the deskrat chronicles

"and we want no more kings of troy"--1000 year war revisited

2008-06-22T17:25:00.000-07:00

mediterranean basin

"Because my father killed his father , the boy might one day seek revenge. he might also one day become a king of troy--and we want no more kings of Troy" --from the Iliad , Neoptolemus ,the son of Achilles speaking to Andromache, the widow of the Trojan prince hector, as Neoptolemus murders her infant son.

As mentioned numerous times , by this blogger's reading of history it becomes plain that in part because the Nile river flows south to north and empties into the Mediterranean , the early Mediterranean sea lanes were not only important commercial and transportation hubs between the ancient civilizations of north Africa and western Asia , it was also the scene of an epic struggle lasting 1000 years over who would control and dominate this crucial region of the world --the crossroads of the world --where three continents meet.

I've grown to believe that this struggle's early phases were described by Homer's Iliad , recording the legendary war between the coalition of Greek states in their conflict with the city state of Troy .

the 1200 BC story of the Greek vanquishing of Troy, told in the Iliad ,would serve as inspiration , blueprint and model for Alexander the Great some 900 years later in his imperialistic ventures as he conquered and plundered the rich and ancient cities of western Asia and lower Egypt.

as part of his education , Alexander like thousands of youth before and after him, would be required to memorize the Iliad--Alexander slept with the copy given him by his teacher Aristotle under his pillow and when he invaded western Asia to begin his conquests , landed his armies at the exact site where ancient Troy was believed to have stood and Alexander prayed at what he believed to be the tomb of his ancestor Achilles.

the culmination of this 1000 year struggle between the Europeans and the Africans and their extended family, was the Punic wars and the final defeat and destruction of Carthage by Rome. by destroying Carthage, control of the Mediterranean basin shifted from the hands of the ancient northern Africans and their extended family of civilizations, into the hands of the Europeans .

Rome's victory and destruction of Carthage clears the way for Rome's domination of the Mediterranean , it's commerce and access to the wealth and technology flowing on what historian Jarred Diamond in his popular book " Guns ,Germs and Steel" refers to as a type of east-west highway from the civilizations of the middle east --ultimately enabling the Europeans to amass the technologies and immunity to germs and diseases that would eventually --after 1492 ad, play a vitally crucial role in western Europe's wholesale takeover of the western hemisphere --ultimately making in the modern era , the Europeans fabulously wealthy and technologically powerful enough to colonize Africa and much of Asia--making inroads into the same areas of ancient civilizations that Europe's Greek ancestors 3200 years ago sought through brutal wars of annihilation , to establish a beach head into.

but where Jarred Diamond seems to give the impression that this modern day preeminence of Europeans and their offspring was more accident of history than any plan or persistent desire conceived by them , this blogger's reading of history indicates the early Europeans were highly warlike as well as barbaric and sought from the beginning to forcibly insert themselves into that "east west highway" of civilizations established by the ancient blacks of north east Africa and their extended family of the Mediterranean and the middle east.

if the ancient Greeks--the earliest of civilized Europeans did not reach their zenith of "civilization" until about 300 BC and the flow of ideas, technologies, innovations and commerce on this "east-west highway of civilization" had been flowing back and forth for at least 3000 to 5000 years BEFORE the Greeks emerged from savagery --then it becomes clear that the Greeks were not a part of initiating or participating in that flow of ancient commerce and civilization--so the question must be asked , who was the western end of that east-west highway of civilization other than the blacks of Africa and their extended family of the Mediterranean--the Phoenicians, the Minoans, the Colchians , the Etruscans, the Carthaginians, and in the Iliad , the people called the Trojans--aided in their fight against the Greeks, according to the legend ,by their cousin the Ethiopian warrior prince, Memnon and the Colchian warrior princess, Penthesilea?

the Greeks ,Agamemnon , Achilles ,and later Alexander and finally the Romans were hijackers raiding that highway of civilization, technology , and wealth seeking to plug themselves into it and divert it for entirely their own enrichment at the expense of its creators.

as long as they were able to suck wealth and technology from that "highway" , the Greeks and Romans enjoyed "golden ages". when they physically lost that connection --when Rome fell , western European civilization collapsed and fell again into poverty and backwardness--the so-called "dark ages".

from that fall to the present the critical theme in European history was, who among them would rebuild the "glory" of Rome and ancient Greece ? which king , or nation , or empire of Europe could forcibly plug them back into that east-west flow of commerce and knowledge?

this is what Marco Polo's tales of his adventures were about--getting Europe plugged back into that east-west flow of wealth and knowledge.

this is what the crusades were about. this is what the European renaissance was about. this is what the Portuguese prince Henry "the navigator"and his school of navigation was about. this is what Columbus's voyages and the age of exploration and subsequent empire were about . this is what the Atlantic slave trade was about. this is what the Napoleonic wars were about.

this is what the industrial revolution , the grab for colonial empire, the first and second world wars, the cold war, the Vietnam war , what the wars between Israel and the Arabs are about.
It's what the present day war on terror , wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about. This is what the big war in Congo and all the little civil wars in Africa are about.

The early Greek and Roman contact with the east-west corridor of wealth and civilization of the blacks and their extended family and the subsequent conflicts by the ancient Greeks and Romans to forcibly inject themselves into that corridor of wealth and civilization, left an indelible stamp on European culture and how the Europeans view, relate and interact with the rest of the world--they interact through persistent ruthlessness, through trickery -- being "the man who says one thing and holds another in his heart", and they interact by the sword.

all of this because bottom line , they, "want no more kings of troy." napoleon and french army at sphinx 1798

"THE AFRICAN STAR OVER EUROPE

This book is devoted to a chapter of African history that is little known. It deals with the migration of black peoples to Europe and their impact upon the people of that continent, not as servants and colonials of Europe but as the fathers of its first inhabitants, the creators of its first art, its first tools, and, in some places and historical periods, its masters and teachers, invaders and traders, its most venerated madonnas, saints and popes....We see Africa, in fact, when it stood as a star over the dark continent of Europe." --Ivan Van Sertima, The African Star Over Europe

MIGHTY MEMNON
THE AFRICAN PRESENCE IN GREEK & ROMAN MYTHOLOGY

By RUNOKO RASHIDI

The fabled story of the ancient and stupendous African general and warrior-king Memnon and his display of courage and prowess at the Greek siege of Troy was one of the most widely circulated and celebrated epics in the annals of Greek and Roman mythology. Memnon, described as "black as ebony, and the handsomest man alive," is mentioned repeatedly in the works of such early writers as Hesiod, Ovid, Pindar, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo and Virgil. Arctinus of Miletus composed an epic poem entitled Ethiopia in which Memnon was the leading figure. Quintus of Smyrna credits Memnon with "bringing the countless tribes of his people who live in Ethiopia, land of the black man," to Troy in support of its war against the hostile coalition of Greek city-states. It was written that: "Memnon came to help them. Memnon was lord over the dark Ethiopians, and the host he brought seemed infinite. The Trojans were delighted to see him in their city."

According to Homer, "To Troy no hero came of nobler line, Or if nobler, Memnon, it was thine." In more recent times (late in the nineteenth century), Dr. Rufus Lewis Perry pronounced that:

"The distinguished Cushite whom Homer calls Memnon came and went like a meteor in the galaxy of illustrious Ethiopian monarchs. But the poet in classic song and the historian in legendary tradition, have preserved enough of his brightness to indicate his rank and power among the contemporary potentates of the earth. He was king of the Ethiopians. He fought against the Greeks in the Trojan war; and after he had slain Antilochus, son of Nestor, was killed by Achilles."

Dr. Perry concluded that, "Through slain by Achilles, Memnon is so embalmed in verse and prose by Homer, Hesiod, Virgil and others, that his name will last as long as the writings of these imperishable authors."

SOURCES:
The Cushite, by Rufus Lewis Perry
Ethiopia and Ethiopians as Seen by Classical Writers, by William Leo Hansberry

MINOAN CRETE
AFRICAN INFLUENCED FORERUNNER OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONS

By RUNOKO RASHIDI
entrance to palace at knossos

"The first civilization of Europe was established on the island of Crete. It is called the Minoan Culture, after King Minos, an early legendary ruler of the island. The ancestors of the Cretans were natives of Africa, a branch of Western Ethiopians." --John G. Jackson

Minoan Crete, the forerunner of Greek civilization, is the earliest known European high-culture. Although modest in size (170 miles east to west, thirty-five miles north to sourth), Crete exercised immeasurable influence on the Aegean archipelago, Western Asia and the Greek mainland. Throughout Crete the vestiges of complex palaces, paved highways, aqueducts, terra-pipes for drainage, and irrigation canals provide plentiful proof of Minoan ingenuity in the areas of scientific and technical innovation. The Minoans possessed registed trademarks, uniform weights and measures, calendrical systems based on precise astronomical observations and advanced writing systems. Interestingly enough, there were few fortifications on the island.

