Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Washington Post is a prime example of why our country is in trouble
1 view
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
Jan 17, 2012, 7:12:19 PM1/17/12
to
Washington Post is a prime example of why our country is in such a
deep trouble. It insists on giving America (through its enormous
Citizen Kane influence) always a government which will cut domestic
spending but keep the preponderant culprit for our economic problem
out of consideration: overseas military projects. It is therefore
also using its influence to try to silence critics - the messengers of
peace and prosperity, such as Ron Paul.
The latest gimmick is to attack Paul's flying first-class between
D.C. and his congressional district. It tries to make an issue of his
sincerity. But the expense of flying first-class (with its obvious
flexibility and other advantages) is a drop in the bucket compares
with Obama's latest "challenge" to Congress to let him cut 3 billions
over 10 years. Obama's latest tinkering is in turn only a drop in the
bucket compared to his promise to cut military spending of 45 billions
over the next 10 years while the total open military spending will
continue to grow to maintain the superiority of our military might
overseas and the influence over the rest of the world. And finally
the 45 billions in 10 years cut is in turn a drop in the bucket when
compared with the 16+ trillion deficit that is bleeding us to death
through the interests we have to pay every year. Paul knows economics
and math.
Paul is honest as well as earnest, as his middle name tells us.
(The parents' choice of a name for him must have had an enormous and
perhaps decisive lifelong influence on the person. It makes him the
serious person he has shown himself to us today. He's memorized the
Constitution and is said to always read a book on economics in his
free time. And I believe him.)
The Washington Post is a mouthpiece for the neocons and is now busy
trying to kill a patriot in order to kill his message intended to save
America. Shame on the Washington Post.
lo yeeOn
========
I will not attach the Washington Post story about Paul flying first
class - it is well known. But I will attach the less known story
below.
Ron Paul gets boos from South Carolina debate audience; can he reclaim
momentum?
Tuesday, January 17, 12:18 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-gets-boos-from-south-carolina-debate-audience-can-he-reclaim-momentum/2012/01/17/gIQAzLW85P_story.html
Ron Paul has endeared himself to many by refusing to back down from
policy ideas that fall far from the GOP mainstream consensus. In
Monday night's debate, some of those views earned him boos from the
audience. As AP reported:
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says he will make deep cuts
to the military budget even though many voters in South Carolina and
elsewhere are employed by the military.
The Texas congressman was grilled Monday on his position on military
spending during a nationally televised presidential debate. He has
called for closing bases overseas and reducing spending on what he
calls the military industrial complex.
Paul said he wants to protect military jobs domestically and insists
there's a difference between military spending and a strong national
defense.
Paul said conservatives should insist on cutting spending on military
projects, not just domestic spending. He said overseas military
spending should be cut before trimming federal jobless benefits for
the long-term unemployment.
. . .
Ron Paul's foreign policy views, which diverge from the rest of his
rivals and most of the GOP base, hurt him repeatedly in the debate. As
Chris Cillizza explained in his winners and losers analysis:
. . .
His answers on foreign policy were repeatedly booed and Perry even
suggested that a gong should have been used to cut Paul off. While
Paul-ites undoubtedly cheered their hero's willingness to stand up for
what he believes in when it comes to U.S. involvement in foreign
countries, it's just not a majority position or anywhere close to it -
in the Republican electorate of South Carolina.
We've said it before and we'll say it again: If Paul would deflect all
foreign policy questions and turn every answer into something about
his economic views, he could be a real contender for the nomination.
He won't do that, so he isn't.
. . .
deep trouble. It insists on giving America (through its enormous
Citizen Kane influence) always a government which will cut domestic
spending but keep the preponderant culprit for our economic problem
out of consideration: overseas military projects. It is therefore
also using its influence to try to silence critics - the messengers of
peace and prosperity, such as Ron Paul.
The latest gimmick is to attack Paul's flying first-class between
D.C. and his congressional district. It tries to make an issue of his
sincerity. But the expense of flying first-class (with its obvious
flexibility and other advantages) is a drop in the bucket compares
with Obama's latest "challenge" to Congress to let him cut 3 billions
over 10 years. Obama's latest tinkering is in turn only a drop in the
bucket compared to his promise to cut military spending of 45 billions
over the next 10 years while the total open military spending will
continue to grow to maintain the superiority of our military might
overseas and the influence over the rest of the world. And finally
the 45 billions in 10 years cut is in turn a drop in the bucket when
compared with the 16+ trillion deficit that is bleeding us to death
through the interests we have to pay every year. Paul knows economics
and math.
Paul is honest as well as earnest, as his middle name tells us.
(The parents' choice of a name for him must have had an enormous and
perhaps decisive lifelong influence on the person. It makes him the
serious person he has shown himself to us today. He's memorized the
Constitution and is said to always read a book on economics in his
free time. And I believe him.)
The Washington Post is a mouthpiece for the neocons and is now busy
trying to kill a patriot in order to kill his message intended to save
America. Shame on the Washington Post.
lo yeeOn
========
I will not attach the Washington Post story about Paul flying first
class - it is well known. But I will attach the less known story
below.
Ron Paul gets boos from South Carolina debate audience; can he reclaim
momentum?
Tuesday, January 17, 12:18 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-gets-boos-from-south-carolina-debate-audience-can-he-reclaim-momentum/2012/01/17/gIQAzLW85P_story.html
Ron Paul has endeared himself to many by refusing to back down from
policy ideas that fall far from the GOP mainstream consensus. In
Monday night's debate, some of those views earned him boos from the
audience. As AP reported:
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says he will make deep cuts
to the military budget even though many voters in South Carolina and
elsewhere are employed by the military.
The Texas congressman was grilled Monday on his position on military
spending during a nationally televised presidential debate. He has
called for closing bases overseas and reducing spending on what he
calls the military industrial complex.
Paul said he wants to protect military jobs domestically and insists
there's a difference between military spending and a strong national
defense.
Paul said conservatives should insist on cutting spending on military
projects, not just domestic spending. He said overseas military
spending should be cut before trimming federal jobless benefits for
the long-term unemployment.
. . .
Ron Paul's foreign policy views, which diverge from the rest of his
rivals and most of the GOP base, hurt him repeatedly in the debate. As
Chris Cillizza explained in his winners and losers analysis:
. . .
His answers on foreign policy were repeatedly booed and Perry even
suggested that a gong should have been used to cut Paul off. While
Paul-ites undoubtedly cheered their hero's willingness to stand up for
what he believes in when it comes to U.S. involvement in foreign
countries, it's just not a majority position or anywhere close to it -
in the Republican electorate of South Carolina.
We've said it before and we'll say it again: If Paul would deflect all
foreign policy questions and turn every answer into something about
his economic views, he could be a real contender for the nomination.
He won't do that, so he isn't.
. . .
lo yeeOn
Jan 18, 2012, 1:13:42 AM1/18/12
to
In article <75bfe5cf-2c21-4b0c...@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
>hypocrite" or "useful idiot"
See, you don't know logic. But it doesn't matter. It shows that
you're one of those who are really itching to kill those Iranian
mullahs you've referred to as "crazy mullahs". You're with a very
powerful side - the side of the neocons - so are the Washington Post
and the New York Times. You don't care about bankrupting our country.
You just care about getting your fix ... sigh!!!
But first of all I would let everybody know that my name was not given
to me by my "parent" because it's a genetic impossibility.
But that's okay because you obviously don't know any better when you
like to get people killed so much, like what has been done to the
people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya so far.
Second of all, you claimed to care about the Chinese people so much
but you know nothing about them. In this case, you don't even know
that it's a widespread practice for the grandfather, especially the
paternal grandfather, to name a new born in China.
So, by trying to insult me, you have insulted the Chinese people.
And obviously, you don't care about the Chinese people. You attacked
ltlee1 and baldeagle because of the pro-Chinese messages they posted.
And of course you spit such drivels and such venomous ad hominem at me
due to my effort to debunk the neocon narrative which glorifies mass
destruction against whole countries and whole peoples and to expose
the deception about Da Lama and the like of Liu Xiaobo, both of whom
have been paid big time by the CIA or its successors (the NED and
other NGO agencies the US government directly or indirectly funded),
in order to destabilize China and kill her like we have "killed Iraq"
(Tariq Aziz).
