illegal wars and nuclear armaments objectives.

The crime of a war of aggression is listed in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (RSICC) as one of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and that it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was addressed earlier by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II , which called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

On a hunch I Googled "Bush religious delusions" and struck a gold mine of over a million articles. I hope others in addition to myself have the time and interest to browse and research this material. More specialist searching may reveal even more. It looks very promising. There may be valuable theories to explain Bush's messianic and destructive behaviour as he leads the world toward the brink. Good hunting.

George Monbiot describes "total sensory deprivation" a US technique of torture that often makes prisoners like Jose Padilla lose their minds. Jose Padilla, a US  citizen detained as an "enemy combatant" and suspected of planning to detonate a dirty bomb, was imprisoned for 3 years without any charge being laid against him. He was subjected to "total sensory deprivation”. Now...."his mind is no longer there" Monbiot wrote.
...Remember, with pre-emptive nuclear war millions can be killed in hours. The world, if it continues, will be irreparably damaged for all the time that remains.

In the fight against cruelty, barbarism and extremism, America has embraced the very evils it claims to confront.
After thousands of years of practice, you might have imagined that every possible means of inflicting pain had already been devised. But you should never underestimate the human capacity for invention. United States interrogators, we now discover, have found a new way of destroying a human being.

This article by David Corn, editor of The Nation, reveals additional important testimony that Bush and Blair cooked and altered intelligence in order to justify an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq - an independent, sovereign state. Whereas they made much of the fact that Sad Hussein was a murdering despot and needed to be deposed so that they could introduce 'freedom and democracy' in Iraq, this was just a joke.
They do not admit and US mass media did not report, that the US made and supported Sadam's dictatorship from its very beginning. They armed him, encouraged his war with Iran and his crimes against his own people.

For some journalists, it's not old news that the United States and England cooked the case for war in Iraq . The Independent of England has an important story out on this front. Here's the lead: The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Chris Floyd has written one of the great papers of our age. In a few pages he expresses the steps in the decline of US Constitutional Law; the US rise of fascist-type legislation; and why we should not expect much improvement from the new 'democratically-controlled' Senate and Congress.
I'll add a few thoughts to Floyd's brilliant analysis.

.... We have seen the proof of this in our time. When law - understood here as agreed-upon principles of justice and commonweal - is treated as a filthy rag or a "quaint" relic or a cynical sham by those in power, the result is an ever-growing suppuration of greed, lies, brutality and violence.

Robert Koehler's idea of the draft exposing the hypocrisy of Congressmen and Senators is good but does not take into account the circumstances where the draft could be introduced.
For example, a terrorist attack on the US or a 'False Flag' operation faking such a terrorist attack, could set the stage for a general public approval of new draft laws. Congress would have little choice but to pass draft laws. It is very unlikely that the Bush regime would introduce the draft unless a real or invented crisis provided the public motivation required.
Another factor is that important law legislators, such as Congressmen and Senators, are usually rich and influential and have many government contacts.

The New York congressman recently reprised his audacious proposal - first made nearly four years ago, with the United States about to launch Operation Iraqi Quagmire - to reinstate the draft. He reasoned that, if a military action is really necessary, we should, you know, share the sacrifice: get congressmen's' children, presumably even Jenna and Barbara, involved in the action. And if it isn't, we shouldn't go to war.
As a faux-naive device for exposing hypocrisy, Rangel's idea is worthy of Michael Moore, if not Borat. The hemming and hawing of establishment opposition is worth savoring for a news cycle.
The real reason why the draft, so passionately defended by conservatives during the Vietnam era, is no longer "necessary" or wanted by the military-industrial-media complex is that the country is far too peace-loving to tolerate it.

Unprecedented warnings from the scientific community indicate that the planet's ecosystems are stressed near the point of collapse; business as usual is no longer possible, and we have little time left to respond. Civilization is also approaching a nexus of social crises. All of these problems result from the nature of capitalism, and we cannot expect solutions from political leaders or corporations. Therefore, this author is soliciting advice from experts and from anyone who might have suggestions as to what measures can people of limited means undertake to ease their transition into a post-petroleum world. Submissions will be published in a book, the profits of which will be used to inform people and possibly provide grants in order to help people prepare for the coming transition.
A Planet in Crisis, Business as Usual, The Result of Business as Usual, An End to Business as Usual, Submission Guidelines, Notes and References

It is sickening to think thousands of mainly innocent victims have  been kidnapped by the U.S. and clandestinely transported to prisons in countries ruled by dictatorial regimes. There they are subjected to torture until they confess. These so-called confessions are usually worthless, because they are made to stop the torture. As the following article points out, the majority of victims are unaccounted for. They are believed to have been either murdered or disappeared. The Bush regime may extend and increase this practice, especially if it starts a new war on Iran. New legislation may allow Bush to apply this practice to domestic U.S. dissenters and critics of the Bush regime. At the moment the American political system and the people, seem unable to rid America of the terrorist monsters in the White House.

