by Tom Valentine

 

I have been a named columnist here at VT almost a full year, and this is the first time I’ve entered the “global warming” fray.

Although I read the sensational stuff at Climate Depot almost daily, and my personal views on carbon controversy say the manmade part is only hype for the market makers who screwed us over already, several times.

And, while I relished the juicy but superfluous info that came out about so-called “climategate,” I prefer less lobbied views. So sticking my big mouth in wouldn’t serve much.

Climate has changed drastically according to the best science we have, though we also have the difficulty of separating fact from fudge in everything these days. I have no friggin idea whether glaciers from a relatively recent “Ice Age” dug and filled the Great Lakes.

Like you, I only know what I know. I know the difference between information and knowledge. I count very little over the Internet as knowledge

I know I personally watched filmed “news” in an afternoon matinee as a boy, that showed a buildup of snow and ice in Antarctica. I recall because it was a topic of many conversations back around 1943 when we lived in Cambria Pines, which had one tiny theater in a barn.

I know that I watched another “news” film less than a decade ago that showed how the famous snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro had receded to almost nothing due to “global warming.”

Now I know that film and videos are showing that snow has come back to Kilimanjaro.

Those things I know only because seeing was believing back when film was innocent.

I believe, but don’t know, the whole carbon thing has been a huge scam of the kind only private bankers running our culture could pull off with the help of myrmidon minions in Hollywood, and Madison Avenue, and Washington, DC.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn. I’m old, tired and do not care to survive a helluva lot longer.

Were I one of my kids, I would be pissed off about so much, I would likely get myself tossed in a gulag or shot, or both.

The haters of mankind may eventually win over righteousness, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best. I pray for a ringside seat at the gates of hell.

Related Posts:

• Child Protection Services Deserve Millstone Dip in Sea (Mt.18.6; Mk. 9-42; Luke 17-2)
• Humanism Defeats God; We All Lose, And For What?
• Abortion – Contraception as Political Issues is Slick Luciferian Move
• Media Whore Awards Show; The Nominees Are:
• The Golem, by Michael Collins Piper; Read Before Bombing

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=188224

 

By Stuart Littlewood

 

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, British Foreign Secretary William Hague claims that Iran is threatening to spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East which could be more dangerous than the original East-West Cold War.

William Hague’s double talk

“It is a crisis coming down the tracks,” he says. “Because they are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme… If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons.

“And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilizing effects in the Middle East.

“We are very clear to all concerned that we are not advocating military action,” he assures us. “We support a twin-track strategy of sanctions and pressure and negotiations on the other hand. We are not favouring the idea of anybody attacking Iran at the moment.”

But, says Mr Hague, “all options must remain on the table”.

David Cameron’s double standards

 

That same day Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Sarkozy signed a “landmark agreement” committing their two countries to a shared programme of civil nuclear power and setting out a shared long term vision of safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy.

“We are working together … to stop a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran,” said Cameron, adding:

As two great civil nuclear nations, we will combine our expertise to strengthen industrial partnership, improve nuclear safety and create jobs at home. The deals signed today will create more than 1,500 jobs in the UK but they are just the beginning. My goal is clear.

I want the vast majority of the content of our new nuclear plants to be constructed, manufactured and engineered by British companies. And we will choose the partners and technologies to maximise the economic benefits to the UK.

Such freedom of action or benefits must not be enjoyed by Iran, of course.

Some three weeks earlier Mr Hague was clamouring for an “unprecedented” package of measures including an oil embargo and financial sanctions “to increase the peaceful, legitimate pressure on the Iranian government”. It’s tempting to add “as punishment for their peaceful and (so far) legitimate civil nuclear activities”. Such measures are no doubt intended to bring ruin and terror in a way that bombing couldn’t.

Most of us remember only too well how the Iraq sanctions devastated that country’s economy and resulted in widespread hunger and disease among Iraqi people. As John Pilger reported in the Guardian on 4 March 2000:

This is a war against the children of Iraq on two fronts: bombing, which in the last year cost the British taxpayer GBP 60 million. And the most ruthless embargo in modern history. According to UNICEF, the United Nations children’s fund, the death rate of children under five is more than 4,000 a month – that is 4,000 more than would have died before sanctions. That is half a million children dead in eight years. If this statistic is difficult to grasp, consider, on the day you read this, up to 200 Iraqi children may die needlessly.

With this evil still quite fresh in people’s minds Hague successfully obtained his “unprecedented” measures, meaning worse than those taken against Iraq presumably, to inflict on Iranian women and children.

“A mad dog too dangerous to bother”?

 

There are a number of issues raised by Hague’s extraordinary antics.

Why does he say the Iranians “are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme” when there’s no proof?

Why does he say “Iran is threatening to spark a nuclear arms race” when Israel has already destabilized the region with its nuclear arsenal?