Furthermore, I have throughout my life taken the name my grandfather
gave me absolutely seriously and that's why I've devoted so much of my
precious time to debunk the propaganda of the neocons. You haven't
given one instance which would show me to be "either `shameless
hypocrite' or `useful idiot'. (I have always been consistent about my
pro-peace stance and I have all my posts on the internet to prove it.)
So the ad hominem is just that - baseless and was done entirely for
the purpose of deflecting the message that Ron Paul is a real patriot
by telling the American people that we don't need another war and we
can't afford one, period.
And finally, Ron Paul is exact right about spreading the message of
peace at a time when America as well as the world needs to hear it the
most. By attacking me ad hominem, the net effect is to try to drown
out his voice and his contribution to world peace as well as the
survival of our country.
On the other hand for you to insult the Chinese people, you have
finally exposed yourself to be nothing but a mouthpiece for the
neocons who want to smear every government they want to execute a
regime change. You are such a sorry sight for whomever you work for,
what a pity!
But just look at how unpopular the neocon agenda against Iran, Syria,
and other countires is in many parts of the world based on a sample of
what I found on the internet and am attaching below, any intelligent
American voter should realize that Ron Paul is right on point about
a war with Iran or any other country is exactly what we don't need.
Ron Paul for President in 2012!
lo yeeOn
========
1) The Korean people are unhappy
U.S. Presses South Korea to Reduce Oil Imports from Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/world/asia/us-presses-south-korea-to-reduce-oil-imports-from-iran.html?_r=1
South Korea protesters rallied opposing a visit of Robert Einhorn,
U.S. State Department's special adviser for nonproliferation and arms
control, outside the foreign ministry in Seoul, South Korea, on
Tuesday.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/18/world/18korea1_span/18korea1_span-articleLarge.jpg
By CHOE SANG-HUN
Published: January 17, 2012
Seoul, South Korea (Reuters) - A senior American diplomat urged South
Korea on Tuesday to reduce its imports of Iranian crude oil as the
United States continued to seek support from major Asian economies to
increase pressure on Tehran to halt its nuclear program.
"We are urging all of our partners to help us, to work with us in
putting more pressure on the government of Iran to get them to
negotiate seriously," Robert J. Einhorn, the State Department's
special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, told reporters
in Seoul, where he met Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Jae-shin of South
Korea on Tuesday. "In particular, we are urging them to reduce their
purchases of crude oil from Iran, and we are urging them to unwind
their financial dealings with the Central Bank of Iran."
South Korea deals with Iran's central bank to make payments for the
oil, which supplies almost 10 percent of its oil imports.
Washington is trying to curtail Iran's oil exports, its main revenue
source, and isolate the central bank. Delegations from the State,
Energy and Treasury Departments are fanning out to Iran's major
customers, as well as to rival oil producers, to enlist their help in
stifling Iran's oil exports while making up any gap in supplies.
South Korea, a crucial American ally, voiced support for Washington's
efforts to check Iran's nuclear program. Seoul depends on the United
States for its defense against North Korea and works together with
Washington to curb the Iran's nuclear weapons program. American
officials believe that a successful crackdown on Iran's nuclear
program could help curb North Korea's.
But leaders of South Korea, which depends on imported oil, fear a
sudden reduction in purchases from Iran might disrupt South Korea's
energy security and raise oil prices. Fighting inflation is President
Lee Myung-bak's key policy promise for 2012.
Seoul has yet to announce whether and by how much it might reduce its
oil imports from Iran.
. . .
-----
2) India is entirely up front about the US-imposed sanction regime
against Iran
Reuters
8:34 p.m. CST, January 17, 2012
India says not seeking Iran oil waiver from U.S.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-india-irantre80h05f-20120117,0,5853373.story
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India is not seeking a waiver from the United
States that would protect buyers of Iranian oil from a fresh round of
sanctions, and New Delhi continues to import from Tehran, Indian
Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai said on Tuesday.
New U.S. sanctions, authorized on December 31, penalize any financial
institution dealing with Iran's central bank and could make it more
difficult for India to pay Iran for oil imports. An Indian delegation
is currently in Tehran for talks.
The U.S. still allows waivers for firms in countries that
significantly reduce dealings with Iran or when it is either in the
U.S. national interest or necessary for energy market stability.
Japan, South Korea and Turkey have all said they could seek waivers.
-----
India rejects US embargo, to import oil from Iran
Sachin Parashar, TNN | Jan 18, 2012, 08.49AM IST
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-rejects-US-embargo-to-import-oil-from-Iran/articleshow/11533906.cms
NEW DELHI: Even as China cuts down drastically its oil imports from
Iran, which is soon likely to run into fresh sanctions from the US and
the EU, India on Tuesday declared it will continue to import crude oil
from the country.
Brushing aside US sanctions that prevent financial institutions from
doing business with Tehran and its central bank, foreign secretary
Ranjan Mathai stated that India will only accept sanctions imposed by
the UN.
"We have accepted sanctions which are made by the UN. Other sanctions
do not apply to individual countries. We can't accept that," said
Mathai, adding that India had not sought any waiver from US sanctions.
This was even as EU high representative for foreign affairs ,
Catherine Ashton, told TOI on Tuesday that the sanctions against Iran
by the EU, which is on the verge of banning oil imports from Iran, are
designed to make Iran fulfill its obligations as a signatory to the
NPT. "It's not impossible for countries like India to have a strategic
relation with Iran and yet convey that it is not fulfilling its
international commitments in pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. The
sanctions are designed to prevent Iran's nuclear programme and nothing
beyond that," Ashton said.
3) ELAND: Iran sanctions won't work
Effectiveness of economic restrictions always erodes over time
By Ivan Eland - The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/17/iran-sanctions-wont-work/
For the United States, which already imports no petroleum from Iran,
the new sanctions are intended to impair the ability of other
countries to buy Iranian oil. This would be accomplished by imposing
sanctions on entities from those nations that complete transactions
with Iran's central bank, which provides the payment mechanism for oil
purchases.
While supporters of the tightened sanctions see the measure putting
additional economic pressure on the Iranian government, Iran's
long-term revenue losses from oil exports probably would be minimal.
For example, despite the existing sanctions on Iran's petroleum
sector, the country exported some $71.6 billion worth of petroleum
products in 2010, according to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC). The Iranian government reports that 2011 was even
better - calling it a record year of oil sales.
The problem with all sanctions is that they erode over time as the
target nation redirects its products to countries that aren't
participating in the sanctions or finds ways to trade illegally with
entities in the sanctioning countries. With such "market reordering"
and outright evasion, the target country is rarely starved of export
revenues.
Sanctions on Iranian oil, for example, are bound to fail because
rapidly growing countries in the developing world, such as China and
India, care less about Iran's nuclear program than about getting cheap
oil. Iran probably will oblige them by selling its oil at a discount,
thus allowing it to recoup otherwise lost sales. More important than
the likely economic effects of the sanctions are the likely political
effects. Yet sanctions are fundamentally an economic tool for
achieving political ends.
. . .
-----
Gosh, those Iranians are really wicked, aren't they? They're copying
our "Justice Coin" trick!
January 17, 2012, 4:48 pm
Iran Offers U.S. Tiny Replica of Lost Drone
By ROBERT MACKEY
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/iran-offers-u-s-tiny-replica-of-lost-drone/
While Iran's government has so far refused an American request to
return the C.I.A. stealth drone it captured last month, on Tuesday, an
Iranian company that is manufacturing miniature replicas of the drone
in several colors offered to send President Obama a pink one.
According to Iranian state radio, the scale models of the drone are
one-eightieth the size of the RQ-170 Sentinel surveillance craft
Iran's military proudly displayed on television last month after it
either crashed or was forced down.
Thomas Erdbrink, a Washington Post correspondent in Tehran, reports
that a local firm, the Ayeh Art Group, is now making 2,000 toy drones
a day. Reza Kioumarsi, an official with the firm, told Mr. Erdbrink
that since Mr. Obama said he wanted the drone back, "we will send him
one."
The souvenir aircraft retails for about $4, but, like the
commemorative "Justice Coin" that Americans can now buy to celebrate
the Navy Seal mission that killed Osama bin Laden, the purchase price
includes bonus gifts. According to the Ayeh Art Group Web site, the
toy drone comes with a plastic stand bearing the slogan, "We will put
America under our feet", a quotation from the founder of Iran's
Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
An Iranian Web site displaying more images of the toy drones also
features an animation mocking Mr. Obama for losing the surveillance
aircraft. The cartoon shows a caricature of the American president
enjoying a ride on a drone, until it is taken over and forced to land
by an Iranian officer holding what looks like an old-fashioned
Nintendo game controller. (While the United States claims that the
drone malfunctioned and crashed, Iran insists that its military
wrested away control of the aircraft and brought it in for a landing.)