More than 7,000 prisoners have been captured in America's war on terror. Just 700 ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Between extraordinary rendition to foreign jails and disappearance into the CIA's "black sites", what happened to the rest?

For a long time I've wondered why, in the home of freedom and democracy, there is not more outraged liberal reaction to the phoney and contrived "wars on terror".
After reading Tony Judt's article, I now understand. It will not be surprising if Bush succeeds in converting America into a fascist state in all but name. That is because there does not appear to be much intelligent opposition to Bushism. Tony mentions so many prominent liberals who have quickly converted to defending and justifying Bush war madness against the newly coined but non-existent 'Islamo-fascism'.

Bush's Useful Idiots

Why have American liberals acquiesced in President Bush's catastrophic foreign policy? Why have they so little to say about Iraq, about Lebanon, or about reports of a planned attack on Iran? Why has the administration's sustained attack on civil liberties and international law aroused so little opposition or anger from those who used to care most about these things? Why, in short, has the liberal intelligentsia of the United States in recent years kept its head safely below the parapet?

Time: This is how US will attack Iran

....And while the US is exerting diplomatic pressure, the Pentagon is preparing for a possibility that US President George W. Bush will eventually instruct the army to attack Iran.

Torture is part of the strategy of the Neo-conservative Bush regime.
They know very well that it does not produce reliable intelligence. The reasons are given by Paul Craig Roberts in his article which follows. So why do they do so much of it, thus besmirching the U.S. reputation., US Constitution and the Geneva Accords?

War Criminal at Bay

President George Bush, betrayed by the neoconservatives whom he elevated to power and by his Attorney General, Torture Gonzales who gave him wrong legal advice, is locked in a desperate struggle with the Republican Congress to save himself from war crimes charges at the expense of America's reputation and our soldiers' fate.
.... President Bush has given no thought to the impact on America's reputation of his strident campaign to write torture into US law. He has given no thought to what saving himself means for captured US troops if the US government guts Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

I have been studying American foreign policy for over 50 years and I think the following article by Barrie Zwicker is one of the most disturbing I have ever read on this subject. ...
... It's like having the evil and deluded Rev Jim Jones of the Jonesville massacre, now in charge of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. ...
... There may not be much time left before the Bush Regime creates an excuse for their next war, probably against Iran. New Patriot-type laws, martial law and conscription could then halt and suppress any dissent. Concerned people should act now as tomorrow may be too late.

False Flag Operations: Declassified Military Documents Show How

US Government Planned Terrorist Attacks Against its Own Citizens
As reported by ABC News, stunning military documents codenamed "Operation Northwoods" were declassified in recent years and show how in 1962, the top US military leaders planned an operation to create terror attacks against its own cities and kill US citizens.

It is essential to the fulfillment of the Bush Neo-con plan, and the benefit of his many cronies in the U.S. military-industrial complex and oil industry, that they create a credible enemy that can be goaded into resistance and acts of terrorism against U.S. and U.K. neo-Imperialism.
All acts of resistance to U.S. or Israeli illegal wars and occupations in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine or any other country, especially those with oil resources that Bush Neo-cons covet, must be portrayed to the public as acts of terrorism probably committed by Muslim fanatics, suicide bombers and Islamic fascists. In creating his enemies, Bush warns Americans "you are either with us or with the terrorists".

The Clash of Civilizations Doesn't Exist... Yet

According to some of our more serious hawks, anyone who doesn't buy that the liberal democracies of the West are engaged in a death-match with hordes of dusky Muslim fanatics is "unserious" about America's security and can't be trusted.
It's the latest in a series of attempts to forestall any meaningful discussion of the causes of violent Islamist ideologies, much less how the United States should respond to them. It locks us into the global "war on terror."
Unfortunately, all too many otherwise sane people seem to accept the terms.

The NYT has faithfully reported the lies of the Bush regime and it's wars since 2,000, with little if any, questioning of the basic lies used to justify it. One of the greatest newspapers in the world, with an illustrious record, has supinely served up the propaganda of the Bush regime. They have studiously avoided the key questions and doubts about 9/11, the Iraq war and the coming war with Iran .
Seymour Hersh, who has written some wonderful articles on these key subjects for The New Yorker magazine, would be avoided like the plague by the paper that still strokes itself with the self-serving and now deceitful slogan "All the News that's fit to print". What a joke. What kind of sterilized news is this?

