Bernard Weisberger: Taking Exception to Exceptionalism

September 19, 2013

Editor’s note: This is a timely analysis of American exceptionalism by an eminent historian that  may attract the attention of  many  writers and journalists. I think, Professor Weisberger could have explained a bit more about the present role of American imperialism and its unbridled militarism – evidenced in the killing of millions of people in Vietnam and more recently in Iraq – because American military power serves only the interests of arms producers and their elitist beneficiaries; it has become a great threat to the weak nations and countries, which American rulers perceive as obstacles to American hegemony and domination.

Nasir Khan, Editor

————————————

President Barack Obama addresses the nation in a live televised speech from the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013. President Obama blended the threat of military action with the hope of a diplomatic solution as he works to strip Syria of its chemical weapons. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool)

President Barack Obama addresses the nation in a live televised speech from the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2013. President Obama blended the threat of military action with the hope of a diplomatic solution as he works to strip Syria of its chemical weapons. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool)

In the speech last week that put on hold his request to Congress to authorize the bombing of Syria’s chemical weapons sites, President Obama — no mean orator himself — faced a familiar orator’s problem. How would he end on a strong and upbeat note while announcing what was in fact a sensible retreat from his “red line” pledge dictated by clear and overwhelming evidence that both Congress and the public at large had no appetite for any more Middle Eastern interventions? How could he still defend America’s assertion of its role as the enforcer of the “civilized world’s” conscience even as he stepped back from the brink?

Continues >>

George Monbiot: Obama’s rogue state tramples over every law it demands others uphold

September 17, 2013

For 67 years the US has pursued its own interests at the expense of global justice – no wonder people are sceptical now

US fire white phosphorous at Taliban

US troops fire a white phosphorous mortar towards a Taliban position on 3 April 2009 in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Photograph: John Moore/Getty

You could almost pity these people. For 67 years successive US governments have resisted calls to reform the UN security council. They’ve defended a system which grants five nations a veto over world affairs, reducing all others to impotent spectators. They have abused the powers and trust with which they have been vested. They have collaborated with the other four permanent members (the UK, Russia, China and France) in a colonial carve-up, through which these nations can pursue their own corrupt interests at the expense of peace and global justice.

Continues >>

Paul Craig Roberts: The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars

September 6, 2013

 

By OpEdNews.com, Sept 5, 2013

  

Does the American public have the strength of character to face the fact that the US government stands before the entire world revealed as a collection of war criminals who lie every time that they open their mouths? Will Congress and the American public buy the White House lie that they must support war criminals and liars or “America will lose face”?

The obama regime’s lies are so transparent and blatant that the cautious, diplomatic President Putin of Russia lost his patience and stated the fact that we all already know: John Kerry is a liar. Putin said: “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them [the Americans], and we assume they are decent people, but he [Kerry] is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”

When Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent by the criminal bush regime to lie to the UN, Powell and his chief of staff claim that Powell did not know he was lying. It did not occur to the Secretary of State that the White House would send him to the UN to start a war that killed, maimed, and dispossessed millions of Iraqis on the basis of total lies.

Continues >>

Subsidy, a poem by Badri Raina

September 1, 2013

This madam Sonia ji—

She full of subsidy.

She not consider the difficulty

Of the rich and also famous;

She encourage the riff raff to tame us.

Really, subsidy  so much shame us

Among  Amreekan  diaspora

Which make us so proudy

At  antarrashtriya fora.

This Sonia of Italy desh think

All  india must have food;

What is she knowing about fasting

Which for health is so good?

Or about  karma which it is for sure

Makes god’s beloved rich

And all others poor?

Does she know vyavastha is meant

To serve those that have vaibhav,

Not to be wasted on dol, gavaar,

Shudra, pashu, naari,

Who are all, what does she know,

Only  taadan kei adhikaari?

This  Christianism plus Socialism—

It  very ghaatak for country;

Here  pandit and maulvi  they

Have no entry.

Now, land too not grabbable,

So  how  multiplex will spread?

Or  Mall and  Big Bazaar come up

When   kisaan  is well fed?

