Israel Rules
On Christmas Eve, when Christians were celebrating the Prince of Peace, THE New York Times delivered forth a call for war. "There's only one way to stop Iran," declared Alan J. Kuperman, and that is "military air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities."
Kuperman is described as the "director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin," but his Christmas Eve call to war relies on disinformation and contradiction, not on objective scholarly analysis.
For example, Kuperman contradicts the unanimous report of America's 16 intelligence agencies, the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Russian intelligence with his claim that Iran has a nuclear weapon program. Astonishingly, it does not occur to Kuperman that readers might wonder how an academic bureaucrat in Austin, Texas, has better information than these authorities.
Kuperman is so determined to damn President Obama's plan to have other countries enrich Iran's uranium for Iran's nuclear energy program and medical isotopes that Kuperman commits astounding blunders. After claiming that Iran has a "bomb program," Kuperman claims that "Iran's uranium contains impurities" and that President Ahmadinejad's threat "to enrich uranium domestically to the 20 percent level . . . is a bluff, because even if Iran could further enrich its impure uranium, it lacks the capacity to fabricate the uranium into fuel elements."
What was The New York Times op-ed editor thinking when he approved Kupperman's article? Iran, Kuperman writes, needs "90 percent enriched uranium" to have weapons-grade material, but cannot reach 20 percent or even make fuel elements for its nuclear energy. So, how is Iran going to produce a bomb? Yet, Kuperman writes, "we have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. The sooner the United States takes action, the better."
It could not be made any clearer that, as with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a military attack on Iran has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. An "Iranian nuke" is just another canard behind which hides an undeclared agenda.
One wonders about Kuperman's nonproliferation credentials. How does a wanton military attack on a country encourage nonproliferation? Aren't America's bullying, threats and acts of war more likely to encourage countries to seek nuclear weapons?
At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the United States has wars ongoing in Iraq, where the ancient Chaldean Christian community was destroyed—not by Saddam Hussein but by the neoconservatives' illegal invasion of Iraq—in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Sudan. The U.S. initiated a war, which it lost, between its puppet ruler in the former Soviet province of Georgia and Russia.
The U.S., the world's greatest supporter of terrorism, is the main financier of terrorist groups that stage attacks within Iran, and U.S. money succeeded in financing protests against Ahmadinejad's re-election and in dividing the ruling Islamic clerics. It was American money, weapons and diplomatic cover that enabled the Israeli war crimes against the Lebanese people during 2006 and against Palestinian civilians in Gaza during 2008-2009, crimes documented in the Goldstone Report.
Iran has never interfered in U.S. internal affairs, but the U.S. has a long record of interfering in Iranian affairs. In 1953, the U.S. overthrew Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, and installed a puppet who tortured Iranians who desired political independence.
Despite this and other American offenses against Iran, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly expressed Iran's interest to be on friendly terms with the United States, only to be repeatedly rebuffed. The U.S. wants war with Iran in order to expand U.S. world hegemony.
One might expect a nonproliferation expert to take history into account, but Kuperman fails to do so. Kuperman also has nothing to say about Israel's, India's and Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Unlike Iran, none of these countries are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, India and Pakistan all developed their nuclear weapons in secret, and many experts believe Israel had American help, an act of treason. All three countries have been rewarded by Washington despite their perfidy. Why is Kuperman concerned about Iran, which submits to the International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, but is unconcerned with Israel, a country that has never permitted a single inspection?
The answer is that the Israel lobby, the U.S. military-security complex and the "Christian" Zionists have succeeded in demonizing Iran. Every real expert knows that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have no function other than deterring an attack on Iran. Ever since the U.S. lost its monopoly on nuclear weapons, after using them offensively and pointlessly against a defeated Japan, nuclear weapons have served no purpose other than deterrence.
The U.S. has no conflicting economic interests with Iran. Iran is simply a supplier of oil, an important one. A U.S. attack on Iran, such as the one advocated by Kuperman, would most likely shut down oil flows to the West through the Strait of Hormuz. This might benefit refiners, who sell gasoline to the West and could charge enormous prices, but no one else would benefit.