British archaeologist Arthur Evans (1851-1941), who conducted excavations on the island, was convinced of African migrations to ancient Crete and noted "the multiplicity of these connections with the old indigenous race of the opposite African coast." The late African-American cultural historian John G. Jackson (1907-1993) advocated the view the Minoan civilization was rooted in Africa, and believed that the ancestors of the Minoans "dwelt in the grasslands of North Africa before that area dried up and became a great desert. As the Saharan sands encroached on their homeland, they took to the sea, and in Crete and neighboring islands set up a maritime culture."

The research team of C.H. and H.B. Hawes, the latter of whom, like Evans, conducted important archaeological excavations in Crete, support John Jackson's argument, and noted that: "Anthropologists are inclined to the view that the Neolithic people of Crete were immigrants, and probably came from North Africa."

Arthur Evans was convinced of North African migrations to Neolithic Crete. He pointed out that:

"The multiplicity of these connections with the old indigenous race of the opposite African coast, and which we undoubtedly have to deal with in the pre dynastic population of the Nile Valley, can in fact be hardly explained on any other hypothesis than that of an actual settlement in Southern Crete."

Historian H.R. Hall, also Oxford trained, shared Evans' position on the early population of Minoan Crete:

"While the majority of the original Neolithic inhabitants of Crete probably came from Anatolia, another element may well have come in oared boats from the opposite African coast, bringing with them to the southern plan of Messara the seeds of civilization that, transplanted to the different conditions of Crete, developed into the great Minoan culture, a younger more brilliant, and less long-lived sister of that of Egypt."

Whether the Minoan culture was more brilliant than that of Egypt is highly questionable at best, but on the other points Hall seems to just about to hit the mark. Evans, again, indeed considered Egypt and Libya as the springboards of Minoan civilization; so much so that he structured his own Minoan chronology on that of dynastic Egypt. He was particularly struck by the similarities in the contents of the of the tombs of the ancient Minoans and Egyptians:

"So numerous, in fact, are the points, of comparison presented by the contents of these early interments with those of pre dynastic Egypt that, far-fetched as the conclusion might appear at first sight, I was already some years since constrained to put forth the suggestion that about the time of the conquest of the lower Nile Valley by the first historic dynasty some part of the older population had actually settled in this southern foreland of Crete."

Gordon Childe also commented on the relations between Crete and pre dynastic Egypt:

"At least on the Mesara, the great plain of southern Crete facing Africa, Minoan Crete's indebtedness to the Nile is disclosed in the most intimate aspects of its culture. Not only do the forms of early Minoan stone vases, the precision of the lapidaries' technique and the aesthetic selection of variegated stones as his materials carry on the the pre dynastic tradition, Nilotic religious customs such as the use of the sistrum, the wearing of amulets in the forms of legs, mummies and monkeys, and statuettes plainly derived from Gerzean ..block figures,' and personal habits revealed by depilatory tweezers of the Egyptian shape and stone unguent palettes from the early tombs and, later, details of costumes such as the penis-sheath and loin-cloth betoken something deeper than the external relations of commerce."

Cretan/Egyptian contacts pick up again in the sixteenth and fifteenth centuries B.C. During the reigns of Egyptian monarchs Makare Hatshepsut and Thutmose III (1504-1447 B.C.) the people of Crete, whom the Egyptians called Keftiu, were graphically portrayed as tribute bearers on the walls of the tombs of the Egyptian nobility.

SOURCES:
African Presence In Early Europe, Edited by Ivan Van Sertima
Man, God And Civilization, by John G. Jackson

minoan youth practice boxing

minoan burial sarcophagus

T R A V E L N O T E S

KNOSSOS AND THE ARCHEOLOGICAL MUSEUM ON THE ISLAND OF CRETE

Greetings Family,

It is my second day in Crete and I saw my first African today. I was beginning to think that I was the only one here and I was going to compose you a long dramatic letter to that effect. But as I was contemplating the situation over a Greek lunch an African street vendor passed by and we briefly mumbled pleasantries. If I wasn't so shocked and he did not have a handful of products I probably would have invited him to lunch. Today was a good day. I finally got to the archaeological site called Knossos. It is only about eight kilometers from the city center. I took a taxi to the place and a bus back. You know that I have reached a comfort zone when I start using public transportation. Knossos is a heavily restored site and heavily reconstructed also. The work was begun by the English archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans with his own money I think back in the 1920s or so. It is a lovely site, an ancient palace with vivid frescoes and bright red pillars, set amidst hills and trees. A gentle breeze was blowing and most of visitors were young school children. I liked Knossos and thought the closest comparison was to Great Zimbabwe in Southern Africa. The same kind of energy I experienced in both places.

The island of Crete, for those of you who might not know, was the basis, according to Cheikh Anta Diop and Martin Bernal, of the mythical lost continent of Atlantis. Try reviewing Diop's Civilization or Barbarism and volume two of Black Athena by Bernal. My old brother and research partner Dr. James E. Brunson also did some very good work on the subject back in the 1980s. You can find it in Ivan Van Sertima's African Presence in Early Europe anthology.

According to the legends, the Greek god Zeus saw a beautiful Phoenician princess named Europa. He wanted her so much that one day when Europa (an African woman?) was at the sea shore Zeus turned into a white bull and laid down in front of her. Europa was entranced by the bull, jumped on his back and away Zeus flew with her to the island of Crete. On Crete Zeus raped Europa. Does this sound like a familiar story? Apparently this is where the name Europe derives from. Anyway, from this union came three sons, one of which was named Minos who became the island's ruler. It is from the name Minos that we derive the name for the civilization of Crete called the Minoan. John G. Jackson writes about this in his Introduction to African Civilization.

The Minoans were a great maritime power in the second millennium BCE. They had many palatial cities and traded far and wide, and even had relations with ancient Kmt. Apparently during the reign of the mighty Thutmose III Crete was an Egyptian vassal state and Knossos was an extremely important Minoan center. Evans actually believed that the impetus for Minoan civilization came from the arrival of African settlers from Libya and Lower Egypt who moved to Crete when Upper and Lower Egypt were unified towards the end of the fourth millennium BCE. So there are a lot of connections. You don't think that I am spending all this money to be here on a humbug do you?

So I enjoyed my visit to Knossos today and it is something that I have wanted to do for a very long time. In my first book, way back in 1983, a self-published manuscript that I called Kushite Case-Studies, I wrote a chapter on Crete and it is that chapter that I am going to develop in my new book. Well, there is nothing quite like seeing a place for yourself with your own eyes and so, following Knossos, I went to the Archaeological Museum. It too was well worth the visit, and as I am here try to fill in my missing historical pages and gathering data for the new book,

I saw several important things. First, the prominence of the female. If anything, in ancient Crete the female enjoyed a status at least the equal to that of a man. Indeed, she seems to have been far more important. The goddess, in particular, not the god, reigned supreme. All of the evidence corroborates this. This does not sound like white folks to me. Secondly, the Kamite/Minoan connection was pronounced. I even found a reproduction of a Minoan wall painting in a north Egyptian palace of the great Ahmose I, founder the illustrious Kamite dynasty XVIII. Even the color schemes seemed familiar with people generally painted a chalky color for the women and reddish-brown for the men. Third, I found a depiction of a Black man from Knossos dated around 1400 BCE. He is in a piece of art called "The Captain of the Blacks." I took a bunch of photos of the piece as I could not find it any book and certainly none of the post cards. And, point number four, I found another good Africoid depiction of Roman Emperor Septimius Severus. So I had a very good day, this day, possibly my best day ever in Greece.

Well, it is Friday night in the city and the music is jumping. I guess that this is my signal to return to my hotel as I never was a jumper anyway and certainly don't figure to jump here. Let me just send an email to my biological family to let them know that I have not disappeared from the face of the earth, although I travel so much now that I figure that they stopped worrying about me a long time ago. And there does not seem to be much to worry about anyway. The cyber cafe is just across the street from my hotel and people do not seem unfriendly.

Tomorrow I will try to visit at least one, perhaps two more archaeological sites. I will post if you if I can. If not, just look for me in the whirlwind. So far it is a very positive experience.

