Comments on: Last Rites for the United States, and Himself

By: Shabnam

Shabnam — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:35:56 +0000

I suggest to people that learn history of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa then bring ‘self determination’ rhetoric where Gilad Atzmon defined it as “The Right to Self-Determination – A Fake Exercise in Universalism”, where it has been used by the Western powers in their game of ‘divide and rule’ where they have promised an ethnic group who wants to be a pawn, like the Kurds, ‘self determination’ in order to receive their services, usually terrorist activities, against a country that is targeted for destabilization and partition to create WEAK STATES to help the process of domination. A “self determination” at a time where western ‘progressives’ are preaching about ‘globalization’ and disappearance of borders for betterment of people, we in the middle east region witness people like Chomsky supports partition of Iraq and creation of Kurdistan which is Israel’s goal. No one in the region benefits from an independent Kurdistan EXCEPT Israel. The US also do not benefit from an independent Kurdistan EXCEPT Israel.
Shimon Peres repeatedly reminds us about the ‘globalization’ and power of economic progress yet this liar everyday kills to steal more land and resources. We the people of the region are not going to allow ANOTHER ISRAEL IN OUR REGION. Creation of Israel has been a disaster to all states in the region but you; the West has benefitted from our children death bodies.
The European colonists do not belong to our region and you should have taken responsibility to give the best part of your fuck**g land to them because as a result of your crime “self determination” our region has been ruined and our children have been massacred and our environment has been polluted by your WMD while you were in school or Theatre enjoying yourself and planning your future.
You must know Kurdistan was part of Iran. The Kurdish territories located in Iraq and Turkey was taken from Iran in 1514 in the Battle of Chaldiran where Savavids Iran was invaded by Ottoman Empire. Today, the US imperialism and Zionism have a plan to destabilize the regional states including Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and other states to create mini states in order to control and dominate the region and its resources more effectively. What a state of 2 million people like Kosovo can do besides being a puppet state? Iranian people refuse to be subjugated to this kind of humiliation. The Kurds must understand that we should be working together, not against each other, to strengthen our economies and our societies. The regional countries must put aside their petty differences and join together, like European Union, to be able to fight against occupiers, Zionists and imperialists. We never allow another Israel, ever.
People must understand if there is creation of Kurdistan, then there is going to be more wars in order to expand their tribe like Israel. Israel is seeking to establish ‘greater Israel’ therefore; Israel feels she needs non-Arab states as an ally. Israel is interested in breaking up Iran into Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Baluchistan, Luristan and more. Imperialism and Zionism look at Iran like another Ottoman Empire. Muslims have never been humiliated the same degree as today. The entire region is under domination. You, of course, benefited from this arrangement, on our expense, controlling our economy and killing our children. Therefore, The Kurds must find a way to address their grievances by working with people of the region not against them. After all, the Kurds are not the only victims. We all have suffered from the western domination. The Kurds try to use victimization card, like the ‘Jews’ to buy sympathy. Different ethnic groups have lived together for thousands of years peacefully. We all are Iranians.
Since World War I Kurds have placed their trust in the United States to support their bid for nationhood, they provided cover for CIA operations against Iraq. The CIA has been meddling in Iraq with disastrous consequences for over four decades. After working with the corrupt Nuri Said, the USA went after Abdul-Karim Qassem, who eliminated the old British agent Nuri in 1958. Among those whom the CIA recruited to do its dirty work were the Iraqi Baath Party, including Saddam Hussein. The Baath did finally succeed in overthrowing and killing Qassem in 1963. The CIA let the Baath into power and gave them a long list of Communists to be killed. A secret agreement was reached between the CIA and Mulla Mustafa Barzani in August 1969. Barzani had promised to turn oil fields over to the U.S., repeatedly saying that he wanted Kurdistan to be the 51st state.
American used the Kurds many times for their agenda and then left them to be attacked by Saddam because they had other powerful states under their control, Iran, Turkey and the Arab States. But Israel continued working and relying on Kurds to get information on Saddam by building a hospital in the north of Iraq and put her agents, Mossad, as doctors in charge.
The Kurds should cooperate with others in the region not against them as enablers for the enemy of the region, zionism and imperialism. That’s why the Kurds are not trusted and look upon as PAWNS.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/03/the-right-to-self-determination-a-fake-exercise-in-universalism/

