Re: Loss and Rebirth

[John Buckley]

Hugh,   Thanks for the history lesson and lack of hysterics.  Just wanted you to know your words reached another person to whom it matters, greatly.  Even my 77 year old, mainstream, republican party, mother is beginning to wonder why things "aren't quite right".  Stone by stone a mountain of change is occurring.   John Buckley ------------------------   Dear Robin, There's more to it than you might think. People who think politics has nothing to do with agriculture and environment--read on. This is long, but also informative. Everything that follows is about people, agriculture and the environment. First, I agree that protest against government policies is healthy. Sometimes it changes things and usually the changes are healthy. But protest must be allowed to be healthy. To gage the health of US politics? We will have to see just how much longer Americans are allowed to protest without widespread suppression. (Mostly political suppression has been isolated in the US, though women and blacks have been widely marginalized and excluded in the past.) I wouldn't want to make any assumptions though. It is noteworthy that Congress has given President Bush more power to suppress dissent than ever before in American history, though it has been customary for Americans to give up their rights during wars. Bush seems to be very popular right now, and not without reason. I don't think many of his detractors appreciate how tight a spot he is in or how well he has done in it so far. He has my admiration in many ways. Of course, in my opinion, he is all the things you say, a 'petroleum trigger happy military head of state'--and more. Specifically he is anti-environment, and even worse from the viewpoint of most ecological farmers he just made a huge giveaway to conventional cash grain farmers (some of the most destructive farmers) and thus the industries that process their grain. He had to do that to avoid a rash of farm bankruptcies and a banking debacle, but also no doubt it was a blatant attempt to buy votes. We'll have to see if it works. He doesn't need but one seat gain in the senate to have it go his way. Personally I think it is real priority for all the US citizens on this list to vote. Now more than ever. Having said that, let me add another dimension. There is good reason that Bush is both an anti-environmentalist and a 'petroleum trigger happy military head of state'. It is no accident. Don't we have to ask why Bush Senior left Saddam in power after Desert Storm? And why is Bush's son so intent on removing him now? One thing is for sure. The Bushes know a lot more about why Saddam ascended to power and stayed there so long and now MUST go than they would ever publicly admit. We are left to speculate. If we are going to do that, let's first see what we KNOW about the dynamics of US policy in the region. After WW II when the CIA was set up, it acted in tandem with the US Department of State, and Allan Dulles ran the CIA while his brother, John Foster Dulles, ran State. Policies and decisions were born out of back room deals that may never come to light, but commonly the CIA worked to put people in power who could be swayed or corrupted to our advantage. I say our advantage. But it was not the advantage of America or its people, it was to the advantage of banks and corporations who influenced the election of our politicians and set the general policies of our government(s). In the middle east the US pursued a course of protecting Israel while consuming the oil of many of Israel's near neighbors. This in large part meant setting up "strongmen" that the US could control. The roots of this policy went back to pre- WW I days when the Ottoman Empire controlled Arabia and most of the Muslim region up to the borders of the Austrian and Russian Empires. (It was an age of military empires. The French had rather a wannabe empire as they still had colonies. The Spanish had lost their Empire by running out of gold and getting into a war with the US. The British had the greatest empire on Earth. The US had made a few moves toward empire, siezing Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Philippines and a few other minor possessions, the most notable being the Panama Canal Zone. But it wasn't enlarging its territory so much, preferring to grow in economic influence instead.) In 1914 when the Austria-Hungary's Kaiser attacked France the British pursuaded the Czar of Russia to attack the Austrians (buying the French time with the hope that America would get drawn into the war) by promising the Czar seaports, or at least free access, to the Mediterranean. This was supposed to happen at the expense of the Austrians and the Ottoman Empire. Russia had always wanted a European seaport that was open year round, so the Czar went for it, saving France's bacon at what ultimately proved to be the cost of his life and his Monarchy. Meanwhile the British succeeded in breaking up the Ottoman Empire--but they did not facilitate Russia getting a Mediterranean seaport. Instead they kept what became communist Russia bottled up. Oil policy in what had been the Ottoman Empire was pursued along the lines of divide and manipulate. It was believed to be much easier to deal with Arabia in fragments than as a unified mass. All manner of strategems were employed by the British to set up regional governments that they could control and manipulate, and of course mostly it had to do with oil and money at the expense of such things as human rights, cultural improvement and democracy. After WW II the US was on board as the world's greatest power. The US State Department and CIA worked closely with the British, and US policy in the Middle East was largely an extension of British policy. And British policy toward Arabia (to say nothing of the rest of its empire) was to divide and manipulate. Into this came Israel, carving out a tiny Jewish enclave in what had been a part of Palestine. Israel had no oil and little enough of any other resources including water, but they had an extremely well educated, culturally advanced, human rights dedicated (after what the Jews had just been through!), western democratically oriented population. And they had money and the backing of some of the world's most influential banking famlies and financial institutions. Boy, were they the stand-out in the crowd! It wasn't so hard to stir up the resentment of their neighbors against them, and--let's not forget--Russia still was blocked by the British from free access to the Mediterranean. And, of course, Israel had control over a large part of the Holy City of Jeruselem. So we know all this, even if you won't find it laid out this concisely in any school history texts (that I know of anyway). Back in the early fifties the CIA ditched the democratic government of Iran by putting the Shah (the King of Persia) back on the Throne. Iran was the center of the Shi'ite branch of the Muslim faith and culture. