Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Pangaea--I read him to take the false-flag argument as a negative comment on Iran, while it seems to me to be caution against such generalized fear as a catalyst for violence.

I agree with him, though, that as long as we keep stomping on people's heads (an apt metaphor, I think) they will continue to cause trouble for us.  In reference to Dominique's argument that war in the ME would assist Washington imperialists to keep power, it seems to me that picking a fight with people of a religion that is the fastest-growing in the world and soon to eclipse one's own in numbers of parisioners would do little to help one to retain power (although Sun Tzu does advise attacking the strongest enemy first).

It may be too obvious to have been overlooked, but there is a correlation between the observation that al Qaeda doesn't have a flag and the separation of "most of us here on Z-net" (being sympathetic) from "the imperialists in Washington" (being acquisitionist).  What I mean is that a flag is rarely a sound basis from which to draw political generalities, since, I presume, al Queda is more ideologically unified than the US despite its lacking a flag (I do recognize that many on Z-net are not in the US - perhaps a UN flag would make the point more effectively, but I was comparing the details already brought up on the forum).  It seems a flag works better as a target than a rallying-point.

I'm probably over-simplifying, but (perhaps due to my own secular perspective) the ideological (religious) aspect of terrorism (particularly insofar as it contradicts doctrine, right?) is secondary to its material catalyst.  That is, when one has nothing to lose, one resents those who flaunt their wealth... it has long seemed to me that the best way to undermine terrorism would be to give the impoverished adequate resources that they aren't willing to risk disenfranchisement (although, I suppose in the Christian mythos, it could be pointed out that Lucifer was unhappy with heavenly bounty merely because of his subordination to God).

The argument that "if all sides truly understood one another, conflict would not exist" is often cited as naive (to say nothing of its being technically impracticable), but am I mistaken in seeing the ME instability as having stronger material roots than spiritual?  Would gifts pave the way to mutual respect or be mistaken as cheap attempts at bribery?

I make my way through a lot of internet waste and seldom come upon words that so well describe my perceived reality as yours. There is no fear of a nuclear Iran save that such an entity might well be too strong to attack. The prize is oil, the place is the Middle East, the other players are Russia, China and Western Europe. Most of what we read is constructed to obfuscate.

regarding Vietnam and Capitalism:

 

One of the excuses for the the US war on Vietnam was that the communist economic system must be fought there, before it threatened US capitalism.

30 years after the US lost that war, Vietnam is turning towards western economic systems.

Due to human nature, nations eventually turn towards 'captialism/free markets', no wars necessary.

US efforts to protect or force its economic systems on other countries at gunpoint are unnecessary.

Suckit problem? ;) Don't know what the problem is, but it's quite annoying. Never come across this problem on any other website I use. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Thank you =) Pangaea Oslo, Norway

There is mainly one country in this world that is a huge threat against peace. It is not Russia. It is not North-Korea. It is not Iran. It is the United States of America. It's like a mix between Frankenstein, Dracula and Terminator. Peace is the ultimate horror, and war is bliss. this is the "line of the week"...

Something about this software is really bad. I'm logged in, click on a new link, suddenly I'm out. Have to log in twice to be in. Am I in now? Err, no. (must be a socket problem) After finally getting in and having written a long-ish post, I hit post. And suddenly I am logged out. But somehow the thing came through anyway. ( that is strange, that must be because you are nwhorewayian -- err a its a socket problem )