Readers interested in securing one of the toy drones can check
Mr. Erdbrink's Twitter feed on Wednesday, when he plans to give away
10 to winners of a quiz.
-----
NAM condemns drone incursion into Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/221655.html
The RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft was downed by Iran's armed forces
in the east of the country on December 4, 2011.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has issued a statement to condemn the
violation of Iranian airspace by a US spy drone late last year.
The NAM Coordinating Bureau issued the statement on Tuesday to
denounce the US incursion into the Islamic Republic's airspace.
The 120-member bloc says the violation of Iran's airspace contravenes
all universally accepted international norms relating to the
sovereignty of the airspace of countries.
Earlier in January, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation also
censured the breach of Iranian airspace by the US spy drone.
On December 4, Iran announced that an electronic warfare unit of the
Iranian armed forces took control of a US RQ-170 Sentinel stealth
drone, which was flying over the northeastern Iranian city of Kashmar,
and gave it the command to land in Iran.
On December 12, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that
Washington had submitted a formal request asking Iran to return the
drone.
One day later, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi
announced that the aircraft would remain in the country's possession
since it was the property of the Islamic Republic.
Tehran says the US spy drone mission was a "hostile act" and has
lodged a complaint at the United Nations over the reconnaissance
aircraft's violation of its airspace.
AS/HGL
-----
Israeli analysts: Iran still mulling whether to build bomb
Published 02:32 18.01.12
Latest update 02:32 18.01.12
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-analysts-iran-still-mulling-whether-to-build-bomb-1.407866
Israel also believes Iranian regime now facing unprecedented threat to
stability, which combines external and internal pressure: harsh
sanctions, threats of military action, economic distress and worries
about the results of the March parliamentary election.
By Amos Harel
4) Syria - a proxy war between the US and Iran
Syria: Proxy Iran-US war
5:53 AM, January 16, 2012 Abby W. Schachter
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/syria_proxy_iran_us_war_El9ubt8hILHKsb4BA1DkPJ
This morning it is Iran that is saber-rattling over the possibility of
war with the United States . According to the Jerusalem Post, an
Iranian Revolutionary Guard official has declared that Iran would
"protect" Syria from incursions by outside forces. The official
suggested that Iran would have "the Revolutionary Guards 'surround'
Syria through their allies in Iraq and Lebanon."
Why is Iran making threats of war on behalf of Syria?
Because at meetings of the Arab League, Qatar actually suggested
sending Arab League troops into Syria to stop the government slaughter
of civilians that have left more than 5,000 people dead. And because
the United States accused the Iranians of providing arms to Syria to
conduct that slaughter.
Whether the Arab League actually decides to shatter the false unity of
the League and go to war to free Syria remains to be seen, but pay
attention to Iran's response and the poor strategic position of the
United States if such an effort were to be made.
Now that the US has cleared out of Iraq, the Iranianians are free to
claim they can support Syria "through their allies in Iraq and
Lebanon." Meaning on either side of Syria there is Iran. Just a few
months ago, the United States was in a position to secure (or try to
secure) the long border between Syria and Iraq. Today this is no
longer the case.
Whether or not you support the possibility of going to war to free
Syria or if you supported the war in Iraq in the first place, the fact
is that US troops were on the ground and in a much better position to
stand against Iranian aggression when they were actually in Iraq. Now
not so much.
5) Far too risky to go to war with Iran (Yanning)
Red Line -> Syria: facts and doubts, iran crisis and Michael Mcfaul
http://english.ruvr.ru/radio_broadcast/9255436/63804654.html
Jan 13, 2012 17:55 Moscow Time
. . .
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Well, but there are still chances that there
might be no war with Iran. So, let's listen to Josef Yanning -
Director of Studies at the European Policy Center in Brussels.
Josef Yanning: The United States is rather keen on continuing to
isolate the Iranian regime, it's part of the US strategy, it's part of
Western strategy in general to deny the regime as many opportunities
as possible to link up in prosperous through relationships with other
countries.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: As far as I understand the US was also looking
at engaging Iran and engaging Cuba. Are there two parallel policies
running in the US political establishment vis-a-vis those countries
or has the radical prevailed?
Josef Yanning: Well, in a way the presidential election is casting a
shadow and the Obama Administration can now not afford to engage Cuba
because Cuba is not clearly moving into a direction that would allow
the Administration to modify its policies. That maybe a nowise
decision, you know, it maybe against the long term interests of the
United States in bringing about a peaceful and gradual transition of
Cuba but that are of the domestic constraints of the US foreign
policy.
Also as much as Iran has become an issue in the Republican debates,
among the contestants for the nomination, their hand are tired with
the Administration on moving in anyway closer to seeking a talking
relationship with Iran. I think we cannot expect this to happen in
2012 when it comes to maintaining at least some level of contact with
the Iranian regime. That will fall into hands of the Europeans, Cathy
Ashton is sending signals every ones in a while, the EU is free do
this, the Europeans unlike the United States do have an interest in
maintaining at least a certain level of connectedness with Iran simply
in order to better read what's going on inside.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: So, do I get you right that your forecast is
that the whole situation is not going beyond the war of words between
the two countries?
Josef Yanning: I don't see it happening in 2012, even as the Iranian
nuclear program appears to continue in a pace that is not in any
recognizable way shaped by international reactions, it is far the
risky and far too uncontrollable to wage any kind of military action
on Iran. So, I think any president stands to lose a lot on this and
any contender may find it a bit easier to speak strongly but they
would also be rather reluctant to be very precise on what to do, when
and how.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Mr. Yanning, thank you very much.
. . .
"Between the lines"
". . . But anyway, just tell me, do you think that YouGov is unbiased
source?"
Sergey Strokan: But what about YouGov?
Ekaterina Kudashkina: The story's quoting the results of the YouGov
poll commissioned by the Qatar Foundation in the last days of the year
of 2011. The poll showed that 55% of Syrians do not want Assad to
resign. And now, compare it to the pre-war Assad/s popularity rating
of some 46%.
So what do we do with that?
. . .
6) The neocon's deisgn on Syria should stop
Eyal Zisser on Syria crisis: a many factored case for a regime change
led by America and allies + Aisling Byrne on the narrative of the West
Red Line -> Syria: facts and doubts, iran crisis and Michael Mcfaul
http://english.ruvr.ru/radio_broadcast/9255436/63804654.html
Jan 13, 2012 17:55 Moscow Time
. . .
Ekaterina Kudashkina: And this is the problem. And I suggest we could
talk two experts now. One is the author of the story and the other one
is the Israeli expert Eyal Zisser who will tell us how the Syrian
society is split regarding Bashar Assad.
Eyal Zisser: Well, the situation is not as bad as the impression in
the West but is not as good as we see it. So, of course nothing new,
the bottom line didn't leave any news. He is determined to continue
fighting for his survival, even not to give up like Mubarak or like
other Arab leaders. He believes that time is playing on his side and
the situation is quite stable and good and of course there are empty
promises and regular accusations against foreign forces. So, basically
it's the same of what we've heard him in his previous speeches.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: But you said that the situation is not as bad as
it looks.
Eyal Zisser: I think that he still enjoys great support between major
settlements of the Syrian population, it's a peasant revolt, it's very
fairly mainly and the minorities, there are 40% of the population as
well as urban middle class in the big cities who are still with him.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: As an expert what would be your advice to the
international community?
Eyal Zisser: It is a domestic struggle between different segments of
the society and you should let the Syrian people decide its fate, I
mean unfortunately it's not through a democratic process because such
a process with system is not available in Syria, it maybe through a
violence. But I think that eventually the one who has support of the
majority of the people will end with ...
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Much bloodshed. It has been internationalized
already to a considerable extent.
Eyal Zisser: Well, you know, I don't think that for example military
intervention is a good idea.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: What is the Israeli position on the issue?
Eyal Zisser: Well, you know, we got used to Bashar al-Assad and he did
maintain the borders for long time very quiet, so I think it is better
to have him in power than to jump to an unknown situation. But then it
is not in the hands of Israel in the end as a cradle of Christianity.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Is it a position of the Government, I mean is it
the official position of Israel?