And even if Iran really does have a weapons programme his claim that the present situation is “the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented” is rubbish. The BBC reported recently that back in 2009 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressed concern about Israel’s nuclear capabilities and called on it to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards.

“Israel refuses to join the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.”

Actually, Israel is the third or fourth largest nuclear force in the world and the only one in the Middle East. But our brave politicians dare not even whisper this fact let alone criticize it. According to a 2006/07 report by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, most unofficial estimates put Israel’s nuclear arsenal in the hundreds, possibly larger than the British stockpile. “Israel… has an unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor and reprocessing capability and possibly some uranium enrichment capability, along with various other uranium-processing facilities.”

It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran is). It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Israel just doesn’t care. Who can forget that much-quoted remark by the former Israeli defence minister, General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother”?

And is anyone surprised at reports that European cities are targeted?

Against this background it is difficult to understand how Hague’s aggressive escalation against Iran is in the British national interest – or anyone’s interest except Israel’s. Do the British people want it? If Mr Hague’s purpose is to help preserve the imbalance of power in the Middle East so that a rogue regime, Israel, remains the dominant military force, he must be called on to explain the wisdom of it.

Hague and Cameron both voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war, and we know the consequence in lives and irreversible damage to the country, its heritage, its social fabric and infrastructure and its survivors – and of course to Britain’s reputation. We want no repetition, surely.

William Hague, according to the Jewish Chronicle, told David Cameron when he became Conservative Party leader in 2005 that a deep understanding of the Middle East would be crucial if he wished to be taken seriously as a statesman… “because you can’t understand it without the history. That’s been one of the failings sometimes with the Western governments.”

The pair’s support for Israel and its Zionist ambitions is such that no sane world would allow them anywhere near the levers of international power. Besides, Hague seems to have jettisoned his history. In March 1951 the Iranian Majlis and Senate voted to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil, in which the British government had a majority interest and which had controlled Iran’s oil industry since 1913 under terms that were disadvantageous to Iran. Dr Mohammad Mossadeq, the newly elected prime minister, carried out his government’s wish to cancel Anglo-Iranian’s oil concession, which was not due to expire for another 42 years, and take over its assets.

In a speech in June 1951 (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525) he explained:

The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provides that 25 per cent of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation…

“It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention…

Considering Britain paid Iran only 16 per cent of the profits during the inter-war years and treated Iranian oil workers abominably, while profiting hugely itself, these were generous terms.

History repeats itself

Faced with nationalization the British government went mad and imposed a blockade and vicious sanctions, quickly bringing Iran to its knees. Mossadeq, popular and highly regarded, was removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for three years then put under house arrest until his death. The Iranians were condemned to suffer the reimposition of the hated Shah and his secret police for another 25 years. The Islamist revolution of 1979 was the inevitable consequence.

And Iran has not forgotten.

Perhaps Mr Hague, before pressing the “History Repeat” button too many times, should pause to reflect and answer just ten questions:

1. Have we so easily forgotten the cruel and devastating effect of economic sanctions on civil society, especially children?

2. Would the foreign secretary kindly explain the reasons for his hostility towards Iran?

3. What concrete proof is there of Iran’s military application of nuclear technology?

4. Why is he not more concerned about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, the threat it poses to the region and beyond, and the mental attitude of the Israeli regime?

5. Why is he not seeking sanctions against Israel for its refusal to sign up to the NPT or engage constructively on the issue of its nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction?

6. How many times has a British foreign secretary visited Tehran in the 32 years since the Islamic Revolution?

7. Did Mr Hague make an effort to go and talk before embarking on his punitive sanctions programme?

8. Britain’s conduct towards the Iranians in 1951-53 when a previous Conservative government, in cahoots with the USA, snuffed out Iran’s democracy and reinstated a cruel dictatorship, was largely responsible for bringing about the Islamic Revolution and setting the pattern of future relationships. Is it not shameful that this Conservative government is spoiling for another fight? Shouldn’t the Foreign Office focus on exerting influence through trade and cooperation?

9. Iran’s present administration, like others, may not be to our liking but nor was Dr Mossadeq’s democracy 60 years ago. Similarly, the Israel-leaning administrations of the US and Britain are not much to the liking of the rest of the world. In any event, what threat is Iran to Britain? And why is Mr Hague leading the charge?

10. By pulling our people out of Tehran and kicking Iran’s people out of London Mr Hague has shut the door on diplomacy. How can he now communicate effectively with a nation he seems determined to goad into becoming an implacable enemy?

On this last point I hear that Baroness Ashton, the European Union’s ‘foreign minister’, is handling contact with Iran on behalf of the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. So much for Hague’s talk of negotiations alongside sanctions. While playing the role of chief bully he has shut himself out of any direct conversation. As for Ashton, she hasn’t made the slightest impact on the crisis in Palestine, even with the clout of 500 million citizens behind her, so is anyone holding their breath?