In love of Africa,

Brother Runoko

By RUNOKO RASHIDI

COLCHIANS, PHOENICIANS AND CANAANITES
THE AFRICAN PRESENCE IN CLASSICAL WEST ASIAN CIVILIZATIONS

By RUNOKO RASHIDI

"It is undoubtedly a fact that the Colchians are of Egyptian descent. I noticed this myself before I heard anyone mention it."

--Herodotus, The Histories

We now know that modern humanity originated in Africa, and that all modern humans can ultimately trace their ancestral roots back to the African continent. Herodotus, the European father of history, regarded Colchis, a land located along the western slope of the Caucasus Mountains near the Black Sea, as an African colony. He not only pointed to the Colchians' black skin and woolly hair, but also to their oral traditions, language, methods of weaving, and practice of circumcision. Saint Jerome, writing during the fourth century, called Colchis the "Second Ethiopia." Two hundred years later, Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, described an "Ethiopian" presence in the same region. Even today, in the same district about which Herodotus wrote, lives a numerically minute black-skinned, woolly-haired community.

Phoenicia was the name given by the Greeks, in the first millennium B.C.E., to the coastal provinces of modern Lebanon and northern Israel, although occasionally the term seems to have been applied to the entire Mediterranean seaboard from Syria to Palestine. Phoenicia was not considered a nation, in the strict sense of the word, but rather as a chain of coastal cities, of which the most important were Sidon, Byblos, Tyre and Ras Shamra. To the Greeks the term Phoenician, from the root Phoenix, had connotations of red, and it is likely that the name was derived from the physical appearance of the people themselves.

The Phoenicians were a coastal branch of the Canaanites, who, according to Biblical traditions, were the brothers of Kush (Ethiopia) and Mizraim (Kmt)--members of the Hamite ethnic group. In other words, the Bible states that the ancient Canaanites, Ethiopians and Egyptians were all African nations. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop claimed that "Phoenician history is therefore incomprehensible only if we ignore the Biblical data, according to which the Phoenicians, in other words, the Canaanites, were originally Negroes, already civilized, with whom nomadic, uncultured white tribes later mixed." While acknowledging the Biblical data, Diop cautioned that the economic relations shared by the Kamites and Phoenicians should not be minimized in explaining the strong sense of solidarity which generally existed between them. There was frequently a Kamite presence: military, diplomatic, religious or commercial, both in the Canaanite hinterland and the Phoenician city-states themselves, and Diop goes on to state that, "Even throughout the most troubled periods of great misfortune, Egypt could count on the Phoenicians as one can count more or less on a brother."

The Phoenicians were the great seafarers of their time and dominated the Mediterranean shipping lanes. Phoenician inscriptions have been found as far north as central Turkey and as far west as Tunisia where the famous ancient city of Carthage was founded. It was among the Canaanites that one of the most important and meaningful inventions in human history is attested--the alphabet.

SOURCES:
African Origin of Civilization, by Cheikh Anta Diop
African Presence in Early Asia, edited by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima

ROME BEFORE THE ROMANS

By ARTHUR LEWIN

Rome, why Rome? Why did Rome rise to such great heights in ancient times? Much of the credit must go to the Etruscans. In fact, much of what we think of as Roman is, in reality, Etruscan...

The Etruscans fled Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) around 1000 B.C. They were part of the Mycenaen culture of the Eastern Mediterranean. This Mycenaean civilization was thoroughly disrupted as primitive Greek bands came pouring in from the north around 1000 BC, and so, one element of the Mycenaeans, the Etruscans, fled eastward across the Mediterranean, eventually landing in Italy.

In essay 33, of the Global African Presence Home Page, "Minoan Crete African Forerunner of European Civilizations," Master Teacher Runoko Rashidi describes the pivotal role of Crete in European history. Crete was destroyed by the eruption of Mt. Thera around 1400 B.C. This cataclysm badly damaged every city in the Western Mediterranean, and was also felt as far away as Egypt. It took centuries for the region to get back on its feet, and when it did, the new culture that developed has come to be called Mycenaean. The Etruscans, living in Lydia in Asia Minor, were a key Mycenaean element. Their statues show them to be dark complexioned and resembling the Cretans, who were related to their forbears.

At any rate, the Etruscans migrated to Italy, in the face of the invasion of primitive Greeks around 1000 B.C. (Note the Greek "Classical Era" would not arrive for 600 years.) The area where the Etruscans settled, immediately to the north of Rome, came to be known as Etruria, sometimes called Tuscany, both derivatives of the word "Etruscan."

Note that Etruria is on the western, or far, side of the Italian peninsula, when approaching from the east. It is also Italy's most fertile quarter. This indicates that the Etruscans doubtless probed the peninsula before picking out the most desirable area. Etruscan technology was far in advance of the natives they encountered. They easily conquered them, conscripted them and then used them to further their conquests. (Howe, 301)

The area immediately to the south of Etruria, across the Tiber River, was called Latium. Its inhabitants were called Latins. Around 600 BC the Etruscans conquered Rome, and an Etruscan king ruled the city. Rome emerged as the pre-eminent city in Latium precisely because it was closest to Etruria. Here are a series of direct quotes from, Albert Trever's 1939, History of Ancient Civilization, taken from pages 22 & 23, Volume II, The Roman World, published by Harcourt, Brace and Company. He was a "mainstream," conservative historian, and what he says is supported by any number of writers, and can be found today in standard encyclopaedia entries on the Etruscans and the early history of Rome:

"Since the Etruscans brought with them from the Orient, an advanced culture, they may be truthfully called the civilizers of early Italy... They introduced into Italy and Rome an urban civilization where before had been only scattered, agricultural villages.. They transformed Rome from a loose group of farm villages to a powerful, populous city (urbs), gave the city its name, Roma, and started it on its later career of expansion and power in Italy.... the judicial ceremonial, religious ritual, and much in the Roman festivals and shows, were Etruscan before they were Roman.

"The Greek alphabet came to Rome probably through the medium of the Etruscans, early in the seventh century, as did many other of Rome's loans from Greece. In religion, also Rome owed much to the Etruscans. Her Capitoline tradition of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, her use of augury and divination...(and also) her gladitorial contests.

"One of the greatest debts of Italy and Rome to the Etruscans was in building, for from them they learned to build permanently with hewn stone, and to undertake great public works such as temples, fortifications, aqueducts, bridges, dikes and sewers.... it was under Etruscan influence in the sixth century that Rome was first fortified by a wall. The fruitful principle of the arch was also introduced into Italy by the Etruscan immigrants." (Trever, pp. 22, 23)

So we see that much of what we today call Roman was, in fact, Etruscan. We must also note that they were trading partners and allies of African Carthage. And there is evidence that they shared the same divinities as the Carthaginians (Davies, p. 154) Five centuries after fleeing the Greeks, the Etruscans again encountered them in Italy. "In opposition to the Hellenic (Greek) colonial expansion in the West, which tended to encircle them, they were allied with Carthage against the Greeks in the Battle of Alalia in 538 B.C." (Trever, p. 18)

What eventually happened to the Etruscans? It is an old story. Their pupils, the Romans eventually conquered, and incorporated them. The Etruscans had a league of 12 cities, but it appears to have been mainly a religious confederation. As Rome grew in size and power, she attacked and conquered the Etruscan cities one-by-one. They failed to unite, and re-take Rome, and so were thus swallowed by their offspring. (Sound familiar?)

SOURCES:
Davies, Norman. 1996. Europe: A History. Harper Collins: New York

Howe, Herbert. "The Etruscans," World Book Encyclopaedia. Chicago: 1975.

Rashidi, Runoko. "Minoan Crete - African Forerunner of European Civilizations," Global African Presence Home Page, 33

Trever, Albert A. 1939. History of Ancient Civilization, Volume II, The Roman World. Harcourt, Brace: New York.

what was obama talking about ? they don't look bitter to me

2008-04-20T13:18:00.000-07:00

Guns, fun for the whole family!

..

former cia analyst ray mcgovern-- "cheney and petraeus didn't know? that's a crock ! "

2008-04-12T15:31:00.000-07:00

was cheney behind iraqi army's recent failed offensive ?

is there a resemblance ?

2008-04-07T19:17:00.000-07:00

the similarity in nose and moustache. the stocky body type ...was one of saddam's hangmen actually muktada al sadr ?

john mc cain just doesn't get it ...

