I notice you don’t condemn the barrier Saudi Arabia has built along its border with Yemen! What about India’s wall, to keep Kashmiri terrorists out? And good news for the rest of you liberal nitwits – the EU is ALSO going to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out – so you’ll be able to protest about that too. …
Ran HaCohen replies:
Indeed, many countries build walls, fences and checkpoints along their borders. But there’s a slight difference here, I wonder if you can grasp it: Israel is the only country building its wall not along its own border, but on someone else’s (i.e., on occupied Palestinian) land. This is why the International Court of Justice, as well as so many states and human rights groups all over the world – and I myself – find it totally unacceptable.
My question for Gordon is: what about Kerry’s own statement of August 27th consisting of an article in the Forward newspaper? Here are a few excerpts:
"Across the Middle East, the United States and Israel are facing a range of crucial security challenges. We are not secure while Saudi donors fund terror, while Iran pursues a nuclear weapons program …"
"For too long, America has not led, and Iran’s program has advanced. Let me say it plainly: a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. I believe we must work with our allies to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and be ready to work with them to implement a range of tougher measures, if needed. Developing an international coalition enhances our influence by ensuring that all nations are united in the effort, leaving no room for Iran to play allies against one another."
It is noteworthy that while addressing many issues in his article, Kerry first addressed the Iran issue, as if to prioritize it. I’m not so sure Kerry’s policy toward Iran would be much different than … a Bush administration’s, especially since Kerry is pro-Likud and a strong supporter of Israel. Quoting again from his article:
"American leadership is needed to bolster Israel’s security at home as well as in the region. I believe that we must stand with Israel, supporting our ally’s right to build a security fence and to allow its own Supreme Court — not the International Court of Justice — to address the issue of the route of the fence. The fence has proven its value as an anti-terror measure.
"My commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state is unwavering. For 19 years, this is a pledge I have kept in the United States Senate — whether through my votes on economic aid, military security or the location of the U.S. Embassy. And it is one I will continue to keep as I lead a bold new effort to enhance regional security throughout the Middle East."
Kerry tends to talk out of both sides of his mouth. So whatever endorsement he gave to the Brit/ French/ German agreement does not override his pro-Israeli stance. Israel will most likely do as it pleases regarding Iran, and I don’t see much difference here between Bush and Kerry. Until the Israeli influence in, and near subversion of, our government ends, the PNAC agenda in the Middle East will move forward.
Gordon Prather replies:
When Kerry says he will work with our "allies," he is essentially saying he would never have invaded Iraq absent support from the UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc., and that he will not invade Iran absent that support.
The whole issue of Iran’s nuclear capability aside, Gordon Prather does not address perhaps the single most important fact facing our country, that Iran, despite the movement toward greater liberalization existing in the country, remains one of the most dangerous and virulently anti-Western and anti-American nations in the world. As the number one state supporter of terrorism on the planet and one of the great propagators of the radical Islamic ideologies that are at the root of the terrorism we are facing, Iran is every bit the enemy Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not, and our government has every reason in the world to be concerned about the immense threat it poses, even without any nuclear capabilities whatsoever.
This article shows that the author does not understand what is going on in Iran, nor does he realize that such writing is fuel for the fascist and brutal Iranian government to maintain its repressive regime and deny its people of some fundamental human rights. Does the author know how many people this government has executed? How many young children? How many pregnant women? Does the author know that before executing a girl, she has to lose her virginity to comply with Islamic rules, and that is taken care of by fanatic guards. You, the author, are no better than those who have destroyed a progressive country by using Islamic religion. It is every Iranian’s wish that some outside force like the United States will come in and free those people. I suggest to the author that before giving opinions about Bush’s foreign policy, he should study the history of Iran and learn what this religious government has done.
Gordon Prather replies:
These columns are not about Iran, or Iraq or Pakistan. They’re about preventing terrorists from getting their hands on nukes or nuke materials. The neo-crazies seem not to care that their rhetoric and actions – particularly the trashing of the IAEA – make that more likely rather than less.
