Dissenting the Iran Issue

In an article here in the BBC, more dissenting views on attacking Iran are beginning to be heard in the Israeli power circle. Yuval Diskin, the former head of the internal intelligence service, Shin Bet, has said that he thinks Netenyahu and Barak are misleading the public. Al Jazeera even goes further with a quote Diskin made: "I really don't have faith in a leadership that makes decisions out of Messianic feelings." This is quite a profound statement. Accusations of religiously motivated military policies are very rare within Israel, as religion in that region is such an intense and sensitive issue, and the Israeli leadership goes to great lengths to avoid being portrayed in a crusading way.

I'm very excited by the developments in this issue during the past month, where we've seen a number of high level officials in the Israeli intelligence circle express their dissatisfaction of the policy towards Iran. In my post here, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli military said he did not believe Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon. Last month, the former head of Mossad said "bombing Iran is a stupid idea". Both of the men mentioned in this paragraph have also stated that they believe the Iranian leadership is "very rational". This is also my view. To believe that the Iranian leadership is not knowledgeable in the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is pure nonsense.

The biggest fact of this whole issue is the fatwa (religious decree) issued by Ayatollah Khamenei that prohibits the acquisition, development and use of nuclear weapons. I'll emphasize that the Ayatollah is the boss, not Ahmadinejad. And as history shows us, when Islamic Fundamentalists make statements about their religion, they mean it.

Spanish Unemployment

As reported by Al Jazeera, Spain's unemployment just hit a record 24.4 per cent!

I'm wondering how Merkel plans to bail out 1.1 million people...

Nuclear Easing

As reported by Al Jazeera, Israel's military chief has stated he does not believe Iran will produce an atomic bomb, and even went as far as to describe Iran's leadership as "very rational". Now, this begs the question: if the Israeli military chief and the Prime Minister have two completely opposing views of this situation, who do we believe? I'm going to choose the general, who's statement is backed by much more fact and rationality than that of Netenyahu's.

Really, the solution to this entire issue is close on the horizon, after Iran's Ambassador to Russia said Iran is considering Moscow's proposal of halting it's nuclear program in order to avoid further sanctions. Now seeing this, I would say that diplomacy has prevailed and the US can declare "mission accomplished" on stopping a potential nuclear weapons program. But instead, we get this response from the State Department:

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland dismissed Sajjadi’s remarks, saying the Iranian is “not a central player” in international talks over Iran’s nuclear program. “Frankly, what’s most important is what Iran says and does at the negotiating table,” Nuland said at briefing with journalists.

Frankly, I believe it's the US that is stonewalling progress on this issue, which leads me to believe that their objective lies not with stopping the nuclear program, but with total regime change, which would effectively cut the cord on funding to Hezbollah and Hamas, reducing opposition to Israeli-US dominance in the Middle East. Although on that topic, we may have a new emerging figure, Egypt (see stories here, here and here)

I'm going to end this post with a little mentioned fact: Israel is one of four countries in the world that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The others are Pakistan, India (who just tested an ICBM and nobody cared), and North Korea, who had signed but withdrew.

Military Death Sentence

An excerpt from the 2011 Amnesty International report on death sentences and executions:

"Of concern during 2011 was the increased use and pursuit of the death penalty by military 
courts and tribunals, including against civilians, in countries such as Bahrain, Democratic 
Republic of Congo, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority (in the West Bank and Gaza), 
Somalia and the USA."

A nation who considers it it's duty to deliver Democracy to the world is in league with countries such as Somalia and Bahrain when it comes to matters of justice. By seeing this, and among other things, it's fair to say that in the US, the word "free" is quite a loose term. This trend of military trials can only be described as backwards steps towards legal justice and fair representation. It is also important to note that in 2011 the US was the only country in North America to carry out an execution. In fact, they carried out forty three.

Happy 4/20 Day!

