Loose Nukes

"We have to recognize that terrorists networks have relationships with terrorist states that have weapons of mass destruction, and that they inevitably are going to get their hands on them and they would not hesitate one minute to use them." — Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.

So I've been kind of hoping for the last eight years that somebody would do something about the loose nuke problem. I'm glad it's finally reached the top of the todo list.

At the unprecedented 47-nation nuclear security summit held earlier this week in Washington D.C., world leaders pledged to secure all vulnerable nuclear material within four years. Russia and the US also signed an agreement to dispose of 68 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. Incidentally, Russian President Medvedev made some sly comments about how nice it was to work with a US president who "thinks when he speaks."

Sam Nunn, a former senator and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was quick to defend President Obama’s weapons reduction strategy:

"What is the mission that you can’t accomplish with 1,500 warheads?" Nunn asked with a derisive laugh in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast. "There was a recent report in Scientific American that 100 warheads used by India and Pakistan against each other would kill 20 million people immediately, and would cause so much blockage of the sun with the debris in the atmosphere that over a period of several years, there would be as many as a billion people starving to death."

Of course. But wait. Why would anybody have to defend this policy? I mean, who would be against a revived commitment to nonproliferation? Well, round-up the usual bunch of hyperventilating idiots: Fox News, Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin.

Daily Kos has already tackled the list of nuke policy myths you're going to hear, and The Federation of American Scientists has written a careful report on the Nuclear Posture Review. Unsurprisingly, it's a bit more complicated than Sarah Palin's dimwitted playground metaphor, yet not impossible for the average American to understand.

Some facts: the new treaty does not limit US missile defense systems, the US will still consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstance, and President Obama does indeed have support of top military brass.

Finally, reducing our arsenal does not make us more vulnerable.

However, if you're one of the frivolous few who LOVE nuclear warfare, then relax. Nuclear warheads will be around for a long, long time, and who knows? One day McCain's dream may come true and we'll bomb Iran.

(atomicarchive.com)

The Doomsday Clock is still ticking.

Palm Reading

Some call it her telepalmer. Others call it her palm pilot. I call Sarah Palin's reliance on tiny talking points scrawled on the palm of her hand simply pathetic.

I know she has trouble keeping facts straight, and I was not surprised that she literally depended on the "first dude" for governing Alaska, but cheat sheets are for dumb high school kids! Did Palin really think she was going to get away with this? That nobody would notice this?


Oddly, her crib notes consisted of her core beliefs -- the revealed phrases were "Energy," "Tax," and "Lift American Spirits" -- but why would she even need these reminders for a fluffy Q&A session at the tea baggers' convention?

Actually, I don't care what her excuse is, because her interview on Fox News Sunday was even more disturbing. Chris Wallace, winner of The Dorkmonger's prestigious Porkpuller Prize for weakest effort in journalism, asked Palin "How hard do you think President Obama would be to defeat in 2012?"

PALIN: It depends on a few things, say he played — I got this from Buchanan — say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do. That changes the dynamics of what we can assume will happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, Obama would not be elected.

WALLACE: You’re not suggesting that Obama would cynically play the war card?

PALIN: I’m not suggesting that, I’m saying if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and secure our allies. I think people would shift their thinking a bit.

So Sarah Palin, the loser and the quitter, who is not in the military nor holds any public office, gets Fox air-time to openly discuss which country we should bomb next for political gain?

I get a sick feeling in my gut. As the NIAC blog put it, this is deja-vu all over again. We're hearing a warmonger ratcheting up the rhetoric to attack a country that has not attacked us. Such an attack would actually stir up Iranian nationalism and benefit their hard-line government.

Also, it would kill lots of innocent people including children. Is this the kind of divine intervention you're seeking, Mrs. Mooseburger?

Sarah Palin thinks she's earning her foreign policy cred. Never mind the mere detail that the president cannot declare war -- this is not good policy. This is Bush's old doctrine of preventive war. It will not help us. It will not make us more secure physically or financially. This is the sickest, most morally corrupt form of politics.

I wish I could blow this all off and truly believe that this dangerous dingbat will not be elected president one day. I wish I could believe that the American public is not thirsty for more war. However, a recent poll by the Daily Kos is not reassuring: 53% of self-identified Republicans think Sarah Palin is more qualified than President Obama.

There is, though, one sure-fire way that Obama could lose all my support: he could start taking advice from Sarah Palin.

Higher Ground

From the BBC today: Defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi says opposition detainees put on trial have been subjected to "medieval torture".

