Israel-Palestine

America's Imperial Wars: We Need to See the Sickening Reality

dlindorff — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:39:11 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

When I was a 17-year-old kid in my senior year of high school, I
didn’t think much about Vietnam. It was 1967, the war was raging, but I
didn’t personally know anyone who was over there, Tet hadn’t happened
yet. If anything, the excitement of jungle warfare attracted my
interest more than anything (I had a .22 cal rifle, and liked to go off
in the woods and shoot at things, often, I’ll admit, imagining it was
an armed enemy.)

But then I had to do a major project in my humanities program and I
chose the Vietnam War. As I started researching this paper, which was
supposed to be a multi-media presentation, I ran across a series of
photos of civilian victims of American napalm bombing. These victims,
often, were women and children—even babies.

The project opened my eyes to something that had never occurred to
me: my country’s army was killing civilians. And it wasn’t just killing
them. It was killing them, and maiming them, in ways that were almost
unimaginable in their horror: napalm, phosphorus, anti-personnel bombs
that threw out spinning flechettes that ripped through the flesh like
tiny buzz saws, and gunships that randomly spewed out so many
projectiles that everything within the range of several football fields
was killed or maimed almost instantly (all weapons still in use now)Afghan child burned by a US bomb.
I learned that scientists like what I at the time wanted to become were
actually working on projects to make these weapons even more lethal,
for example trying to make napalm more sticky so it would burn longer
on exposed flesh.

By the time I had finished my project, I had actively joined the
anti-war movement, and later that year, when I turned 18 and had to
register for the draft, I made the decision that no way was I going to
allow myself to participate in that war.

A key reason my—and millions of other Americans’--eyes were opened
to what the US was up to in Indochina was that the media at that time,
at least by 1967, had begun to show Americans the reality of that war.
I didn’t have to look too hard to find the photos of napalm victims, or
to read about the true nature of the weapons that our forces were using.

Today, while the internet makes it possible to find similar
information about the conflicts in the world in which the US is
participating, either as primary combatant or as the chief provider of
arms, as in Gaza, one actually has to make a concerted effort to look
for them. The corporate media which provide the information that most
Americans simply receive passively on the evening news or at breakfast
over coffee carefully avoid showing us most of the graphic horror
inflicted by our military machine.

We may read the cold fact that the US military, after initial
denials, admits that its forces killed not four enemy combatants in an
assault on a house in Afghanistan, but rather five civilians—including
a man, a female teacher, a 10-year-old girl, a 15-year-old boy and a
tiny baby. But we don’t see pictures of their shattered bodies, no
doubt shredded by the high-powered automatic rifles typically used by
American forces.

We may read about wedding parties that are bombed by American
forces—something that has happened with some frequency in both Iraq and
Afghanistan-- where the death toll is tallied in dozens, but we are, as
a rule, not provided with photos that would likely show bodies torn
apart by anti-personnel bombs—a favored weapon for such attacks on
groups of supposed enemy “fighters.” (A giveaway that such weapons are
being used is a typically high death count with only a few wounded.)

Obviously one reason for this is that the US military no longer
gives US journalists, including photo journalists, free reign on the
battlefield. Those who travel with troops are under the control of
those troops and generally aren’t allowed to photograph the scenes of
devastation, and sites of such “mishaps” are generally ruled off limits
until the evidence has been cleared away.

But another reason is that the media themselves sanitize their
pages and their broadcasts. It isn’t just American dead that we don’t
get to see. It’s the civilian dead—at least if our guys do it. We are
not spared gruesome images following attacks on civilians by Iraqi
insurgent groups, or by Taliban forces in Afghanistan. But we don’t get
the same kind of photos when it’s our forces doing the slaughtering.
Because often the photos and video images do exist—taken by foreign
reporters who take the risk of going where the US military doesn’t want
them.

No wonder that even today, most Americans oppose the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan not because of sympathy with the long-suffering peoples
of those two lands, but because of the hardships faced by our own
forces, and the financial cost of the two wars.