I am a firm supporter of the legalization of marijuana. I believe the criminality of this drug is an injustice to taxpayers of nations which view it as such. It has been found in many studies that interdiction and law enforcement is expensive and not effective in stemming the supply of drugs. One example is here, in a study by Lawrence W. Boyd, Economist for the University of Hawaii. In the study he shows that between 1994 and 2003, the price of marijuana decreased by 12%, indicating an increase in supply. He also states that decriminalization would save approximately $4 million in enforcement; an additional $4-5 million if completely legalized. It is clear that the "war on drugs" has failed. Instead of allowing the DEA to run vicious counter narcotics operations in Latin America, it's nations are now discussing the decriminalization of drugs in their countries, a move that would certainly stem the outbreak of violence that has plagued the region in recent decades. I'll even branch out and mention Afghanistan, where the US invasion has drastically increased opium and marijuana production since the start of the war in 2001. This is an example of how US policies have continually failed to counter increases in the supply and demand of narcotics. The argument that decriminalization or legalization increases consumption can be countered simply by looking at the Netherlands, where marijuana has been legal for . In this study, it shows that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in adults aged 15 to 64 is 22.6%, slightly over half of the prevalence in Canada.

41.5% of Canadians have tried marijuana, and 66% support legalization, representing a majority of the population. In a October 2010 Gallup poll, 50% of Americans were in favour of the legalization of marijuana, up from 36% in 2006; quite a different position from that of their government. Well, except the law arm of the Drug Enforcement Agency:

The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care." [1]

Here is a 2007 study commissioned by Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts, which provides two strong points for the advocacy of the decriminalization of marijuana:

   -The report estimates that decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts would produce 
   an annual savings in law enforcement resources of approximately $29.5 million.
   -This report also reviews evidence from other states and countries on the effects of 
   marijuana decriminalization on marijuana use. This evidence provides no indication that 
   decriminalization leads to a measurable increase in marijuana use.

Quoting Harpers Environmentalism

Yet another point of Harper's destruction of Canada's reputation:

"We cannot allow valid concerns about environmental protection to be used as an excuse to trap worthwile projects in review without end."

He busted this one out at the Summit of the Americas. I'm sure that won over the Latin American leaders. I present a counter-quote to this ignorant, short sighted statement:

"The broad basic problem is whether or not the government should condone and encourage the industrialization of Alberta at the expense of the rivers, the air and the countryside of our Province through a lack of policy and foresight, or should we endeavor to promote industrialization in an orderly manner which will bring the greatest possible benefits to all the people in Alberta without necessitating the improper exploitation of our greatest natural resources--which are the air we breathe and the water and the soil." - Former MLA Norman A. Willmore.


This broad quote should be taken from a provincial context and applied worldwide, for it's widsom and rationality are desperately needed to save our Earth from potential destruction by our own hands.

Epic Fail Of The Americas

And yet another one of Harper's failures to Canada. At the Summit of the Americas he intended to sell Canada as a promising place to do business, but instead clashed with Latin and South American leaders on two of the most important issues to them: the legalization of drugs and the inclusion of Cuba in the summit. Instead he took the position that the United States has stubbornly stuck to for the past fifty years.

In the past decade Canada has showed a very liberal and progressive attitude towards drugs. Marijuana is widely used by the population, studies show roughly 50% of Canadians have tried the drug. Decriminalization has been proposed by many politicians, notably in the Liberal Party. I support full legalization. It's clear the War On Drugs, which has been raging for decades, is a complete failure, and has done nothing but cost the lives of thousands of people in Latin America by violent means. And Harper is aligning himself with these policies, alienating the Latin American community on progressive policies that could possibly solve the horrible problems of narco violence in their countries.

And why are we adopting the stance of hostility towards Cuba? Unlike the US, Canada does not have an imperialist foreign policy that Cuba is defiant of, so what reason would Harper have to not support Cuba being allowed to attend a summit who's geographical criteria clearly allows it to be in?