Eyal Zisser: Yes, that's basically the position of the Government,
Israel shouldn't interfere, Israel should follow close with the
events. It is not anyhow in our hands, there is very little we can
do. So, that's the way it can be seen.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: And now I suggest we might listen to the author
of the story Aisling Byrne of Conflicts Forum, the UK.
Aisling Byrne: What we see in Syria is that it's very much a many
factored case of regime change. There is definitely a large component
of Syrian society who wants much more pluralism, they live under very
restricted conditions, a very strong Muhabarat and security system
which controls, you know, almost all aspects of people's lives. I
worked there managing the UN project for a year and it is very
apparent and very suffocating life that people lead.
So, there is very definitely a need for reform but what we see in the
Syrian case is that it is a many factored case for a regime change led
by America and a number of European allies, particularly Britain and
France, and then of course regional allies, and particular Saudi
Arabia and Qatar.
And now all this is presented as a part of, a sort of wave of
revolutions or awakenings in the region. In fact the Syrian case is
very different and it's very important to understand that, and that's
why the media, the propaganda claims that this is simply a popular
uprising that we see in Syria - we have pro-democracy protesters that
are being brutally killed and tortured and etc. by Assad and his
security forces. It's not completely true, in fact it is far from the
truth. And there are mysterious stad forces, there are armed gangs and
there is a lot of foreign intervention really pushing this case to
keep this narrative as sort of the main narrative. And it is very
important to prosect it, to really understand what's happening in
Syria.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: What could be the ultimate goal of international
involvement in that country?
Aisling Byrne: I think it is very clear, I mean a number of US
officials a few months ago were very clear about what they see as an
important strategic position of Syria. Thom Donilon, the National
Security Advisor said that the greatest setback for Iran in the region
would be the loss of Syria. And a few weeks before Jeffrey Feltman
Assistant Secretary for the Middle East said that the US would
tenaciously pursue it to track strategy of both supporting the
opposition and also diplomatically and financially strangling the
regime until that comes as achieved.
They've been actually very clear that this isn't about, you know, a
pro-democracy project, that's just a cover, the aim of this is the
regime change, the Assad's regime with the view of hurting and really
damaging Iran. And Syria has been called a strategic prize in the war
between the West and Iran and also of course toppling Syria's support
for Hamas and Hezbollah. So, it is part of the regional conflict which
is actually focused on Iran.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Your article is entitled "A mistaken case for
Syrian regime change", so, do I get you right that the project has not
been going on as it had been planned?
Aisling Byrne: I think it hasn't happened as planned for a number of
reasons. Partly I'm not sure that West is ready and is really keen to
get involved directly, I refer to an article, there is a very keen
report produced by the Brooklyn Institute some years ago called "Which
path took Asia". And this report, it is very important because in a
sense it's the blueprint of a regime change in the region. And if you
read it all the components that advocate are absolutely what we've
been seeing in Syria.
The US has not wanted to be directly involved, and I think what they
say and what is referred to very much in a "Which path took Asia"
report that I quote. Whilst it is much cheaper to have an insurgency,
to support an insurgency in a country or to have proxies fighting the
road for it. And I think that's what we've been seeing in Syria. The
great hope of the US and its allies, and Qatar, and Saudi Arabia is
that the proxies who are fighting this inside, particularly the Syrian
National Council and the Free Syria Army, some of the armed insurgents
whom they've been arming and financing.
Leading critics since the beginning have said that there need to be
full accountability of people at whatever level - in the Government,
in the security forces when any human rights abuse sort of been
committed. But I think that the sort of the constructiveness narrative
is increasing, there is an acknowledgement that there are armed
groups, what the Syrian Government is saying - this is an insurgency
led by armed groups.
In other countries they would be called terrorists but they are not
called terrorists in Syria. In the Western media, you know, there is
always a debate in reference to a terrorists operating in Bahrain,
that were supposedly people operating outside interference, in eastern
Saudi Arabia the same thing. But when it comes to Syria there is
absolutely no acknowledgement of any, well, there hasn't been until
recently, of any sort of external actors.
And I think gradually the narrative now is being very condemned. Some
people have been saying that from the very beginning but they have
been sort of ridiculed, including Syria - Russian Foreign Ministry
officials. And Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the case for a
humanitarian intervention has always been made, you know, there is a
mass occur about to happen because they want international
intervention. So, the sort of the construction of the narrative is
very important in this respect.
7) My original post on the Washington Post and Ron Paul's message:
Iran's not crazy nor suicidal and America can't afford another war,
period.
Subject: The Washington Post is a prime example of why our country's
in trouble
The Washington Post is a prime example of why our country is in such
deep trouble. It insists on always giving America (through its
enormous Citizen Kane-like influence) a government which will cut
bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 4:12 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> Paul is honest as well as earnest, as his middle name tells us.
>>
>> (The parents' choice of a name for him must have had an enormous and
>> perhaps decisive lifelong influence on the person. It makes him the
>> serious person he has shown himself to us today. He's memorized the
>> Constitution and is said to always read a book on economics in his
>> free time. And I believe him.)
>
>By that logic, your parent must have named you either "shameless
>> Paul is honest as well as earnest, as his middle name tells us.
>>
>> (The parents' choice of a name for him must have had an enormous and
>> perhaps decisive lifelong influence on the person. It makes him the
>> serious person he has shown himself to us today. He's memorized the
>> Constitution and is said to always read a book on economics in his
>> free time. And I believe him.)
>
>hypocrite" or "useful idiot"
See, you don't know logic. But it doesn't matter. It shows that
you're one of those who are really itching to kill those Iranian
mullahs you've referred to as "crazy mullahs". You're with a very
powerful side - the side of the neocons - so are the Washington Post
and the New York Times. You don't care about bankrupting our country.
You just care about getting your fix ... sigh!!!
But first of all I would let everybody know that my name was not given
to me by my "parent" because it's a genetic impossibility.
But that's okay because you obviously don't know any better when you
like to get people killed so much, like what has been done to the
people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya so far.
Second of all, you claimed to care about the Chinese people so much
but you know nothing about them. In this case, you don't even know
that it's a widespread practice for the grandfather, especially the
paternal grandfather, to name a new born in China.
So, by trying to insult me, you have insulted the Chinese people.
And obviously, you don't care about the Chinese people. You attacked
ltlee1 and baldeagle because of the pro-Chinese messages they posted.
And of course you spit such drivels and such venomous ad hominem at me
due to my effort to debunk the neocon narrative which glorifies mass
destruction against whole countries and whole peoples and to expose
the deception about Da Lama and the like of Liu Xiaobo, both of whom
have been paid big time by the CIA or its successors (the NED and
other NGO agencies the US government directly or indirectly funded),
in order to destabilize China and kill her like we have "killed Iraq"
(Tariq Aziz).
Furthermore, I have throughout my life taken the name my grandfather
gave me absolutely seriously and that's why I've devoted so much of my
precious time to debunk the propaganda of the neocons. You haven't
given one instance which would show me to be "either `shameless
hypocrite' or `useful idiot'. (I have always been consistent about my
pro-peace stance and I have all my posts on the internet to prove it.)
So the ad hominem is just that - baseless and was done entirely for
the purpose of deflecting the message that Ron Paul is a real patriot
by telling the American people that we don't need another war and we
can't afford one, period.
And finally, Ron Paul is exact right about spreading the message of
peace at a time when America as well as the world needs to hear it the
most. By attacking me ad hominem, the net effect is to try to drown
out his voice and his contribution to world peace as well as the
survival of our country.
On the other hand for you to insult the Chinese people, you have
finally exposed yourself to be nothing but a mouthpiece for the
neocons who want to smear every government they want to execute a
regime change. You are such a sorry sight for whomever you work for,
what a pity!
But just look at how unpopular the neocon agenda against Iran, Syria,
and other countires is in many parts of the world based on a sample of
what I found on the internet and am attaching below, any intelligent
American voter should realize that Ron Paul is right on point about
a war with Iran or any other country is exactly what we don't need.
Ron Paul for President in 2012!
lo yeeOn
========
1) The Korean people are unhappy
U.S. Presses South Korea to Reduce Oil Imports from Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/world/asia/us-presses-south-korea-to-reduce-oil-imports-from-iran.html?_r=1
South Korea protesters rallied opposing a visit of Robert Einhorn,
U.S. State Department's special adviser for nonproliferation and arms
control, outside the foreign ministry in Seoul, South Korea, on
Tuesday.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/18/world/18korea1_span/18korea1_span-articleLarge.jpg
By CHOE SANG-HUN
Published: January 17, 2012
Seoul, South Korea (Reuters) - A senior American diplomat urged South
Korea on Tuesday to reduce its imports of Iranian crude oil as the
United States continued to seek support from major Asian economies to
increase pressure on Tehran to halt its nuclear program.