A Skeptic on 9/11 Prompts Questions on Academic Freedom

. . . Mr. Barrett, 47, described how some news organizations (the French daily newspaper Figaro and Radio France International, in fact) had reported that an agent from the Central Intelligence Agency visited with Osama bin Laden two months before the attacks. He also said fires could not have caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers at free-fall speed, as reported by the special Sept. 11 commission. “The 9/11 report will be universally reviled as a sham and a cover-up very soon,” said Mr. Barrett, who has been a teacher's assistant or lecturer on Islam, African literature and other subjects at the University of Wisconsin , Madison, since 1996. “The 9/11 commission has its conspiracy theory, and we have ours.”

Here is a large compilation of articles on the 9/11 attack. Supposedly by Muslim terrorists, the articles give detailed evidence that the Bush Administration did an "Operation Northwoods" attack on the U.S. public to get their support for the wars against the newly minted enemy "war on terrorism". For the moment, the old Communist enemies have been relegated to retirement.
I hope I am terribly wrong in my conclusions. The implications if I and others are right are at least, a new Dark Ages for the human race. But like many other civilisation, we also might destroy ourselves and the world in a global holocaust.

South Tower NAPALM BOMB: 5 Views

If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars.
- Andreas von Bülow, former German government minister and author of "Die CIA und der 11. September"
There's too much evidence to ignore the danger to the whole world - wake up before it's too late!!!

For a more comprehensive understanding of U.S. policy on Iran, and Iran's offers of concessions to meet U.S. concerns, the following May 27 article is essential reading.

Iran experts at the State Department had been working throughout 2001 on increasing relations with Mohammed Khatami's Iran. Post 9/11, they immediately realized the strategic value of working with Iran against a common enemy?al-Qaida.

He reveals how the U.S. conspired to ensure that the very successful UN inspection and disarmament efforts were torpedoed, so that the U.S. and UK could engage in mass bombing of Iraq's non-existent weapons-of-mass destruction, crippling sanctions that killed thousands of Iraqi children, and eventually, war based on lies. It is a very, very revealing talk that helps one really understand the continuing deceit practiced by the U.S. and UK governments on their own people about Iraq, Iran and middle-east affairs during the preceding decades. He also has many revealing insights and advice to peace activists.  

Transcript and Audio of Scott Ritter on war with Iraq and Iran

"I wish we were here to talk about how good things are happening in the cause of peace, how congress has reversed course and they're bringing our boys and girls home, how the Bush administration has woke up suddenly and said, ‘you know, this concept of global domination through the unilateral application of military force is not sound policy,' and the Democrats woke up for the first time in a long time and said, ‘you know, we facilitated this war in Iraq. We're as much to blame as George W. Bush.' But that's not the case. We live in a time where bad things are happening. .."

Professor Andrew Bacevich, graduate of WestPoint and the Vietnam war is Director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University. He shows how America has spread it's control around the world with "hundred and hundreds of military bases, large and small" and that today "...planning, preparing, and waging war has become the normal state and seemingly permanent condition of the United States" 
America needs enemies to feed its "military/industrial complex" which has become a threat to the continuation of the United States as Americans know and love it. President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about this as he left  office in 1960.

We are now in an America where it's a commonplace for our President, wearing a "jacket with ARMY printed over his heart and 'Commander in Chief' printed on his right front," to address vast assemblages of American troops on the virtues of bringing democracy to foreign lands at the point of a missile. As Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post puts it: "Increasingly, the president uses speeches to troops to praise American ideals and send a signal to other nations the administration is targeting for democratic change."

One of the many reasons Bush may decide to wage pre-emptive war against Iran is it's new oil trading centre as the following article shows. Iran's Oil Bourse could take a lot of business away from the U.S. and threaten it's economy.
Also, Bush is building a new Empire according to his neocon advisors plan. Iran and it's oil are to be part of it.

As America's naval armadas continue to surf the Persian Gulf, hovering just off the Iranian waters, the supreme commander of the US armed forces recently said that threats from Mr Ahmadinejad, particularly towards Israel, had to be "dealt with". He told Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper that if Mr Ahmadinejad was ready to destroy one country (Israel), "then he would also be ready to destroy others". President Bush added: "This is a threat that needs to be dealt with."