For some real information on the horror that is being perpetrated
on one of the poorest countries in the world by the greatest military
power the world has ever known, check out the excellent work by
Professor Marc Herold at the University of New Hampshire (http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm and http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/10/06/the-imprecision-ofus-bombing-...).
__________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is
“The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

McCain/Palin Campaign Relies on Lazy Thinking and Prejudice to Win

dlindorff — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:17:45 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

I got an urgent email from an uncle of mine yesterday evening. A
sweet man, retired career military and very religious, he was genuinely
worried about an email he had received purporting to convey an article
said to have been written by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and
published on June 29, 2008 alleging that much of the Obama campaign's
"small donations" over the Internet had actually come from several Arab
sources overseas.

Now I could see before reading two paragraphs of the alleged column
he forwarded to me that it was not Dowd's acerbic and witty writing
style, but I cannot expect most people who don't even read Dowd to know
that. Two minutes at the computer, however, and I was easily able to
confirm, as anyone could do, that Dowd had never written the article. A
search of the New York Times archive showed she had written on a wholly
different topic--Hillary Clinton--on that day, and moreover, the
non-partisan truth-checking website Snopes.com had a full documented debunking of the scam.

Why this particular campaign dirty trick--and with Karl Rove in the
back seat of the McCain campaign bus I have no doubt that it originated
in the bowels of that campaign, which has not disavowed it--works, and
why the many other vile efforts, like the latest shameful official
McCain TV ad claiming that Obama backs "sex education for
kindergartners," work is that many otherwise decent Americans like my
uncle first of all are primed to believe such crap by a deep-seated
prejudice against people of color, and secondly that the corporate
media which are supposed to be informing us are afraid to call out a
mainstream political candidate for lying and deceiving the public.
Some, like Fox, actually promote these falsehoods.

Look at the news today. Instead of exposing the blatant campaign of
character assassination by the McCain/Palin campaign, it is focused on
the bogus (and frivolous) claim by the McCain campaign that Obama has
called Palin a "pig with lipstick"! (What did Obama really do? He said
that the McCain/Palin ticket's attempt to portray itself as an
anti-pork, anti-Washington, reform campaign is like putting lipstick on
a pig--a common expression used by McCain himself.) The issue becomes
not "Is the McCain campaign charge true?" but rather "Should Obama have
to apologize to Palin?"

What's depressing about this is how well the McCain campaign's swim
in the sewer is working. A nice kid I know who works at our local
garage told me that he couldn't vote for Obama, despite liking his
policies, "because he'll take his oath of office on the Koran." Aside
from the anti-Muslim bias inherent in this statement, it is based upon
false information being spread virally through the internet falsely
claiming, on the basis of no evidence, that Obama is a secret Muslim
and that he took his Senate oath of office on a Koran.

People on the left may wish that Obama were a more overtly
progressive and more expressly anti-war candidate. I certainly do. But
let's get real here for a minute. With the black-baiting that is going
on by the other side, and the gullible and terribly uninformed or even
misinformed electorate out there, and with a national media that will
simply repeat and spread whatever bilious and false charges are made by
the McCain campaign, what chance on earth would a candidate like Obama
have if he were to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, or for a
government-run medical insurance program? Those who call angrily for
such unambiguous positions by Obama are deluding themselves.

I really have to laugh. He'd be labeled a traitor and a communist,
and you know what? Absent a real analysis and absent critical reporting
by the mainstream media, 90 percent of the American public would
unthinkingly buy that false and ludicrous characterization.

I used to have a higher opinion of my fellow Americans, who had a
reputation for common sense. I used to believe that if a candidate told
them that it made no sense to put insurance companies in charge of
their health care and that people were much healthier and less anxious
about their health and their lives, and spent less on health care in
countries like Canada or Sweden or Germany or France where their health
care was guaranteed by the state, if a candidate told them that half
the money being spent on the US military was a waste and did nothing to
make the nation safer, if a candidate told them that human life on this
planet was in grave danger if nothing was done to seriously reduce
carbon emissions by half or even more, that they would listen and vote
accordingly. I used to think that if only Ralph Nader could shoehorn
his way into the national debates, a wave of popular support would
sweep him into the White House. (And let's be honest here. We on the
left are not immune from this poison of ignorance. I cannot tell you
how many otherwise intelligent people on the left keep writing me to
say that the entire foreign policy of the United States is being
secretly run by "Israel and the Zionists.")