"We are urging all of our partners to help us, to work with us in
putting more pressure on the government of Iran to get them to
negotiate seriously," Robert J. Einhorn, the State Department's
special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, told reporters
in Seoul, where he met Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Jae-shin of South
Korea on Tuesday. "In particular, we are urging them to reduce their
purchases of crude oil from Iran, and we are urging them to unwind
their financial dealings with the Central Bank of Iran."
South Korea deals with Iran's central bank to make payments for the
oil, which supplies almost 10 percent of its oil imports.
Washington is trying to curtail Iran's oil exports, its main revenue
source, and isolate the central bank. Delegations from the State,
Energy and Treasury Departments are fanning out to Iran's major
customers, as well as to rival oil producers, to enlist their help in
stifling Iran's oil exports while making up any gap in supplies.
South Korea, a crucial American ally, voiced support for Washington's
efforts to check Iran's nuclear program. Seoul depends on the United
States for its defense against North Korea and works together with
Washington to curb the Iran's nuclear weapons program. American
officials believe that a successful crackdown on Iran's nuclear
program could help curb North Korea's.
But leaders of South Korea, which depends on imported oil, fear a
sudden reduction in purchases from Iran might disrupt South Korea's
energy security and raise oil prices. Fighting inflation is President
Lee Myung-bak's key policy promise for 2012.
Seoul has yet to announce whether and by how much it might reduce its
oil imports from Iran.
. . .
-----
2) India is entirely up front about the US-imposed sanction regime
against Iran
Reuters
8:34 p.m. CST, January 17, 2012
India says not seeking Iran oil waiver from U.S.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-india-irantre80h05f-20120117,0,5853373.story
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India is not seeking a waiver from the United
States that would protect buyers of Iranian oil from a fresh round of
sanctions, and New Delhi continues to import from Tehran, Indian
Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai said on Tuesday.
New U.S. sanctions, authorized on December 31, penalize any financial
institution dealing with Iran's central bank and could make it more
difficult for India to pay Iran for oil imports. An Indian delegation
is currently in Tehran for talks.
The U.S. still allows waivers for firms in countries that
significantly reduce dealings with Iran or when it is either in the
U.S. national interest or necessary for energy market stability.
Japan, South Korea and Turkey have all said they could seek waivers.
-----
India rejects US embargo, to import oil from Iran
Sachin Parashar, TNN | Jan 18, 2012, 08.49AM IST
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-rejects-US-embargo-to-import-oil-from-Iran/articleshow/11533906.cms
NEW DELHI: Even as China cuts down drastically its oil imports from
Iran, which is soon likely to run into fresh sanctions from the US and
the EU, India on Tuesday declared it will continue to import crude oil
from the country.
Brushing aside US sanctions that prevent financial institutions from
doing business with Tehran and its central bank, foreign secretary
Ranjan Mathai stated that India will only accept sanctions imposed by
the UN.
"We have accepted sanctions which are made by the UN. Other sanctions
do not apply to individual countries. We can't accept that," said
Mathai, adding that India had not sought any waiver from US sanctions.
This was even as EU high representative for foreign affairs ,
Catherine Ashton, told TOI on Tuesday that the sanctions against Iran
by the EU, which is on the verge of banning oil imports from Iran, are
designed to make Iran fulfill its obligations as a signatory to the
NPT. "It's not impossible for countries like India to have a strategic
relation with Iran and yet convey that it is not fulfilling its
international commitments in pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. The
sanctions are designed to prevent Iran's nuclear programme and nothing
beyond that," Ashton said.
3) ELAND: Iran sanctions won't work
Effectiveness of economic restrictions always erodes over time
By Ivan Eland - The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/17/iran-sanctions-wont-work/
For the United States, which already imports no petroleum from Iran,
the new sanctions are intended to impair the ability of other
countries to buy Iranian oil. This would be accomplished by imposing
sanctions on entities from those nations that complete transactions
with Iran's central bank, which provides the payment mechanism for oil
purchases.
While supporters of the tightened sanctions see the measure putting
additional economic pressure on the Iranian government, Iran's
long-term revenue losses from oil exports probably would be minimal.
For example, despite the existing sanctions on Iran's petroleum
sector, the country exported some $71.6 billion worth of petroleum
products in 2010, according to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC). The Iranian government reports that 2011 was even
better - calling it a record year of oil sales.
The problem with all sanctions is that they erode over time as the
target nation redirects its products to countries that aren't
participating in the sanctions or finds ways to trade illegally with
entities in the sanctioning countries. With such "market reordering"
and outright evasion, the target country is rarely starved of export
revenues.
Sanctions on Iranian oil, for example, are bound to fail because
rapidly growing countries in the developing world, such as China and
India, care less about Iran's nuclear program than about getting cheap
oil. Iran probably will oblige them by selling its oil at a discount,
thus allowing it to recoup otherwise lost sales. More important than
the likely economic effects of the sanctions are the likely political
effects. Yet sanctions are fundamentally an economic tool for
achieving political ends.
. . .
-----
Gosh, those Iranians are really wicked, aren't they? They're copying
our "Justice Coin" trick!
January 17, 2012, 4:48 pm
Iran Offers U.S. Tiny Replica of Lost Drone
By ROBERT MACKEY
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/iran-offers-u-s-tiny-replica-of-lost-drone/
While Iran's government has so far refused an American request to
return the C.I.A. stealth drone it captured last month, on Tuesday, an
Iranian company that is manufacturing miniature replicas of the drone
in several colors offered to send President Obama a pink one.
According to Iranian state radio, the scale models of the drone are
one-eightieth the size of the RQ-170 Sentinel surveillance craft
Iran's military proudly displayed on television last month after it
either crashed or was forced down.
Thomas Erdbrink, a Washington Post correspondent in Tehran, reports
that a local firm, the Ayeh Art Group, is now making 2,000 toy drones
a day. Reza Kioumarsi, an official with the firm, told Mr. Erdbrink
that since Mr. Obama said he wanted the drone back, "we will send him
one."
The souvenir aircraft retails for about $4, but, like the
commemorative "Justice Coin" that Americans can now buy to celebrate
the Navy Seal mission that killed Osama bin Laden, the purchase price
includes bonus gifts. According to the Ayeh Art Group Web site, the
toy drone comes with a plastic stand bearing the slogan, "We will put
America under our feet", a quotation from the founder of Iran's
Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
An Iranian Web site displaying more images of the toy drones also
features an animation mocking Mr. Obama for losing the surveillance
aircraft. The cartoon shows a caricature of the American president
enjoying a ride on a drone, until it is taken over and forced to land
by an Iranian officer holding what looks like an old-fashioned
Nintendo game controller. (While the United States claims that the
drone malfunctioned and crashed, Iran insists that its military
wrested away control of the aircraft and brought it in for a landing.)
Readers interested in securing one of the toy drones can check
Mr. Erdbrink's Twitter feed on Wednesday, when he plans to give away
10 to winners of a quiz.
-----
NAM condemns drone incursion into Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/221655.html
The RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft was downed by Iran's armed forces
in the east of the country on December 4, 2011.
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has issued a statement to condemn the
violation of Iranian airspace by a US spy drone late last year.
The NAM Coordinating Bureau issued the statement on Tuesday to
denounce the US incursion into the Islamic Republic's airspace.
The 120-member bloc says the violation of Iran's airspace contravenes
all universally accepted international norms relating to the
sovereignty of the airspace of countries.
Earlier in January, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation also
censured the breach of Iranian airspace by the US spy drone.
On December 4, Iran announced that an electronic warfare unit of the
Iranian armed forces took control of a US RQ-170 Sentinel stealth
drone, which was flying over the northeastern Iranian city of Kashmar,
and gave it the command to land in Iran.
On December 12, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that
Washington had submitted a formal request asking Iran to return the
drone.
One day later, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi
announced that the aircraft would remain in the country's possession
since it was the property of the Islamic Republic.
Tehran says the US spy drone mission was a "hostile act" and has
lodged a complaint at the United Nations over the reconnaissance
aircraft's violation of its airspace.