2008-04-06T14:04:00.000-07:00

i’m watching the fox sunday morning talking heads political show when they feature a segment where john mc cain is interviewed by chris wallace . (that annoying little right wing shill is mike wallace’s son ? )

though clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, mc cain seems like a sincere grandfatherly type. i admit after he confessed that he made a mistake when he voted against establishing a holiday for dr king , it was not easy to dislike him despite the goofy grin he repeatedly flashed at inappropriate points during the interview .

from what i saw , at first i thought he was simply a bad liar, but was later forced to believe that mc cain honestly just does not get it.

he reminded the audience that he had supported the "surge" and he insisted that the surge has been a "big success" so we need to stay the course.

even after the rightwing reporter pointed out that it was the sunni stand down and muktada al sadr’s six month ceasefire, and not the surge that resulted in violence levels in iraq reducing to the levels they were at in 2005, mc cain seemed as if he didn't hear it.

also mc cain needed to be reminded that reducing violence to 2005 levels does not really add up to progress since saying that you’re only as broke as you were in 2005 still means broke as hell --thus it couldn’t be honestly counted as "progress" .

mc cain again flashed that goofy grin like the lounge lizard singer who falls off the piano, yet doesn’t miss an off-key note , and went right on to say that the recent iraqi government offensive was a big success and showed the al maliki government’s growing strength.

even the right wing fox guy is incredulous at this remark and blurts out that one thousand al maliki soldiers defected almost en mass, turning over weapons and vehicles to al sadr’s forces during that campaign --how can you say the al maliki government was successful ?

another shit-faced grin from mc cain the gold lame-wearing lounge lizard who from the floor , segues right into his next cover tune, "al sadr lost because HE called for the cease fire, not al maliki"-- followed by that top 40s oldie but goody hit , " only losers call for ceasefires in war, not winners."

that’s when i knew --the guy is clueless .

the interview ended and like one of many fox network featured silverhaired elvis-imitators who’ve played "the world famous tuxedo lounge here in beautiful downtown boise " --mc cain grinned , and said goodbye .

"you’ve been a wonderful audience --thank you very much !"

what the media continues to fail to mention...

2008-04-05T11:34:00.000-07:00

not just "fails to mention" , but "distorts" beyond recognition.

to get an idea , compare this portion of an article from today's on-line BBC news story about the situation between robert mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party and main opposition rival morgan tsvangirai head of the MDC party, with the article below written two years ago about economic sanctions on zimbabwe.

the mugabe government has asserted all along that the sanctions were in retaliation for his seizure of lands from white farmers-- a small minority of the population compared to the black majority--the "rhodesian" whites were the children of british citizens who during the colonial era, took the best lands by force from the blacks when zimbabwe was the british apartheid colony of rhodesia.

britain had agreed to pay these whites for the lands and they were to be distributed to black families in a newly independent zimbabwe. that was back in 1980 when mugabe took office.

twenty years had passed and britain had paid nothing to white farmers and white farmers STILL held the overwhelming majority of the best farmlands in zimbabwe .

facing rebellion by his own army veterans who had fought and won the war of liberation against the apartheid white rhodesian "government",and with these angry veterans threatening to, if necessary , slaughter the whites and take the lands back, mugabe issued the government decree that took the lands away from the white farmers.

with provocative headlines in the media reading akin to, "black mugabe kicks white family farmers off their highly productive white family farmlands" , his "demon status" in western media reached new heights .

BBC reports today that tsvangirai's MDC party claims he won the recent zimbabwean election with 50.3% of the vote . they claim tsvangirai is thus 0.3% above the constitutional requirements of 50% for a candidate to claim the presidency and a run-off election being unnecessary .

first today's BBC description of the western sanctions on zimbabwe :

Sanctions

Zanu-PF leaders backed Mr Mugabe's participation in a possible run-off on Friday. There had been speculation he would stand aside rather than face a second poll.

But a BBC southern Africa correspondent, Peter Biles, says the ruling party remains divided, with many who would still like to see a change of leadership, believing that under Mr Mugabe, Zimbabwe has no future.

Western countries imposed sanctions following allegations that Mr Mugabe rigged the polls in 2002.

The sanctions are targeted at Mr Mugabe and his close associates - they are subject to a travel ban and an assets freeze in the European Union and the US.

Mr Mugabe, 84, came to power 28 years ago at independence on a wave of optimism.

But in recent years Zimbabwe has been plagued by the world's highest inflation, as well as acute food and fuel shortages, which correspondents say have driven many voters to back the opposition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7332334.stm

Economic sanctions undermine Zimbabwe's economy

By Tawanda Hondora
11/03/2006

WHAT has caused Zimbabwe’s once stable economy to so spectacularly collapse?

Many in the world place the blame on Robert Mugabe, the country’s President

Among the issues usually cited are Mugabe’s land policies, endemic corruption, Zimbabwe’s involvement in the DRC war, absence of the rule of law, and other ill-conceived economic policies.

It is also argued that Mugabe’s political intolerance, electoral fraud and gross human rights abuses have contributed to the country’s economic malaise.

Indeed, it is true that each one of these often cited factors has contributed, or provides an explanation to Zimbabwe’s current economic problems. However, western countries and media almost collectively ignore one other significant factor responsible for the country’s economic collapse: economic sanctions imposed by the US, the EU, and Australia against Zimbabwe.

Given that Mugabe’s often cited and main transgression, which has given rise to the country’s international isolation, was his forcible expropriation of farmland owned by the country’s white farmers, and the implications of his actions for the respect of private property rights and investments in the region, this collective amnesia is hardly surprising.

It is often argued that the sanctions in place against Zimbabwe are not economic in nature; rather, the argument goes, there is in existence a regime of smart sanctions, which targets specific ZANU PF loyalists.

This is not true.

Zimbabwe’s economic woes are the direct result of a concerted and systematic campaign to effect regime change through an economic implosion.

Zimbabwe has a critical shortage of foreign currency. However for the past four years or so, Zimbabwe has been unable to obtain finance or credit facilities from international lenders to inject into the economy. And this is a direct consequence of a sanctions regime imposed against the Zimbabwe by particularly the US, and the EU.

That Mugabe is an evil, brutal, dictator that needs to be removed from office is not in doubt. It is however immoral to cause the removal of Mugabe from office by precipitating the collapse of a developing, only recently independent, now famine-ravished African country through an economic sanctions regime.

The US introduced economic sanctions on Zimbabwe through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, 2001. (ZIDERA) Through this enactment Zimbabwe’s access to finance and credit facilities was effectively incinerated.

ZIDERA empowers the US to use its voting rights and influence (as the main donor) in multilateral lending agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank, and the African Development Bank to veto any applications by Zimbabwe for finance, credit facilities, loan rescheduling, and international debt cancellation. The US cites Zimbabwe’s human rights record, political intolerance and absence of rule of law as the main reasons for the imposition of sanctions. The ZIDERA also suggests that if Zimbabwe acts to correct these ills, then the sanctions will be removed and economic support measures are suggested.

Simply put, owing to the size of the US vote and influence in these institutions, neither the IMF, World Bank nor the African Development Bank will lend to Zimbabwe, or offer it credit facilities. Therefore, needless to say, as a direct result of the US 2001 Act, Zimbabwe’s relationship with these multilateral lending agencies was immediately and severely affected.

In addition, Zimbabwe’s ability to reschedule its loan payments and to apply for debt cancellations in times of severe financial crisis was severely affected.

And once the IMF and World Bank stopped doing business with Zimbabwe, this had an immediate and adverse impact on Zimbabwe’s credit and investment rating. And with a drop in investment rating went the dream of low cost capital on the international markets.

ZIDERA was a masterstroke. At the stroke of a pen, Zimbabwe’s access to international credit markets was blocked. And relying purely on barter trade, and trade, mining, agricultural concessions, and on exports-generated foreign currency, Zimbabwe’s economy has been slowly but surely asphyxiated.

And the consequent foreign currency crisis has resulted in the continued devaluation of the domestic currency, rapid inflation, and all else that has manifested itself in the current Zimbabwe economic crisis.

In addition, both the US and the EU have frozen financial and other assets of persons, or companies linked to ZANU PF. It is alleged that such companies sustain the ZANU PF government. There may be a grain of truth in that observation. However, what is often ignored in the race to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe is that companies operating in Zimbabwe provide a livelihood to thousands of families, and contribute to the development of the country.

Australia is reported to have denied Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe officials’ business visas to travel to Australia. And the US is putting in place a raft of measures aimed at specified ZANU PF linked individuals, their families, and companies.

It is apparent therefore some of the most powerful countries in the world have put in place measures to bring about the downfall of Mr. Mugabe by orchestrating the economic collapse of Zimbabwe. It is wrong to conflate Zimbabwe with the personality of Mugabe. They are two distinct entities. It cannot be right to say that economic support will be provided to the country once its leader is out of power. As Zimbabwe, all too dearly knows following the Lancester House Agreement of 1979 on the land question, such promises are impossible to enforce.