Next may come the  Vendor Bill,

Then daridra will rule  the street;

And  not one   kambakht  at hand

Whom  the kothi vaalaas might beat.

New shastra she is writing,

And  all voting with her;

Yeh kya ho raha hai,

Nahi hai kissi ko darr

Ki  bharat mei aayegi samta

Jo  nahi chaahatei Ishwar?

—Badri Raina,  Sep. 1, 2013

Syria: U.S. War Making at the Expense of Democracy

August 31, 2013


Professor Richard Falk, August 31, 2013

The U.S. Government rains drone missiles on civilian human targets anywhere in the world, continues to operate Guantanamo in the face of universal condemnation, whitewashed Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and the torture memos, committed aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, and invests billions to sustain its unlawful global surveillance capabilities. Still, it has the audacity to lecture the world about ‘norm enforcement’  in the wake of the chemical weapons attack in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus. Someone should remind President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that credibility with respect to international law begins at home and ends at the United Nations. Sadly, the American government loses out at both ends of this normative spectrum, and the days of Washington being able to deliver pious messages on the importance of international law are over. No one is listening, and that’s a relief, although it does provide material for those teams of writers working up material for the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and the many standups at Comedy Central. Yet, of course, this geopolitical TV series is no laughing matter for the long ordeal of the Syrian people.

Continues >>

Prince and Kazerooni: No To U.S. Led Attack On Syria…Obama Playing With Fire (Part 1)

August 29, 2013

.

Editor’s remarks: The  two articles by  Rob Prince and Dr Ibrahim Kazerooni provide some good information and a clear perspective on the situation in Syria. The real objectives of President Obama if he chooses to use cruise missile attacks on Syria are not the same which he declares openly. His administration has far more sinister aims in sight to pacify the American War Mafia, Israeli leaders and Arab reactionary regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Now another big danger the world faces in case of such military aggression lies in the shape of unforeseen consequences for the region and possibly the world.

In fact, the pre-war scenario of the 1914 is in place and very easily American imperialism can ignite the flames of world war. We see a real danger of this because of the reckless militarism of American ruling class. The first thing any warmonger has to do is to prepare the domestic and world public opinion, a task not difficult to perform given the enormous propaganda it uses with the help of the hawkish media to support its efforts to resolve the conflict in Syria by all means. We who stand for peace should use all  our resources to counter American war plans and its deceptive propaganda.

Nasir Khan, Editor

…………………………………

by Rob Prince and Ibrahim Kazerooni

US plan for Syria

“Now we sit and wait while the Washington regime makes its next lethal move. Let us lift our voices in unison to prevent it. “

“Before another rush to judgment and “punishment” based on a presumption of guilt, as in Iraq, this time, let the UN inspectors do their job: We still don’t know who used chemical weapons in Syria — regime or rebels. Without UN Security Council’s approval, any military action by US and its NATO or even Arab allies will itself be illegal, an international war crime itself. Such an attack will not protect innocent civilians, but hurt them. US attacks will backfire, trigger a retaliatory response, escalate the civil war into region or world war.”

– the comments of friends on Facebook – 

This is the second time in six months that the United States has accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons. The first time, Washington was forced to eat its words as international organizations, including Human Rights Watch, claimed that it was the rebels and not the government forces which had employed them.

Despite calls from all over the world, not to proceed, it appears that the Obama Administration is heading towards a major air attack on Syria. France, UK and Israel will be involved in some measure, either in preparing targets or in the actual bombing. Syria has both insisted that it was not the Assad government which used nerve gas in a Damascus suburb that might have killed as many as 1300 people but U.S. and Saudi backed Islamic militants who have hijacked the opposition movement, much in the same way similar elements did likewise in both Libya and Mali.

The claim that it was the Syrian government that gassed its own people is wearing thin. Although the Obama Administration continues to again accuse the Assad regime of using serin gas on its opponents, to date there is no evidence – none whatsoever – that the Assad government has used chemical weapons. The Obama Administration appears to be racing against time. The more time the attack is delayed the more its justification is undermined by both the facts and worldwide opposition to it.