This is just another point of how Harper is systematically destroying Canada's reputation. Some of the most progressive and reformist leaders expressed their frustrations with the summit: Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and Evo Morales walked out of the summit, and Rafael Correa boycotted it. It pains me to see how our relations with these countries, who are beginning to free themselves from the chains of right wing, neo-liberal policies, are being strained by the irresponsible leadership that Canada is being subjected to.

Romney's Campaign Finances

Now that Romney is the defacto Republican Presidential Nominee, I want to present some facts about his campaign contributions. These facts will clearly outline how overwhelmingly generous the financial sector has been to Romney, obviously expecting he will be favourable to their interests.

Romney supports SuperPAC (political action committee) funds, which allow corporate, union, and individual campaign contributions without legal limits. These SuperPAC funds allow corporations to financially hijack political campaigns with their vast wealth, which grass roots contributions cannot hope to compete with. Below is the example of the Restore Our Future SuperPAC, which supported Romney's campaign. Here are four of the eight of the largest contributors (overwhelmingly financial companies and figures):

   -Robert Mercer, Renaissance Techonolgies (Hedge Fund Management) $1 million.
   -Julian Robertson, Former CEO Tiger Management (Hedge Fund) $1 million.
   -Paul Singer (also a larger Bush campaing contributior), Elliot Management (Hedge Fund) $1 million.
   -John Paulson, Paulson & Co (Hedge Fund) $1 million.


Restore Our Future also accepted $890,000 from Federal Contractors, despite a 36 year ban on campaigns receiving donations from Federally contracted companies. Obviously this ban is in place to prevent corruption in awarding Federal contracts, i.e. naval bases, as seen in the linked article.
 
Romney is rich. His net worth has been estimated as $190 to $250 million. He is quoted as saying "Ann (his wife) drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually".

Here are the top contributors to Mitt Romney's campaign:
   -Goldman Sachs: $535,680
   -JP Morgan Chase & Co: $375,650
   -Morgan Stanley: $323,800
   -Credit Suisse Group: $299,160
   -Citigroup: $282,765
   -Bank of America: $277,850

After all the bank bailouts have dumped onto the backs of the American taxpayers, are they seriously going to elect a man who is being crowd surfed on the hands of banks and hedge fund managers? Just from looking at these campaign contributions and Romney's receipt of corporate money via SuperPAC funds (and the fact he's Republican), one can easily see this man will favour big business. He's even quoted as saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it". He absolutely should be concerned about the very poor, as more and more Americans are slipping into that category. According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2010 46.2 million Americans (15.1% of the population) are living in poverty. And now as every US taxpayer is on the hook for $138,066 of federal debt, the picture is grim.

Financial Humour

Here's some excellent humour via Zero Hedge; a strikingly accurate account of the global financial situation.

MEK

As a follow up to my previous post on the Convenience of Terrorism, I present a BBC Newsnight episode from January 17, 2007 (part one, two and three) on the terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The most interesting part is part two, where a letter, from what the US State Department quoted as "coming from the approval of the highest authorities in Tehran", sent through the Swiss, offered the US government Iranian support to stabilization in Iraq, transparency on it's nuclear program and an end to support for Hezbollah and Hamas. In return Iran wanted an end to US hostility, abolition of sanctions, and a request for the US to disband MEK, which it could have easily done due to the hundred thousand plus troops that were in Iraq at the time, the location of MEK's bases.

In the interview, Lawrence Wilkerson (former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell) says the letter was blocked by Vice President Dick Cheney, using the "we don't talk to evil" stance. This has been proved to be complete rhetoric and hypocrisy, as the events of my previous post are evidence of. It's evidence of my theory that the US government doesn't care about terrorism, simply because the blocking of this peace proposal ensured the ongoing violence between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, and continuing action by the Iranian Quds Force to support sectarian violence in Iraq. They only care about it when it suits their plans. I ask: how many more people have to die because of this short sighted attitude?

It's also evidence that the US's present rhetoric about Iran's nuclear ambitions are false. They had, and refused a peace agreement that would have provided total transparency of Iran's nuclear programme. The US government wants regime change. They want a government, like they did in 1953, that will serve US interests in the region. That's what they want.