There once was a time when the U.S. could act shocked at those revelations and condemn such an evil and barbaric government. Now, what can we do? Our country went medieval a long time ago. And yes, waterboarding is medieval.

And it's not just our government. It's not just Republicans or Democrats. Many Americans are willing to tolerate torture. In fact, a recent poll indicates that Americans are more willing to tolerate the use of torture than are Chinese.

What happened? We used to be proud of our Western system of justice. The most critical right is the right of the accused to have a trial by jury. But Congress decided that shouldn't apply to detainees. Apparently gathering evidence is hard. And why have a trial when you can torture and get all the false confessions you need?

We can rightfully proclaim that "the public humiliation of prisoners is against international law" when one of our own soldiers is captured... but can the rest of the world take us seriously? I lament the loss of our moral high ground.

Filtering the Revolution

In the aftermath of the election in Iran, Twitter emerged as the most powerful way for Iranians to disseminate information and organize protests. The Iranian government has been censoring the Internet for years, but of course -- as the Cute Cat Theory explains -- firewalls don't stop anybody for long.

But don't expect our own government to understand technology, firewalls, or cute cats. Sens. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., plan to introduce a bill that would bar foreign companies that sell technology to Iran from receiving federal contracts.

My first thought -- have these senators heard of China? China's net censorship is well documented. American companies like Cisco, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have all been complicit in China's human rights abuses. Heck, you might even say they were enthusiastic.

But why do these companies make technologies with wiretapping features built in anyway? Our lawmakers should know the answer to this simple question. In the EU and the US, telecommunications networks are legally required to have those capabilities for Lawful Intercept. Unfortunately, the exact same network hardware that is sold over here is also sold over there.

This fact shouldn't give the above mentioned companies a free pass for supporting oppressive regimes. However, our own government has to see the bigger picture. We want our law enforcement agencies to be able to wiretap (with a court order -- wink wink), but these Lawful Intercept requirements have consequences far outside our own borders.

Oh, and this leads me to my second thought -- why the hell aren't we punishing the companies who enabled warrantless wiretapping within the US? Schumer and Graham ought to work on that one for a while.

Death to Potatoes

In case you haven't heard, there was a disputed election in Iran. I won't pretend to be an expert because that's just stupid.

But I do try to understand what I don't understand. Last year, during our own long and heated election debates, I blogged about McCain and Clinton's cavalier attitude towards war with Iran. The candidates' flippant remarks played to the public belief which, for as long as I can remember, is that the people of Iran hate America.

Oh, where did we get that idea? In recent memory, we got the fear-mongering from Bush who put Iran in an "axis of evil" even though there was no axis. But even long before that, we heard the Iranian chants of "Death to America." I always wondered exactly what the people meant by that.

Hooman Madj, author of The Ayatollah Begs to Differ: The Paradox of Modern Iran, says it doesn't mean they want to kill us. In fact, during the recent campaign, Iranians also shouted "death to potatoes":


(YouTube video)

So the phrase really kind of means "down with America" which doesn't sound nearly as threatening. Sometimes history is shaped by things lost in translation.

But right now, I don't think much is being lost in translation. It's very clear that Iranians are willing to die for freedom and democracy. And people who share our basic values probably don't want to kill us.

Pirates of Somalia

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken

Nobody reminded me about International Talk Like a Pirate Day earlier this month. We can laugh at the hats, the flags, and the sea shanties, but now let me be the party-pooper and scare you about stories of real pirates:

The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said in an interview on Tuesday that they had no idea the ship was carrying arms when they seized it on the high seas.

“We just saw a big ship,” the pirates’ spokesman, Sugule Ali, said in a telephone interview. “So we stopped it.”

The pirates quickly learned, though, that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of heavy weaponry, heading for Kenya or Sudan, depending on whom you ask.

Even with the heavy weaponry, the story never really caught my interest. The pirates are clearly after a ransom and not the weapons.

But then I read another story about a pirated Iranian ship with very different cargo. This cargo was described as "chemicals, dangerous chemicals."

Somali pirates suffered skin burns, lost hair and fell gravely ill “within days” of boarding the MV Iran Deyanat. Some of them died.

Andrew Mwangura, the director of the East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme, told the Sunday Times: “We don’t know exactly how many, but the information that I am getting is that some of them had died. There is something very wrong about that ship.”

The vessel’s declared cargo consists of “minerals” and “industrial products”. But officials involved in negotiations over the ship are convinced that it was sailing for Eritrea to deliver small arms and chemical weapons to Somalia’s Islamist rebels.

I'm not a doctor, but I watch House a lot. Sounds like these pirates have a serious case of radiation exposure. But with so little coverage of this story, it's hard to know what's going on.