No matter how evil a dictator Mugabe is, it cannot be right to force his downfall by killing off the country’s fledgling economy, by erasing the gains made after 1980, and worsening the AIDS, and unemployment crisis.

Those championing the imposition of the economic sanctions often retort that Zimbabwe’s ability to borrow from the IMF and World Bank was restricted in any event because it had fallen foul of its agreements with the IMF. This argument is however disingenuous. It ignores the other more vicious consequences of ZIDERA on the Zimbabwean economy.

In addition, the suggestion that what is in existence is a regime of symbolic travel bans and some asset freezes is far from the truth.

It is correct that Zimbabwe must be made to pay its debts, including money that it owes the IMF. However, in the circumstances of Zimbabwe, going through a financial crisis, it is immoral for the IMF to insist on the payment of over US$175 million on pain of expulsion from the institution for non payment.

Zimbabwe recently managed to stave its expulsion from the IMF by reportedly paying £150 million towards its debt obligations to the institution. It was all too obvious however that Zimbabwe paid the money out of desperation. The country cannot afford the payment it made. Zimbabwe paid the money because, owing to US influence among others, it was unable to formally reschedule its IMF loan payments. Amidst all this, it is reported that the country has critical foreign currency shortages, has run dry of fuel and other essentials, has record high unemployment levels, and now has crippling inflation rates. In addition, the UN suggests Zimbabwe is suffering from famine.

The suggestion that Zimbabwe’s economy is what it is because of mismanagement is partly true but misleading. What Mugabe has done is to mismanage the endemic crisis caused by the country’s inability to access capital, which in turn are the result of a raft of economic sanctions in place against the country.

There are no doubt other reasons why Zimbabwe’s economy is in the doldrums; chief of which are myopic, ill-advised ZANU PF government policies and corruption. But one cannot ignore the damaging effect the sanctions have had on the economy and how the country and its economy are being slowly asphyxiated by the blockade on access to international capital markets.

The question has to be asked: are the US, EU, Australia, and the MDC, any closer to removing Mugabe from power because of the economic sanctions currently in place? Is it not true that an economically independent people are much more likely to vote or rebel against a brutal dictator?

Yes, Mugabe must be removed from power, as must the institutions he has created to bolster his political power. However, this is likely to remain a pipe dream for as long as the prevailing philosophy supports the destruction of the country’s economy.

Tawanda Hondora is a Zimbabwean lawyer currently studying towards a PhD at Warwick University in England. He be contacted at hondst@yahoo.co.uk

"somewhere in heaven"

2008-04-04T19:38:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-SI_gF9S34&feature=related "somewhere in heaven" video including dr king's "i've been to the mountain top" clip

pawns in the larger game ?

2008-04-04T01:50:00.000-07:00

there have been during the recent al Sadr vs al maliki fighting in iraq , several rumors of fervent Us military activity near iran's border.

the rumors as far as i can determine have been based on a russian news article reporting these observations made by their military intel. but what i'm seeing in actuality, is russian media running in late march of this year, an article dated as being written about this same time last year.

because detailed invasion plans for both iraq and iran along with preparatory exercises and war games have been in the pentagon works and reworks since at least 1995 , i saw this recycling of the russian article as no real new evidence that the long dreaded Us attack on iran was beginning.

but then we saw articles stating that saudi arabia after cheney's recent visit was initiating measures to deal with massive radioactive fallout resulting from an attack on iran's nuclear power research facilities.

added to that, during german chancellor angela merkel's recent state visit to israel she referred to iran as world enemy number one in an address to israel's Knesset.

bush in his address to NATO chiefs reviewing the EXPANSION of the SIX DECADE OLD
EURO-AMERICAN MILITARY ALLIANCE , referred to his proposed and totally unnecessary missile defense shield for europe as a protection against iranian missiles that could hit europe.

hold the phone georgie --does any one with even the most slender connection to REALITY ask the question, who in their right mind would even think to attack europe?

the europeans have for centuries been armed to the gums--the problem of the last five centuries is not some global bully attacking the peace loving europeans , its the exact opposite. the heavily armed and highly warlike europeans have been the global bully.

the last sixty years of relative peace in europe were the result of two world wars fought in large part in europe by europeans that left close to seventy million dead and devastated the land and economies. european on european crime--as ahmadinejad of iran pointed out and was crucified by the western press.

from 1945 to about 1975 was the era of decolonization in the third world where former colonies of european powers hd to fight brutal and protracted wars to gain pseudo-independence from their former colonial masters .

Europeans, even after being treated as colonies themselves by the nazis and finally being on the receiving end of what europe had been dishing out to the non-white world since columbus sailed the ocean blue--almost immediately after the second world war, the european colonial powers proved they had learned nothing from their "what goes around comes around" experience of being used as hitler's colonies and waged genocidal and brutal wars in asia and africa against the nonwhite peoples who only wanted the same freedom from colonization and racist oppression the europeans had just fought against the nazis to end.

i'm no historian , but OTHER THAN EUROPEANS THEMSELVES, who has had the means or inclination to attack europe since the days of the ottoman turks and the fall of constantinople around the year 1453?

what are they so afraid of ? WHO HAS BEEN THEIR ENEMY --other than themselves ?

even the 'terrorist" attacks in madrid and london had their own national security services fingerprints all over them . so who are the most heavily armed people in the world--the europeans and their global offspring--so afraid of? and why?

iran is no threat, the Un's international atomic regulatory agency even said the iranian nuclear program was civilian in nature--despite the UNFOUNDED ravings to the contrary of the bush administration and the israelis --two of the world's biggest nuclear powers --with enough nukes between them to incinerate iran at least a hundred times over.

yet the Us maintains, if memory is correct , at least three carrier groups in the persian gulf-- the nimitz the eisenhower and the john c. stennis.(they actually had the audacity to name an aircraft carrier after the overtly red neck racist mississippi senator john stennis ?)

the Us runs naval wargames off iran's coast.

the Us in march pushed through new rounds of sanctions against iran allowing member nations of the security council (the Us Uk france etc) to stop and search iranian ships and planes --looking for nukes and bin laden, i guess .

and a measure by the Us treasury department treats iranian banks as money launderers for terrorism and those doing business with iranian banks as basically aiding and abetting terrorism .

an article by john mc glynn titled "day of infamy : the march 2008 Us declaration of war on iran " reports :

...make no mistake. As of Thursday, March 20 the US is at war with Iran.

So who made it official?

A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: "Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity."

FinCEN, though part of the chain of command, is better known to bankers and lawyers than to students of US foreign policy. Nevertheless, when the history of this newly declared war is someday written (assuming the war is allowed to proceed) FinCEN's role will be as important as that played by US Central Command (Centcom) in directing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In its March 20 advisory FinCEN reminds the global banking community that United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 1803 (passed on March 3, 2008) "calls on member states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, and their branches and subsidiaries abroad."

UNSC 1803 specifically mentions two Iranian state-owned banks: Bank Melli and Bank Saderat. These two banks (plus their overseas branches and certain subsidiaries), along with a third state-owned bank, Bank Sepah, were also unilaterally sanctioned by the US in 2007 under anti-proliferation and anti-terrorism presidential executive orders 13382 and 13224.

As of March 20, however, the US, speaking through FinCEN, is now telling all banks around the world "to take into account the risk arising from the deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT [anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism] regime, as well as all applicable U.S. and international sanctions programs, with regard to any possible transactions" with – and this is important – not just the above three banks but every remaining state-owned, private and special government bank in Iran. In other words, FinCEN charges, all of Iran's banks – including the central bank (also on FinCEN's list) – represent a risk to the international financial system, no exceptions. Confirmation is possible by comparing FinCEN's list of risky Iranian banks with the listing of Iranian banks provided by Iran's central bank.

The "deficiencies in Iran's AML/CFT" is important because it provides the rationale FinCEN will now use to deliver the ultimate death blow to Iran's ability to participate in the international banking system.

this condemnation is inspite of iran's efforts at improving its anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism regulations in order to bring them in align with international ( "international" means Us dictated ) prescriptions .

iran's efforts at improvement were acknowleged by the g-7's financial action task force in 2007 when it said it," welcomes the commitment made by Iran to improve its AML/CFT regime."

the article goes on to explain that the iranian banks and those dealing with them risk being cut off from the global financial markets-still dominated by the Us/Uk .

" So what does all this bureaucratic financial rigmarole mean?

What it really means is that the US, again through FinCEN, has declared two acts of war: one against Iran's banks and one against any financial institution anywhere in the world that tries to do business with an Iranian bank."

