Iran: A Nuclear threat to Israel?

 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's  'RED LINE' speech to the Nations General Assembly

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ‘RED LINE’ speech to the UN  General Assembly in Sept 2012

I’m sure you can recall a time when a politician had been asked a very simple, straight forward question that demanded a very simple, straight forward answer.  The reply from the politician would usually be, ‘It’s not as simple as a yes or no answer’.  Read more of this post


U.S. Foreign Policy Part II: Afghanistan


Out of the tens of thousands of Afghans that have been killed, none were linked with 9/11.  Afghanistan itself is not responsible for 9/11.  That’s a quite shocking realization.  When we fathom that The U.S. government is spending billions of tax payers dollars a year, killing ten of thousands of people, some who are innocent civilians, and we weren’t quite sure if the people responsible were even staying there.  Yea, not to worry it’s just some peasant Afghan family that we unintentionally killed, surely our rights to national security have priority over their lives.

If one had to struggle to consider that there may be other reasons the U.S sent troops to Afghanistan, here is some interesting information that may explain why.   

Afghanistan is next door to the Caspian Sea a central region of Asia which reportedly has the 2nd largest proven resources of petroleum and natural gas.  It is well situated to supply much of south Asia, pipelines that can by-pass those not-yet clients Iran & Russia.

TAPI- (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) was an oil deal that was drafted when a Californian based company called Unocal Corporation held talks with the Taliban Government.  The Clinton Administration was totally aware of the brutality of the Taliban Regime but was only too willing to talk business.  Taliban officials even made trips to Washington for discussions, testifying before the House Sub-Committee.   When Talks stalled in July 2001, the Bush administration threatened the Taliban with military reprisals , if the government did not go with US demands.  The talks finally broke down the following month, a  month before 9/11.

From a European Governmental perspective.  The former German President at the time Horst Koehler resigned after stating Germany was fighting in Afghanistan for Economic reasons.  Speaking to German troops in Afghanistan he said,

‘Germany depends on exports and free trade and must be prepared to use Military force’.  The country he said ‘ had to act to protect its own personal interests.’

The U.S. argue that enemy insurgents know when American troops are going to attack using innocent people as shields.  Perhaps they rush innocent civilians to the spot before the bomb is dropped. Or its a place where they live and the enemy rushes its own people to a building so they can die with them.  If one was to think logically,  maybe members of Al-Queada live there, who have children and a wife and the bombs are being casually dropped there.  The US has stated that there have been unintended deaths, however if you continue to drop large explosives in populated areas over and over again from Vietnam to Iraq, at what point does the statement Unintended, still hold weight.

Criticism also exists of the U.S. Army building military establishments near civilian areas putting innocent life’s at risk.

The LIBERATION OF WOMEN ARGUEMENT has no creditability, because in the 1980s the US government played an indispensable role in overthrowing a secular progressive government.

Under the governance of the secular government in Afghanistan, women had complete freedom of who the chose to marry, fixed minimum age of marriage was 16 for women 18 for men.  In addition there were extensive literacy programs especially for women- putting girls and boys in the same classroom- giving women a more active role in politics.

The overthrow of the Government brought to power the Islamic Fundamentalist Regime soon in the hands of the awful Taliban.  These strategic movements were ones that were in favour of the U.S. government as for them, replacing the secular government with the Taliban aided the U.S’s values, in the cold war against the Soviet Union.

US Foreign Policy Part 1: IRAQ


Some overweight, ignorant, Big Mac loving, sympathizers of the Bush Administration will come out with lines like, ‘The world’s a better place without Saddam Hussein’.  Sure they aren’t worried about the legality or validity of the intelligence surrounding ‘Weapons Of Mass Destruction’,  this is America, God’s on our side, remember!  It was seen by some as a noble decision to invade, a great act of liberation for a people at the hands of such a brutal dictator.  A dictator which Donald Rumsfeld was only too happy to meet in 1983.  Rumsfeld’s meeting with Saddam Hussein was significant in that he was meeting with the President of a Country who was at war with Iran (1983-1988) and using chemical weapons on Iranian Soldiers.  Ironically these chemical weapons of ‘MASS DESTRUCTION’ which were destroyed in 1991, were supposedly  the major threat that warranted the US led invasion in 2003.  Where did Saddam get the materials for weapons like these? Wait for it… AMERICA!