And if it is nuclear material or chemical weapons, then who shipped it, where was it headed and for what purpose? If it involves Iran, Russia, and/or China, then I'm sure we'll be hearing much more about it.

Nature or Nurture

I found this image at Something Awful. The photos were taken from a 1980's Farsi Alphabet book for children. The owner of the book received it at age 2 or 3 while visiting Iran toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War. You may remember that was when the US was on Saddam's side.

Anyway, though I've never seen a children's book quite like this, I'm not going to pretend to be shocked. I've seen the Palestinian kid's show with the impostor Mickey Mouse promoting jihad. I've seen the sing-along DVDs glorifying suicide bombing. I'm also aware that the CIA was behind the violent images in Afghani textbooks when the US wanted to indoctrinate Afghan children with their duty to fight the Soviets:

In 1986, under President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. put a rush order on its proxy war in Afghanistan. The CIA gave Mujahideen an overwhelming arsenal of guns and missiles. But a lesser-known fact is that the U.S. also gave the Mujahideen hundreds of millions of dollars in non-lethal aid; $43 million just for the school textbooks. The U.S. Agency for International Development, AID, coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program.
...
"The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks," says CBC'S Carol Off. "What discussions did you have with the Mujahideen leaders? Was it any effort to say maybe this isn't the best for an eight-year-old's mind?"

"No, because we were told that that was not for negotiations and that the content was to be that which they decided," says Goutier.

So children learn to count with bullets, to color in pictures of guns, and to sing about suicide missions. Adults brainwash them to fight their dirty wars. We do it to American children too (for profit even!) with toys like GI Joe.

What better way to keep the continuum of violence except to nurture it?

Bang Bang! Kiss Kiss!

A guy walks into a bar on Pennsylvania Avenue and spots George W. Bush and Dick Cheney having drinks.

So the guy introduces himself and says, “Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing in here?”

Cheney says, “We’re planning WW III. And the guy says, “Really? What’s going to happen?”

Cheney says, “Well, we’re going to kill 10 million Iranians and one blond with big boobs.”

The guy exclaims, “A blond with big boobs! Why kill a blond with big boobs?”

Cheney turns to Bush, punches him on the shoulder and says, “See, dummy! I told you no one would care about the 10 million Iranians!”

Jokes always have an element of truth. This one, a little too much.

The big news today is that there were only 13 Iraq-related U.S. deaths last month. But go over to McClatchy.com and do a search on "Round-up of daily violence in Iraq," and you'll see a more complete picture. On July 28 alone, female suicide bombers killed at least 51 people and injured 95 others. Four more people were killed by a roadside bomb. And I get the distinct feeling we don't really care. We scroll past these headlines. They're just numbers to us. Heck, we don't even look at the numbers.

But going back to the above Bush joke, there is a darker element of truth: U.S. leaders provoking world wars. Think it's not true? From Think Progress:



That's Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker, revealing that Bush administration officials recently held a meeting in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Or in other words, this is the how-to on launching a false flag attack.

Hersh: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

So I can understand the argument for not writing something that was rejected — uh maybe. My attitude always towards editors is they’re mice training to be rats.

But the point is jejune, if you know what that means. Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the incident was the American public, if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.

Warmongers going to war to maximize profits for themselves and their cronies without regard to the human lives they take. It's called stealing. It's called murder.

And that describes the disgustingly criminal state of the Bush administration. No joke.

Military-Industrial Complex

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Those were the noble goals stated by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous 1961 speech on the Military-Industrial Complex. I think it's important to revisit history to understand what is happening now. What was new to the American experience 47 years ago is widely accepted and rarely questioned today:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Thanks to the Internet, we can easily track the costs. So far this month, 255 publicly-reported defense contracts have totaled $40,916,778,410. The total so far this year is $164,176,189,156. And don't foolishly believe that these contracts are all being awarded to American companies. Bahrain Maritime and Merchantile International is being awarded a maximum $2,801,334,120 contract for supply and distribution of food and non-food products.

Of course the money spent is the easy part to measure, but our liberties and our democratic process have also been sacrificed. See my posts on domestic spying, habeas corpus, airport security, proxy wars, terrorist watch list, politicalization of the DoJ, and the cavalier attitude towards war with Iran...

And on this last topic of Iran, maybe we are finally coming to our senses. A recent RAND Research Brief presents the evidence that terrorism groups are rarely defeated by military might:

By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory.