...at risk of having all 'correspondent relationships' with US banks severed, a disaster for any bank wanting to remain networked to the largest financial market in the world."

we must ask, do these unwarranted hostilities, threats of physical attack and attacks in actuality upon iran's economy have anything to do with the iranian plan to create an oil market that would sell iranian oil to the world in a currency other than Us dollars?

saddam hussein was tolerated by the Us until he, as revenge for being double crossed by his former allies and business partners in the whitehouse, ordered the selling of iraqi oil in euros instead of dollars--in defiance of the nixon brokered agreement with the saudis around 1974 that the saudis would sell oil only in dollars.

this saudi-Us agreement created an artificial demand for dollars--bolstering the even then faltering Us currency.

the dollar's present woes trace at least back to the 1970s when due to double digit inflation caused by the federal reserve printing increasingly worthless paper money to finance vietnam war debt, countries like france started cashing in Us dollars for the ounce of gold each 35 dollars could then be exchanged for.

to staunch the gold drain , nixon-- who ran on a promise of having a secret plan to end the vietnam war and instead extended the war to cambodia and laos and fought on for six more years-- took the Us dollar off the gold standard and said the dollar would no longer be backed by it, but instead by the productivity of the Us economy.

he also secretly cut the deal with the saudis to sell oil in dollars --making the Us greenback a petro-dollar for the next 30 years--until the saddam and then iranian challenges.

today as the dollar quickly sinks in the west and elsewhere around the globe, a war with iran would not bolster the fallen dollar and return it to unchallenged status as the world's sole reserve currency, but Us military control over the oil reserves of iraq and iran most certainly could.

if iran is finally targeted, syria would also have to be in the crosshairs because of its military power--though nothing compared to that of israel --is viewed as a threat to Us/Euro aspirations in the region.

the 2006 lebanon war between israel and hezbollah was intended to be the opening phase of hostilities leading to the Us ,israel showdown with iran and syria, but hezbollah, like al sadr's mahdi army in iraq , proved too tough for the Us surrogates.

reports have placed syrian troops on high alert in fear of a sudden attack

"Syria is preparing for a comprehensive Israeli strike which will be combined with an attack on Hizbullah, sources in Damascus have told the London-based Arabic-language al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper.

The sources, which refused to reveal their identity, reported that Syria was closely monitoring the movement of Israeli forces along the northern border.

Barak to Northern Command:

'Hizbullah growing stronger, but so are we' / Hanan Greenberg

Defense minister tours IDF’s Northern Command, says Lebanese Shiite group is ‘wary of firing at Israel at the moment, but beneath this blissful quiet there is a storm brewing’

The newspaper reported Wednesday that Damascus viewed the Israeli media reports and statements made by senior Israel Defense Forces officials as incitement and attempts to prepare the Israeli and global public opinion for a war against Syria.

The sources added that the Syrian forces were conducting wide-scale military maneuvers and have called up reservists in preparation for an Israeli attack.

In addition to the military preparations, the sources said, Damascus has raised its security alert level for fear that Israeli forces would infiltrate its territories through one of its bordering countries, mainly referring to Lebanon.

Over the past few weeks, the Syrians have stationed three armored divisions, special forces and nine mechanized infantry divisions opposite Lebanon's western valley, as the Syrians estimate that a ground Israeli invasion may take place in that area.

The area is not only a strategic territory for Hizbullah, but also a problematic area for Syria, as it would not take the IDF long to place its cannons opposite the Syrian capital and control the Beirut-Damascus route."

and the winner is ?

2008-04-01T00:13:00.000-07:00

moktada al sadr , ahmed chalabi 2005

so , i'm scanning sources of info looking for insight into the events of the last six days of fighting in iraq --what can only be described honestly as a stunning military disaster and crushing political defeat for the Us and it's puppet al maliki government in iraq when i find these rather interesting observations and comments.

"Guess who was mediating in the conflict between the sectarian militias of Badr and Mahdi? None other than the "secular-liberal"--that was how the US press referred to Ahmad Chalabi prior to the US invasion--Ahmad Chalabi. He was negotiating on behalf of his ally, Muqtada As-Sadr." -- as'ad abuKahlil

moktada al sadr from al jazeera interview

another observer going by the nickname "lenin" commenting on al sadr's "strange victory " also mentioned the similarities between iraq today and pre Tet vietnam of 1968 , but noted the presence of an overarching cohesive national unity in vietnam and the lack of the same in a fragmented iraq--but also noted al sadr is reaching out to the sunni resistance--moktada would have to be astute enough to know that the bushites, though temporarily set back, would eventually try again to neutralize or destroy al sadr's al madhi army :

What did he have to do to win? Well, once again, he didn't start or provoke the fight. In fact, he had recently renewed his organisation's ceasefire, so anything short of his being decisively defeated is by default a victory for him. Maliki's stated goal was to disarm the Mahdi Army, and that clearly isn't going to happen. Maliki tried to use the 'Iraqi forces' in order to defeat the Mahdi, but found he couldn't. Some Iraqi police refused to fight, while others took their guns and went to fight for the other side. Basra was decisively in Mahdi control. In short order, Baghdad, Kut, Karbala, Nasiriyah, Hilla and several southern cities and towns were in revolt. Hassan Jumaa of Iraq's main oil union reported that there was a widespread popular revolt, and there is evidence that both the US and Maliki feared the development of a combined national revolt. While Maliki had pleaded with the occupiers to stay out of fighting, lest it be seen as a war of occupation versus resistance (and the Dawa Party will not look good in the upcoming elections if he is seen as the occupiers' puppet), it wasn't long before he had to call them in. Now, it looks like they're having to settle for an Iranian-brokered ceasefire that leaves Sadr's organisation intact and his political standing immensely enhanced. What's more, it seems the negotiations were instigated by Maliki's government: "We asked Iranian officials to help us convince him that we were not cracking down on the Sadr group", said an Iraqi official. From "worse than Al Qaeda" to "pwease lets be fwends" is a big shift. Sadr's order for his militias to get off the streets is a test of his control over the organisation, but it is hardly a white flag.

Consider the position of the occupiers in all this. There is now a story going round that US officials didn't know that the attack on Basra was coming. As Marc Lynch points out, this is hardly credible. It is highly unlikely that Cheney's recent visit to Iraq didn't involve some discussion of the Sadrists. Assuming what appears to be obvious, namely that this attack was ordered by the US, then what is the upshot? If the US is obliged to accept an Iranian-backed peace deal, it isn't because they were militarily defeated. The US was bombing from a great height, and could easily have destroyed Basra and its inhabitants and the Mahdi fighters. The fact that this is not Fallujah is not because of the superior rifle power or military training of Sadr's supporters. It is because of Sadr's currently unmatched political power.

All of this is evidence that the Sadrists are improving their act.

... He positions himself as a leader of the resistance struggle and calls upon Arab states to lend the struggle political support. In reports of his wider remarks, he is said to have described the liberation of Iraq as the central strategic goal of the Mahdi, and predicted that the US will fall in Iraq as they did in Vietnam. Well, there's no doubt that this could happen, but for all that the similarities with Vietnam are rightly highlighted, there remains one staggering difference: there is no equivalent to the Viet Minh. There is not an organisation with the authoritative legitimacy, discipline, centralised power and political nous to even come close. The Mahdi cannot be that organisation, and of course Sadr is probably well aware of this, which is why he has been reaching out to Sunni resistance groups. Who could launch a Tet Offensive in Iraq today? That attack, a turning point which guaranteed the shortening of the American war, required a mass peasant army with fearsome self-control and a leadership with a sophisticated analysis of the domestic politics of the US and how the operation would impact on it. The army would not have been there for the fight had the Viet Minh not been able to offer a coherent strategy for national liberation and unite that with the declared goal of emancipating the peasantry. Any end to the American war in Iraq will result from the consolidation of a national federation of resistance groups with a singular political vision that offers something to the dispossessed Iraqi working class. Yet, for all the limits of Sadr's movement, he continues to rack up successes, to take his would-be terminators by surprise, and to consolidate his standing every time someone tries to take him down a peg or two.

On NPR, news reports ODDLY referred to sadr's order to his forces to ceasefire as an order to "lay down their arms" --which sounds strangely like NPR was giving the impression that it was an order to surrender.

But then later , in its on location coverage , the reporter for NPR even admitted the madhi army representatives she talked to today , sent a captured iraqi police vehicle to pick her up for the interview.

