Right Web?

I stumbled across an interesting website:

Right Web, founded in 2003, is a program of the International Relations Center (IRC) that tracks the work of those, in and outside of government, who have been instrumental in shaping or supporting U.S. policies in the global war on terror. Right Web explores the many ties that link the main players, organizations, corporate supporters, foundations, educational institutions, and government representatives in what could be described as a new architecture of power. Right Web aims to shine a spotlight on how these links influence the direction of foreign, military, and homeland security policies, and to illuminate this web for the public.

Many of the organizations and individuals profiled by Right Web are affiliated with the Republican Party, but not all. Efforts to push militaristic policies cross party lines, and so the Right Web project examines rightist organizations and figures, as well as leading liberal hawks. ...

The IRC has worked for nearly three decades to illuminate the causes and consequences of U.S. policy and “to make the United States a more responsible global leader and global partner.” Right Web represents a revival of a former IRC program called GroupWatch (1985-1991), which profiled more than 125 private, quasi-governmental, and religious organizations that were closely associated with the implementation of U.S. foreign policy, especially in Central America.

By establishing Right Web, the IRC hopes to add to the growing national movement of concerned citizens who are working to check the militaristic drift of the country.

Right Web

I don't know much more about them, but what they write on their about page seems promising.

Project for a new conspiracy theory PNCT

Rough sketch:
Saudi Arabia has a major influence on US politics. Saudi Arabia feels threatend by Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia influences the US to attack Iraq.

Based on this and this.

See: The tale of the 15 Saudis with boxcutters and the bearded Saudi in a cave.

Where is Waldo?

I know, this is old news, I just needed to post it here for completeness. The only thing I changed from the nytimes report are the malreported begining of the following paragraphs, each one was one sentence too early. And I added the highlighting.

Who could believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we have seen its fall during our lives and it collapsed in such a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.

We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

But we must be aware of tricks. For over 50 years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it. ...

Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech - New York Times
(If you are asked for login information, get them here)

Somehow, the last highlighted senctence just doesn't fit, the map part just seems wrong.

For me, the original seems like something like this:
1. Who thought that the Soviet Union would vanish?
2. Who would have thought that Saddam would be removed from power one day? Khomeini did.
3. Khomein said as well that one day the government in Israel will be gone.

He then continues about the fight against the Israeli *government*(which he calls regime) what could endager this fight and what could be gained from it.

Obviously, this is far from being peaceful. But except the one sentence, which I can neither confirm or deny (Do you speak Farsi?), he basicly says that change will come, sometimes not peaceful (as in Iraq). As I said before, I hate violence, I'm against war, but if you say that Ahmadienjad wants to wipe Israel off the map, then Bush and his cronies want to wipe Iraq off the map. For me, there is little difference, excpet one side has the better PR, better weapons and more money. Ask yourself where this money is from.

I really hate violence...

... and I don't want to promote any kind of violent ideology, whether it is American, Iranian, Christian or Islamic. But I stumbled upon this video while searching for the meaning of the word Moronican and wanted to share it with the world, just to give you an idea why the US have already lost the war in Iraq and how they are creating that kind of "evil" they claim to be fighting. And not even pork bullets are going to make the US win. Just listen to the song they are using as background music. If I would live in Iraq, with such beautiful music, I would pick up a RPG and fight infidels.

LiveLeak.com - Video of Islamic State of Iraq Shooting Down an American Chinook Helicopter in Al-Karma

(The images you see if you click there show an US helicopter being shot down. If this disturbs you, don't click. Other than that, this video shows no graphic violence, which is far less than any Hollywood movie depicting the war in Vietnam. I guess in twenty years, we will see the movies showing how the Iraq war really was and everybody is going to say "Never again" and forget it when the government warns of a new danger, a new Emmanuel Goldstein)

As to the quote:

Military officials are growing increasingly concerned that Iraqi insurgents are successfully adapting their tactics to be more effective against American aircraft.

A CH-47 Chinook is a 40 year old unarmored helicopter. I guess you could shoot it down with anything that is bigger than a small caliber weapon, a starting or landing Chinook could be downed with a AK-47, some skill and some luck.