The Convenience of Terrorism

As reported here by Democracy Now, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh uncovered a program by the US Government to train an Iranian opposition group at a secret site in Nevada. And this group is listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department! One look at the group's name, Mujahideen-e-Khalq, and it's not hard to see why they would put it on that list.

As stated on Democracy Now's website: "The training included intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics". In other words, they were trained to carry out insurgency and terrorist operations. An NBC article implicated MEK in the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists, and was backed by US officials: "All your inclinations are correct", said one.

Now normally I would say that this is another case of Americans having historical amnesia, but the fact that this training program took place during the Bush Administration destroys that theory. To me this looks plainly obvious that they simply do not care about terrorism. Their last experience training jihadists to fight an enemy in a country they are presently fighting a war in came back to bite them in Kenya, Yemen, and New York City. It was this policy of training radicals that ulitmately led to the deaths of nearly three thousand American citizens, starting the new "War On Terror", only to have the president that declared it training more terrorists! On American soil! I can't find an example of when this was ever done before. Who's to know what connections these Jihadists had or made during their time in the US or what implications they could have on terrorist attacks on US soil.

Let's be realistic and say that the American government is not stupid. People can call Bush an idiot all they like (I believe it's all an act), but we cannot discredit every official in that Administration in the same manner. If we cannot blame stupidity on this act, then we must go to the next conclusion, which is to say that terrorism is obviously not a national priority, as they led everyone to believe. The deaths of some American citizens (even three thosand) does not have any immediate economic or military consequences to the power structure. Bush demonstrated that, instead, it is a very useful tool, allowing the government to manipulate and marshall the population to war wherever they like. And it was known that these wars would, and did, actually increase terrorism instead of stop it.

So keep your eyes open for the initials MEK, because like they did thirty years ago, Jihadists don't look out for anyone's interests but their own.

UPDATE: see my above post for more info on this.

5 Points of the Spanish Economy

Zero Hedge posted an article about the increasing dangers the Spanish economy presents to the Eurozone and the world economy in general. Here are the five major points they present in the article:

1. Spain´s national debt is 50% greater than the headline numbers
2. Spain´s housing prices will fall by an additional 35%
3. Spain has "zombie" banks with massive loans to developers and homeowners
4. Spain´s economy has not stabilized and will continue to deteriorate
5. The EU will not have the firepower or political will to bail out Spain

They go into more detail on each point, but it´s plain to see that this is much different than the rosey situation that the mainstream media paints, trying to make us believe that the world economy is recovering and everything will be peachy. In fact it´s far from the truth. The Greek bailout will be one of many, and need to be repeated with Italy and Spain, US debt is at fifteen trillion dollars (with talk of further quantative easing in the near future), and Japanese debt is at 200% of GDP.

The markets are incredibly volatile right now, and at the mercy of the media, who can initiate market drops or rises by reporting rumors at will. I´ve sold off my long term securities simply because it´s smarter to play the dips right now, rather than holding them for an uncertain future. And when the crash comes I´m going to have my finger poised over that "short sell" button.

Did You Know?

Cuba ranked 51st in the 2011 Human Development Index, beating Saudi Arabia by 5 spots and Russia by 15. It's infant mortality rate (rated by the CIA World Factbook) is the 39th best in the world, beating Canada by a slim margin and the United States by a huge one. The literacy rate is 99.8% of the total population, compared to 99% in Canada and the US. Cuba is the second highest for education expenditures as a percent of GDP, beating every country in the West.

Now just imagine where the country would be if it hadn't been subjected to an ongoing, decades long, crippling economic embargo by the United States. I don't agree with communism or central planning, but it's clear to see that the socialist aspect of it does work.

Whistle Blowing the Afghan War

I just read a report (here), published in January by US Army Colonel Daniel Davis, a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the 84 page unclassified version of the report, the classified version having been delivered to the US Army Command and the US Congress. It provides quite a different view on how the war is going, compared to the view of the mainstream media. It is important to note that this report was released before the killing of sixteen civilians by as US soldier in March, so it is fair to say the situation there has since become worse.