Adding to the war cry are congregations of fake Christians. A great number of them, organized by someone's money under the banner "Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-free Iran," has written to Congress demanding sanctions against Iran that amount to an act of war. The roll call at www.clnfi.org includes the "Christian" Zionist John Hagee, who according to reports, denigrates Jesus Christ and preaches to his illiterate congregation that it is God's will for Americans to fight and die for Israel, the oppressor of the Palestinian people.
Among the signatories of the "Christians" demanding an act of war against Iran are Dr. Pat Robertson, president of Christian Broadcasting Network, Nixon-era criminal Chuck Colson and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention. Obviously, for Southern Baptists, ethics means murdering Islamists and religious liberty excludes everyone but "Christian" Zionists.
It is a simple matter for an educated person to make fools of these morons who profess to be Christians. However, these morons have vast constituencies numbering in the tens of millions of Americans. There are, in fact, more of them than there are intelligent, informed, moral and real Christian Americans.
The votes of the morons will prevail.
In the second decade of the 21st century, America's Zionist wars against Islam will expand. America's wars in behalf of Israel's territorial expansion will complete the bankruptcy of America. The Treasury's bonds to finance the U.S. government's enormous deficits will lack for buyers. Therefore, the bonds will be monetized by the Federal Reserve. The result will be rising rates of inflation. The inflation will destroy the dollar as the world reserve currency, and the U.S. will no longer be able to pay for its imports. Shortages will appear, including food and gasoline, and "Superpower America" will find itself pressed to the wall as a Third World country unable to pay its debts.
America has been brought low, both morally and economically, by its obeisance to the Israel lobby. Even Jimmy Carter, a former president of the United States and governor of Georgia recently had to apologize to the Israel lobby for his honest criticisms of Israel's inhumane treatment of the occupied Palestinians in order for his grandson to be able to run for a seat in the Georgia state senate.
This should tell the macho super-power American tough guys who really runs "their" country.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
To the dishonor roll of the so-called Christians for a Nuclear Free Iran, Dr. Roberts can add Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. Apparently Donohue has joined such neo-con fellow travelers as Wiegel and Novak to try to provide Catholic just war cover to American and Israeli wars of aggression and conquest.
To preach evil in the name of scripture is evil. If John Hagee, Pat Robertson and other fatuous clowns are calling for the preemptive extermination of men, women and children and if they're justifying incinerating schools and weddings as necessary collateral effects, regardless of whether they claim it's for a just cause, they're either incomprehensibly ignorant or they're evil. Possibly both.
Hagee and Robertson seem little more than revival-tent hucksters whose reach has perversely been magnified a thousandfold by TV, and they get to waive their dogeared Bible-props and preach like salesmen for Dale Carnegie, just so long as they serve the Zionist agenda. The fancy homes, private planes, and thousand-dollar business suits are irrelevant, so I won't bring it up. Fox News celebs, too, are probably just as hypocritical, as they no doubt hug their children before going off to the studio to sell millions of naive Americans on the idea that morality compels us to mutilate other people's children.
I'll take my stand with Wendell Berry and tell any of these bastards to his face, Don't kill one child and dare say you did it to protect me or my children. His new book of poems, Leavings, goes further and says in so many words that we're morally deader than stones for allowing this to happen. I got the book from my daughter for Christmas, so I at least have hope. One last thought. Where are the tea parties protesting the mutilation of thousands and thousands of children?
Nothing new. Read the New England clergy's fervent and repeated calls for extermination of the Southern people in the middle of the 19th century.
The terrible swift sword of the New Englanders was not nuclear (thank God). What is new, relatively, is the ability to irradiate the demonized enemy--with depleted uranium ordnance if nothing else.
Dan is quite correct. Indeed, the pro-life movement in general has completely discredited itself via its support of Imperial wars to make the Umma safe for sodomy and feminism under the rubric of fighting the "Global War on Violent Extremism." Even Zero the Lightworker, the Mau-Mau Messiah of morons by the million has seen that the goat-pastures and Pashtun poppy fields of Trashcanistan are tremendously important assets for our homeland security. Hagee, Robertson, et al are beyond idiocy.