Most of those questions were put to Mr Hague through my MP (who happens to be one of Hague’s junior ministers) two-and-a-half months ago and repeated early January, but Mr Hague isn’t replying.

Until he does, the foreign secretary ought to be made to stand in the parliamentary “naughty corner”.

Editing: Debbie Menon

---

UK refuses to rule out military war on Iran

Conservative MP John Baron and Peter Jenkins former UK Ambassador to the IAEA weighs in…

Editing: Debbie Menon

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=187936

by Stephen Lendman

 

For nearly a year, externally generated violence wracked Syria. Dirty Western hands planned and implemented it. Rogue regional despots were enlisted for support.

Replacing an independent regime with a pro-Western one and isolating Iran are planned. Russia and China thwarted two Security Council resolutions designed to facilitate intervention.

On February 16, a non-binding Arab League General Assembly resolution passed with similar language. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states backed it.

Pressure’s building for escalated anti-Assad measures. Sooner or later expect intervention, perhaps war. At issue is isolating Iran, then targeting the Islamic Republic. Replicating 1953 in some form’s coming, perhaps more war that may involve Russia and China defending their interests.

On February 24, a Friends of Syria coalition of the willing will meet in Tunisia. The State Department organized them outside the UN system. Hillary Clinton and key NATO counterparts will attend.

On February 13, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said “Moscow does not consider the US-backed ‘Friends of Syria’ legitimate.”

It’s similar to last year’s orchestrated one against Gaddafi. France said it might supply weapons. In fact, heavy ones were provided since violence erupted last March. They’re coming from Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon’s opposition March 14 alliance, Gulf states and perhaps Washington, rogue NATO partners and Israel.

Last November, Russia accused Western countries of illicitly arming Syria’s opposition. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was blunt, saying:

“Noboby is commenting on it and no one is admitting it, but the facts are impossible to contradict: weapons are being smuggled into Syria from Turkey and Iraq. Armed extremists are using peaceful demonstrations to provoke Syrian government violence.”

Lavrov specifically named America and France for their anti-Assad agenda to remove him. Saudi Arabia and Qatar agreed to fund opposition forces. Western funding’s also likely involved. Covert UK, Qatari, and perhaps other special forces, as well as CIA, MI6 and likely other Western intelligence operatives actively aid insurgent killers.

Pentagon war plans are ready to implement. Alleged humanitarian intervention’s again involved. The same scheme ravaged Libya. Perhaps Syria’s next, then Iran.

Agitprop reports smooth the way.

On February 16, Veterans Today contributor Sharmine Narwanti headlined, “High-Tech Trickery in Homs?” saying:

US Facebook posted satellite images of Homs violence was blamed on Assad. America’s Syrian ambassador Robert Ford called them evidence of:

“A terrible and tragic development in Syria (showing) the use of heavy weaponry by the Assad regime against residential neighborhoods.”

His claims, in fact, are baseless. The “blog Moon of Alabama” discredited them. “A detailed examination of satellite imagery….revealed numerous discrepancies in Washington’s allegation. (They showed) guns training within military barracks of well known training areas and not in active deployment.”

Ford also lied saying “There is no evidence that the opposition – even those opposition members who have defected from the military – has access to or has employed such heavy weapons.” He referred to artillery used in civilian areas.

CNN reported satellite images came from “pro-regime area(s) consisting mainly of Alawis, who belong to the same” sect as Assad. They’ve complained of opposition group attacks, kidnappings, and killings. Major media scoundrels ignore them.

State Department Homs satellite images “do not actually show the Syrian army engaged in battle,” as Ford claims. Washington and major media scoundrels are complicit “in the dissemination of false information.” At issue is escalating pressure for intervention.

Assad’s cooperating to ease tensions. On February 17, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he plans implementing reforms. A Foreign Ministry statement said Russia want measures accepted by all sides, provided the interests of the Syrian people and peace and security are prioritized.

Lavrov stressed the importance of non-intervention. Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov called the Friends of Syria alliance a group of amateurs aimed at interfering in Syria’s internal affairs, including militarily. He added:

“The level of violence in Syria has notably risen over the past period, but this didn’t happen at all because of the behavior of the Syrian authorities, which rather did their best, particularly during the presence of the Arab monitors….to reduce the level of violence.”

“They withdrew military vehicles and forces from the streets and cities, released thousands of detainees and didn’t prevent peaceful protests.”

Nonetheless, Washington, Britain, France, other allies, and major media scoundrels accuse him of violence, in fact, caused by heavily armed Western-backed killer gangs.

At a February 17 press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said Beijing’s position on the Syrian crisis will stand the test of time. “China doesn’t back one party over another, and its voting against the UN General Assembly resolution was based on China’s firm stance concerning the Syrian crisis.”