Continues >>

Part  2:  http://imamkazerooniblog.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/no-to-u-s-led-attack-on-syriaobama-playing-with-fire-part-2/

Chomsky: The U.S. behaves nothing like a democracy

August 18, 2013

The MIT professor lays out how the majority of U.S. policies are opposed to what wide swaths of the public want

Chomsky: The U.S. behaves nothing like a democracyNoam Chomsky (Credit: AP/Nader Daoud)
.
The following is a transcript of a recent speech delivered Noam Chomsky in Bonn, Germany, at DW Global Media Forum, Bonn, Germany. It was previously published at Alternet.

I’d like to comment on topics that I think should regularly be on the front pages but are not — and in many crucial cases are scarcely mentioned at all or are presented in ways that seem to me deceptive because they’re framed almost reflexively in terms of doctrines of the powerful.

In these comments I’ll focus primarily on the United States for several reasons: One, it’s the most important country in terms of its power and influence. Second, it’s the most advanced – not in its inherent character, but in the sense that because of its power, other societies tend to move in that direction. The third reason is just that I know it better. But I think what I say generalizes much more widely – at least to my knowledge, obviously there are some variations. So I’ll be concerned then with tendencies in American society and what they portend for the world, given American power.

American power is diminishing, as it has been in fact since its peak in 1945, but it’s still incomparable. And it’s dangerous. Obama’s remarkable global terror campaign and the limited, pathetic reaction to it in the West is one shocking example. And it is a campaign of international terrorism – by far the most extreme in the world. Those who harbor any doubts on that should read the report issued by Stanford University and New York University, and actually I’ll return to even more serious examples than international terrorism.

Continues >>

Combating Orientalist Attitudes and Viewpoints

August 17, 2013
.
Nasir Khan,  August 17, 2013
.
I would like to add a short note to Mary Scully’s excellent piece on Orientalism, which evinces a general perspective on western attitudes in academia and western people towards the ‘Orient’. The very use of such terms transports us into a mythical East, romanticised and mystified when seen by the western academics and scholars. We may not be happy with such terms and their usage in the contemporary world; they nonetheless reveal much about the history of colonial supremacy and white superiority. During the growing power and expansion of colonialists, especially in the East including the Middle East and North Africa, they were able to resort to dehumanise the conquered ‘natives’ by focusing on their being the ‘Other’. That cleared the conscience of the colonial administrators from any moral inhibitions they might have had about the way they treated the colonised or enslaved people or races. A stark picture of that reality is the African people who were denuded of any humanity to start with, caught as if they were animals and transported to the new world of Americas. The way the British treated the people of India after the 1857 uprising against the foreign rulers was also another major reflection of the colonial attitudes towards the ‘Other’. What was lacking was any basic human impulse to look at the colonised people as full human beings. But to do so would have changed the right to rule and control.
.
The expanding colonial powers assumed they were civilising the uncivilised, who in Kipling’s words were ‘half devil and half child’. Many pressure groups, the press, literary figures and religious establishment contributed to the imperial control. Even a socialist thinker like Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932) gave a guarded support to imperial expansion because he saw in it some material benefits for the colonised people when he said: ‘A certain tutelage of the civilised people over the uncivilised is a necessity.’ Thus the White races were doing God’s work for the dark and brown races!
————————————
.
Mary Scully on Orientalism,
.
The book “Orientalism,” by Edward Said (1978) is the first volley of postcolonial theoretics against the writings of Marx & Engels about colonialism in “the Orient,” particularly the Middle East. Although Said claimed it was a caricatured misunderstanding of his book, the term Orientalism has become an epithet & insult signifying western superiority, Eurocentrism, & a colonial mindset in commentary by westerners (including Marx & Engels) on Middle Eastern culture & politics. In interviews, Said acknowledged his strongest influence was Sub-Alternative historical studies in India & rued a similar lack of influence among Arab & Islamic scholars.
.
There is no question western scholarship on Middle Eastern countries is up to its eyeballs in racist caricature & misrepresentation (often camouflaged with incense & romanticism). That is just as true of US scholarship on Black & Native American history in the US. Scholars are remunerated handsomely for promulgating racist horse manure in place of scholarship & obsequious social climbers in academia dutifully sing for their suppers. It wasn’t until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s that racist US scholarship on slavery, Reconstruction, civil rights was challenged by the new generation of Black scholars & Black studies departments. The Arab uprisings are likely to have a similar profound affect on Middle East scholarship by westerners.
.
The problem with Said’s postcolonial perspectives is that they muzzle & undercut international solidarity. They make people timid about speaking out about things like the attacks on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt lest we betray a sense of western superiority over Arabs–as if we’re lecturing them on how to conduct their political affairs or attempting to speak for them. The problem with Said’s theoretics is that they treat Middle Easterners as an alien species from westerners & ignore the human & political universalities that bind us together as the human race.
.
Democracy (circumscribed in only its parliamentary form) is usually defined as western culture & barbaric violence inculcated by the Quran defined as Middle Eastern. These kinds of views are not merely Orientalist; they are arrant racism & stupidity & no part of the thinking of Marx & Engels on colonialism in the Middle East. Solidarity with the colonized was the sine qua non of their theoretics–no matter how many things they may have gotten wrong. That solidarity means not keeping your trap shut when unarmed civilians are being gunned down. Expressing international outrage isn’t exposing some insidious power inequality or patronizing Egyptians with a homiletic rendition of Kumbaya or the Internationale. It is reaching out in the spirit of fraternity & sorority to express an active solidarity, a solidarity which demands of the US (which is bankrolling the bloodbath) “Hands off the Muslim Brotherhood,” “Hands off Egypt,” “No US aid to the Egyptian military regime,” “An injury to one is an injury to all.”