I no longer hold that high opinion. Sure, if this nation were
educating people to think critically--which is not being done--if we
had a media that had a core ethos of getting at the truth and making it
known--which we don't--I would have that confidence. But I think it is
clear that we have traveled so far down the road of creating an
ignorant and fearful electorate that any candidate making such bold
claims would be doomed to either a devastating loss, or to minor party
status. Nader, for example, whose ancestry is Lebanese Christian, were
he to begin to rise in the polls to become a serious candidate, would
certainly be portrayed as a Muslim Manchurian candidate, and it
wouldn't matter what he said or stood for after that.

I don't know what this dismal state of affairs means in terms of
the future direction of American politics, but it doesn't bode well for
the future of third parties, or for the Democratic Party, or for the
country, or for the fate of the world.

And that is the truth.
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

American and Israeli War Crimes: Same Atrocities, Different Responses

dlindorff — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:59:05 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

In the last few days, both the Israeli military and the US military have fired missiles into homes, in an effort to target what they said were terrorists, in the process killing many innocent civilians.

But what a contrast we see in both the reporting on these events, and in the response within the two countries!

In the Israeli case, the IDF fired a missile into a family home in Gaza, killing a mother and her four young children, who were eating breakfast at the time. The children were aged 6 years through 15 months. While the IDF and the Israeli government blamed the tragedy on Hamas, saying it operates in proximity of civilians and is thus responsible for their deaths, an Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, has caqlled for a criminal investigation into the killings, saying that Israel and the IDF have violated internation law by firing the missile in a densely populated area where civilian casualties would be likely. A spokesman for the group, Sarit Michaeli, says that Israeli claims that it is not responsible for such deaths are incorrect, and adds that under international law, “Even if you attack a legitimate military target, the anticipated damage has to be in proportion to the anticipated gain.”

How does such a moral calculus apply to American military policy? The most recent example of US military tactics in this regard came yesterday, when American forces, in clear violation of international law regarding national sovereignty, fired a missile into a house in Somalia (a nation that the US is not at war with), reportedly killing an alleged leader of the Al Qaeda organization in Somalia, Aden Hashi Ayro, but also another 30 people—all unidentified. Reports suggest that many of those killed and others who were wounded, were innocent civilians who happened to be sleeping in the house in question.

To date, no American human rights group has protested this action as a criminal violation or a violation of international law. No member of Congress has decried the attack.

The AP story reporting the incident didn’t even mention the possibility that the action could be a violation of law.

Nor is this an isolated incident. In Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Somalia and elsewhere, the US regularly launches missiles, often from remote controlled drone aircraft, and drops large bombs on houses and even larger compounds, sometimes destroying whole villages at a time, in order to hit individual alleged terrorists. Often, it turns out on investigation that the target individuals weren’t even present at the scene of these bloody massacres of civilians.

So commonplace are these wanton acts of violence by US forces that the US-installed leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has publicly called for a halt to them, because of the number of innocent Afghan citizens being killed. Iraqis too, are enraged at the number of innocent victims of US bombings in places like Sadr City, where the killing of innocent children by US bombs has become a deadly routine.

No one—not one person—in the US military, the Pentagon or the Bush administration has been prosecuted for war crimes or criminal violations for these atrocities.

It becomes clearer and clearer with the passing of time that Bush’s and Cheney’s so-called War on Terror is actually a War of Terror, being waged against the people of such places as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia.

At least in Israel, some citizens are willing to call such behavior criminal, and to demand a halt to it.
_______________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Religion in Politics

olestormy — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:49:24 -0400

It seems so very apparent to me that religious faith is the problem in nearly all of our disagreements in the Middle East and here at home.
    Faith is defined in most dictionaries as: “belief in something for which there is no proof.” It seems a shame that in the 21st century, so many people are living with blind faith, when people don’t have the moral backbone to question their own faith (most will readily question the faith of others, we end up with people willing to die for many things of faith that have no foundation in truth.
    Truth and faith do not go together. Faith is what makes the Jewish people believe they are Gods chosen people. Faith is what makes Christians believe that the Bible is Gods infallible word.
    Faith is what makes Muslims believe the Koran is Gods guidance to them.
    Faith is what makes Mormons believe that the same God waited for someone in the United States to write the final chapter in his many books.
    All are willing to question the others but aren’t honest enough to question their own.
    Let’s hope that someday reason, logic, honesty and integrity will replace faith.
    People will be much more likely to accept different views, attitudes and values.
    Maybe we will even find peace in this world.