It’s funny how American foreign policy can shift so dramatically in the space of two decades.  The US went from supporting the Iraqi Government financially, resourcefully, and on an intelligence basis in 1983, to alerting the ‘free world’ that this rouge government had the capability of using chemical and biological weapons in a way that would gravely threaten the safety of innocent American people. US 5000+ Nuclear Weapons/ Iraq 0 Nuclear weapons, surely you could see their concern, No?

In the months before the invasion, a peace agreement was proposed by Iraqi officials, including the Chief Of The Iraqi Intelligence Service who wanted Washington to know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search; they also offered full support for any US plan in the Arab-Israeli peace process, and to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Centre bombing in 1993.  If this is about oil, they added, they would also talk about US oil concessions.  Washington’s reply was ‘Shock and Awe’ bombing.

UN Chief Inspector at the time Hans Blix who led the hunt for WMD’s said the following later in 2003.

‘Those who are 100 percent certain there are weapons of mass destruction turned out to have less than zero percent knowledge of where the purported hidden caches might be.’  In Feb 2003, Blix is reported to have warned both then British PM Tony Blair and then US Secretary of Defence Condoleezza Rice about the dangers of entering Iraq with a substantial lack of evidence of the presence of WMD’s.

Indeed Hans Blix was not alone in his opposition to such pre-emptive action.  Benjamin B. Ferencz, who served as the U.S.’s Chief Prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials following World War II, had denounced the Iraq War as an aggressive war (named at Nuremberg as “the supreme international crime”) and stated his belief that George W. Bush as the war’s “initiator”, who should be tried for war crimes.

In a 2002 book, Scott Ritter a Nuclear Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998,

he argued against an invasion and expressed doubts about the Bush Administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein had a WMD capability.”

Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to President to George Bush was an early critic. He wrote an August 15, 2002 editorial in The Wall Street Journal entitled “Don’t attack Saddam,” arguing that the war would distract from the broader fight against terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which should be the U.S.’s highest priority in the Middle East.  The next month, Gen. Hugh Selton, former Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, agreed that war in Iraq would distract from the War on Terrorism.

‘Were supposed to believe that the US would’ve invaded Iraq, if it was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main exports were pickles and lettuce.’ Noam Chomsky

Fifty four countries most notably France, Germany, Russia and China, had all protested formally and officially the prosecution of this war. They opposed the Iraq War in principle, citing in some cases that they believe it is illegal, and in others that it required a United Nations mandate.

Today in 2013, Iraq’s infrastructure is a complete mess.  A 2005 study conducted by the UN stated that 84% of the country’s higher education establishments had been either ‘destroyed, damaged or robbed.’  A health care system once admired by the middle-east has been majorly destroyed and looted.

Hundreds of thousands of professional Iraqis and especially the educated middle class have been displaced in countries including Jordan, Syria and Egypt, many after receiving death threats.  Since 2003, the UN’s World Food Program reported 400,000 children are suffering from Malnutrition, specifically in the deficiency of vital protein.  Thousands of Iraqi’s have lost arms and legs, many of which are because of unexploded US cluster bombs , which become like landmines only to be picked up by unsuspecting children.  I’m sure these children don’t mind their legs being blown off in the name of freedom and democracy, do they?

Kofi Annan was in agreement when it was suggested that some Iraqi’s now view the US occupation of their country as leading to poorer living standards than when it was under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

‘I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi’s life.  If I were an average Iraqi, obviously I would make the same comparison, that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, am I going to see my child again?

Depleted uranium particles that today still remain in the Iraqi skyline, are breathed into human bodies and passed into the water, soil, the blood and the genes, producing malformed babies.  Research by the BBC in 2004 startlingly revealed the level of birth defects among new born babies was said to be 13 times higher than that in Europe.  A BBC correspondent reported seeing children with severe unexplained brain damage and one newly born child with 3 heads.  Must just be a coincidence, which doesn’t explain officials in the city of Fallujah (Iraq), warning mothers against having children due to the dangers of birth defects.

So to sum it up, there were no weapons of Mass Destruction.  Fifty four countries officially opposed the war as well as the Head of the UN.  Millions of Iraqi’s are displaced throughout the Arab world.  The countries infrastructure is a complete mess, if you are a new born in  Iraq today, you are 13 times more likely to have a heart defect than if you were born anywhere in Europe.  The estimated cost of new oil contracts to foreign companies is going to cost Iraq economy between $74-$194 billion, as opposed to keeping Iraq’s oil revenue within state hands.  America’s Deadliest export so far aside from all the weapons they sell to allies today, enemies tomorrow?  Going to have to go with Democracy on that one.  God Bless you America…