Edit: Something about this software is really bad. I'm logged in, click on a new link, suddenly I'm out. Have to log in twice to be in. Am I in now? Err, no. After finally getting in and having written a long-ish post, I hit post. And suddenly I am logged out. But somehow the thing came through anyway. :rolleyes: Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Cyrano explained it, but I think you should read the rest of my post. If you did, you couldn't possibly think I that rate all Iranians as evil etc. There is mainly one country in this world that is a huge threat against peace. It is not Russia. It is not North-Korea. It is not Iran. It is the United States of America. It's like a mix between Frankenstein, Dracula and Terminator. Peace is the ultimate horror, and war is bliss. It needs war to feed its own economy and its own corporations. It is very easy to call the US (I of course mean the US political elite/administration, not its people) evil, and other such words. The people themselves probably aren't, but their policies are (there is a difference, though perhaps subtle). What fuels the "evil" of US administrations isn't that the people themselves are evil and want war no matter the costs, it is capitalism. The drive for profit. Ideally as much profits as possible in as short a time as possible. There is heaps of money to be made in war (taxpayer->government->military-industrial complex), so it is only natural for them to wage wars. It's the easiest way to make money. Not only do the Halliburtons make a quick buck, but it fuels many other sectors of the economy, such as R&D in technology and weapons, to mention one. This is the main problem we have to overcome. As mentioned above there cannot be democracy in capitalism. There isn't room for it. As capitalism needs war to feed itself, there cannot be permanent peace within capitalism. Never has been, never will be. There are no doubt many other factors involved, but this is, I think, the most important one. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

I said the US will attack Iran not because of Iran having 1 nuke or even 200 ... This is all about control of ME oil to exert strategic leverage against US competitors (China, Russia, European Union).

So I only said, one of the things that could prevent the US attacking Iran is that some other major nuclear power deters the US by threatening nuclear retaliation in case of US strike on Iran. But the US could also be deterred by blackmail on Oil/gaz flows by Iran or Russia, frightening the European "partners" of the US or Wall Street.

But frankly, I do not think the imperialists in Washington have any other choice than another ME war to keep their power. I do not think they will willingly drop it. So one way or another, there is going to be a BIB BIG crisis inside the beltway.

 

"else some other nuclear power threaten worldwide nuclear war" » Nobody want to use nuclear weapons against another country. Give you a simple idea even if iran had 20 nukes.. against whom would they used it before being completely destroyed ? It would be the same for any country...to be realistic, there is nothing threatening the US except the US threatening the world..

I think many here would agree that the justification for war with Iran is a fraud just as the justification for Iraq was one. Iran does not have nukes neither the means to deliver them. And even if they had one, this would not constitute a ground for attacking them otherwise the US should be at war with Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea ...

But the control of Middle Eastern Oil, the true reason behind the Iraq war, remains a powerful motivation for US imperialists. And it seems that the US establishment is now convinced that global domination is their fate, whatever the price for the people of the US. I would say that the US will attack Iran unless the US economy and political system breaks apart before it starts, or else some other nuclear power threaten worldwide nuclear war.

Ahmad Pangeae did not mean ``Everybody in Iran are evil creatures looking to get to war with the US''., he was merely quoting misguided spirits.. Here the Znet community is alarmed; there is enough evidence to see that your country is being threatened by the US WAR machine and profiteers.. Most Bloggers here are genuinely afraid for your people..

You said:

``Everybody in Iran are evil creatures looking to get to war with the US''.

I disagree with you. As an Iranian, I'm annoyed of US president's threats, and I should say that ``threatening a peaceful nation who has 3000 years of history is what evil does''.

I think US and Iran can coexist peacefully, but because of Israel's false flags, US is entering a war with Iran, that can be harmful for not only US and Iran, but the whole universe. I hope that Zionist regime will end its lies, so people in the wide world can continue their normal life.

Ahmad

Tehran/Iran

I'll overlook the 9/11 comments, as that has nothing to do with what we are discussing. That quote is right along the usual lines. Everybody in Iran are evil creatures looking to get to war with the US. We must be wary so we don't fall into their trap. As usual, this Orwellian language. The situation is turned on its head. What we should be wary about is not false-flag operations from Iran or Al Qaida (who, btw, has no flag), but by the US. They've done it before, and can surely do it again. I just hope the Bush administration isn't crazy enough to try to dupe the country into a war with Iran too. They've done enough damage as it is. It would be a complete disaster, and possible set the Middle East on fire. To paraphrase from Johan Galtung: The borders drawn in the Middle East is largely drawn by us, and Muslims don't operate within these borders. They are all Brothers. The Muslim word is borderless (Ummah). If the US (West) keeps pushing them further, the more reactionary of them can at some point take action. Just as any other people in the world they want to be left alone and leave in peace. The longer we keep stamping on their heads, the more likely it is they will strike back, in some way or another. Chomsky doesn't read this blog btw, somebody else are posting this for him. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Is an election a poll? In the most literal sense, it no doubt is but not what we think of a "poll", as being a non-binding survey of popular opinion outside of formal election polls. "Polling all the parties involved" will seldom prevent a war if those with the guns think they can achieve their aims through force of arms, so polls -like elections-  have pretty modest powers to begin with, just like the respondents. Which is why all polls have very limited utility in shaping policy. Those in power are pretty much going to go ahead and do what they want to anyway. Polls are sufficiently ambiguous and unenforceable to be easily sidestepped or  misconstrued. They exist more for the remunerative benefit of the pollsters than for any real policy influence. Likewise, responding to polls is cheap and easy. What really matters is if the respondents in these perfunctory polls are willing to get out of their easy chairs and militate for the kinds of policy changes some analysts, rightly or wrongly, attribute to the results. Until they do that, the results and their myriad interpretations can be safely disregarded.

