Just over two centuries since Napoleon's arrival in Egypt heralded the advent of the modern Middle East -- some 80 years after the demise of the Ottoman Empire, 50 years after the end of colonialism, and less than 20 years after the end of the Cold War -- the American era in the Middle East, the fourth in the region's modern history, has ended. Visions of a new, Europe-like region -- peaceful, prosperous, democratic -- will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself, the United States, and the world. The beginning of "new world order" All the eras have been defined by the interplay of contending forces, both internal and external to the region. What has varied is the balance between these influences. The Middle East's next era promises to be one in which outside actors have a relatively modest impact and local forces enjoy the upper hand -- and in which the local actors gaining power are radicals committed to changing the status quo. Shaping the new Middle East from the outside will be exceedingly difficult, but it -- along with managing a dynamic Asia -- will be the primary challenge of U.S. foreign policy for decades to come.
The modern Middle East was born in the late eighteenth century. For some historians, the signal event was the 1774 signing of the treaty that ended the war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia; a stronger case can be made for the importance of Napoleon's relatively easy entry into Egypt in 1798, which showed Europeans that the region was ripe for conquest and prompted Arab and Muslim intellectuals to ask -- as many continue to do today -- why their civilization had fallen so far behind that of Christian Europe. Ottoman decline combined with European penetration into the region gave rise to the "Eastern Question," regarding how to deal with the effects of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which various parties have tried to answer to their own advantage ever since. The first era ended with World War I, the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of the Turkish republic, and the division of the spoils of war among the European victors. What ensued was an age of colonial rule, dominated by France and the United Kingdom. This second era ended some four decades later, after another world war had drained the Europeans of much of their strength, Arab nationalism had risen, and the two superpowers had begun to lock horns. "[He] who rules the Near East rules the world; and he who has interests in the world is bound to concern himself with the Near East," wrote the historian Albert Hourani, who correctly saw the 1956 Suez crisis as marking the end of the colonial era and the beginning of the Cold War era in the region.
During the Cold War, as had been the case previously, outside forces played a dominant role in the Middle East. But the very nature of U.S.-Soviet competition gave local states considerable room to maneuver. The high-water mark of the era was the October 1973 war, which the United States and the Soviet Union essentially stopped at a stalemate, paving the way for ambitious diplomacy, including the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord. Yet it would be a mistake to see this third era simply as a time of well-managed great-power competition. The June 1967 war forever changed the balance of power in the Middle East. The use of oil as an economic and political weapon in 1973 highlighted U.S. and international vulnerability to supply shortages and price hikes. And the Cold War's balancing act created a context in which local forces in the Middle East had significant autonomy to pursue their own agendas. The 1979 revolution in Iran, which brought down one of the pillars of U.S. policy in the region, showed that outsiders could not control local events. Arab states resisted U.S. attempts to persuade them to join anti-Soviet projects. Israel's 1982 occupation of Lebanon spawned Hezbollah. And the Iran-Iraq War consumed those two countries for a decade.
AMERICAN PASTORAL
The end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union brought about a fourth era in the region's history, during which the United States enjoyed unprecedented influence and freedom to act. Dominant features of this American era were the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait, the long-term stationing of U.S. ground and air forces on the Arabian Peninsula, and an active diplomatic interest in trying to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict once and for all (which culminated in the Clinton administration's intense but ultimately unsuccessful effort at Camp David). More than any other, this period exemplified what is now thought of as the "old Middle East." The region was defined by an aggressive but frustrated Iraq, a radical but divided and relatively weak Iran, Israel as the region's most powerful state and sole nuclear power, fluctuating oil prices, top-heavy Arab regimes that repressed their peoples, uneasy coexistence between Israel and both the Palestinians and the Arabs, and, more generally, American primacy. The end of an era in the middle east
Bush the idiot saying he's doing Gods work has put an end to the middle east that I thought would go on forever and it is in its death throes thanks to Bush as his breakdown resurges! The number of Iraqis killed by violence rose in February for the first time in several months, official figures show. At least 633 civilians died, according to data from several ministries - up from more than 460 deaths in January. with 8 deaths deaths yesterday the death and violence for Americans is also on the rise as expected. Iraq violence back on the upswing thanks to our success
A Palestinian official said Sunday that Israel's plan to expand settlements in the West Bank was "like putting a stick in the wheels of the peace process." Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert approved the construction of 330 housing units in Givat Zeev, near Jerusalem. Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said the decision was initially made nine years ago, and approved Sunday "for economic reasons that have to do with the developers." Israel will expand as Palestine vows to fight it.