Why Iran will not be next

I could be wrong. I was wrong before, boy was I wrong before. Last summer, I thought Iran would be next, I thought the bombs would be falling within weeks. I thought the US would invade Iran. Or Syria. Or both. In 2003 I thought if the US would invade Iraq, it would be a good thing for the Iraqis. Boy was I unillumined and naive back then. And wrong, wrong, wrong.

Right now, we see the same bullshit fabricated intelligence as we have seen in 2003. But do the same means lead to the same ends?

To understand what will happened next, we have to know what happened before. I hope I have learned since then and can make an educated guess now. If I get this wrong, what I say will not have any relation to reality.

So why was Iraq attacked? Some people claim that it was some fuzzy "Old-School US Imperialism ™". Modern US imperialism has different means. Some claim that it was "For Oil". I don't think so, there are other countries with oil, more valuable countries. Why not go for Venezuela or Nigeria?

As I have said before, I think Iraq was attacked because some people wanted to transfer shitloads of tax-money into the accounts of the arms industry and into their own pockets. What better way than to start a war. Not something too big, but something that smolders for a very long time. Just like something we are seeing right now in Iraq. Perfect.

So what's the worst that could happen? Just imagine you have to show some PowerPoint slides to the executive board of some bigshot arms manufacturer in the US the day after an Democratic President has declared to pull out of Iraq and has been greeted by congressmen of both parties as an "American Gandhi". Oops, wrong meeting.

So what would happen if the US invaded Iran. Two things would be possible.

1. The violence would tail off. In which case the president could declare "Job well done" and pull out. It was only Iran behind all that violence (which I don't think)
2. The violence would not tail off. The US military would find itself awfully stretched. It would show that Iran wasn't behind all this insurgency business. The calls to pull out, which are getting louder already without a mess in Iran, would get even louder. It would be suicide for a president not to give up Iraq or Iran or both. "Leave the suckers to themselves" would be the American motto du jour.
   

So, to keep the US military in the mess it is right now, we need a reason, a plausible reason why the US military has to stay in that mess. To achieve this, the people in charge would need a "device" with which they could put pressure on who ever becomes president NOT to pull out. What better device than an Iran that has to be curbed? So, if the US president should think about pulling out, he could be pressured to stay the course or be called a traitor who endangers the US security.

When they have learned one thing from the end of the cold war, it is that not having an enemy, not having something you need protection from, can be a very dangerous thing if you are in the business of selling arms. I guess the war on terror is loosing steam, there is only so far you can go with a phantom terror organization and a phantom terror-leader. So what better than to have Mini-Soviet threat? It worked for over forty years with the Russkies, why not give it a try with the Mullahs now? And if it doesn't work out, there is allways Russia or China to fall back as the enemy du jour. Better prepare them as enemy now.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last Wednesday the United States had to prepare for the possibility of combating major armies and that it also needed significant Special Forces because he did not know what might happen in Russia, North Korea, Iran and China in the future.
...
"In principle, as defense minister, I can understand this statement. All sorts of tricks are used to approve the budget," RIA Novosti quoted [Russian defense minister] Ivanov.

As I said before, I could be wrong, but I think what the people currently in charge want is not another war, they want to make sure this war keeps going the way it has been going since the beginning. In my opinion, Iraq has not become another Vietnam for the US because their leaders have made mistakes. Their intention from the first moment was to turn Iraq into another Vietnam.

This got me thinking...

Shape charge? Road side bombs? Armored vehicles? Somehow, this rings a bell...

(And no, I don't think that Shiites or Sunnites killed Herrhausen, but I think whoever killed Herrhausen was trained by the same people that have shown the Iraqi insurgents how to bomb. And as Herrhausen was criticizing the World Bank and demanding Third World debt cancellation, he might have become an annoyance to some within the US. Just thinking...)

Just as a reminder

Current dispersal of U.S. troops around the world. Darker colours signify U.S. usage of military facilities, or nations with fewer than 10,000 troops present. The lightest nations represent U.S. presence of 10,000 or more.