And then later today in more of its "expert" analysis , the results of the battle were called a "stalemate" . the question must be asked HOW today NPR and its panel of esteemed professors could refer to the results of this recent conflict as a "stalemate" ?

al maliki's army and police forces hung back reluctantly rather than engage their opponents , when they did fight they lost and often had to request Us or british airstrikes and helicopter gunships to save them --al maliki himself the prime minister --had to be rescued and air-evacuated from one of his headquarters by Us forces when the madhi army located him and began shelling the headquarters with mortar and rocket fire .

With gunfire and explosions echoing round him, Lt Hamid Abbas of the Iraqi Army was letting no car pass unchallenged at his makeshift roadblock on the outskirts of a Basra slum.

His closest scrutiny, however, was reserved not for the few civilian motorists daring to venture on to the streets, but for other Iraqi army vehicles.

"Some of our soldiers have refused to fight the Mehdi Army and have instead handed their vehicles and weapons to them," he said, looking disgusted. "Now we are having to check every Iraqi army patrol that passes through to ensure they are genuine soldiers."

The scene on the other side of the battlefield proved his suspicions right. Dug in behind a wall was a squad of Mehdi Army fighters, the Shia militiamen Lt Abbas and 15,000 other Iraqi soldiers have been sent to quell.

Sure enough, one was driving an American-issue Iraqi army Humvee - one of seven, said the squad's leader, Haji Ali, handed to them by sympathisers within the Iraqi army.

--posted by anonymous

this was indeed an "defining moment" --but not the way bush intended. the iraqi army and police forces that the Us has sunk untold number of millions of dollars into and the Us and Uk spent five years training --showed no loyalty to their "government" , its leader or its Us sponsors.

these guys fought and performed and then fell apart predictably --many surrendered , defected , or ran away --like the old ARVN forces of south vietnam did when faced with a ferocious and indomitable North vietnamese army .

the madhi army in comparison , to the iraqi government forces , fought in a manner that showed themselves as highly disciplined, highly aggressive, highly motivated to win--in a way similar the army of north vietnam during the Us war in south east asia .

instead of pressing for a complete victory , al sadr was able to reign in his forces and pulled them off the streets -demonstrating not only his control over his forces and their discipline , but also scoring huge "humanitarian" points and an even greater POLITICAL victory with the common people with the sudden ceasefire allowing them the very much needed opportunity, after six days of fighting , to obtain water, food and also medical attention for the hundreds of civilians wounded in the fighting.

that the relatively young leader al sadr saw that the benefits of this political "humanitarian" victory could easily outweigh the benefits of pursuing the fight and pressing his military advantage in order to further weaken, crush and humiliate a clearly defeated iraqi government army demonstrates uncanny savvy .

in a proud , "macho" type culture where humiliating defeats are not easily forgotten , al sadr by showing "restraint" to an opponent his forces clearly had battered, won huge popularity points with the elder islamic clerics--restraint is a key tenent in all aspects of the faith , "we enjoin fasting upon you so that ye may learn restraint"--quran .

al sadr by showing this restraint in not furthering bloodying his defeated foes demonstrated mercy--every verse in the quran begins with the phrase,
"in the name of allah the MERCIFUL, the gracious--the beneficient ".

while maliki in the eyes of the iraqi public was proven to be little more than a stooge of the american occupiers--who had to use their infamous and much hated "airpower" to save him from certain destruction-- al sadr and the madhi army's esteem more than likely increased among the iraqis and even in the eyes of the defeated government forces--leaving the way open for reconciliation between the two--under the leadership of al sadr--a big political coup for al sadr who claims his goal is reconciliation with the sunnis , national unity and national liberation--meaning an end of the Us occupation.

if al sadr's party becomes a dominant influence in the upcoming elections --or gains sufficient clout , he could and has promised he will as major part of the legitimate government of iraq --demand the Us forces leave --what could bush do then if a democratically elected government of iraq asked the Us forces to leave?

how could the Us in any way justify its remaining in iraq ? to put it simply , it could not .

the iraqis might not even need a tet offensive to win their victory-- but we know the Us is allergic to democracy and has NO respect for democratically elected governments that won't bow down to Us wishes--ask hamas in palestine , ask aristide in haiti ,ask chavez in venezuela , ask allende in chile , ask mossaddeq in neighboring iran .

the Us meanwhile became even more hated by the iraqis for backing al maliki , for pushing him into the fight with al sadr , for making iraqis kill more iraqis ,AND for being like the hated israelis in palestine --showing no restraint in the use of airstrikes in cities against civilians in civilian heavily populated areas --of course once again killing and wounding women ,children and other noncombatants with its "smart bombs" and "surgical strikes' --american death from the skies for more iraqis .

and finally this , also posted by the anonymous source :

When US forces ousted Saddam's regime from the south in early April 2003, the Badr Organization infiltrated from Iran to fill the void left by the Bush administration's failure to plan for security and governance in post-invasion Iraq.

In the months that followed, the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) appointed Badr Organization leaders to key positions in Iraq's American-created army and police. At the same time, L. Paul Bremer's CPA appointed party officials from the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) to be governors and serve on governorate councils throughout southern Iraq. SCIRI, recently renamed the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), was founded at the Ayatollah Khomeini's direction in Tehran in 1982. The Badr Organization is the militia associated with SCIRI.

In the January 2005 elections, SCIRI became the most important component of Iraq's ruling Shiite coalition. In exchange for not taking the prime minister's slot, SCIRI won the right to name key ministers, including the minister of the interior. From that ministry, SCIRI placed Badr militiamen throughout Iraq's national police.

In short, George W. Bush had from the first facilitated the very event he warned would be a disastrous consequence of a US withdrawal from Iraq: the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia. And while the President contrasts the promise of democracy in Iraq with the tyranny in Iran, there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in southern Iraq.

Iran's role in Iraq is pervasive, but also subtle. When Iraq drafted its permanent constitution in 2005, the American ambassador energetically engaged in all parts of the process. But behind the scenes, the Iranian ambassador intervened to block provisions that Tehran did not like. As it happened, both the Americans and the Iranians wanted to strengthen Iraq's central government. While the Bush administration clung to the mirage of a single Iraqi people, Tehran worked to give its proxies, the pro-Iranian Iraqis it supported—by then established as the government of Iraq—as much power as possible. (Thanks to Kurdish obstinacy, neither the US nor Iran succeeded in its goal, but even now both the US and Iran want to see the central government strengthened.)

Since 2005, Iraq's Shiite-led government has concluded numerous economic, political, and military agreements with Iran. The most important would link the two countries' strategic oil reserves by building a pipeline from southern Iraq to Iran, while another commits Iran to providing extensive military assistance to the Iraqi government. According to a senior official in Iraq's Oil Ministry, smugglers divert at least 150,000 barrels of Iraq's daily oil exports through Iran, a figure that approaches 10 percent of Iraq's production. Iran has yet to provide the military support it promised to the Iraqi army. With the US supplying 160,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars to support a pro-Iranian Iraqi government, Iran has no reason to invest its own resources.

Of all the unintended consequences of the Iraq war, Iran's strategic victory is the most far-reaching. In establishing the border between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire in 1639, the Treaty of Qasr-i-Shirin demarcated the boundary between Sunni-ruled lands and Shiite-ruled lands. For eight years of brutal warfare in the 1980s, Iran tried to breach that line but could not. (At the time, the Reagan administration supported Saddam Hussein precisely because it feared the strategic consequences of an Iraq dominated by Iran's allies.) The 2003 US invasion of Iraq accomplished what Khomeini's army could not. Today, the Shiite-controlled lands extend to the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, a Persian Gulf kingdom with a Shiite majority and a Sunni monarch, is most affected by these developments; but so is Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, which is home to most of the kingdom's Shiites. (They may even be a majority in the province but this is unknown as Saudi Arabia has not dared to conduct a census.) The US Navy has its most important Persian Gulf base in Bahrain while most of Saudi Arabia's oil is under the Eastern Province.

cost of war

2008-03-29T22:01:00.000-07:00

Iraq conflict has killed a million Iraqis: surveyWed Jan 30, 2008 1:55pm EST
LONDON (Reuters) -

More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.

The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.

The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.

ORB originally found that 1.2 million people had died, but decided to go back and conduct more research in rural areas to make the survey as comprehensive as possible and then came up with the revised figure.

The research covered 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq's more volatile regions -- Kerbala and Anbar -- and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work.

Estimates of deaths in Iraq have been highly controversial in the past.
Medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed report in 2004 stating that there had been 100,000 more deaths than would normally be expected since the March 2003 invasion, kicking off a storm of protest.

The widely watched Web site Iraq Body Count currently estimates that between 80,699 and 88,126 people have died in the conflict, although its methodology and figures have also been questioned by U.S. authorities and others.