Meanwhile Two suicide bombers exploded a car Tuesday at a building containing the offices of Pakistan's national investigative agency, destroying it and killing and wounding people inside. Police said 17 people died and 175 were wounded in the attack in Lahore, and three more were killed in a separate suicide bombing in an area of the city known as Model Town. All three bombers died. Lahore police describe the building, where about 1,000 people work, as destroyed.Pakistan's violence continues
Iran continues to do its share! Iranian students are offering rewards totaling a million dollars for the execution of three top Israeli military officers over the deadly strikes on Gaza, and they are encouraging fellow Iranians to donate their kidneys to raise the funds, the student news agency ISNA reported on Monday. "Israel must be wiped off the map," read a quote from Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini printed atop the banner. Iran raises bounty to kill Israeli officials
To further inflame the situation US President George W Bush says he is sending Vice-President Dick Cheney to the Middle East next week. Mr. Bush said one of the reasons for the visit was to impress upon the Israelis and Palestinians the need to keep firm promises made on the peace process. "His goal is to reassure people the US is committed to a vision of peace in the Middle East," Mr. Bush said. Mr. Cheney's trip, which begins on Sunday, will take in Israel, the West Bank, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Cheney the war monger to visit and make everything worse
What drives me crazy is that any sane person can see none of this will be control, bush the idiot thinks there will be peace because he said so, and McCain is running for President calling this success and promises to continue this mess which most definitely will be the destruction of the middle east and any semblance of world order.
James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
12 comments:
Jim--
Though you may not realize it, you have identified the root cause of the Middle-east problem.
The Arab world refuses to become a part of the New World Order. Their history dates back over 5,000 years, and will not be changed by a few arrogant foreigners. The region has attempted to be 'westernized' many times. All of them have been exercises in futility. This one will fare no better, and you can bet your last shekel on that.
The vast majority of Muslims are a peace-loving people. Sure, they have their radical extremists, but so does every other religion, including Christianity abd Judaism.
Here is a verse from the Qur'an:
"God does not prohibit you, regarding those who do not fight you or drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them. Indeed, God loves those who are just."
Surah al-Al-Mumtahinah 60:8
And there are many more similar verses. Alors, the hate and fear mongers who constantly harp that the Muslims hate us for our freedoms, or that they want to convert or kill all Christians, really just shows their ignorance of the Islamic religion. You can take this one to the bank: God is not pleased with that sort of behaviour. It is seldom that I profess to know the mind of God, but of that behaviour, I am most certain.
Good post, BTW.
Sending Dark Vedar, I mean Dick Cheney to the Middle East....great...
I expect he will walk into the negotiations and tell them the death star will be completed on time. The first one to protest will get choked...
You're alright brother! The Enlightenment was the beginning of the end of any chance of repripocity or facilitization of our society by the Muslims.
I had quite a write up on this too in one of my books but I don't remember which one. Had quite a breakdown graphing the timeline of events in the 3 major Religions too that was quite unique and very interesting.
The Berlin conference didn't help either. Anyway they do not want to be part of our society. they were perfecly happy in the 7th century and wanting to go back and are willing to die for it!
I just have to laugh thinking about something I have said many times in regard female suicide bombers, The men get 72 virgins what do the women get?
Polishifter
To put it mildly! You have to believe Being in charge of CENTCOM admiral Fallon leaving as he was the final stumbling Block to attacking Iran as was the original plan and reason for attacking Iraq to get into the middle east. Gates is against it but he doen’t matter! Could be around June but definitely it will happen before the election.
Kind of suspicious isn’t it that the chief war monger and advocate of attacking Iran cheney, will be there shortly supposedly to say how much we want peace, Yeah before we friggen attack!
Hehehe " The men get 72 virgins what do the women get?"
As Muqtada al John Smith said, "On THIS planet, it's the musicians that get all the women".
I went over to Sirens, and left a comment for Betmo also.
What about this Jim:
Another Milestone on the Road to Serfdom
BY Scott Horton
This weekend, the darkness continues to descend in Washington, the powers of the state continue to grow and the mechanisms of accountability rot away unused. Americans are focused on the selection of a new president. Many of them share the naïve assumption that on January 20, 2009, when a new leader takes the oath of office from the south steps of the Capitol Building, the Founders’ constitutional order will once more be set aright and the extra-constitutional excesses of the Bush years will be but a bad memory. But whoever is installed as the new guardian of presidential power will not likely part with many of the rights that Bush claimed and was allowed to use, unchallenged.
