The IAEA is trying to stop the war in Iraq.
This insanity must be stopped before it is too late join me at www.peacesource.net to unite the peacemovement.
Iran is being threatened and this will only push it onto nuclear weapons. The demonisation of Iran has been proceeding for a long time. The run up to this war is the same as Iraq, surely the world is not going to be sucked in this time despite what Bush's French poodle says. Cheyney and Bush certainly got over the Vietnam Syndrome in big way -overturning the lessons of history they were taught in the Vietnam war. This is postmodernism at its worse-i.e. history is what we say it is.
An attack on Iran will be an act of lunacy which will bring regular terror to the US and its allies and the world to the brink of WW3 and Bush is thinking of how much he will earn in speakers fees-his exit strategy from Armageddon.
When God told George; 'Attack Iraq, attack Iran". He actually said ws 'Attack Iraq? Attack Iran?' incredulously. George didn't get the nuance.
The US and Russia and nuclear armed states are in breach of the NPT and resuming the progress on international arms control and the banning of WMD by all Nationsis the only way to go.

--Barrie

The plan to nuke Iran is brilliant is it not? It opens up a third front when the other two wars are failing miserably. It will lead inexorably to a catastrophic explosion of violence and general conflagration in the Middle East. It will probably lead to a compete freeze on oil exports and a depression in the US.
It will legitimise the use of Nuclear weapons against the US by its enemies. It will confirm all the worst opinions other Nations have of the US.
It will lead to a complete breakdown of the NPT and trigger off a worsening global arms race and cold war. Currently the US is in breach of the NPT see 'People Against the Bomb' on Google Video, and the report on weapons of mass destruction: http://www.wmdcommission.org/
It will be the third time the US has dropped WMD making it the only nation to commit this horrific crime thrice.
Iran has declared it want peace.
These threats only make their need to manufacture nuclear weapons more likely/ The antiwar movement must unite, see www.peacesource.net
Is this administration totally brainless?
US voters 66% of whom do not want WMD should demand that their Presidential candidates demand 'No First use' and make the NPT a major issue. Nuclear Winter is not the answer to global warming.
--sent to commondream.org

October 4

Sen. Gravel Gravel is warning about nuclaar warSay AIPAC Is Pushing Confrontation With Iran

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/10/sen-gravel-say
--matilda

SGuiliani the nuclear warrior


http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article3015311.ece

Johann Hari: President Giuliani? He'd be worse than Bush
On the basis of myths, the former New York mayor may be on the brink of taking the White House

Published: 01 October 2007

A fretful, frightened conservative party is squinting at its leader this week and looking beyond him for a successor. The choice they make will determine the future of our politics, and the world's. Who will be bombed? Who will be saved? How rapidly will our climate unravel? These decisions are being made thousands of miles away from Britain's faded sea-side side-shows, across an ocean, in New Hampshire, in Iowa, in Florida, and in California. It now looks likely the Republican Party will choose a man even more extreme than Bush – and that he will be the next president of the United States.

A series of findings by the Democratic Party's leading pollsters, Lake Research, were leaked last week. Until now, Democrats have assumed the flat-lining opinion polls for President Bush guaranteed them a return to the White House. After all, CBS News recently found that with a 28 per cent approval rating, Bush is now as popular in opinion polls as Brussels sprouts, body hair on men, and reptiles. But the reality is "more sobering", the leaked study warned. In crucial swing districts, Rudy Giuliani beats Hillary Clinton, who is cruising to the Democratic nomination, by 10 points. Even if Barack Obama beats her, he still loses to Rudy at the general.

So who is the man most likely to be President? Giuliani was born to poor Italian-American immigrants in Brooklyn at the tail-end of the Second World War. His father, Harold, was an armed robber who had been banged up in Sing-Sing Prison, but he hid this from his son, raising him to have an intense, unquestioning loyalty to the police. This led Rudy to a career as a famously theatrical prosecutor, fond of arresting people in public and long press conferences boasting about it. From there he ran for mayor of New York City – and the myths begin.

You know the script: Giuliani rescued New York City from its spiral into ungovernable criminality, and then became the hero of 9/11. He says he "saved New York" by introducing the famous policy of Zero Tolerance: crack down on any sign of social disorder, no matter how small, with the full force of the law. There's only one problem. It's not true. The fall in crime that Giuliani brags about began three years before he became mayor. On the watch of his black predecessor, David Dinkins, murder fell by 13.7 per cent, and car theft by 23.8 per cent. Giuliani inherited these trends. They had a complex range of causes, none of which were primarily his responsibility: the global economic boom, the fall in unemployment, the improvement in the police computers available.