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the British pretty much set up opposing governments on opposite sides of the border between Iran (ancient Persia) and Iraq (ancient Babylonia). But for centuries both territories had been culturally united as Muslims and were ruled politically as two states under one unifying government, since they were practically at the heart of an extremely far-flung Arabic Empire--an empire that was going full-tilt from Spain to Southeast Asia, even as far back as Charlemagne, who reunited the better part of the remnants of the Roman Empire at the beginning of the Ninth Century. Iraq, Iran's neighbor, is also predominantly Shi'ite Muslim, and although historically Babylonia had vied for power with Persia, at the beginning of the Twentieth Century these two countries had more in common than they had differences. Before the Monarchy returned to the Throne, Iran had developed some democratic institutions, and Iraq had made some progress along these lines too. Both countries were ripe for democracy, but under the principle of divide and manipulate, the cornerstone of British and American policy driven by money and oil, could this be allowed to happen in these two oil rich countries? Would their exploitation come to an end if they became too democratic? So, of course, Saddam also was brought to power in Iraq as a result of the machinations of the CIA and British Intelligence. And he came to power precisely because he could be counted on to oppose the government and the Shi'ite Culture of Iran. This has meant he oppressed his own people pretty thoroughly since Iraq is predominently Shi'ite although Saddam is not (oh, the sacrifices one must make to divide and manipulate). But then the Shah oppressed his people pretty thoroughly too. Tyrants generally do. Back when Iran threw out the Shah and went back to some semblance of democracy the US was alarmed that they longer were able to directly manipulate Iran--might not even be able to CONTAIN Iran--so they egged Saddam into a war against the Iranian Mullahs. But when it looked like Iraq might actually win that war the US set up a deal to smuggle drugs through the Contras in Nicaragua and Noriega of Panama and use the money to buy aircraft parts and other military items for Iran. (Remember Ollie North and the Iran Contra Affair? Bush Senior almost surely was in the know on this deal, having himself previously been Director of the CIA. But it is doubtful if then-President Reagan knew much about what was going on.) Here is a little more background. Iraq had breeder reactors which used partially enriched uranium to make plutonium, though Iraq didn't have the facilities to refine it. The Canadians and the French made the deal for the reactors and the uranium even though maybe, had the Israeli people had a say in it they might have voted to block the deal. However, Israel went along with it knowing they had the military option of destroying these reactors if they had to. And when it became clear that Saddam intended to make nuclear bombs and use them against Israel, Israel did indeed bomb Iraq's nuclear facilities. This wasn't enough, however. It only made Saddam more determined than ever to use nukes against Israel. In the next move in this jeapardy the US State Department and the CIA egged the Kuwaiti's to drill off under the Iraqi border and steal Iraqi oil. This angered Saddam to no end, and after a couple years of complaining to Kuwait as well as to the US State Department, Saddam asked the US Ambassador to Iraq (Donna Gilespie) what would the US do if he invaded Kuwait and put a stop to this maddening offense? She responded the US was not involved or concerned. So Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait. The trouble was he had to maintain his occupation of Kuwait to keep the Kuwaitis from stealing his oil. Or, if he was forced to withdraw, he had to blow up the wells used to steal it, and even then the fires could be put out and the wells restored to production. At this point the Pentagon had been drawing up plans for the destruction of Iraq for eight years. Why? This was the US contingency plan for the protection of Israel once intelligence sources realized Saddam intended to build nukes. A few nuclear warheads detonated in Israel, especially if they were sopohisticated enough, might be enough to cripple Israel and secure it's overthrow. So military planners had long lavished attention to detail in planning the destruction of Iraq (hoping this would make it impossible for Iraq to wage a nuclear war against Israel). However, it is noteworthy that this plan did not include a prolonged occupation of Iraq. It was a set-piece war and was wildly successful in accomplishing its aims. Never before had we seen so much fire-power used on such a huge scale to wreak such thorough destruction in such a short period of time. The US bombed Iraq back into the stone age, to the point it not only destroyed the fertilizer plants but even all their bridges and culverts, water resources, irrigation projects, water processing plants--even the sewage treatment facilities. It was virtual genocide, as far more Iraqis, especially more children, died from the effects of the war than died IN the war. But, suddenly, in the midst of this overpowering