ORB, a non-government-funded group founded in 1994, conducts research for the private, public and voluntary sectors.

The director of the group, Allan Hyde, said it had no objective other than to record as accurately as possible the number of deaths among the Iraqi population as a result of the invasion and ensuing conflict.

(Reporting by Luke Baker; editing by Andrew Roche)

so what's really going on ?

2008-03-29T13:19:00.000-07:00

cheney & patraeus 3-17-08-- cheney's surprise visit to iraq

In push for political unity, Cheney visits Iraq
Unannounced visit comes before fifth anniversary of U.S. invasion

3:50 a.m. ET, Mon., March. 17, 2008
BAGHDAD - Vice President Dick Cheney opened a new U.S. push for political unity in Iraq on an unannounced visit Monday, just ahead of the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion.

Cheney landed at Baghdad International Airport, then flew by helicopter into the dusty, heavily secured Green Zone for talks with U.S. military and diplomatic officials and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It is Cheney’s third vice presidential trip to Iraq where 160,000 American troops are deployed and the U.S. death toll is nearing 4,000.

Cheney’s first meeting was a classified briefing with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq who met him at the airport. Crocker and Petraeus are scheduled to travel to Washington next month to give a status report on the war.

So the liar-in-chief dubya bush pretended surprise earlier this week when his puppet government's prime minister in iraq, nouri al maliki launched an attack on the al madhi army of shia leader muktada al sadr.

bush in public statements claimed no prior knowledge of these attacks breaking the 6 months of ceasefire with al sadr's forces --a ceasefire al sadr had recently asked to renew btw when the fighting "suddenly" broke out between al maliki's government forces and al sadr's militia.

but the mainstream media seems to have forgotten that old "slick" cheney was in iraq about ten days prior to this week's attacks to meet with general petraeus and with iraqi government leaders including iraqi prime minister nouri al maliki himself.

wonder what they talked about?

well maybe it had something to do with this statement from an iraqi policeman in basra found 3-28-08 in an article at times online.co.uk :

“We already heard two weeks ago that we were going to attack the Mahdi Army, so we were ready,” he said. “I decided to take off my uniform and join my brothers and friends in the Mahdi Army."

so bush's pretense at surprise upon news breaking concerning the fighting and then yesterday calling it, "a defining moment in iraqi history",was more of his bullshit. this move on al sadr's militia was planned long in advance--and washington well aware of it.

al maliki , like bush, is a puppet carrying out, through cheney, daddy bush and friends' will. general petraeus was selected for the job that he has because he rewrote the Us army book on counterinsurgency.

the timing of this campaign becomes less curious considering bush has only ten months left in office to make iraq more pacified and not only are the 160,000 surged up american troops scheduled soon for draw downs in number , the british troops in southern iraq are also drawing down , reducing presence in iraq, preparing for a needed buildup in afghanistan against a rejuvenated taliban.

the Us by provoking this fight with al sadr, must believe it has the sunni insurgency pacified enough to risk having to make a sudden redeploy to southern iraq to help squash al madhi army--or to save the al maliki government's iraqi army if things continue to badly for them against al sadr's militia.

judging from the reports , things are not going well for the iraqi government's forces.

March 28, 2008 times online.co.uk

Iraqi police in Basra shed their uniforms, kept their rifles and switched sides
James Hider in Baghdad

Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra.

His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought.

Such turncoats are the thread that could unravel the British Army’s policy in southern Iraq. The military hoped that local forces would be able to combat extremists and allow the Army to withdraw gradually from the battle-scarred and untamed oil city that has fallen under the sway of Islamic fundamentalists, oil smugglers and petty tribal warlords. But if the British taught the police to shoot straight, they failed to instil a sense of unwavering loyalty to the State.

“We know the outcome of the fighting in advance because we already defeated the British in the streets of Basra and forced them to withdraw to their base,” Abu Iman told The Times.

“If we go back a bit, everyone remembers the fight with the US in Najaf and the damage and defeat we inflicted on them. Do you think the Iraqi Army is better than those armies? We are right and the Government is wrong. [Nouri al] Maliki [the Iraqi Prime Minister] is driving his Government into the ground.”

The reason for his apparent switch of sides was simple: the 36-year-old was already a member of the al-Mahdi Army which, like other militias, has massively infiltrated the British-trained police force in the southern oil city. He claimed that hundreds of others from the 16,000-strong force have also defected to the rebels’ ranks.Abu Iman joined the new Iraqi police force after the invasion, joining the Mugawil, a special police unit infamous for brutality, kidnapping and sectarian murders.

“We already heard two weeks ago that we were going to attack the Mahdi Army, so we were ready,” he said. “I decided to take off my uniform and join my brothers and friends in the Mahdi Army. All these years, we were like a scream in the face of the dictator and the occupation.” He said: “I joined the police because I believed we have to protect Basra and save it with our own hands. You can see we were the first fighters to take on Sadd-am and his regime, the best example being the Shabaniya uprising.”

Abu Iman said that the fighting raging in Basra yesterday was intense because the al-Mahdi Army was operating on its own turf. He was confident that the Shia militia would prevail because its cause was just.

“The Iraqi Army is already defeated from within. They come to Basra with fear in their hearts, knowing they have to fight their brothers, the sons of Iraq, because of an order from Bush and his friends in the Iraq Government. For this reason, all of the battles are going in the Mahdi Army’s favour.”

Major-General Abdelaziz Moham-med Jassim, the director of operations at the Ministry of Defence, played down reports of defections in the Basra police force. “The problem of one policeman doesn’t make up for the whole of the force,” he said.

In recent months Major-General Abdul Jalil Khalaf, Basra’s police chief, has tried to shake up the force and drive out militia infiltrators, who have wrought havoc in the past, often turning police stations into torture cells in which factions settled vendettas and power struggles with murder and abuse. But he only narrowly escaped an assassination attempt yesterday when a suicide car bomb attack in Basra killed three of his policemen. A local tribal leader said the police directorate building was later gutted by fire.

after this article was brought to my attention , on further examination i ventured :

now , if the brits leave southern iraq, and things down there further unravel, the Us is fooked. bush doesn't have the troops to effectively garrison the sunni triangle and the south. if bush shifts significant troops to the south to bolster the failing iraqi army and police he risks being undermanned in the triangle .

should the sunni insurgency sieze the moment to go back on the offensive against the Us, that combined with the south in turmoil and in a Us election year, would be like the tet offensive from the vietnam era all over again .

this comparison could not have possibly escaped the sunni insurgents since saddam was the architect of the sunni insurgency and made the iraqi military officers carefully study vietnam as their model of insurgency.

politically, a tet-like offensive would knock out the last of the Us populace's stomach for this war. the idiot bush in this present gamble against al sadr's militia has handed the iraqis everything they need for a victory .

they have to know by now that it was bush and negroponte, not iran who orchestrated and unleashed the shia death squads against the sunni communities and sunni insurgents.

to oversee creation of iraqi versions of negroponte's battalion 316 death squads in honduras was why negroponte was brought to iraq.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/COH405A.html "torture at cia battalion 316"

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG01Ak02.html negroponte past and present

the iraqis would have to be blind not to see the Us played shia against sunni by assassinating leaders ,raiding homes and executing inhabitants, car and truck bombing mosques and holy shrines on both sides to intensify the conflict and bleed off the strength of the sunni insurgents until the sunnis realized they could not win fighting both the Us and the shia and agreed to rent themselves to the Us for $10 per man per day.

now the "pacified" sunnis may need the Us like a big-daddy figure to keep the shia from trying to slaughter them --but can the Us get and keep the shia in check ?

for that bush needs the mullahs and ayatollahs in iran's good will and influence on iraq's shia--something the Us can't get by continuing to threaten iran and saber rattle against it and continuing to threateningly move Us aircraft carrier groups into the persian gulf and directly off the coast of iran .

if bush fails to check al sadr , the war could easily reintensify, Us casualities significantly increase, the country further fractionalize and unravel assuring a democratic party victory in november 08.

dub and cheney are betting the whole farm on 80,000 sunni militia/former insurgents continuing to live quietly on broken promises in the midst of raw sewage and sporadic electricity with limited amounts of clean drinking water -- with also every vestige of modern infrastructure and normal life in shambles under the constant overbearing presence of a hated, ham-handed and occupying foreign army--as the iraqis have lived for five years now.

*also , did you notice the policeman says he got word of this attack 2 weeks ago ? wasn't cheney in iraq the same time ? so much for the bush lie about al maliki deciding on his own to attack the madhi army.