And this weekend, we should regard the three remaining candidates from a more skeptical predicate. This weekend, the curtain of tyranny descends further in Washington. The Bush regime, bolstered by a surging 17% public acceptance in one poll, moves more closely towards a façade of legality for its national surveillance state. It acknowledges its abuse of other legislation and will suffer no consequences for that abuse, and in a symbolic coup de grâce, Bush will veto the latest Congressional prohibition on torture–for indeed, torture is the very talisman of his unchecked rule and his arrogant indifference to the rule of law. And in the midst of this, where, this weekend, are the three presidential finalists? They busy themselves with the accumulation of delegates for their march on the White House. They will mutter fine sounding words on the campaign trail—sentences will glimmer with “freedom” and “liberty”—but they will offer no action that shows those words have content.
The FISA Farce
In 2006, a Democratic Congress was elected with a mandate to hold Bush’s excesses in check—indeed to roll many of them back. But this, it appears, was little more than campaign sloganeering. When it comes to the gravest challenges, the Democratic leadership knows only surrender. Here is Glenn Greenwald’s glance behind the scenes at the planning of the Democratic leadership:
The current draft does not contain telecom immunity (solely for temporary strategic reasons — see below), but incorporates every substantive warrantless surveillance provision of the Rockefeller/Cheney bill passed by the Senate, with several small and worthless exceptions that they’ll try to sell to what they obviously think is their stupid base as some vital “concessions”:
-The House bill has a 4 year-sunset provision rather than the Senate’s 6 years;
-It provides for an audit by the DOJ’s Inspector General of the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” (the only change that I would describe as something other than worthless);
-It contains a provision stating that the bill is the “exclusive means” by which the President can conduct electronic surveillance (the same provision that FISA has now which the President violated, and which the Senate refused to insert into its bill); Nancy Pelosi was trying just yesterday, lamely, to sell this provision as some sort of vital safeguard;
-The bill mandates some minimal re-review of some of the provisions in 2009; and,
-It contains some mild changes to some of the definitions (the specifics of which I don’t know).
The plan of the House leadership is to pass this specific bill in the House, send it to the Senate (where telecom immunity will be added in by the same bipartisan Senate faction that already voted for immunity), have it go back to the House for an up-or-down-vote on the House-bill-plus-telecom-immunity (which will pass with the support of the Blue Dogs), and then compliantly sent on to a happy and satisfied President, who will sign the bill that he demanded.
The bill was drafted with the participation of, and input from, Nancy Pelosi and Silvestre Reyes, at the very least. Reyes, of course, was last seen on CNN meekly pleading with Wolf Blitzer to give him a few more days to come up with a capitulation plan, and is now making good on his commitment to Blitzer (while violating all of the tough, defiant statements he had been making when pretending to take a stand against warrantless eavesdropping and for the rule of law).
So the bill is not far removed from the White House’s request, and even the telecom immunity provision will emerge through some carefully choreographed maneuvers (the main object will be, of course, to obscure exactly how it got into the legislation—the Democratic leadership is conscious of the strong grassroots opposition to this provision, and keen to avoid a backlash. Not, of course, that this will do more than slow them down a few weeks in catering to the interests of their telecom friends.)
And all of this occurs as another engineer has come forward to blow the whistle on the lawless surveillance of telecommunications by the Bush National Surveillance State.
Babak Pasdar, a computer security consultant, has gone public about his discovery of a mysterious “Quantico Circuit” while working for an unnamed major wireless carrier. Pasdar believes that this circuit gives the U.S. government direct, unfettered access to customers voice calls and data packets. These claims echo the disclosures from retired AT&T technician Mark Klein, who has described a “secret room” in an AT&T facility.
The name of the wireless carrier that collaborated in the installation of the “Quantico Circuit,” allowing the Bush Administration to spy on every phone conversation, text message and other communications it transmits, with no warrants or prior approval? Verizon.
Michael McConnell will of course insist that the intelligence community is looking only at foreign communications involving suspect terrorists. And that statement is a lie. In fact the technology employed allows the indiscriminate filtering of all communications of all types. And as to what portion is actually examined with any particularity, on that particular point, we’re told “trust us.” But why? I suggest we repose our trust elsewhere, namely: in the Constitution.
Surveillance is not outlawed. But it is bound to a system of constraints and checks. The Administration must justify its targets and must be subject to the oversight of a magistrate. That is what the Founding Fathers provided. And there is no reason to move from this system; what has transpired over the last six years provides only more evidence of its wisdom.