A Shabby and Sinister Case for War
You seem to disagree with Podhoretz’s contention that "bin Laden himself couldn’t care less about the Palestinians." I thought that the evidence was that, until very recently at least, that was true. Bin Laden has been primarily concerned with "infidel" forces stationed in Saudi. It is only since neocons have conflated the issues that bin Laden has taken any interest in the Palestinians.
Indeed, one of the real problems being caused by the "war on terror" is that this myth of an international Islamic terror front united in its hatred of the West is in serious danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The attempts by various leaders, most notably Sharon and Putin, to represent their own local population repression as "all part of the war on terror" is uniting radical jihadists internationally, in much the same way the Iraq occupation is uniting the Sunnis and Shias.
It is time our leaders remembered that the best strategy is to "divide and conquer." The current policy (and for some it is policy) of encouraging our enemies to unite is criminally dangerous.
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
Bush and Sharon do seem to be uniting the Muslims.
As I mentioned in a previous commentary, Congress could put a stop to this preemption of American policy by the Likudniks (neocons) in the Bush administration for a "Greater Israel" in a heartbeat. But they will not, for even as we speak, members of Congress are climbing into bed with AIPAC to assist Ashcroft in derailing any adverse effects of an espionage investigation against Israel. Your assessment that the entire Iraq debacle is the result of a few executive branch neocons is in a word, wrong!
It took decades of cultivating sufficiently corrupt members of congress by AIPAC, JINSA, ADL and host of other Israeli intelligence-gathering fronts in addition to the present executive branch Likudniks to bring America to her present slide to totalitarianism.
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
Let’s see, the guys who hatched the plan, described it in print 8 years ago, captured the Bush administration, and put their scheme into effect aren’t responsible? The people in Congress decades ago aren’t there now. If all Mr. Barber is trying to say is that Zionists have been working on us for decades, that is of course true as many books have documented. A lot of groups have been working on us. Some have succeeded more than others.
Thank you guys for exposing the Zionist neocons and their plans for America to fight the Arabs and Muslims. I am an American Palestinian who loves America but for years knew that the biggest threat to America was not Arabs or Muslims but Israel and its spy and espionage network in America. After living for 20 years in America I have come to think that you have to be an Israeli agent if you want to hold any government position with importance to national security or foreign policy. Just look at the NSC: the director for the Middle East is Israeli agent Eliot Abrams; before him it was for many years Martin Indyk.
We can’t find anyone in America who is not a Zionist for this position. America has been taken hostage by the Zionist neocons, supported by the relentless Zionist propaganda machine – newspapers, TV, radio, think tanks – and the American and Arab people are victims. We need to get America back from these thugs.
Paul Craig Roberts replies:
The US is a "superpower" that cannot control its own policy.
I have observed the death count that your site posts on American deaths in Iraq. There are two columns, one which is headed "in combat" and the other "in total." The difference between the two is substantial, i.e. 217. Could you please give an explanation to the deaths of these 217 soldiers if not in combat?
Michael Ewens replies:
There were a ton of accidents when the war first started. At that time, the ratio of non-combat/ combat deaths was something like 5/1. Now it is 1/25.
Great site. Just a quick suggestion. It might be interesting to have a monthly graph of American military casualties and deaths. It would probably show that this mess is not getting any better.
Have a nice day.
Michael Ewens replies:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
Are there any websites that list the deaths in Iraq by state? I am particularly interested in Texas.
Michael Ewens replies:
http://icasualties.org/oif/ByState.aspx
If one views the various Islamic countries as being solidly tied together (by deeply held and ancient religious beliefs), as a super nation-state viewing outside intervention in their affairs and governments and rebellions, then cannot terrorism equate with patriotically inspired legitimate guerilla warfare? …
Comment?
Die dulci fruere!