One of the large points of the report is to point out that US troop surge, counterinsurgency and training of the Afghan National Army has failed to reduce violence in the country, and has acutally seen it increase. It is summed up in this statement in the report:

"If I have tens of thousands of additional ISAF boots, and I kill hundreds of INS leaders, thousands of his fighters, capture huge numbers of caches, take away his sanctuaries, and deny him freedom of movement, how could he then significantly increase his level of attacks as the Taliban did in the first half of 2011?"

Another interesting portion of the report is about media delivery by mainstream organizations, highlighted in pages 26 - 29. Davis' viewpoint is that media corporations will deliver stories in a pro-US, biased light in order to please the Pentagon, in order to secure contact with high level command figures. He also provides examples of reporters and correspondents that were shut out by media on government request for questioning the progress of the war.

The scariest part is his assesment of what the ISAF would need to win the war outright:

"In order to pacify the contested parts of Afghanistan militarily it is my assessment it would take upwards of 300,000 combat troops, stationed in sufficient density in critical areas, in order to eradicate the Taliban element of the population and keep a close enough eye on the population to prevent others from becoming Taliban fighters."

He also goes on to say that this is also a mistake, since the mere presence of a force that large would increase the feeling of foreign occupation and thus align the populace away from the ISAF. It's obvious to say that a troop deployment of this size could never take place; there simply is not the international or US popular support needed to make it happen.

He also explores events of the Iraq War, notably the Anbar Awakening in 2007, when the Sunni population turned against Al-Qaeda. Davis, as also noted in Mark Urban's book: Task Force Black, does not attribute this to US involvement, instead (backed by accounts of insurgent fighters) ascertains it was simply a result of the Sunni population being fed up with the brutality inflicted on it by Al-Qaeda, therefore turning against the Jihadists, to the delight of US forces in Iraq. Events like this have not happened yet, and I am also of the opinion that until they do, the ISAF cannot win the war in Afghanistan. More on the topic of the local populace is noted on page 73.

In Davis' conclusion is a great quote, one which gives me hope for future change:

"Honestly, after all I’ve seen over the past decade and a half, I felt a moral obligation to do so. I believe that with knowledge comes responsibility; I knew too much to remain silent."

It is my opinion that the war in Afghanistan will be a defeat. While being supported by Pakistan, the Taliban will enjoy a safe haven in the border regions, where they will be able to conduct operations from and replenish their losses, and will simply wait out the ISAF until domestic support for the war will no longer tolerate it's soliders being killed and wounded, and foreign troops will then be withdrawn. And in the same fashion as the post-Soviet withdrawl in 1989, a brutal civil war will follow in Afghanistan, as the Taliban attempts to regain control of the country. It is when this process will start, however. I do not see the American government adhering to the 2014 withdrawl date, especially if the next president is Republican.

The Public Opinion Of Fast Tracking

According to a CBC poll about whether the Conservative's government proposal of fast tracking envirnomental reviews for resource development projects, as outlined in their 2012 budget, should be implemented. I strongly disagree, as noted in my last post, which was a response to the Conservative budget. And it appears that a huge majority of Canadians are with me. The current results are:

14% in favour
85% against
1% undecided

I hope the Convservatives realize that as a democratically elected, representative government, they have an obligation to represent the majority public opinion, which is opposed to this proposal. If they don't, I hope this favour rating becomes a mirror of the next election:

14% Conservative
85% NDP
1% Liberal

UPDATE: I also will add an opinion poll on the approval of the Federal Budget as a whole. I voted, and so far the results are:

9.83% Yes, totally
23.1% Yes, for the most part
11.67% No, I'd like to have seen more cuts
5.85% No, I'd like to have seen more spending
22.51% No, for the most part
27.04% No, not at all

So the majority of Canadians disagree. I'm happy about that.