Military history of the United States - Wikipedia

Field Guide to Iraq

Daryl Cagle's Weblog

(via fefe, in German)

And while searching for it: The Slate Field Guide to Iraq Pundits

Unlike any other ever seen

This speech by Bush is very revealing.

"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. [...]

This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. [...]

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. [...]

Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. [...]

With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful [...]

We will direct every resource at our command [...]

[This] war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with the decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. [...]

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. [...]

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Iran's Goldstein and the Proliferation of Lies - YouTube

“As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. [...]

The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city [...]

[The] consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival. [...]

It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.”

Eric Arthur Blair at his best. If anybody thinks that this war will end, once the Demorats are in power, they are wrong. This war will continue, like a smoldering fire, incinerate everybodies freedoms, everybodies economy and with it countless lives. It will leave behind a fascist US nation with a military economy.

BTW: I like how Rumsfled defends himself by calling out on the actions of Hussein against Iran.

“The French lost in Viet Nam? What else would you expect from the French? Never happen to us.”

Some military philosophers favor actually removing from military libraries books on what happened to the French in Viet Nam, the Americans in Viet Nam, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Americans in Afghanistan (a work in progress), the French in Algeria, the Americans in Iraq (also in progress), the Israelis in Lebanon the first time, the Israelis in Lebanon the last time, the Americans in Lebanon 1983, the Americans in Somalia the first time, and so on. However, the best thinkers hold that it doesn’t matter what books are in military libraries, as only those on stirring victories will be checked out.
...
Insist that the US military never loses wars. Instead, it is betrayed, stabbed in the back, and brought low by treason. For example, argue furiously that the US didn’t lose in Viet Nam, but won gloriously; the withdrawal was due to the treachery of Democrats, Jews, hippies, the press, most of the military, and a majority of the general population, all of whom were traitors. This avoids the unpleasantness of learning anything from defeat. Further, it facilitates a focus on controlling the press, who are the real enemy, along with the Democrats and the general population.

Fred On Everything - A True Son of Tzu

(via fefe - in German)

Cui Bono?

Michael S. Rozeff asks a very good question about the war on terror.

On the benefit side, the war on terror provides important benefits to

1. The state. It is the occasion of state power-grabs. In particular, President Bush prefers that the president be Cæsar, garbed with dictatorial powers over both the rest of the government and the lives of Americans. In addition, the war on terror seeks to make the state’s image of protection indispensable to every American as well as a long-running affair.

2. The military-industrial complex. The contractors gaining from fat war contracts are well-known. Some of these link directly to key administration officials. But most of them contribute to both political parties.

3. The state’s bureaucracies. The Department of Homeland Security is a prime beneficiary. Other beneficiaries are the many officials who make up Washington’s bureaucratic apparatus in other departments and agencies.

4. The Israel lobby. This administration and both parties are larded with pro-Israel figures who had no little influence in instigating the war on terror.

The benefits reach to many others, such as various power-hungry intellectuals who champion internationalism. They reach to Americans who obtain the psychic benefits of flag-waving, cheering, blood-lust, phony patriotism, displays of U.S. military might. They reach to banking and oil interests. For example, Afghanistan is supposed to be a transit area for a new pipeline.

Well, I think 3 and 4 are the weakest points and even number 1 is not the motor behind the actions we see, as I said before. He then goes on to write about "Imperialism", which he only vaguely defines. I say follow the buck, see who profits. There is a motive.

Sure, right

U.S. Soldiers Killed by English Speaking “Insurgents” Who Were Armed with American Made Weapons and Driving Black SUVs

Oh, yeah, the man leading the attack had blond hair.

And what’s the story with the non sequitur about “the computer” mentioned about 2/3 of the way down?

But just wait, you haven’t heard the best part.

According to the story: This was the work of Iranian intelligence agents.