The NSL Scam
One of the extraordinary powers expanded in the USA PATRIOT Act relates to a device called a “National Security Letter” by which the Justice Department was effectively granted the power to issue its own warrants, unchecked by courts, cloaked by immense secrecy, and divorced from the duty to account. It was a formula for abuse, and indeed, the abuse has been rampant. First, Attorney General Ashcroft insisted that secret warrants had only ever been used a handful of times, and never with respect to libraries. That, of course, was untrue. Ashcroft knew even as he uttered those words that the number of uses had stretched into the thousands. He was counting on a Congress that no longer took its oversight function seriously, and he was right.
Then, FBI Director Robert Mueller came forward to correct Ashcroft’s “mistake” and to insist that the problems had since been cleaned up with internal accountability mechanisms. That also sounded like a silver-tongued lie.
And on Thursday, Mueller again came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and again acknowledged that abuse was widespread. Here’s how the Washington Examiner reported it:
The FBI improperly used national security letters in 2006 to obtain personal data on Americans during terror and spy investigations, Director Robert Mueller said Wednesday. Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the privacy breach by FBI agents and lawyers occurred a year before the bureau enacted sweeping new reforms to prevent future lapses.
Details on the abuses will be outlined in the coming days in a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general. The report is a follow-up to an audit by the inspector general a year ago that found the FBI demanded personal data on people from banks, telephone and Internet providers and credit bureaus without official authorization and in non-emergency circumstances between 2003 and 2005.
Mueller, noting senators’ concerns about Americans’ civil and privacy rights, said the new report “will identify issues similar to those in the report issued last March.” The similarities, he said, are because the time period of the two studies “predates the reforms we now have in place.” He added: “We are committed to ensuring that we not only get this right, but maintain the vital trust of the American people.”
Mueller offered no additional details. Several other Justice Department and FBI officials familiar with this year’s findings have said privately the upcoming report will show the letters were wrongly used at a similar rate as during the previous three years.
So, more promises unkept. The abuse festers, and indeed, there is not even a down-turn in the rate of abuse. And how do the argus-eyed guardians of the public weal in the Senate Judiciary Committee react to all of this? Condemnation? Demands for new hearings? No. They react with total silence. They don’t even venture a few extra questions.
The Torture President
And all this simply clears the path for Bush’s shining act of glory set for later today. He will veto the intelligence authorizations act of 2008 because it clarifies, for the third or fourth time now, that acts of torture are a violation of the law. But George W. Bush is the law, and he will not hear any differently from this Congress. Indeed, Bush’s claim to be the law is manifested in one thing above all others, and that is his power to torture. By defending and upholding this right, Bush shows that unlike generations of predecessors in the White House, he is King. He sets the law, and his will determines how it will be enforced and against whom. That is his own, very personal vision of “justice,” measured in terms of personal prerogative and power. Torture is the measure and definition of his authority as a President with monarchical pretense.
So Bush will veto the latest anti-torture legislation, and it will have no effect. Or rather, his veto will be cited as yet another instance in which his personal will triumphs over the Law.
The curtain continues to fall over American democracy. Americans understandably are sickened by the tragi-comedy that spreads itself across this stage. But their faith in another presidential election and another leader is misplaced. They need to reserve their faith not for the new, but for the old: for the constitutional model that the Founders left. It needs to be forced to work. And all those who undermine it must be held to account. That includes the should-be watchdogs, who slobbering at the prospect of a few drug-drenched sirloins hurled their way, are failing in their duty to protect their true masters: the American people.
We live in the age of the Great Betrayal, in an age in which too few are willing to state the obvious. There is still time to check the progress of tyrannical power, but the hour grows late, and the sounds of alarm no longer seem to register with a somnolent populace
Check this out Jim:
The New World Order
Terrorist Attacks Redraw the Global Map
by James Ridgeway with Camelia E. Far
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Whether or not the U.S. knocks off Osama bin Laden, the attack on New York and the capital provides Washington with an extraordinary opportunity to project power for the long term in Central Asia by setting up a pro-Western government in Afghanistan. The U.S. could then oversee a pipeline across that nation from the rich Caspian oil fields to ports in Pakistan, and would be perched to react to political changes in volatile Iran. An outpost in Afghanistan would also give America added leverage with Europe and with Russia, which has always had a heavy hand in the region.
In one fell swoop, the attacks and the American response realign the politics of the world on a scale not seen since the height of the Cold War.