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:50:40 +0000

Israel has always been on welfare of one stripe or another – reparations, aid from East and West, and American Jewish donations in the billions. (And its tax deductible. You can give money to the Jewish National Fund which purpose is to buy land for Jews and never sell it to gentiles – and take a deduction for it.) Then when aid from the US kicked in big-time during the Johnson Admin. Israel was home-free. Israel, a developed nation, gets more welfare than any collection of poverty-stricken nations we can compile – and they get it on the terms that it dictates. Indeed, any time the US can sow havoc in the region gets a thumbs-up from Israel – in fact, they probably suggested the idea.
Nonetheless, as I do believe in self-determination for all peoples, and the Kurds have been desiring autonomy or independence for many decades, as far as I’m concerned, a Kurdish state would be the only positive outcome of the US invasion. I’m not certain that it would extend beyond Iraq. Israel would certainly be interested in an independent Kurdistan (they’ve advocated the break-up of Iraq as you know), but the world is a complicated place. I don’t know if Israel lives or dies based on an independent Kurdish state.

By: bozh

bozh — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:42:29 +0000

barry,
socalled israeli regional hegemony wld have never been established w.o. christian support.
and israel, i deduce, wld not have existed past 1955 w.o. christian support and/or judeo-christian money and diplo.

and once US accepted Israel {causes/aims still unknown} and began to pour even more money into Israel; supplying it with training/arms, israelis knew they are unstoppable in their quest for greater US/Europe/Israel.

most israelis may brush aside or not even espy their utter dependency on the christian world.
israel, when armaments and money she receives are taken into account, is one of the least independent countries i know of.

and precisely because of that, its cunning leadership welcomes nato and US wars and the attack on iran with even wmd.
israeli leadership wld certainly be/feel much less dependent on nato lands with an independented kurdistan.
taming or breaking up iran, iraq, syria and helping set up a kurdistan that wld include parts of syria, turkey, iraq, and iran wld be much gladhanded by ‘zionists’.
more cld be said. thnx

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:12:01 +0000

I think the US war on Iraq was fought for several reasons. Firstly, the Neocons wanted it, and were actively pushing for attacking Iraq for a number of years. This largely has to do with maintenance of Israeli regional hegemony. It has also to do with petroleum and natural gas – to some degree ownership of these resources thru American corporations, but at the very least, to control of supply and pricing. In this matter, the neocons would find a reinforcing reason for attack – but oil control is perhaps even more important to the Paleocons. It is understood by Paleocons that if the US does not gain control over world oil supplies, a rapidly strengthening China is likely to. Further, there is always the imperial goal of opening any and all markets for capital penetration. So Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al all had material reasons for destroying Iraq.
Bush’s reasons are likely more psychological in nature – he wanted to prove himself in the eyes of his father, and to surpass his father who he believes failed to take Saddam. He saw his mission as finishing the job his father started. Further, the ever so simplistic Bush believes that any president worth his salt has a succesful war he can claim his own. Reagan had Granada, Bush Elder had Panama, Clinton had former Yugoslavia. None of Bush’s tangle of superstitions can be said to be the reason the US attacked Iraq but instead made it easy for Cheney and Rumsfeld to forge ahead.
War also provides opportunity for major internal change – that is, in time of war the nation can be made over. Constitutional amendments can be suspended (we now read that the First Amendment – free speech – was about to be punted away by Bush/Cheney), privacy rights can be tossed out the window so not just your phone but your entire life can be tapped, major economic changes such as privitization of capital can be pushed through (turning Social Security over to Wall Street sharks), ending taxes on unearned income, etc. Those who beg to differ can be branded as traitors, anyway, we all know the drill here – its about Shock Treatment to the nation – something Naomi Klein wrote about extensively. This shock treatment is not why the US invaded Iraq but are some of the sweet benefits that putting the nation on a wartime footing brings to our ruling elite.