Colours in the Cloud Burst

August 16, 2013

   .

                Badri Raina

These are the days of cloud bursts;

The smarter that the prowess

Of push pin gets, the angrier

The elements snarl, like wounded

Leviathans at the end of tether.

As nation after nation firms her resolve

To  corner the earth, the mighty Boson

Screams for retribution. Where human

Agents fail to rein in globalised greed,

Tremors from below earth and ocean

Enhance their visitations to punish

Our   self-destructive  deed, fuelled

 By this or that unquestionable creed.

.

Monster banks of clouds change  

Their hue from grey and white  

To war-like saffron and dauntless green;

As they clash, hot head to hot head,

I see the firmament pour in torrents

Of   blameless, innocent  red—

An  alchemy of colours piteously seen

When  we awoke to life and freedom.

And among us I do not see the old man

In the loin cloth, stepping among

The  gnashing teeth and blazing machetties;

Dousing in miraculous embrace the very

One who set Calcutta on flames;

I only see the heinous games

That  petty satraps play  to fuel unease.

Perhaps some end is in sight; perhaps

The blood will wash the  strident blight.

Steve Weismann: Rethinking the Military-Industrial Complex

August 15, 2013

Ike's warning about the military industrial complex was a two edged sword. (photo: wikicommon)
Ike’s warning about the military industrial complex was a two edged sword. (photo: wikicommon)

.

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News, 15 August 2013

.

hen President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned his fellow Americans about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, he did both good and bad. As a widely respected military leader, he made it possible for ordinary citizens to challenge the Pentagon’s growing power in so many aspects of our economy and foreign policy. But, by focusing on the military, Ike misdirected our attention away from other, often more important segments of Big Money’s collaboration with Big Government.

No question, the military chiefs, the manufacturers who supply and then often hire them, and the members of Congress who take political contributions from the armaments industry or look to lucrative careers as lobbyists for them all work together as a standing lobby for incredibly wasteful Pentagon budgets. The same groups also support the endless fear-mongering, whether of the old Soviet Union and Red China, the newly capitalist Russians and Chinese, al Qaeda terrorists, or whatever other threat appears to justify massive spending and – as we now see – massive surveillance.

But let’s get real. Most of us could make a good case that Big Oil exercises far more influence on our imperial foreign policy than do the Big Brass and their merchants of death. Major oil companies are top Pentagon suppliers, I know, but selling fuel to the military is not why they try to control the lion’s share of the world’s oil and natural gas. Nor do most people have the oil companies in mind when they talk of the military-industrial complex.

Continues >>