I am a 81-year-old vet with 27 years of active duty. I strongly feel that this country has a long way to go before we realize the freedoms we so loudly espouse. US history, for me, is a big case of "we talk the talk but don't walk the walk."

There has been a lack of freedom since the beginning of our history. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was written by well-meaning men who because of their religion and education didn't truly realize that black people were human beings. Many, including at least one president, fathered children from their female slaves.

Various religious sects have disavowed one another from the beginning. Catholics were feared and mistreated until Kennedy was elected.

We screwed the Native Americans and many Mexicans out of their land. The only people who realized the American dream, until about 60 years ago, were white protestant males.

This is a great country and I love it, but it is not the one I really wish for.

We need to get religion out of politics. Religious faith has, and still is, killing more people than most serious epidemics.

We need to start, here and around the world, an educational system that teaches the "big bang" and evolution are real. When mankind accepts the fact that the supernatural start of this universe and mankind, is not the God of the Torah, the Koran, the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, we may be on the way to peace.

It is going to happen. Unfortunately it will take generations and millions more will die for their faith before it does.

Larry J. Kluth (Lt.Col. USAF Ret.)

The Eve Of War

Chris Elliott — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:45:23 -0500

US / Iranian rhetoric is at fever pitch. Both sides are claiming to have “evidence” of military foul play. Both sides are holding military exercises in each others faces and the Gulf is so full of warships it must be highly dangerous to navigate. Both sides are threatening a massive military response to any use of force. Both presidents have backed themselves into political corners and neither shows the slightest sign of backing down.

A second US carrier strike group has just arrived in the Gulf bringing the total number of US (and allied) warships there to about 50 and a third group, headed by USS Reagan has just been ordered to rendezvous in the Western Pacific with destroyers from Pearl Harbour before sailing to the Gulf.

This is in addition to the large US and allied navies operating in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Syria, purportedly to “keep the peace in Lebanon”, and the numerous military airbases that surround both Iran and Syria on multiple fronts. Not to mention the massive military base that is otherwise known as Israel.

In just a few hours from now the 60-day deadline that the US forced through the United Nations in December, demanding Iran cease all nuclear enrichment and research will expire. The question is what will follow? Threats of yet more economic sanctions are unlikely to achieve anything. China has no reason to cut off their oil supply and Russia has nothing but contempt for Bush’s foreign policy. Even European countries are signing long term energy contracts with Iran.

These dubious reports about Iranian weapons being used in Iraq (the ones conveniently labelled in English and dated using the Western calendar no less) seem to indicate that only a military solution is being considered and Bush is now desperate for his casus belli. If Iran tells the UN to shove it’s 60 day deadline and proceeds with nuclear enrichment then Bush will either have to back down and face international ridicule or force Iran to stop via military means.

Today the Iranian president rejected the Western demands to cease nuclear enrichment unless the West also ceases nuclear enrichment, a reply that was laughingly dismissed in Washington.

Even if the Bush administration lacks the nerve to launch an attack on Iran, the close proximity of so many ships, subs, aircraft and missiles all flexing their muscle is the perfect environment for accidents to happen, staged or otherwise. All the ingredients for a major conflict are in place, only a spark is required to set the whole region ablaze.

Congress does have the power to block a new war with Iran. But congress has already given permission to the armed forces to bring stability to Iraq by any means (the so called ‘surge’) and now suddenly we have all this ‘evidence’ of Iranian activity in Iraq. A possible reason we are seeing this now is that they intend to exploit this congressional loophole and make Iran the reason for the disaster in Iraq and consequently deal with the Iranian 'problem' by any means necessary. The media seem to be pushing this idea already.

Additional related articles:

US Warships to Persian Gulf

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

U.S. diplomat tells Iran to back off in Gulf

Syria's terror networks

Venezuela Preparing for 'Asymmetrical' Showdown With U.S.