Two other things – I don’t think invading Iraq was about actually turning Iraq over to Israel or the Jews, that’s beyond the possible. It’s about regional hegemony. Israel wants no one to challenge it or support the Palestinians. This is the impetus for punishing Iran now – it is the only effective supporter of Hamas and Hezballah.

I agree with Deadbeat that the nation’s move toward conservatism was and is about race. That is, the driving force of conservatism is racism and the notion that non-whites – and blacks in particular – are trying to get something for nothing while imposing their culture upon the nation. The rise of conservatism accompanied the voting rights and civil rights laws of the fifties and sixties. Republicans tapped into it in the South and virtually all whites switched sides. By the late 70s, much of white America joined in the switch.

By: bozh

bozh — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:46:13 +0000

in my knowledge, all wars are waged for land; everything on it and in it; conqurees either wanted or not wanted.
?all leaders want to glorify selves.
only the trojan war was not- if homer is to believed- fought for land; provided that war ever happened.

so, the evaluation that each prez waged his war[s] for diff’t reasons and sans factors/causes for them, cannot stand.
the word “reason” is an overgeneralization; specifying a cause or a factor wld be by far more illuminating.

shabnam,
it appears to me unlikely to a very high degree that US aggressed against iraq to hand part[s] or all of it to ‘jews’.
and torahic claim for lands btwn the two great rivers notwithstanding.

lotsof impious amers died to obtain iraq. even christians may not be elated with giving iraq to the people of a cult which they never accepted and actually persecuted for 2K.

as an aside, in rereading Noam Chomsky, an interview with david barsamian, published 1992, they both use solely the labels “palestinian” and ” palestinians” and not “palestinian arabs”.
but in the Chomsky’s Reader, 1984 , chomsky oft uses the label “palestinian arabs” .

but i’m not sure if he now thinks of the palestinians as also descendants of canaanitic peoples and hebrews.
or of the ‘eurojews’ as an admixture of many folks; having no connection at all to either hebrews or judeans.
i hope chomsky wld read DV. thnx

By: Deadbeat

Deadbeat — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:45:47 +0000

“Aggreesive Nationalism” wasn’t the only reason why “America” went conservative. There was an immense backlash against all of the social movements especially the civil right movement and integration. Ronald Reagan inaugrated his Presidental Campiagn in Philedelphia, Mississippi where Civil Right workers were murdered. As MLK identified the triad of militarism, racism and capitalism. There should not be an effort to yanks these ideologies apart. It is better to understand how it all works together.

By: MrCynic3

MrCynic3 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:48:44 +0000

“My previous post had a let of spelling mistakes ”

Mr. Uhler,

You wrote about Bush and his attack on Iraq :

“There have been many American presidents who had chosen to go to
war for different reasons: but I know of no [other] one who chose to go to war to enhance his popularity.”

I don’t know is this your opinion or John Lukas’ opinion?
Anyway this is very naive and uninformed opinion about the mechanics
of going to war in this country.
No president no matter how powerful he is, just say let us have a war.
Going to war is the result of the ruling elites decision and after a long
poneridng and discussions. Whether
that decision was wise decision and is good for the country or for the benefits of special interests is a good point to ponder.

By: MrCynic3

MrCynic3 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:30:04 +0000

Mr. Uhler,

You wrote about Bush and his attack on Iraq :

“There have been many American presidents who had chosen to go to
war for different reasons: but I know of no [other] one who chose to go to war to enhance his popularity.”

I don’t know is this your opinion or John Lukas’ opinion?
Anyway this is very naive and uniformed opinion about the mechanics
of going to war in this country.
No president no matter how powerful he is, just say let us have a war.
Going to war is the result of the ruling elites decision and after a long
ponering and discussions. Whether
that decision was wise decision and is good for the country or for the benefits of special interests is a good point to ponder.
is debatable