Dominique, how much of it is true? you get so much disinformation coming from your respected government.. If you have complaints regarding 9/11, adress your complaint to the US Federal Court; I don't think you need NC leadership for such an issue.

Dear Pr. Noam Chomsky,

This is a quotation from Foreign Affair (Bruce Riedel):

The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations, as it did for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1996 attacks on the U.S. barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

This is a big blow against the belief that 9/11 could not have been a "false-flag" operation (justified by "false-flag is such a flimsy concept"). This quote is gold mine which contains arguments which refute many of yours. Think of the time it took to assign blame on 9/11 ...

I want you to keep your leadership, so I implore you to seriously reconsider your (I am sorry to say fear based) beliefs regarding what 9/11 was and was not. One way to do it is just for you just to ask for an open-minded discussion with David Ray Griffin.

With utmost respect for you and what you have brought so far ...

DLW

 

I can't quote accurately, but President bush said, concerning his recent Veto, something to the effect that the military leaders should be heeded with regard to Iraq policy, rather than politicians. Even though the military may be professional "experts," they are, as a body, at odds with public sentiment (which includes its own experts): a very dangerous situation indeed.

Although not a poll, President Dwight Eisenhower wrote in his book, Mandate for Change, “I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh.” But simply polling all the parties involved may not be enough to prevent a war; and there is the question of supporting an ally, when (1) that ally is a “political” ally (an ally due to self-interest), and not an “ideological” ally (an ally due to common ideals), or (2) that ally is an ideological one, but not a majority in the region in question—which is not yet to bring up the “hairy” case in general, of arming an ally for (1) ideological reasons, or worse, (2) political reasons. Is it ever proper to arm the “rebel allies,” and how many a time has that backfired? Of course such cases would need to be specific to evaluate; but generally, it seems to me that arming anyone would require seriously heavy justification—and open debate. Polls might be one component of “open debate,” but there is the further question of, who is determining what questions to ask? It seems that an interesting component of “free markets” is that the president of a country doesn't declare hula hoops to be the latest fad—to what extent the salespersons or the buyers' demands set the market agenda is debatable. Maybe there are ways to implement public desire for “free markets” with less “large corporations,” as with a more progressive corporate tax (but in which countries?—such would have to be, I think, international). Also, what if you had more than one government to choose from (rather than more than one party)? International entities may have this choice, but not your average citizen. Another question might be, “Do you want Freer Markets?”—only about 13% of US citizens are Libertarian, according to CATO's research. There are global “direct-democracy” phenomena, like “Wikipedia,” but I'm not sure to what extent the “elite” opinion of the established power structure still determines how this is, at least, administrated and valued relative to some standard. Many rely on a comparison of experts—and consensus and reason plus the facts can be at odds. There is the Colbert joke about “Wikiality”—the issue of democratically decided facts; but that facts are a bone of contention is part of the Wikipedia debate. And there is a reason, I think, why the US Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and cases are not decided by direct democracy. But “when attitudes are consistent and coherent over long periods, as they typically are,” as Chomsky writes, it seems to me that you ought to have at least some of this reflected in political and judicial policy. Measuring the “disconnect” between policy and polls seems an obvious way to measure where forces other than popular democracy are at play: how often are the differences a matter of power plays, rather than “expert elite” opinion (and how often are these two simply the same)?