China very much opposes Western intervention similar to what ravaged Libya.

 

Syria’s Draft Constitution

On February 26, Syrians will vote up or down by national referendum, though perhaps escalated violence will disrupt things.

Article 2 of its 157 articles calls Syria a sovereign republican system “based on the principle of the rule of the people by the people and for the people.”

Article 7′s constitutional oath says:

“I swear by the Almighty God to respect the country’s constitution, laws and Republican system, to look after the interests and freedoms of the people, to safeguard the homeland’s sovereignty, independence, freedom and to defend its territorial integrity and to act in order to achieve social justice and the unity of the Arab Nation”.

Article 8 calls Syria’s political system “based on the principle of political pluralism, and exercising power democratically through the ballot box.”

“Carrying out any political activity or forming any political parties or groupings on the basis of religious, sectarian, tribal, regional, class-based, professional, or on discrimination based on gender, origin, race or color may not be undertaken.”

Article 10 states:

“Public organizations, professional unions and associations shall be bodies that group citizens in order to develop society and attain the interests of its members. The State shall guarantee the independence of these bodies and the right to exercise public control and participation in various sectors and councils defined in laws; in areas which achieve their objectives, and in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by law.”

Under Article 12, “(d)emocratically elected councils at the national or local level shall be institutions through which citizens exercise their role in sovereignty, state-building and leading society.”

Article 13 promotes “developing public and private economic activity through economic and social plans aiming at increasing the national income, developing production, raising the individual’s living standards and creating jobs.”

Article 18 says taxes “shall be based on a fair basis; and taxes shall be progressive in a way that achieves the principles of equality and social justice.”

Article 19 promises a Syrian Arab Republic “based on the basis of solidarity, symbiosis and respect for the principles of social justice, freedom, equality and maintenance of human dignity of every individual.”

Article 22 ” guarantee(s) every citizen and his family in cases of emergency, sickness, disability, orphan-hood and old age.”

“The state shall protect the health of citizens and provide them with the means of prevention, treatment and medication.”

Article 23 guarantees women have “all opportunities enabling them to effectively and fully contribute to the political, economic, social and cultural life, and the state shall work on removing the restrictions that prevent their development and participation in building society.”

Under Article 25, “(e)ducation, health and social services shall be the basic pillars for building society, and the state shall work on achieving balanced development among all regions of the Syrian Arab Republic.”

Article 29 guarantees education “free at all levels. The law shall regulate the cases where education could not be free at universities and government institutes.”

Article 33 calls freedom “a sacred right and the state shall guarantee the personal freedom of citizens and preserve their dignity and security.”

“Citizens shall be equal in rights and duties without discrimination among them on grounds of sex, origin, language, religion or creed.

“The state shall guarantee the principle of equal opportunities among citizens.”

Article 34 guarantees the right of all citizens “to participate in the political, economic, social and cultural life and the law shall regulate this.”

Under Article 40, “(w)ork shall be a right and a duty for every citizen, and the state shall endeavor to provide for all citizens, and the law shall organize work, its conditions and the workers’ rights.”

“Each worker shall have a fair wage according to the quality and output of the work; this wage shall be no less than the minimum wage that ensures the requirements of living and changes in living conditions.”

“The state shall guarantee social and health security of workers.”

Article 42 guarantees every citizen the “right to freely and openly express his views whether in writing or orally or by all other means of expression.”

Under Article 43, “freedom of the press, printing and publishing, the media and its independence in accordance with the law” are guaranteed.

Articles 44 and 45 guarantee citizens “the right to assemble, peacefully demonstrate and to strike from work within the framework of the Constitution principles, and the law shall regulate the exercise of these rights.”

They also have the right to form national associations and unions.

Other articles affirm rule of law governance, including judicial fairness and freedom from torture and humiliating treatment.

Legislative authority will be assumed by a popularly elected People’s Assembly by citizens at least age 18. Half its members will be reserved for workers and farmers.

Many other democratic principles are affirmed in 157 articles. A big leap remains from affirmed rights to their implementation and enforcement.

If Syrians adopt this document, they’ll benefit if its principles end up more than words. Only the fullness of time will tell, and, of course, whether or not Western intervention succeeds.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US

Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. He is also the author of “How Wall Street Fleeces America“

The Progressive News Hour

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Guest: Peter Phillips

Phillips is a Sonoma State University Sociology Professor and former Director of Project Censored (PC). He’s currently President of the Media Freedom Foundation (MFF) initiative for First Amendment freedoms and investigative research, working closely with PC and other media related organizations. Major world and national issues will be discussed.

Related Posts:

• Israel Plans Major Gaza War
• Waging Covert War on Iran
• NATO’s Secret War on Syria
• Targeting Syria and Iran
• Heading for War on Syria

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=187712