Posts
Nothing made me so angry for a long time.
British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood just proscribed the IRGC, bowing to the Israel lobby.
I support Iran in defending herself from an unprovoked war as do most people I know.
I think I can say that here in Bucharest sipping my coffee in the boulevard.
Saying so in the UK might get me 14 years in prison.
I am not making this up, gentle reader.
What reasons can America have for the attack on Iran?
Iran's internal policies are no justification for attacking her, are they?
The Iranian government has done bad things but Saudis have committed worse crimes, as has Israel.
Mr Trump could claim that Iran finances Hamas and is responsible for what Hamas does, but that's simply not true.
Anyway Israel has killed probably hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians and by the IDF's own admission in August 8,900 Hamas fighters in Gaza supposedly in order to vanquish Hamas.
Hezbollah? Hezbollah came into existence to fight the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which happened so Israel could fight the PLO, who were attacking Israel because....... and if you go back far enough you get to the British decision to give Jews a homeland in 1917.
I am a huge admirer of the British empire but this was not our finest moment. It was probably our most fateful mistake.
Israel's actions in Gaza and now in Lebanon where since March more than 4,200 people have been murdered, over ten thousand wounded and roughly a fifth of the population been displaced seem to make Israel a much worse actor than Iran. In a logical world the Americans should go to war against Israel if protecting peace and human rights are what motivates America. If putting America first does America should take her troops out of West Asia and I'd argue out of the whole of Asia.
The truth is that America has wanted to overthrow the Iranian government since it came to power in 1979 replacing the American puppet regime of the Shah.
Israel has been worried about Iran only since the 1990s producing propaganda about Iran getting the bomb as a means of keeping the alliance going with America.
Yesterday Trump said the US is protecting the Strait of Hormuz for China. "I don't mind protecting it for China but it's unfair that we aren't somehow compensated."
Remember that the Strait was open until Trump attacked Iran without giving a reason.
Meanwhile the war in Russia continues.
Podcasters like Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs etc say Russia is winning and that Western help to Ukraine may provoke a world war.
These ideas seem contradictory.
We do need America and her vassals or allies to give up struggling against Russia, Iran and China. Ceasefires are not enough. We need a new settlement and America to go home. America is the problem not Iran or China. Even Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, worse than a crime a blunder, was provoked by American behaviour.
Remember that the precedent the world has to avoid at any cost is not Chamberlain at Munich in 1938 but Chamberlain going to war in 1939, a war that cost 70 milion lives, left half of Europe ruled by Communists and destroyed the British empire.
The popular narrative in NATO is that bringing the war to Russia will force Russia to capitulate. This is based on the false assumption that Russia is fighting an "unprovoked" imperial war. Moscow considers itself to be fighting a defensive war against a NATO determined to use Ukrainians to destroy Russia. From Russia's perspective, a ceasefire is not peace as NATO countries would then send in their troops and military hardware. NATO in Ukraine is considered an existential threat, and the only possible response now for Russia is escalation that may take us to nuclear war. Our survival may depend on an open discussion about the nature of the war. Sadly, the war propaganda and narrative control is overwhelming, and our public has been indoctrinated to squeal "Russian propaganda" whenever they come across an argument that deviates from NATO-approved narratives.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Diesen
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2 days ago the US State Department announced this.
ReplyDeleteToday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a sweeping campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the International Criminal Court to U.S. sovereignty. The campaign will feature a whole-of-government response to systematically disable the ICC’s ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty.
The ICC poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty – it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison American servicemen and officials operating on behalf of America’s national interest. Americans never signed up for this, and all American presidents since the ICC’s ratification have maintained that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Americans. The ICC previously opened an investigation into U.S. servicemen and intelligence officers and has since refused to close these cases.
The ICC now seeks to become the unaccountable global arbiter – positioning itself above and beyond the nation state as a supranational enforcement arm of a globalist bureaucracy empowered to persecute American servicemen and officials at will. No diplomatic option will be off-limits in the campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the ICC to Americans.
Glenn Diesen:
·
The ICC was intended by the West to facilitate a hegemonic system of sovereign inequality by putting other leaders on trial. Between 2002 and 2015, almost 100% of ICC indictments were against Africans. The arrest warrant against Putin to legitimise the proxy war and undermine diplomacy fit the same objective. But the arrest warrant on Netanyahu could be a death sentence for the ICC, as it was not designed to target allies of the US and the Political West.