AS/HGL
-----
Israeli analysts: Iran still mulling whether to build bomb
Published 02:32 18.01.12
Latest update 02:32 18.01.12
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-analysts-iran-still-mulling-whether-to-build-bomb-1.407866
Israel also believes Iranian regime now facing unprecedented threat to
stability, which combines external and internal pressure: harsh
sanctions, threats of military action, economic distress and worries
about the results of the March parliamentary election.
By Amos Harel
4) Syria - a proxy war between the US and Iran
Syria: Proxy Iran-US war
5:53 AM, January 16, 2012 Abby W. Schachter
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/syria_proxy_iran_us_war_El9ubt8hILHKsb4BA1DkPJ
This morning it is Iran that is saber-rattling over the possibility of
war with the United States . According to the Jerusalem Post, an
Iranian Revolutionary Guard official has declared that Iran would
"protect" Syria from incursions by outside forces. The official
suggested that Iran would have "the Revolutionary Guards 'surround'
Syria through their allies in Iraq and Lebanon."
Why is Iran making threats of war on behalf of Syria?
Because at meetings of the Arab League, Qatar actually suggested
sending Arab League troops into Syria to stop the government slaughter
of civilians that have left more than 5,000 people dead. And because
the United States accused the Iranians of providing arms to Syria to
conduct that slaughter.
Whether the Arab League actually decides to shatter the false unity of
the League and go to war to free Syria remains to be seen, but pay
attention to Iran's response and the poor strategic position of the
United States if such an effort were to be made.
Now that the US has cleared out of Iraq, the Iranianians are free to
claim they can support Syria "through their allies in Iraq and
Lebanon." Meaning on either side of Syria there is Iran. Just a few
months ago, the United States was in a position to secure (or try to
secure) the long border between Syria and Iraq. Today this is no
longer the case.
Whether or not you support the possibility of going to war to free
Syria or if you supported the war in Iraq in the first place, the fact
is that US troops were on the ground and in a much better position to
stand against Iranian aggression when they were actually in Iraq. Now
not so much.
5) Far too risky to go to war with Iran (Yanning)
Red Line -> Syria: facts and doubts, iran crisis and Michael Mcfaul
http://english.ruvr.ru/radio_broadcast/9255436/63804654.html
Jan 13, 2012 17:55 Moscow Time
. . .
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Well, but there are still chances that there
might be no war with Iran. So, let's listen to Josef Yanning -
Director of Studies at the European Policy Center in Brussels.
Josef Yanning: The United States is rather keen on continuing to
isolate the Iranian regime, it's part of the US strategy, it's part of
Western strategy in general to deny the regime as many opportunities
as possible to link up in prosperous through relationships with other
countries.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: As far as I understand the US was also looking
at engaging Iran and engaging Cuba. Are there two parallel policies
running in the US political establishment vis-a-vis those countries
or has the radical prevailed?
Josef Yanning: Well, in a way the presidential election is casting a
shadow and the Obama Administration can now not afford to engage Cuba
because Cuba is not clearly moving into a direction that would allow
the Administration to modify its policies. That maybe a nowise
decision, you know, it maybe against the long term interests of the
United States in bringing about a peaceful and gradual transition of
Cuba but that are of the domestic constraints of the US foreign
policy.
Also as much as Iran has become an issue in the Republican debates,
among the contestants for the nomination, their hand are tired with
the Administration on moving in anyway closer to seeking a talking
relationship with Iran. I think we cannot expect this to happen in
2012 when it comes to maintaining at least some level of contact with
the Iranian regime. That will fall into hands of the Europeans, Cathy
Ashton is sending signals every ones in a while, the EU is free do
this, the Europeans unlike the United States do have an interest in
maintaining at least a certain level of connectedness with Iran simply
in order to better read what's going on inside.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: So, do I get you right that your forecast is
that the whole situation is not going beyond the war of words between
the two countries?
Josef Yanning: I don't see it happening in 2012, even as the Iranian
nuclear program appears to continue in a pace that is not in any
recognizable way shaped by international reactions, it is far the
risky and far too uncontrollable to wage any kind of military action
on Iran. So, I think any president stands to lose a lot on this and
any contender may find it a bit easier to speak strongly but they
would also be rather reluctant to be very precise on what to do, when
and how.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Mr. Yanning, thank you very much.
. . .
"Between the lines"
". . . But anyway, just tell me, do you think that YouGov is unbiased
source?"
Sergey Strokan: But what about YouGov?
Ekaterina Kudashkina: The story's quoting the results of the YouGov
poll commissioned by the Qatar Foundation in the last days of the year
of 2011. The poll showed that 55% of Syrians do not want Assad to
resign. And now, compare it to the pre-war Assad/s popularity rating
of some 46%.
So what do we do with that?
. . .
6) The neocon's deisgn on Syria should stop
Eyal Zisser on Syria crisis: a many factored case for a regime change
led by America and allies + Aisling Byrne on the narrative of the West
Red Line -> Syria: facts and doubts, iran crisis and Michael Mcfaul
http://english.ruvr.ru/radio_broadcast/9255436/63804654.html
Jan 13, 2012 17:55 Moscow Time
. . .
Ekaterina Kudashkina: And this is the problem. And I suggest we could
talk two experts now. One is the author of the story and the other one
is the Israeli expert Eyal Zisser who will tell us how the Syrian
society is split regarding Bashar Assad.
Eyal Zisser: Well, the situation is not as bad as the impression in
the West but is not as good as we see it. So, of course nothing new,
the bottom line didn't leave any news. He is determined to continue
fighting for his survival, even not to give up like Mubarak or like
other Arab leaders. He believes that time is playing on his side and
the situation is quite stable and good and of course there are empty
promises and regular accusations against foreign forces. So, basically
it's the same of what we've heard him in his previous speeches.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: But you said that the situation is not as bad as
it looks.
Eyal Zisser: I think that he still enjoys great support between major
settlements of the Syrian population, it's a peasant revolt, it's very
fairly mainly and the minorities, there are 40% of the population as
well as urban middle class in the big cities who are still with him.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: As an expert what would be your advice to the
international community?
Eyal Zisser: It is a domestic struggle between different segments of
the society and you should let the Syrian people decide its fate, I
mean unfortunately it's not through a democratic process because such
a process with system is not available in Syria, it maybe through a
violence. But I think that eventually the one who has support of the
majority of the people will end with ...
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Much bloodshed. It has been internationalized
already to a considerable extent.
Eyal Zisser: Well, you know, I don't think that for example military
intervention is a good idea.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: What is the Israeli position on the issue?
Eyal Zisser: Well, you know, we got used to Bashar al-Assad and he did
maintain the borders for long time very quiet, so I think it is better
to have him in power than to jump to an unknown situation. But then it
is not in the hands of Israel in the end as a cradle of Christianity.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Is it a position of the Government, I mean is it
the official position of Israel?
Eyal Zisser: Yes, that's basically the position of the Government,
Israel shouldn't interfere, Israel should follow close with the
events. It is not anyhow in our hands, there is very little we can
do. So, that's the way it can be seen.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: And now I suggest we might listen to the author
of the story Aisling Byrne of Conflicts Forum, the UK.
Aisling Byrne: What we see in Syria is that it's very much a many
factored case of regime change. There is definitely a large component
of Syrian society who wants much more pluralism, they live under very
restricted conditions, a very strong Muhabarat and security system
which controls, you know, almost all aspects of people's lives. I
worked there managing the UN project for a year and it is very
apparent and very suffocating life that people lead.
So, there is very definitely a need for reform but what we see in the
Syrian case is that it is a many factored case for a regime change led
by America and a number of European allies, particularly Britain and
France, and then of course regional allies, and particular Saudi
Arabia and Qatar.
And now all this is presented as a part of, a sort of wave of
revolutions or awakenings in the region. In fact the Syrian case is
very different and it's very important to understand that, and that's
why the media, the propaganda claims that this is simply a popular
uprising that we see in Syria - we have pro-democracy protesters that
are being brutally killed and tortured and etc. by Assad and his
security forces. It's not completely true, in fact it is far from the
truth. And there are mysterious stad forces, there are armed gangs and
there is a lot of foreign intervention really pushing this case to
keep this narrative as sort of the main narrative. And it is very
important to prosect it, to really understand what's happening in
Syria.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: What could be the ultimate goal of international
involvement in that country?