Nor is zero tolerance the reason why the fall continued: criminal violence fell even more dramatically in cities that adopted smarter, "softer" policies. For example, San Francisco chose to lavish cash not on chasing petty crime but on programmes to divert juvenile delinquents into job training, drug treatment and counselling. The result? Their crime rate fell by 33 per cent, compared to 26 per cent in NYC during the same period.

As for 9/11, nobody can doubt Giuliani's personal courage as he stumbled through the dust. This is at the core of Giuliani's presidential bid: his fundraisers have been asking for donations of $9.11. But the reality is that, even as he was bravely donning a dust-mask, many people were dying because of obtuse and foolish decisions taken by his administration.

When the World Trade Centre was attacked by jihadists in 1993, the fire service was horrified to discover that their radios didn't work properly in the towers. They spent eight years warning about it – but nothing was done. As a result, the heroic firefighters in the Second Tower couldn't be told that the building was about t.
--jess

October 6 Kucinich the Peace Candidate on YouTube:

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=M1AhaH1ozbg

How naive these peacemongers are? As if we could ban chemical weapons. One moment we did. Well imagine banning biological weapons. Ah yes so we did. Imagine a treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons. That's rediculous. One moment we have such a treaty- the NPT. In the 17th century it was probably unthinkable that at some time in the future adultury would not be a capital offence. In Britain in the fifties homosexuality was a crime.
All wars must end eventually so how about avoiding the battle and cut to the peace. This is imaginable. And possible.
--barrie
<mailto:barriemachin@mac.com>

Nations have a habit of rewriting history in their favour or ignoring their failures and cruelties.
It would appear that Abu Ghraib is unexceptional and the torture at Abu Ghraib is part of a long standing tradition.
See Cruel Allied Occupiers By Patricia Meehan After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation by Giles MacDonogh
It is also the case that old patterns and mistakes are being repeated.
Volume 54, Number 16 · October 25, 2007
And in the same edition http://www.nybooks.com review of Less Safe Less Free
And Review Good War Gone Bad By Richard J. Bernstein The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War
by David Halberstam Hyperion, 719 pp., $35.


There are separate but related military similarities between the two wars as well. What The Best and the Brightest did was introduce the American public to the notion that generals and politicians who ought to know better can deny the simple reality that others, journalists and foot soldiers alike, can see. In showing their mistakes in Vietnam, journalists like Halberstam and others (among them Neil Sheehan, author of A Bright Shining Lie, [2] the best book I've read on Vietnam) created a new type of adversarial military journalism in America. In Vietnam the seemingly willful and, in retrospect, outrageous assurances of figures like Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and such field commanders as Paul Harkins and William Westmoreland led much of the public to ignore the corruption, the crackpot authoritarianism, and the unpopularity of the side the United States was supporting in the war, and to think, quite falsely, that it was gaining ground against the enemy. In Korea the US underestimated its opponents, both North Korea and China, seeing them as primitive and weak, when, in fact, they were skilled, tough, and brave. The corresponding fault was to overestimate the impact that the US armed forces would have—to believe in a sort of shock-and-awe effect that, as was to be the case later in Iraq, didn't exist.


Vietnam was also largely a wicked war based on false premises and lies see Seymour Hersh The Dark Side of Camelot. The neocons are now suggesting that the US could have stayed. The fact is that US was soundly beaten but only after dreadful cruelty and ecocide. This included the illegal war against Cambodia by Nixon and Kissinger, in which 1.2 million Cambodians were murdered and Cambodia bombed into the natavistic convulsions of Pol Pot (William Shawcross Sideshow. The problem is the new generations are ignorant of the past and grow up to be used as a new generation of cannon fodder.
In Korea the US failed to understand sheer weight of the opposition.
In the Vietnam War the US could not withstand the anticolonial manpower of the Vietnamese liberation army.
The Iraq war was based on the lies about WMD and a delusion that the US would be welcomed with open arms. The neocons undeterred by their failure in Iraq seem to be deluded into believing that the people of Iran will welcome a devastating attack with open arms.
This seems to me to certifiably out of touch with reality. The most dangerous of all is: Norman Podhoretz

Podhoretz gained a reputation while at Commentary for overusing Holocaust imagery to describe contemporary events. Remarking on Podhoretz's work, Peter Novick, author of The Holocaust in American Life, writes: "Once one starts using imagery from that most extreme of events, it becomes impossible to say anything moderate, balanced, or nuanced; the very language carries you along to hyperbole ... Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society had not learned 'the lessons of the Holocaust.'" This preoccupation also found expression in neoconservatives' views on Israel. As Decter once wrote while criticizing politicians whom she felt were not sufficiently supportive of Israel: "In a world full of ambiguities and puzzlements, one thing is absolutely easy both to define and locate: that is the Jewish inte
--Barrie Machin
<http://www.peacesource.net>

Read the rest on peacesource.net
--Barrie Machin
<http://peacesource.net>