As The Anti-War Protestors March On Washington, All Hell Breaks Loose In Iraq

Chris Elliott — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:34:52 -0500

In scenes reminiscent of the 6th Armies assault on Stalingrad, president Bush’s “surge” appears to be a last ditch, all or nothing attempt to bring a military victory in Baghdad that it cannot realistically achieve.

Battle for Baghdad: City braces itself for US surge
Urban fighting amid the ruins
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Published: 28 January 2007

Lina Massufi, a 32-year-old Iraqi laboratory assistant with two children, is a widow - her husband was killed by US troops when he accidentally drove down a closed road in 2003. In the past three months she has seen her house raided and her furniture smashed 12 times.

"Every time they raid my house, they break down the door," she told a UN official. When she asked them why they did not ring the bell "they laughed at me and called me an idiot". Her brother Fae'ek, a pharmacy student, was arrested and held in prison for a week. "He returned with signs of torture on his body, and was crying like a baby because of the pain."

Her story shows why the odds are against what may be President George Bush's final gamble in Iraq: the attempt by US troops, now receiving 17,500 reinforcements, to regain control of Baghdad. The plan is for US forces, along with Iraqi army and police, to enter Sunni and Shia districts in the capital, cleanse them of insurgents and militia and then stay put, preventing their return. In his State of the Union speech last week Mr Bush told Congress: "With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads."

But the failings of this strategy become more obvious the further one gets from Washington and the closer to Baghdad. The insurgents and militiamen, both Sunni and Shia, usually have more credibility in their districts than Iraqi government forces. As for the heavily Shia police commandos, they are seen by Sunni in Baghdad as licensed death squads.

In recent days 3 helicopters have been shot down by anti-aircraft missiles proving that superiority in the air is now not so certain. Crew from one of the helicopters were all found dead, some reports claim they had been ‘executed’ with bullet holes in the back of their heads.

Carnage on Sunday in Iraq

Sunday: 373 Iraqis, 5 GIs Killed; 166 Iraqis Injured; US Helicopter Shot Down

US Embassy in Baghdad Green Zone hit by mortar/rocket fire

Hundreds killed in Iraq battle

US and Iraqi forces claim to have killed more than 250 armed men in a battle involving tanks and helicopters on the outskirts of the Shia holy city of Najaf.

The US military said a helicopter has been shot down in the fighting, resulting in the death of two troops on board. An Iraqi military commander said the day-long battle was continuing.

Assad Abu Gilel, the governor of Najaf province, said US and Iraqi troops fought a day-long battle with up to 1000 fighters, including foreign fighters, holed up in orchards on the northern outskirts of the city.
According to one Iraqi political source, hundreds of fighters drawn from both Sunni and Shia communities were still fighting.

A Reuters reporter at the scene, 160km south of Baghdad, saw US tanks and heard blasts after dark and an Iraqi officer said F-16 jets were bombing the area.

Details of the day's fighting were sketchy. An Iraqi army source said some of the dead wore headbands declaring themselves a "Soldier of Heaven".

Continues

In another videotape, the Jaish al-Mujahideen group said that it has destroyed a US military vehicle in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra.

With sanctions now imposed against Iran and open talk of war coming from Washington and Tel Aviv there is a distinct risk that the ground war could spill over the borders and the US forces in the Baghdad “green zone” find themselves besieged by the Iranian\Syrian army as well as the Iraqi resistance.

Turkey could complicate the situation further by seizing territory in the northern region of Iraq.

Turkey mulls 'invading' Iraq
By Jonathan Gorvett in Istanbul

Turkey's parliament went into secret session this week to debate sending troops to invade and occupy northern Iraq for security purposes.

More than 30,000 people have been killed in the confrontation between the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) and the Turkish army – about 400 last year alone, according to Turkey's Human Rights Association.

Onur Oymen, the deputy chairman of the Opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), said: "Northern Iraq is the only place in the world where a terrorist group can operate without being pursued."

"If the Iraqis and the US are not prepared to take action over this, then we must."

In Britain, Tony Blair is fighting for his political life as arrests of his aides in bribery, corruption and tampering with evidence charges, set against the backdrop of two failing wars and an army under manned and under equipped is putting huge pressure on the government to withdraw the armed forces.

US plea to Britain: 'Don't abandon main Iraq base'
By Raymond Whitaker
Published: 28 January 2007
The US is urging Britain to reconsider plans to close its main base in southern Iraq.