destruction The US withdrew its troops and left Saddam in power. Why? Within weeks of Saddam's defeat the CIA was contacted by twenty or more of Saddam's top generals who sought US support for the overthrow of Saddam. The US turned their names over to Saddam and he executed them. Why? Plainly the US WANTED him left in power. Make no mistake. The US wanted him neither for his brains nor his beauty. The US wanted him for the same reasons the CIA and British Intelligence put him in power originally--to divide and manipulate the region for the benefit of money and oil interests. If Saddam was not in power in Iraq, who would be? The apparent US fear was that democratically oriented Shi'ite Muslims would ally with their Shi'ite counterparts in Iran, and (not without reason) the Shi'ites have a name that they tend to use for the US, "The Great Satan." Then the forces pitted against the British, the US and Israel would be very powerful indeed. Israel is running scared. That's no illusion. They have proven they can win almost any conceivable conventional war, probably even if germs and poison gas are used. But they are such a tiny country they can hardly win a nuclear one. And to stop it they have to get the US to take the risk of going into Iraq and occupying it so it cannot join forces with Iran. It is a great jeopardy, and inevitably would be a hard sell to the American public with its tendency to disbelieve and misapprehend the dangers of the situation. The Clinton Democrat government went along with most, if not all, of the agenda against Iraq and the region, which, as you may remember is a joint US/Brittish policy--the stream of which went back to the rise of Israel, and, of course for the British even further back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But could the Democrats be counted on to wage war on Iraq and occupy it? Maybe not. Such a thing would require tremendous committment and resolve. What if Mr. Nice Guy, Al Gore, didn't take the bit in his mouth and run with it with all his heart, soul, mind and strength? Probably amongst American political figures no one is more in the know in these matters than the Bush family. No one could be relied on so completly to understand the joint US/British policy in the region and do whatever was necessary. Bush Senior demonstrated that. When the younger Bush announced his candidacy he took in roughly $38 million dollars in campaign contributions in the first month. Even so Gore fought a hell of a campaign and raised more money than was forseen. He won the popular vote and virtually won the electoral vote as well. In fact, it was so close Bush had to get the US Courts to stop the recount and anoint him president. George Senior commented to the effect that on election night when it looked like Gore was winning and would be the next president, that "it was a real scare." We should hand it to President Bush. He's been very successful in selling Americans on getting into a war they had no intention of fighting at the time he came into office. Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, called Bush the most helpful US President Israel ever had. He's got a lot more character--true grit--in working for this agenda than I would have given him credit for before 9/11. And here we come to it. 9/11. Here is where the real speculation is, because anyone who has kept up with things can see the facts I have presented so far are close to a bull's eye if not dead on. First a little more background. A dramatic attack by a foreign power on America and/or its citizens has long been the key ploy in getting Americans to fight a war. When Hitler took over most of Europe, British intelligence sources were aware of the scientific race Hitler was running at Peenemünde to create fantastically superior weapons--not only rockets but atomic bombs to put in them. The British were in a very tight spot. In his role as president Roosevelt went along with Churchill, giving aid to Stalin so he could hold Hitler's armies in a huge bear hug by. As soon as he understood the situation, Roosevelt immediately started sending an enormous amount of supplies to Vladivostok and across Siberia to the Russian fronts in Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad by rail. But even so it was urgent to take the oil wells of North Africa away from Hitler so Hitler would be hampered in his petroleum dependent tank war against Russia. However, the American people did not want to jump into the war, and Congress wasn't going for it. So what could Roosevelt do? Roosevelt egged Germany's ally, Japan, into bombing Pearl Harbor while the US Pacific Fleet was at anchor there.  The huge battleship, Arizona, was sunk and numerous smaller ships. There was shocking loss of life amongst American servicemen, and America went to war immediately. Is there anyone left out there who hasn't learned that Roosevelt deliberately did this? It's been a hot topic in the news in the past few years. Then Eisenhower led the American army into North Africa, and between Montgomery, the British commander, and the vast resources of the US Army Hitler was deprived of his oil. Then, without delay (because, as you will remember, British and US intelligence was quite well aware Hitler was racing to build atomic bombs as well as rockets to deliver them) the Allies invaded France at Normandy and rolled up Hitler's armies--which were formidable even without adequate oil--just as fast as we could. Even so it was feared to be touch and go whether Hitler would get the atom bomb soon enough to use it. And of course, parallel to the fighting the US assembled the greatest team of talent in its history under Robert Oppenheimer's Manhatten Project to build US atomic bombs. And indeed they were shocking weapons, as dropping them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved. The point is the stakes were enormous. What choice did Roosevelt have? Congress had previously shown it did not have the resolve to enter WW I early in the war. Congress procrastinated for years, and even then did not give Wilson their vote until the Lusitania was sunk by German submarines