In another positive development, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is starting to sound a little bit like Eisenhower. Yesterday, Gates renewed his call for more spending on U.S. diplomacy and international aid, saying the U.S. government risks “creeping militarization” of its foreign policy by focusing its resources on the Pentagon.

So that's what we're calling it now? Creeping militarization? I suppose I don't mind the new wording. Just uttering the phrase "military-industrial complex" makes me feel like a radical tie-dyed hippie.

My Suspicious Mind

I can't accept good news without feeling a bit suspicious. For example, today the Guardian reports that the US plans to station diplomats in Iran for the first time since 1979. This news is a remarkable shift from President Bush's attitude two months ago when he equated talking to Iran with appeasement.

But wait. What's Congress doing? Trying to pass a strongly worded piece of legislation (H.CON.RES.362) demanding that "the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by... prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

Despite the statement that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran", it could easily be confused for exactly that. After all, it calls for stringent inspection requirements which mean a naval blockade which would of course involve the use of force.

But wait. Now one of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Robert Wexler, is saying he made a mistake. He now plans to amend the bill adding language "highlighting a more effective American strategy that calls for direct engagement with Tehran for the purpose of thwarting Iran's nuclear weapons program and ending its support for international terrorism."

Wexler also states "I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum."

So I have to wonder why he sponsored the bill in the first place.

What also puzzles and surprises me is that Condoleezza Rice has been a major proponent of negotiations with Iran all along. Her push for diplomacy makes me hopeful that maybe she at least learned something from the Iraq war... But wait. No. She is still proud of the decision to invade Iraq. Yeah, it's a scary thought that Rice could be our last, best chance for peace.

Meanwhile, Dana Perino keeps repeating the same stuff about how Iran must do what we say before we will negotiate. Makes me wonder if she understands what the word "negotiate" means.

So forgive me if I'm suspicious of any good news.

Like a Dog that Returns to its Vomit

The signs are clearer every day. Bush is about to attack Iran. Why can't America see it?

Rather than winding down one war, Bush is starting another. The entire world knows this and is discussing Bush's planned attack on Iran in many forums. It is only Americans who haven't caught on. A few senators have said that Bush must not attack Iran without the approval of Congress, and postings on the Internet demonstrate world wide awareness that Iran is in the Bush Regime's cross hairs. But Congress and the Media – and the demonstration in Washington – are focused on Iraq.

So here are some clues in case you still don't believe it.

• The US government has long considered Iran to be a state sponsor of terrorism, and will reportedly put Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the terrorism list.
• Last year, the BBC reported that US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure.
• The Senate report last April by Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker was interpreted by some as an argument for going into Iran.
  
• Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has hinted that U.S. action on Iran nukes is near.
• The rhetoric and the aggressive posturing from the White House, and the MSM's echoing of the talking points are a frightening repeat of the arguments made for invading Iraq five years ago.
  

And just like five years ago, I find myself looking for some signs of sanity from voters, politicians and pundits. There are a few:

• Of the people who follow the situation in Iran, only 7% support taking military action.
• Rep. John Conyers has warned Bush that "if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued."
• Last year, Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney for airstrikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps bases.
• Many journalists and academics familiar with Iran are speaking out against the notion of an Iranian threat.
  

However, Bush will never understand his previous errors. He is like a dog that returns to its vomit. He will repeat his folly. He will go back to what has made this country sick. I hope the media doesn't eat this up too.

Talking about Appeasement

Just about everybody has seen this video of Chris Matthews shredding neocon radio personality Kevin James, but it's so funny I must remark on it:



So what happened here? I mean besides Chris Matthews humiliating this Kevin James kid who I had never heard of before. My take on this video is that somebody handed Kevin a 3x5 index card of "key terms," and he arrogantly went up against people who know much, much more than he does. Kevin needs to learn that Google, Wikipedia, and history books are his friends. It would have taken 2 minutes to research why Neville Chamberlain is considered an appeaser. In fact, the Munich Agreement is mentioned in the second paragraph of Neville Chamberlain's Wikipedia entry.

While on Wikipedia, Kevin could have also researched the word "appeasement":

Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.

And then Kevin, if capable, could have pondered a bit... does this describe Barack Obama? Who has Obama appeased? Obama wants to talk to Iran instead of starting another knee-jerk war. Talking does not mean appeasement.

Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of conservatives, was considered by some to be an appeaser. He met with Gorbachev to negotiate a reduction in nuclear weapons... a reduction in both countries' arsenals. And while Reagan was at these summits with Gorbachev, he also convinced him to allow a little more Democracy in the old USSR. I'm not sure what exactly Reagan said, but it must have been one of those "ingenious arguments" that George W. Bush can't fathom.