Since the 2003 invasion, the largest part of Britain's 7,100-strong force has been stationed at the Shaibah logistics base, in the desert south of Basra. The base is due to be closed within weeks as Britain prepares to slim down its Iraq commitment, with the main centre of operations bring transferred to Basra air station, on the outskirts of the city.

The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said last week that Britain would be in a position to hand over security in Basra, the last province where it retains formal control, to the Iraqis "at some point this spring". This heightened expectations that Britain would cut its forces by up to 3,000 before the summer.

To make matters even worse, Israeli war rhetoric has reached fever pitch and Lebanon is once again being subjected to airstrikes by Israeli warplanes.

Israeli warplanes intrude on Beirut airspace
Jewish state claims to have uncovered, destroyed hizbullah bunkers

Israel planes dump "suspicious green balloons" on southern Lebanon

World War III has already begun, says Israeli spy chief

Will Israeli Agression Be Rove and the Neo-Con's November Surprise?

CactusPat — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:17:37 -0400

A little noticed "incident" occurred this week which brings to mind the potential for the much anticipated ~~October~~ "November Surprise" by Karl Rove & Neo-Cons. The Israeli Air Force apparently did a "fly-by" of a German Navy vessel off the Coast of Lebanon, allegedly firing either shots or missiles. I remember thinking back when the Israeli assault on Lebanon began back in July that it represented "premature warjaculation", as far as influencing the upcoming Congressional elections. Everyone knows you don't role out a new product line before Labor Day... so is this incident the precursor for an upcoming "November Surprise"?

Israeli jets clash with German ship near Lebanon

(Reuters) - Two Israeli warplanes and a German navy vessel have clashed off the Lebanese coast, the Defence Ministry in Berlin said on Wednesday without giving further details. Germany daily Der Tagesspiegel earlier on Wednesday quoted a junior German defence minister as telling a parliamentary committee that two Israeli F-16 fighters flew low over the German ship and fired two shots....

The jets also released infra-red countermeasures to ward off any rocket attack, the paper quoted him as saying.

The minister did not say when the incident happened or what had caused it, the paper said.

"I can confirm that there was an incident," a ministry spokesman told Reuters on Wednesday. An investigation was underway and he therefore was unable to provide further information, he added.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said she was checking the report.

Germany assumed command of a United Nations naval force off the coast of Lebanon 10 days ago and has sent a force of eight ships and 1,000 service personnel to join the international peace operation in the region.

The naval force is charged with preventing weapons smuggling and helping maintain a cease-fire between Israel and radical Lebanese-based Islamic group Hezbollah.

IF you remember, the French threatened to fire on Israeli overflights in S. Lebanon a few weeks ago. The aggression continues, obviously Israel is still spoilin' for a fight. Will they start one in attempt to save George Bush's bacon?

hat tip to battledove2 over at smirky's place.... there's also a couple follow up articles posted there. Google News searches produce mostly foreign news accounts, virtually nothing other than the original Reuters newswire story made it to US outlets.

Stop World War III

Bob Fertik — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:29:06 -0400

Call For An Immediate Cease-Fire in Lebanon
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/85

Every day in Iraq, Bush's "victory" results in the murder of 100 civilians. In Afghanistan, the resurgent Taliban is on the attack.

But the Bush Administration, the Neocons, and the Corporate Media are once again "marketing" a war - this time in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

Former CIA Director James Woolsey, a leading Neocon, said this about the crisis in Lebanon: "The last thing we ought to do is start talking about cease-fires and the rest."

No, it's the FIRST thing we should be talking about - starting immediately.

Call your members of Congress toll-free right now at 888-355-3588 or 800-828-0498 and demand an emergency resolution that

1) There be an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon, and that
2) Israel and Hezbollah cease all hostile operations against each other

The one click form below will send your personal message to all your government representatives selected below, with the subject "Call for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon." At the same time you can send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest local daily newspaper if you like.

http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/85

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:32:47 -0500

George Bush needs a new war. Big time. How nice of the Israelis to give him one, so he doesn’t have to lie us into it this time.

From The Times, U.K.:

Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.

Iran’s stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.

The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was “losing patience” with Iran...

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com