Aisling Byrne: I think it is very clear, I mean a number of US
officials a few months ago were very clear about what they see as an
important strategic position of Syria. Thom Donilon, the National
Security Advisor said that the greatest setback for Iran in the region
would be the loss of Syria. And a few weeks before Jeffrey Feltman
Assistant Secretary for the Middle East said that the US would
tenaciously pursue it to track strategy of both supporting the
opposition and also diplomatically and financially strangling the
regime until that comes as achieved.
They've been actually very clear that this isn't about, you know, a
pro-democracy project, that's just a cover, the aim of this is the
regime change, the Assad's regime with the view of hurting and really
damaging Iran. And Syria has been called a strategic prize in the war
between the West and Iran and also of course toppling Syria's support
for Hamas and Hezbollah. So, it is part of the regional conflict which
is actually focused on Iran.
Ekaterina Kudashkina: Your article is entitled "A mistaken case for
Syrian regime change", so, do I get you right that the project has not
been going on as it had been planned?
Aisling Byrne: I think it hasn't happened as planned for a number of
reasons. Partly I'm not sure that West is ready and is really keen to
get involved directly, I refer to an article, there is a very keen
report produced by the Brooklyn Institute some years ago called "Which
path took Asia". And this report, it is very important because in a
sense it's the blueprint of a regime change in the region. And if you
read it all the components that advocate are absolutely what we've
been seeing in Syria.
The US has not wanted to be directly involved, and I think what they
say and what is referred to very much in a "Which path took Asia"
report that I quote. Whilst it is much cheaper to have an insurgency,
to support an insurgency in a country or to have proxies fighting the
road for it. And I think that's what we've been seeing in Syria. The
great hope of the US and its allies, and Qatar, and Saudi Arabia is
that the proxies who are fighting this inside, particularly the Syrian
National Council and the Free Syria Army, some of the armed insurgents
whom they've been arming and financing.
Leading critics since the beginning have said that there need to be
full accountability of people at whatever level - in the Government,
in the security forces when any human rights abuse sort of been
committed. But I think that the sort of the constructiveness narrative
is increasing, there is an acknowledgement that there are armed
groups, what the Syrian Government is saying - this is an insurgency
led by armed groups.
In other countries they would be called terrorists but they are not
called terrorists in Syria. In the Western media, you know, there is
always a debate in reference to a terrorists operating in Bahrain,
that were supposedly people operating outside interference, in eastern
Saudi Arabia the same thing. But when it comes to Syria there is
absolutely no acknowledgement of any, well, there hasn't been until
recently, of any sort of external actors.
And I think gradually the narrative now is being very condemned. Some
people have been saying that from the very beginning but they have
been sort of ridiculed, including Syria - Russian Foreign Ministry
officials. And Foreign Minister Lavrov said that the case for a
humanitarian intervention has always been made, you know, there is a
mass occur about to happen because they want international
intervention. So, the sort of the construction of the narrative is
very important in this respect.
7) My original post on the Washington Post and Ron Paul's message:
Iran's not crazy nor suicidal and America can't afford another war,
period.
Subject: The Washington Post is a prime example of why our country's
in trouble
The Washington Post is a prime example of why our country is in such
deep trouble. It insists on always giving America (through its
enormous Citizen Kane-like influence) a government which will cut
domestic spending but keep the preponderant culprit for our economic
problem out of consideration: overseas military projects. It is
therefore also using its influence to try to silence critics - the
messengers of peace and prosperity, such as Ron Paul.
The latest gimmick is to attack Paul's flying first-class between
D.C. and his congressional district. It tries to make an issue of his
sincerity. But the expense of flying first-class (with its obvious
flexibility and other advantages) is a drop in the bucket compared
problem out of consideration: overseas military projects. It is
therefore also using its influence to try to silence critics - the
messengers of peace and prosperity, such as Ron Paul.
The latest gimmick is to attack Paul's flying first-class between
D.C. and his congressional district. It tries to make an issue of his
sincerity. But the expense of flying first-class (with its obvious
with Obama's latest "challenge" to Congress to let him cut 3 billions
over 10 years. Obama's latest tinkering is in turn only a drop in the
bucket compared to his promise to cut military spending of 45 billions
over the next 10 years while the total open military spending will
continue to grow to maintain the superiority of our military might
overseas and the influence over the rest of the world. And finally
the 45 billions in 10 years cut is in turn a drop in the bucket when
compared with the 16+ trillion deficit that is bleeding us to death
through the interest we have to pay every year. Paul knows economics
over 10 years. Obama's latest tinkering is in turn only a drop in the
bucket compared to his promise to cut military spending of 45 billions
over the next 10 years while the total open military spending will
continue to grow to maintain the superiority of our military might
overseas and the influence over the rest of the world. And finally
the 45 billions in 10 years cut is in turn a drop in the bucket when
compared with the 16+ trillion deficit that is bleeding us to death
rst0
Jan 18, 2012, 12:09:52 PM1/18/12
to
On Jan 17, 10:13 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> In article <75bfe5cf-2c21-4b0c-b0a7-68a94eaf5...@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/world/asia/us-presses-south-korea-t...
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-india-irantre80h05f-2012...
>
> read more »
> In article <75bfe5cf-2c21-4b0c-b0a7-68a94eaf5...@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >By that logic, your parent must have named you either "shameless
> >hypocrite" or "useful idiot"
>
> See, you don't know logic.
He's a comedian, a very funny one, too.
> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >By that logic, your parent must have named you either "shameless
> >hypocrite" or "useful idiot"
>
> See, you don't know logic.
>
> South Korea protesters rallied opposing a visit of Robert Einhorn,
> U.S. State Department's special adviser for nonproliferation and arms
> control, outside the foreign ministry in Seoul, South Korea, on
> Tuesday.
>
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/18/world/18korea1_span/18...
> South Korea protesters rallied opposing a visit of Robert Einhorn,
> U.S. State Department's special adviser for nonproliferation and arms
> control, outside the foreign ministry in Seoul, South Korea, on
> Tuesday.
>
>
> NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India is not seeking a waiver from the United
> States that would protect buyers of Iranian oil from a fresh round of
> sanctions, and New Delhi continues to import from Tehran, Indian
> Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai said on Tuesday.
>
> New U.S. sanctions, authorized on December 31, penalize any financial
> institution dealing with Iran's central bank and could make it more
> difficult for India to pay Iran for oil imports. An Indian delegation
> is currently in Tehran for talks.
>
> The U.S. still allows waivers for firms in countries that
> significantly reduce dealings with Iran or when it is either in the
> U.S. national interest or necessary for energy market stability.
>
> Japan, South Korea and Turkey have all said they could seek waivers.
>
> -----
>
> India rejects US embargo, to import oil from Iran
> Sachin Parashar, TNN | Jan 18, 2012, 08.49AM IST
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-rejects-US-embargo-to-...
> NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India is not seeking a waiver from the United
> States that would protect buyers of Iranian oil from a fresh round of
> sanctions, and New Delhi continues to import from Tehran, Indian
> Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai said on Tuesday.
>
> New U.S. sanctions, authorized on December 31, penalize any financial
> institution dealing with Iran's central bank and could make it more
> difficult for India to pay Iran for oil imports. An Indian delegation
> is currently in Tehran for talks.
>
> The U.S. still allows waivers for firms in countries that
> significantly reduce dealings with Iran or when it is either in the
> U.S. national interest or necessary for energy market stability.
>
> Japan, South Korea and Turkey have all said they could seek waivers.
>
> -----
>
> India rejects US embargo, to import oil from Iran
> Sachin Parashar, TNN | Jan 18, 2012, 08.49AM IST
>
>
> NEW DELHI: Even as China cuts down drastically its oil imports from
> Iran, which is soon likely to run into fresh sanctions from the US and
> the EU, India on Tuesday declared it will continue to import crude oil
> from the country.
>
> Brushing aside US sanctions that prevent financial institutions from
> doing business with Tehran and its central bank, foreign secretary
> Ranjan Mathai stated that India will only accept sanctions imposed by
> the UN.
>
> "We have accepted sanctions which are made by the UN. Other sanctions
> do not apply to individual countries. We can't accept that," said
> Mathai, adding that India had not sought any waiver from US sanctions.