Alan Bock replies:
I don’t think the Muslim countries are solidly tied together, although being a super nation-state has long been an Arab aspiration. It is interesting, however, that the CIA analyst "Anonymous," in his book Imperial Hubris (I’ll do a full-fledged review in the near future) prefers to call what’s going on in the name of a militant version of Islam an "insurgency" rather than "terrorism," and believes the United States would do better if it recognized that it is an insurgency.
In my column I noted that it would be interesting to see how al-Qaeda and other jihadists responded to the events in Russia. I haven’t yet seen anything that I would view as being authentically from al-Qaeda (let me know if you have), but I got an e-mail from the organization MEMRI, which generally devotes itself to documenting how beastly the Muslims in general are, with reactions from Muslim writers in a variety of countries to the school hostage situation. Almost all of them were critical of the hostage-takers, some in almost extreme terms. That leads me to consider the possibility that this was mainly undertaken by local forces, with little or no coordination with or orders from the global jihadist movement, although subsequent developments could cause me to change my mind.
Excellent article.
I would suggest, however, that Antiwar.com actually set up a petition to accomplish what Justin Raimondo outlines in his last paragraph.
There’s power in numbers.
Why Putin Cannot Escape his Share of the Blame
Why can Putin not escape "his share" of the blame? In a terrorist attack unprecedented for its barbarity, why is the Russian government to blame? Exactly how were they supposed to second guess these terrorists? Exactly what were they to do when the hostages were being held without food or water or air, and there was no end in sight?
You suggest that Putin MUST negotiate with the Chechen separatists? Did Berlusconi negotiate with the "Iraqi" terrorists who held Italians hostage? Did Lincoln negotiate with the Confederacy? There was a point in our history when the South decided to secede from the Union. Why didn’t we just let them do it? Why did we fight a bloody four-year war to keep the Union together? Why do we still consider that war to be justified? It wasn’t just about slavery; it was about preserving the Union.
Do we consider OUR government to be to blame because of the terrorist attack in 2001 that killed over 3,000 people? Has the international press demanded that Bush and Cheney bear "their share of the blame"? September 11 was certainly not handled well. Everything that could go wrong, did go wrong. But the international community has not risen in condemnation of George Bush. On the contrary, the exact opposite occurred. Governments from all over the world rushed to support us and show us compassion and cooperation. Why are we not doing this to Putin?
Wall Street and the City of London have declared all-out war on Vladimir Putin and his government because he is not allowing Wall Street to go on plundering Russia. It’s that simple.
~ Stephanie Bodene, Concord, CA
Etc.
I read about 90 percent of Antiwar.com. Thank you for providing this source of information. One thing that bothers me is how you make up your own titles for news and opinion pieces. Using the actual title would give Antiwar.com more credibility and look more professional. …
Eric Garris replies:
It is extremely common for media outlets to re-title opinion pieces. In fact, many syndicated authors don’t even submit titles, they are all chosen by the individual outlets. Check this out sometime by looking at some author’s columns in a variety of sources. You will often see dozens of different titles for the same articles.
Any wonder why Bush is now rising in the polls? His weakest point – Iraq – is a discussion Kerry has avoided since he was nominated. At that time, Iraq had slipped off the front pages and likely the Democrat power-brokers did not expect the war to be an election issue. Kerry’s campaign continues to do America a disservice by not bringing it forth. And it is likely to cost him the election. According to a NY Times poll in August, two-thirds of undecided voters think Iraq was a wrong move. But, as Bush comes out in the convention and has the gall to call the war a success, who is going to question him? The Republicans know this and they are running with it.
I agree with many of your readers that there is no attractive candidate for Presidency. I blame the system of reelections that create a political class that can be easily bought and/or intimidated by lobbyists and interest groups. So, since we cannot implement my solution "One Man – One Term" for ALL elected officials on all levels right away, the least we can do is to always vote for new candidate. ALWAYS! Rotation, rotation, rotation!
~ Alex Chaihorsky, Reno, NV