with a number of American citizens aboard. Now Saddam is in a race to build nuclear warheads to use against Israel. He doubtless doesn't have them or doesn't have enough yet, or he would have used them. But intelligence sources are sure he does have the gas centrifuges used to refine uranium 235 (the bomb grade fissionable isotope). It's a question, how much fissionable material did he salvage from his reactor program, and how much has he obtained from other sources? In the past the US has been enormously resourceful in trying to stop him, and for that matter Iran as well. But make no mistake it is a race. Enough of a race to warrant setting up a covert operation to wreck the twin towers of the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon? History probably won't produce publically validated evidence and settle this debate for decades, just as it did not do so in Roosevelt's case. But in terms of loss of life it could be viewed as a small price to pay for guaranteeing the continued existence of an entire country--Israel--and the avoidance of a nuclear war. Which means such a covert operation might be justified. For sure, US, British and for that matter Israeli Intelligence is NOT saying everything they know, nor can they be expected to ever say everything they know. Too much is at stake, like namely money and oil. It simply wouldn't be popular to release the full inside info on how money and oil interests operate. People would get really upset, and governments would fall. It may seem to some reading this that the above is too, too bad. Maybe so, but try to get used to it. Here is a little more speculation since we don't know the future, yet. But I would guess the US WILL be in a war with Iraq, concievably by Christmas 2002. And if the US needs to go into Iran after occupying Iraq, it will do that too. Has or will Saddam send his nuclear warhead laboratories and fissionables to Iran? They are moveable, and Saddam is so intent on destroying Israel he might at this point. I would say the invasion of Iraq scenario became inevitable with the election of a president that raised $38 million the first month of his candidacy. No effort has been spared in making war with Iraq so far, and no effort will be spared after this November 5th's election. The Pentagon has been preparing for this contingency for years, which is one of the reasons Colin Powell is Secretary of State. Bush is doing the job he got elected to do, and he's been surprisingly effective at it. Sure, he's had a lot of help. But he's been the man of the hour nonetheless, and this whole chain of events has far too much momentum to be halted. Personally I don't think the effort to protect Israel will be wholly successful. I think it will be too little too late and Israel will be the target of at least one nuclear bombing. For Israel, nuclear retaliation is probably a moot issue, but it is possible. The world will be truly shocked if this happens, and Bush will be vindicated in his efforts to prevent this occurance. But no matter what, I think we will see a huge war and loss of life. It's too early to predict how huge. Shucks. What the British and the US did to Iran and Iraq by putting the Shah and Saddam in power in the first place so that money and oil interests could divide and manipulate can't be erased. The big question in my mind is when will we reach a point where enough people have their eyes open that they no longer put up with being manipulated, their information watered down, their opinions distorted, their government policies bent to favor the biggest financial and industrial interests on earth? Here in Georgia I am going to write the Green Party Candidates for Governor (Nannette Garrett) and for Public Service Commissioner (Frank Jeffers) in on my ballot, since they are denied any other form of ballot access. In fact, I'm looking for a complete list of Green Party candidates. There must be others I can vote for. But we need more discussion and awareness of environmental policies and industrial excesses EVERYWHERE in the world. The most important environmental issues probably are agricultural. It would be a good idea to follow the lead of Germany's Agriculture minister--a Green--who is making Germany's conversion to organic and biodynamic agriculture a top priority. In Holland organic and biodynamic are already huge. And, more than anything, we need an intelligent discussion of banking policies at election times. When have we ever had that? What if candidates ran on a platform of banking reform with a debt moratorium along the lines of what was laid out by Moses in the Book of Leviticus? Would that be popular, or what? Enough said, Hugh >Hi, > >Being a Canadian, we look at American's with our own cultural bias.  While >we like to think that we are different then you (better, wiser, and nicer), >we are more alike then not.  Most Canadians will not admit this, but I have >no problem seeing our similarities.   Goodness is everywhere in the common >folks.  Both our governments are giving way to industries, that have the >similar motivations and  ways to control our thoughts (Although your CNN >seems to be a quite the military/patriotic brainwash... unbelievable for >us...). > >As far as I'm concern Americans protesting against their own government is >not an 'Anti-American' thing, but totally and fully a American !   In every >war Americans have protested their government.  Protesting the government is >healthy and a patriotic things to do!   What's not healthy is following >blindly a 'petroleum trigger happy military head of state', and believing >everything his propaganda buddies say (e.g. CNN). > >As far as I'm concern the fact that Americans protest their government saves >the face of Americans.  Gosh... If no one would take to the streets and >voice their discontent, what reasons would I have to like America?  Just >kidding. > >Hey, while your at it, tell your government to ratify Kyoto and stop taxing >the softwood lumber imports.  he he he > >That's just my opinion and I could be wrong... > >Your northern neighbor, > >Robin > > > Visit our website at: www.unionag.org