Another gang I am constantly amused by is the professional nuclear disarmament crowd - ever eager for the USA (and now Russia) to beat their nukes into casino tokens. Funny how these folks never get around to mentioning the three hundred or more deliverable nukes sitting in the hands of a certain little country which only pretends to have a non-existent lobby which cannot be mentioned, which somehow never got around to signing any of the various non-proliferation or nukewlar arms reduction treaties sponsored by tremendously reputable organizations like the UN, etc.
@Kirt Higdon#1: "Theologians" Weigel and Weigel should have held their peace as should have Catholic League President Donohoe, instead of scandalizing the naive and the foolish. But it seems they're both neo-cons first, far and above being Catholic or even Christian.
Is their now obviously anything less Christian than blessing Ceasar's legions as they go off for conquest?
I love and respect our military. I am from a family with a long history of service to the militar, but I am sickened at seeing their lives, not to the lives millions of innocent civilians, immorally squandered.
(We in the early years of the third millenium are rediscovering the meaning of "cannon fodder.")
Didn't Jesus warn us of wolves in sheep's clothing? Anyone who holds a small baby or child in their arms knows that there are no circumstances on earth where these innocents should suffer the horrors at war. Unfortunately for the megalomaniacs and Machiavellian's in power, controlled by the global plutocracy, women, children, countries and even religious minorities like the Chaldean's are just disposable pawns on the global chess board. It is also ironic that the same people who hold up the Holocaust as the greatest crime in history at the same time have no compunctions about destroying innocent life on behalf of global or regional hegemony whether in Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. It is apparent that we live under the culture of death rather than a culture of life.........an Old Testament view of life versus a New Testament commitment.
And what of Islam's marvellous and beautiful treat of US??? Never a mention of this in any of this lodge member's 'essays'.
Repeatedly, our "enemies" cite the starvation of over a million Iraqi children, which that great "Conservative," Madeline Albright said was "worth it, as well as the loss of Palestine, now almost complete, to the Palestinians. The first rule in any conflict is to understand what your adversary thinks. If the American people ever did, perhaps we would stop believing that we have the unlimited right to intervene wherever we choose in disregard of the consequences, to them as well as to us. Ron Paul answered the question best, they're over here because we're over there. It's not a chicken or egg question, we know what came first historically.
The Southern people seem to be doing just fine despite the evils of Yankee clergydom. Southern Indian tribes are a different matter - they were almost all run out or massacred long ago by somebody (hint: not by Yankee clergymen).
#10. Actually, although there was warfare, actual deliberate genocide against the Indians did not happen until implemented by the U.S. Army after The War, with the strength and ruthlessness built up by the war on the South. Before that, the warfare had been largely between pioneers and aborigines, not by the juggernaut of the Yankee imperial army. Many of the civilised Indians remained in the South, in some cases intermarried with good families, and those who moved to the Indian Territory sided with the Confederacy and even had non-voting seats in the Confederate Congress---for which they were severely punished by the benevolent Yankee government. It was Sherman and Sheridan and their assistants who waged a war of extermination against the aborigenes.
But Mr. VO, why do you insist on bringing in South-hating slanders irrelevant to the subject?
And, by the way, the Northeastern Indians literally were exterminated, while the Southeastern Indians remained numerous.
The Trail of Tears is well-known. The Trail of Death is not. This was the eviction of the Potawatomi under the supervision of John Tipton, from northern Indiana to the marshes of Kansas and Nebraska. Some 6000 died en route, a higher percentage than the mortality rates of the southern Civilized Tribes. There are other examples, for example of the Miami, Peoria (the remnant of the Illini) and the Wabash Confederacy, all from the 1830s. Why the Southern Removals were infamous and the Northern ones obscure, I leave to the reader's conjecture.
I wonder if any good accounts of the treatment and fate of the tribes of the North exist? This is a chapter of history everyone needs to know more about.
Mr. Roberts, I enjoy reading your articles, but am rather saddened by your continual debasing those who disagree with you at "morons," etc. Has it ever entered your mind that you just might be wrong at times and your "morons" might be right? I hold no brief for all that the Israeli government does, but to ignore the Muslim hatred of Jews since the time of Muhammad in Medina, as directed by Allah in the Qur'an repeatedly, seems a tad simplistic. Please don't call me a "moron" for not agreeing with everything you say.
David Hayden