>
> This was even as EU high representative for foreign affairs ,
> Catherine Ashton, told TOI on Tuesday that the sanctions against Iran
> by the EU, which is on the verge of banning oil imports from Iran, are
> designed to make Iran fulfill its obligations as a signatory to the
> NPT. "It's not impossible for countries like India to have a strategic
> relation with Iran and yet convey that it is not fulfilling its
> international commitments in pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. The
> sanctions are designed to prevent Iran's nuclear programme and nothing
> beyond that," Ashton said.
>
> 3) ELAND: Iran sanctions won't work
>
> Effectiveness of economic restrictions always erodes over time
>
> By Ivan Eland - The Washington Times
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/17/iran-sanctions-wont-w...
> NEW DELHI: Even as China cuts down drastically its oil imports from
> Iran, which is soon likely to run into fresh sanctions from the US and
> the EU, India on Tuesday declared it will continue to import crude oil
> from the country.
>
> Brushing aside US sanctions that prevent financial institutions from
> doing business with Tehran and its central bank, foreign secretary
> Ranjan Mathai stated that India will only accept sanctions imposed by
> the UN.
>
> "We have accepted sanctions which are made by the UN. Other sanctions
> do not apply to individual countries. We can't accept that," said
> Mathai, adding that India had not sought any waiver from US sanctions.
>
> This was even as EU high representative for foreign affairs ,
> Catherine Ashton, told TOI on Tuesday that the sanctions against Iran
> by the EU, which is on the verge of banning oil imports from Iran, are
> designed to make Iran fulfill its obligations as a signatory to the
> NPT. "It's not impossible for countries like India to have a strategic
> relation with Iran and yet convey that it is not fulfilling its
> international commitments in pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. The
> sanctions are designed to prevent Iran's nuclear programme and nothing
> beyond that," Ashton said.
>
> 3) ELAND: Iran sanctions won't work
>
> Effectiveness of economic restrictions always erodes over time
>
> By Ivan Eland - The Washington Times
>
>
> For the United States, which already imports no petroleum from Iran,
> the new sanctions are intended to impair the ability of other
> countries to buy Iranian oil. This would be accomplished by imposing
> sanctions on entities from those nations that complete transactions
> with Iran's central bank, which provides the payment mechanism for oil
> purchases.
>
> While supporters of the tightened sanctions see the measure putting
> additional economic pressure on the Iranian government, Iran's
> long-term revenue losses from oil exports probably would be minimal.
> For example, despite the existing...
> For the United States, which already imports no petroleum from Iran,
> the new sanctions are intended to impair the ability of other
> countries to buy Iranian oil. This would be accomplished by imposing
> sanctions on entities from those nations that complete transactions
> with Iran's central bank, which provides the payment mechanism for oil
> purchases.
>
> While supporters of the tightened sanctions see the measure putting
> additional economic pressure on the Iranian government, Iran's
> long-term revenue losses from oil exports probably would be minimal.
>
> read more »
Lazarus Cain
Jan 18, 2012, 3:13:38 PM1/18/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Both the US and Iran need a regime change.
The best way to do that is to let US have its way, and let Russia and
China pick up the pieces after both nations are destroyed.
It is not as if the rest of us wish to pick sides between them. Prefer
to see the three nations severley chastised, which includes Israel.
All three deserve a massive regime change. and Armageddon will bring
that about if they push it.
bmo...@nyx.net
Jan 18, 2012, 1:36:30 PM1/18/12
to
On Jan 17, 10:13 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> In article <75bfe5cf-2c21-4b0c-b0a7-68a94eaf5...@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
stopping war, he gets to tell you what you care about and what you
don't care about.
No one really understands you, but it is fun to point out how freakish
you are.
> But first of all I would let everybody know that my name was not given
> to me by my "parent" because it's a genetic impossibility.
You never had parents? See, you *are* a freak!
> In article <75bfe5cf-2c21-4b0c-b0a7-68a94eaf5...@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 4:12 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> >> Paul is honest as well as earnest, as his middle name tells us.
>
> >> (The parents' choice of a name for him must have had an enormous and
> >> perhaps decisive lifelong influence on the person. It makes him the
> >> serious person he has shown himself to us today. He's memorized the
> >> Constitution and is said to always read a book on economics in his
> >> free time. And I believe him.)
>
> >By that logic, your parent must have named you either "shameless
> >hypocrite" or "useful idiot"
>
> See, you don't know logic. But it doesn't matter. It shows that
> you're one of those who are really itching to kill those Iranian
> mullahs you've referred to as "crazy mullahs". You're with a very
> powerful side - the side of the neocons - so are the Washington Post
> and the New York Times. You don't care about bankrupting our country.
> You just care about getting your fix ... sigh!!!
Translation: if you don't agree with LoYawn's ineffectual approach to
> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 4:12 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> >> Paul is honest as well as earnest, as his middle name tells us.
>
> >> (The parents' choice of a name for him must have had an enormous and
> >> perhaps decisive lifelong influence on the person. It makes him the
> >> serious person he has shown himself to us today. He's memorized the
> >> Constitution and is said to always read a book on economics in his
> >> free time. And I believe him.)
>
> >By that logic, your parent must have named you either "shameless
> >hypocrite" or "useful idiot"
>
> See, you don't know logic. But it doesn't matter. It shows that
> you're one of those who are really itching to kill those Iranian
> mullahs you've referred to as "crazy mullahs". You're with a very
> powerful side - the side of the neocons - so are the Washington Post
> and the New York Times. You don't care about bankrupting our country.
> You just care about getting your fix ... sigh!!!
stopping war, he gets to tell you what you care about and what you
don't care about.
No one really understands you, but it is fun to point out how freakish
you are.
> But first of all I would let everybody know that my name was not given
> to me by my "parent" because it's a genetic impossibility.
bmo...@nyx.net
Jan 23, 2012, 7:20:44 PM1/23/12
to
On Jan 17, 10:13 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> In article <75bfe5cf-2c21-4b0c-b0a7-68a94eaf5...@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
self-importance you will never make a difference.
>(I have always been consistent about my
>pro-peace stance and I have all my posts on the internet to prove it.)
What shit. You have no interest in peace unless you can bash white
people while "promoting" it. If Assad kills people, you give him a
pass, or incredibly, you blame the "West". That's hypocrisy, and none
of your long-winded drivel changes that.
> And of course you spit such drivels and such venomous ad hominem at me
> due to my effort
Your "effort" is pretty weak.
> to debunk the neocon narrative which glorifies mass
> destruction against whole countries and whole peoples and to expose
> the deception about Da Lama and the like of Liu Xiaobo, both of whom
> have been paid big time by the CIA or its successors (the NED and
> other NGO agencies the US government directly or indirectly funded),
>in order to destabilize China and kill her like we have "killed Iraq"
> (Tariq Aziz).
I'll bet if you lived in Iraq under Saddam you would, like Aziz, allow
the people to be raped so that you could profit personally.
Oh, but Aziz doesn't like Bush, so you like him.
I don't like Bush either but am not a fool like you, who embraces
anyone who doesn't like Bush as your comrade.
My gosh, you're pathetic. You sit in your comfortable chair as an
alleged "peace promoter" and pretend that you are doing God's work,
when in fact you are an agent of Satan. A useful idiot.
> In article <75bfe5cf-2c21-4b0c-b0a7-68a94eaf5...@34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> So, by trying to insult me, you have insulted the Chinese people.
What an arrogant fool you are. As long as you are unable to shed your
self-importance you will never make a difference.
>(I have always been consistent about my
>pro-peace stance and I have all my posts on the internet to prove it.)
people while "promoting" it. If Assad kills people, you give him a
pass, or incredibly, you blame the "West". That's hypocrisy, and none
of your long-winded drivel changes that.
> And of course you spit such drivels and such venomous ad hominem at me
> due to my effort
> to debunk the neocon narrative which glorifies mass
> destruction against whole countries and whole peoples and to expose
> the deception about Da Lama and the like of Liu Xiaobo, both of whom
> have been paid big time by the CIA or its successors (the NED and
> other NGO agencies the US government directly or indirectly funded),
>in order to destabilize China and kill her like we have "killed Iraq"
> (Tariq Aziz).
the people to be raped so that you could profit personally.
Oh, but Aziz doesn't like Bush, so you like him.
I don't like Bush either but am not a fool like you, who embraces
anyone who doesn't like Bush as your comrade.
My gosh, you're pathetic. You sit in your comfortable chair as an
alleged "peace promoter" and pretend that you are doing God's work,
when in fact you are an agent of Satan. A useful idiot.
0 new messages