The wild card is Pakistan, a veritable university for fundamentalist terrorists. Early in the week it denied the U.S. rights to base ground troops there, but permitted air rights for planes and perhaps will end up letting some of its territory be used as a staging area for commando raids.
But Pakistan is far from trustworthy. As Ahmed Rashid of the Far Eastern Economic Review reported on the Web site EurasiaNet.org early this week, "After having spent the past seven years providing every conceivable form of military, political, and financial support to the Taliban, Pakistan is essentially now being asked by Washington to help the U.S. bomb the Taliban leadership and their guest Osama bin Laden and topple the Taliban regime." [See sidebar.]
Almost unnoticed amid the rumors of war was what looked to be a real, if temporary, ceasefire in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
All this comes at a time when the U.S. is waking from decades of having no policy in Central Asia. We ignored Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. Meanwhile, Bin Laden-run camps and hundreds of other fundamentalist schools in northwest Pakistan transformed the poor, war-torn dregs of Afghan and Pakistani societies into Muslim holy warriors who are now on the loose.
An attack on Afghanistan at this point may drive the Taliban into the mountains, but it won't touch their power base in Pakistan. Even if we were to pressure Pakistan to shut down the schools, President Pervez Musharaf might not be able to do so, and the entire country could break out in civil war—leaving America smack in the middle of an uncontrollable mess. Our best bet would be to mend fences with Iran, which hates the Taliban, but whose isolation we have been committed to since the days of Jimmy Carter's botched hostage mission.
Meanwhile, within the U.S. military, there's already a debate over what to do. The prospect of war in Central Asia revives the internecine political battles of the Reagan era, with the proponents of low-intensity (read: guerrilla) warfare pitting themselves against those who advocate conventional military forces, including planes, missiles, and airborne troops. Guerrilla backers want to take out Muslim extremists with pinpoint operations using commando units such as the Special Forces, Navy Seals, and Rangers, who could be dropped close to their targets from great heights, then settle down and wait for the opportune moment to strike. They would aim to kill someone like Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein with a 50-caliber sniper rifle (a weapon fine-tuned by the IRA against the British). There would be no raping of women, killing of civilians, or long-term engagement. Just in and out. Most important politically, since there are so few commandos involved, American casualties would be small in number. The main brunt of this sort of effort would be placed on the Special Operations section of the military, and especially the elite but small Delta Force, whose size is classified.
Already, though, military sources are salivating over Bush's decision to pour tens of billions into an antiterrorist effort, which they say would prime the economic pump. It would also lead to more of the same for the military, with cruise missiles, high-level bombing by B2s, and drop-ins by units such as the 82nd Airborne, all grinding on in a protracted and inconclusive military campaign that could last a decade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bombing Afghanistan, the U.S. stands to alienate the war-weary destitute who hate the Taliban and might otherwise support an American overthrow of the government. What's likely to happen is that we'll try a heavy bombing campaign, attempt to drive out the Taliban, and work to set up a replacement regime. The country could then be ruled by a combo of the U.S., NATO, and local Western-minded Afghans.
That would require the landing of substantial numbers of ground troops. Afghanistan undoubtedly would be hard hit to make it an example, but the real goal would be to project American military power in the region. Afghanistan could be our Fire Base Charlie amid the quarreling warlords of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Such a campaign might see NATO troops in Azerbaijan on the western side of the Caspian Sea. Uzbekistan, which runs across the top of the Caspian, has also indicated it would accept U.S. troops.
This might look like victory, but it's really a trap. Far from strengthening NATO, a large U.S. presence would drive a wedge between Central Asia and Europe, probably the main reason European nations like Germany and Italy were backing away from the U.S. early this week. By the same token, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan will try to use U.S. support as a lever against Russia.
It's always possible that this sort of makeshift intervention would benefit U.S. oil interests in the Caspian Sea. While oil reserves there are probably not as large as originally projected, they nonetheless are of considerable size, with the natural gas especially important because western Europe has become so dependent on it. U.S. control of Afghanistan might encourage the building of a pipeline from there to Pakistan and the Indian subcontinent. The problem would be that fundamentalists in Pakistan could just blow it up from time to time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lasting effect of trying to transform Afghanistan into a Western proxy is probably counterproductive. Last week, a Moscow paper, Komosomolskaya Pravda, published this interesting take on the situation: "Possibly, the [terrorists'] leadership is deliberately 'exposing' certain Islamic countries, such as Libya, Iran, or Iraq, which are suspected of sympathizing with, or supporting, Muslim extremists, but which nevertheless are inclined to have normal relations with the West. The probable acts of retribution against such countries by the Americans will destabilize the situation in them and lead to a change of the regimes there in favor of more radical ones."