(via fefe, in German)

What a shame

Iraq has run out of reconstruction money. The funds in the so-called Development Fund for Iraq – some $20 billion of Iraqi money – were spent by Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority in the first year of the occupation. The US Embassy in Baghdad has spent virtually all of the $18.4 billion that Congress appropriated for ‘rebuilding’ the country; $5.6 billion of it was used to run the embassy, promote American ‘values’ and set up the new armed forces and police. Most of the American money never even gets to Iraq. The bulk of it has gone to American consultants, or into American contractors’ international bank accounts.
The Least Accountable Regime in the Middle East

This is an outrage, a fucking shame. There are not enough people to hang in the US government and in the boards of the companies like KBR and a like, to bring justice to Iraq. Fuck. And I say this despite the fact that I am usually against the "capital" punishment.

What I said

Terry Jones reitartes what I have said before, of course with far better writing and sprinkled with facts. A must read.

Terry Jones | They have made a killing

The Robbers are leaving the Bank

Imagine you are in power in at a big and heavily militarized country and want to transfer truckloads of money from the state to companies producing military goods and supplying military services. I mean more money that you already transfer. Much more. Imagine you have no scruple what soever. What would you do?

Well, I guess you would start a war, attack a country. But you would have to choose this "target" country well. You don't want to have to battle an army of 1 Million Chinese. No, that would be stupid. And after all, the rumours say that they *actually* have nukes. But you would not want to attack a country that is a flyweight. As tempting as it would be to raid Monaco or Liechtenstein, the war wouldn't last too long and it would be over you said the sentence "Our troops need more time to find the weapons of mass destruction". Which brings me to the third point. You need a state you can paint plausibly as an evil state.

I asked myself why the war against Iraq happened, why the US wanted to remove Saddam so badly (no pun intended), why they lied about the WMDs and the Al Q connection. I guess it was the least risk to attack Iraq, while it was still plausible to pull it of in a way that seemed "just" and in accordance to international law.

It was just bad luck for Saddam and the Iraqi people. (Don't get me wrong, I would have liked to have Saddam removed from power sooner than later, but what happened in Iraq was so wrong on so many levels. And after all it was the west who helped Saddam come to and stay in power, same as the west is to be blamed that Iran is no longer a democracy - but I this is not the point of this blog post) I guess the other candidates just seemed more risky or less "targetable". Add a little grudge by the Bushes against Saddam, and voila, you end up with a war against Iraq. Or maybe someone at the pentagon just flipped a coin and decided between Lybia and Iraq.

And the "nice" thing in that scenario is, that it doesn't matter if the US wins the war. Actually, no, the longer and exhausting the war, the better. If the US Army screams for better equipment, no "responsible" American could deny their demands. After all, everybody is a patriot in the US and no one wants to be called a traitor. So it doesn't matter what the heck is going on in Iraq, if there are Shiites, Sunnites and Kurds in Iraq. There could be yellow-eyed Aliens or armies of ants. It wouldn't make a difference. The money is safe home it the pockets of the few behind the Cheney-Rumsfeld neo-profiteurs.

And what about the "War for Oil" motive? A good smoke screen is one that is believable. I guess oil played a role in decision process leading to the Iraq war, but not a major one. Or maybe...

This war is been fought for one main reason: To transfer money to corporations in the military sector. It is that simple. Everything else just blends nicely into the picture, if you don't ask too detailed questions and "just believe". Democracy for the Middle East. Shuuure. Secure the oil demand of the US. Shuuure. Increase security for the US, Israel and Europe. Shuuure. Well, I guess those in power tried to do something in these directions, but having the money already transfered, they didn't try too hard. Add some "reasons" to have devoted followers for your cause and voila, everybody gets what they want. Well, everybody who pulls into the right direction. Well mostly everyone of those.

In the end, it is just a simple case of war profiteering.

As I have been watching The Corporation I have heard for the first time something about the Business Plot and I remembered about a guy claiming that 9/11 was actually a coup d’état by parts of the government against Bush (Sorry, can't find the link). Well, the more I think of it, the more I think that 9/11 wasn't a coup, it was a robbery. And the money is already out of the bank and the robbers are leaving the bank, one by one.

Fuck, it seems so crystal clear to me, I feel like I am starting to believe in some crazy cooked up conspircay theories.