Scott Ritter gives a detailed account of U.S. preparations and plans to strike at Iran before June/05. Obviously this has been postponed for unknown reasons. As Iran will retaliate against U.S. attack, the situation could very easily escalate and involve China and Russia. A sudden global nuclear exchange could result. It's so obvious, why is Europe so compliant and people so passive and silent in the face of global nuclear disaster which would kill and maim billions?

Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq.
There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going.

Google is a great resource to get the details on U.S. war plans, objectives and methods of making war on other nations. Also, it has many articles on U.S. excuses and justifications for each war. The fact that the Bush Administration engages in an almost continuous flow of lies and false justifications, does not stop the mass media from parroting each and every lie as if it is true. The mass media usually does not publish doubts and exposure of these lies or the real purposes of the Bush Administration. If anything it runs editorials justifying the lies as if the lies are really true. Then it does not print letters exposing these lies.
Search on Google - Results 1 - 10 of about 134,000,000 for Iran War . (0.08 seconds)

Is anymore evidence needed to prove that Bush and his administrations have lied to provide justification to make war on Iraq? Robert Scheer once again presents damning evidence of this fact. It is one of the best.

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." --Tyler Drumheller, formerly CIA's top spy in Europe.
Confession time: In fall 2004, during a crucial presidential election campaign, I made the mistake of playing by corporate media rules that amount to self-censorship.
Specifically, I joined other journalists in denying the public the right to learn of a definitive investigative report by CBS' "60 Minutes" on President Bush's disregard for the truth concerning the weapons-of-mass-destruction threat allegedly posed to the United States by Iraq. Having received an advance copy of the devastating segment, I honored CBS' proprietary request not to write about the news it carried until after it aired.

President Chavez is a real hero to his own people and other South Americans for using his oil revenues to improve services to his people.
Traditionally the U.S. has always backed reactionary dictatorships in South America and used the CIA to overthrow governments which tried to take an independent position - such as Allende in Chile. It still regards Castro in Cuba as an
enemy and has tried to assassinate or overthrow him. The U.S. has a long record of subversion in South America.

When the hated despots of nations like Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan loot their countries' treasuries, transfer their oil wealth to personal Swiss bank accounts and use the rest to finance (in the House of Saud's case) terrorist extremists, American politicians praise them as trusted friends and allies. But when a democratically elected populist president uses Venezuela's oil profits to lift poor people out of poverty, they accuse him of pandering.

.....The reasons for wars in which resources are a factor, are usually camouflaged by a screen of propaganda. In the U.S. case it is the blanket phoney justification "war on terrorism" . This covers U.S. global domination plans, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the coming war with Iran, currently justified under the "wars on global terrorism" blanket. The real reasons include the theft of other people's oil resources.. The objective is to control middle east oil, prices and access to oil by competitors of the U.S. Rising oil prices is only the beginning.

It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely."

Washington's political timetable may turn harsh rhetoric into military escalation, unless voices of restraint in both the United States and Iran can prevail.
Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker article on the risk of war between the United States and Iran contained many insights into the current thinking of US political and military leaders. The one that has attracted most attention was the desire of figures on the political side to keep the "nuclear option" on the table, even in the face of reported opposition from some military planners (see "The Iran plans", New Yorker, 17 April 2006).     more from Paul Rogers

It is regrettably clear that the American and British governments are preparing for war, this time against Iran. It is equally clear that the American and British people believe neither that their governments should start another war, nor that this particular war would be in their nations' best interests. Moreover, the public hasn't heard any serious debate about the reasons for and against another war, so nothing like a national consensus exists. And it is unclear exactly who is pushing us into this ill-advised war.

The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published yesterday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

New Pentagon Doctrine: Mini-Nukes are "Safe for the Surrounding Civilian Population"

Will the US launch "Mini-nukes" against Iran in Retaliation for Tehran's "Non-compliance"?

Heather Wokusch gives a very good analysis in her following article of how the Bush Administration is inventing a false story about Iran making nuclear weapons to threaten the U.S. and Israel. Even though the US and Israel surround Iran with thousands of nuclear weapons that could destroy Iran in a few hours, if Iran ever attacked either nation. It seems crazy that Americans would believe such drivel, but most of them are well-conditioned by a co-operative mass media to believe whatever the Bush Administration tells them. The purpose is to create a groundswell of public opinion that will support a U.S. war on Iran.

Witnessing the Bush administration's drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it's official: under orders from Vice President Cheney's office, the Pentagon has developed "last resort" aerial-assault plans using long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear weapons.
How ironic that the Pentagon proposes using nuclear weapons on the pretext of protecting the world from nuclear weapons. Ironic also that Iran has complied with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing inspectors to "go anywhere and see anything," yet those pushing for an attack, the USA and Israel, have not.