In the past few years, there has been quite a devolution in diplomacy. I can summarize Bush's idea of negotiations: first, the other country must pre-concede to all our demands. Then, maybe we'll sit down to talk. Upon meeting with the other leaders, we'll tell them exactly which of their demands we will compromise on or ignore. Then, quite possibly, we'll bomb them anyway.

At the heart of this mentality is a craving for war which I will never understand.

Proxy Wars

We all know about the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, but exactly how many wars is the US really fighting? And how many are in the making? A proxy war is the war that results when two powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each other directly.

For example, when President Bush traveled to Israel last January, Israeli security officials were anxious to brief Bush on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program - and how it could be destroyed. The London Times states "Many Israelis are eager to know whether America would give their country the green light to attack, as it did last September when Israel struck a mysterious nuclear site in Syria." Is this the start of a proxy war?

And in Lebanon, the recent political battle has become a proxy war with the US, Saudi Arabia and France backing the Lebanese government, and Iran and Syria backing Hizballah. Both sides are fighting to shape the Middle East. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strongly reaffirmed US support for the pro-Western government:

We will stand by the Lebanese government and peaceful citizens of Lebanon through this crisis and provide the support they need to weather this storm.

As if the Middle East wasn't enough, the US government now has a renewed interest in South America. If there is proof that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been offering arms and other help to FARC (which has been trying to topple the government of Colombia for nearly a half-century), then Venezuela could be considered a terrorist nation. Will the US back Columbia's "final offensive" against Venezuela?

In Bolivia, a crucial vote could pave the way for secession of the resource-rich Santa Cruz region. Other oil-rich provinces may also vote for greater autonomy. Bolivian President Evo Morales has accused the US of backing the secessionists. Apparently the US does not like Morales's socialist agenda and his close ties to Venezuela and Cuba. According to CounterPunch, "In an effort to rollback social and political change in Bolivia, the U.S has funneled millions of dollars to opposition groups through USAID and The National Endowment for Democracy. What’s more, USAID explicitly supports demands of the right wing for greater regional autonomy in the east."

Does the US step into these situations to spread happiness and democracy, and is it just a coincidence that all these regions have oil? Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my little list of probable proxy wars. Did I forget any?

Obliteration

I'm worried about how both John McCain and Hillary Clinton have become increasingly cavalier towards the possibility of war with Iran. Last year we saw McCain singing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran," and two weeks ago, Clinton made a threat to totally obliterate Iran.

Former military intelligence analyst William M. Arkin comments why the Iran consensus grows more dangerous:

As I've noted, the three candidates share a consensus, backed by the national security community, that Iran is the new strategic threat. It is radical, anti-American, anti-Israel, terrorist-supporting, nuclear-armed and provocative.

But just because this is the consensus view does not mean it is right. The danger, regardless of who is the next president, is that officials have already begun military preparations, and shaping public opinion, to build momentum for the inevitable.

Arkin goes on to explain how in 1990, Bush the elder never made any explicit threats of nuclear retaliation toward Saddam Hussein. The policy was one of "calculated ambiguity":

So some kind of grave threat had to be transmitted to the Iraqis clearly -- but without provoking Saddam, while also soothing an alarmed public and international community. The administration found diplomatic communications channels (including the Japanese government) to quietly pass on to Saddam the gravity of their concern in an attempt to make the Iraqi dictator think that every U.S. military option remained open. At the same time, prominent articles appeared in the news media attempting to carefully explain U.S. government thinking on the impracticality or inadvisability of using nuclear weapons.

Iraq never did use chemical weapons, and it did believe that America could strike with nuclear weapons if it did. But as Baker says in his memoir, "The Politics of Diplomacy," the president privately decided in December that U.S. forces would not retaliate with nuclear weapons even if the Iraqis used chemical munitions. "There was obviously no reason to inform the Iraqis of this," Baker says.

I think McCain and Clinton have abandoned the politics of diplomacy in favor of get tough posturing. When they threaten Iran, they are threatening the entire planet with World War III. Who are they going to bomb? Just Iran's military? No, they will obliterate innocent civilians because nuclear weapons do not discriminate.

Know your enemy, so here is a link with an accurate description of modern Iran. It is not quite the backward, fanatical, tyrannical outpost the politicians would like us to believe. Iran has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. Iran held spontaneous candlelight vigils in sympathy with Americans after Sept. 11. In Iran, over half of university students are now women. And, oddly enough, lots of Iranians like Americans. If anything, I hope those links obliterate some prejudices.