The only bright spot on the horizon is the very dim prospect of a rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran. People there wore black in mourning for the New York attack, signed books of condolences, and left flowers at makeshift shrines. The mood was grim and sorrowful. Religious police unsuccessfully tried to break up a vigil for New York victims. Soccer fans at a stadium for a major game in World Cup competition stopped for a moment of silence. A government official close to President Khatami told the Voice over the weekend, "There is a unique consensus in the world because of this tragedy. Islamic and non-Islamic countries have found an unprecedented will to fight terrorism. The official position of the Iranian government is that it welcomes NATO's call for collective action on this problem."
larry
You know, I am so sick of using the word facade it peeves me. Absolutely one hundred percent everything is a facade to enable bush's total control while he finishes prosecuting his new world(dis) order Forever war"
There is no honor or honesty in this sniveling excuse for a man.This plan is about to come to a head as the worthless game is played out for delegates giving the facade of a Democracy.
Admiral Fallon's release is the final step. He is now free to attack Iran and he will. All hell will break loose around the country and in the military.
It is a little more than ironic that at the very time Bush reasserts how much he wants peace in the middle east he dispatches the chief war monger and advocate to attack Iran to the middle east.
Give us peace or we're attacking. This is ominous and not good as Bush's incessant facades are3 about to pay off in disaster for us and the rest of the world.
larry
I still say 9/11 was allowed to happen to give Bush the reason to get all the power he needed to use the tool of furthering his new middle east and world order.
Fighting terrorism is just the excuse to push his influence and democratization around the world. even though in perspective only the few want it.
He fill fight to the death to appear yo fight for the will of a few while destroying the masses against his as he is doing her, in the middle east, and he is doing around the world.
There can be no organized effort to stop the scum now. We have tried too many years to wake Politicians and the people up and now I firmly believer it is too late but I won't stop!
brother
I still have to laugh! I wonder what BS they feed women to get them to do that? I am curious and will be checking out Sirens to see what you had to say. Right on and mending I'm sure!
Once the Telecom Corporations gain immunity, they will be immune to all laws.
They can record business communications and resell them. They can order assassinations of politicians and Supreme Court members.
They can kidnap customers and hold them for ransom, to recover late payments.
They can broker drug deals. Provide criminal contracting services.
Once they become immune to the law, there is no limit to the things they can do in pursuit of profit. And they will be able to do these things openly.
I'm not aware of a precedent of this kind in any first world country. It is true that corporations have been allowed to act as if the law meant nothing. But I'm not aware that the experiment of making a corporation or class of corporations immune to law has ever been tried before.
As corporations do engage in some horrible and illegal practices even when they can be prosecuted by the law. I don't see how making these corporations immune to all forms of prosecution can lead to anything but grossly unethical and immoral behavior.
And yeah, with Fallon gone, the war is on. The next president will inherit a new war with no mission.
McCain has made it clear that as President he'll do everything in his power to expand prolong America's wars and occupations. Obama says he'll send troops into Pakistan. Hillary has demonstrate her love of war through her legislative actions.
The only thing that is going to end the march to world war is complete economic bankruptcy.
Sun Tzu makes it very clear that any nation that engages in longterm hostile and foreign occupations will bankrupt itself, and impoverish it's people. Thousands of years later, our political leaders are trying to prove that he is still right on the money. They are working hard to show that they can bankrupt the US, through endless expanding war.
Once we hit Iran, the Chinese are going to freak as 20% of their oil is suddenly cut off. They'll hurriedly cut deals to procure oil already contracted to the US and other countries. A bidding war for oil will ensue. Gasoline at $10/gal might be considered cheap, a year after our war with Iran begins.
And then consider the ramifications of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Taking such a huge volume of oil off the market will likely make gasoline unavailable in many cities for extended periods of time, as a third World War kicks into gear.
Bush 2.0 has already earned his place in history. If he bombs Iran, he'll be famous as one of history's most notorious villains.
weaseldog
Well they have it! as far as I'm concerned Bush can do what he wants and will because he is the sole ecider as to what we can and can not look at and know according to the Government openness act he just passed. What a joke.
Bear with me, I have to run out but I have you saved to my favorites for now until I get the time to Blogroll you!
Post a Comment