"Your beliefs become your thoughts, Your thoughts become your words, Your words become your actions, Your actions become your habits, Your habits become your values, Your values become your destiny" Mahatma Gandhi
This is a profound quote from a man who lived by his beliefs.
Zurdo
Monday, March 22, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Cost of Nuclear Weapons in U.S.
Here are some hard facts relating to what maintaining a huge nuclear arsenal means to the U.S.
Source:
Update to this by Abby Martin from Russia Today.
--------------------
50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons
The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project was completed in August 1998 and resulted in the book Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 edited by Stephen I. Schwartz. These project pages should be considered historical.
- Except where noted all figures are in constant 1996 dollars -
1. Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000
SOURCES: Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724; Condensed AEC Annual Financial Report, FY 1953 (in Fifteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1954, p. 73)
2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000
Maj. C.D. Hargreaves, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), "Introduction to the CEBMCO Historical Report and History of the Command Section, Pre-CEBMCO Thru December 1962," p. 8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, "U.S. Air Force ICBM Construction Program," undated chart (circa 1965)
4. Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
5. Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
6. Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types
U.S. Department of Energy; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
7. Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
8. Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000
History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons, July 1945 Through September 1977, Prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy), February 1978, p. 50 (formerly Top Secret)
9. Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200
U.S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
10. Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a "hedge" against unforeseen future threats: 4,900
U..S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
11. Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
12. Peak number of operating domestic uranium mines (1955): 925
Nineteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1956, p. 31
13. Fissile material produced: 104 metric tons of
plutonium and 994 metric tons of highly-enriched
uranium
U.S. Department of Energy
14. Amount of plutonium still in weapons: 43 metric tons
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
15. Number of thermometers which could be filled with mercury used to produce lithium-6 at the Oak Ridge Reservation: 11 billion
U.S. Department of Energy
16. Number of dismantled plutonium "pits" stored at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas: 12,067 (as of May 6, 1999)
U.S. Department of Energy
17. States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)
William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler, Taking Stock: Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council, March 1998)
18. Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
19. Total land area of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey: 15,357 square miles
Rand McNally Road Atlas and Travel Guide, 1992
20. Legal fees paid by the Department of Energy to fight lawsuits from workers and private citizens concerning nuclear weapons production and testing activities, from October 1990 through March 1995: $97,000,000
U.S. Department of Energy
21. Money paid by the State Department to Japan following fallout from the 1954 "Bravo" test: $15,300,000
Barton C. Hacker, Elements of Controversy: The Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947 -1974, University of California Press, 1994, p. 158
22. Money and non-monetary compensation paid by the the United States to Marshallese Islanders since 1956 to redress damages from nuclear testing: at least $759,000,000
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
23. Money paid to U.S. citizens under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act of 1990, as of January 13, 1998: approximately $225,000,000 (6,336 claims approved; 3,156 denied)
U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division
24. Total cost of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, 1946-1961: $7,000,000,000
"Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program," Report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, September 1959, pp. 11-12
25. Total number of nuclear-powered aircraft and airplane hangars built: 0 and 1
Ibid; "American Portrait: ANP," WFAA-TV (Dallas), 1993. Between July 1955 and March 1957, a specially modified B-36 bomber made 47 flights with a three megawatt air-cooled operational test reactor (the reactor, however, did not power the plane).
26. Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75
Bill Gulley with Mary Ellen Reese, Breaking Cover, Simon and Schuster, 1980, pp. 34- 36
27. Currency stored until 1988 by the Federal Reserve at its Mount Pony facility for use after a nuclear war: more than $2,000,000,000
Edward Zuckerman, The Day After World War III, The Viking Press, 1984, pp. 287-88
28. Amount of silver in tons once used at the Oak Ridge, TN, Y-12 Plant for electrical magnet coils: 14,700
Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb, U.S. Army Center for Military History, 1985, pp. 66-7
29. Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)
U.S. Department of Energy
30. First and last test: July 16, 1945 ("Trinity") and September 23, 1992 ("Divider")
U.S. Department of Energy
31. Estimated amount spent between October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1995 on nuclear testing activities: $1,200,000,000 (0 tests)
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
32. Cost of 1946 Operation Crossroads weapons tests ("Able" and "Baker") at Bikini Atoll: $1,300,000,000
Weisgall, Operation Crossroads, pp. 294, 371
33. Largest U.S. explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo")
U.S. Department of Energy
34. Number of islands in Enewetak atoll vaporized
by the November 1, 1952 "Mike" H-bomb test: 1
Chuck Hansen, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, Orion Books, 1988, pp. 58-59, 95
35. Number of nuclear tests in the Pacific: 106
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
36. Number of U.S. nuclear tests in Nevada: 911
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
37. Number of nuclear weapons tests in Alaska [1, 2, and 3], Colorado [1 and 2], Mississippi and New Mexico [1, 2 and 3]: 10
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
38. Operational naval nuclear propulsion reactors vs. operational commercial power reactors (in 1999): 129 vs. 108
Adm. Bruce DeMars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy; Nuclear Regulatory Commission
39. Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs
Adm. Bruce DeMars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy
40. Number of high level radioactive waste tanks in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina: 239
U.S. Department of Energy
41. Volume in cubic meters of radioactive waste resulting from weapons activities: 104,000,000
U.S. Department of Energy; Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
42. Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995)
Bruce Blair, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
43. Cost of January 17, 1966 nuclear weapons accident over Palomares, Spain (including two lost planes, an extended search and recovery effort, waste disposal in the U.S. and settlement claims): $182,000,000
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy Interoffice Memorandum, February 15, 1968; Center for Defense Information
44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11
U.S. Department of Defense; Center for Defense Information; Greenpeace; "Lost Bombs," Atwood-Keeney Productions, Inc., 1997
45. Number of Department of Energy federal employees (in 1996): 18,608
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition
46. Number of Department of Energy contractor employees (in 1996): 109,242
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition
47. Minimum number of classified pages estimated to be in the Department of Energy's possession (1995): 280 million
A Review of the Department of Energy Classification Policy and Practice, Committee on Declassification of Information for the Department of Energy Environmental Remediation and Related Programs, National Research Council, 1995, pp. 7-8, 68.
48. Ballistic missile defense spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs. $2,600,000,000
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
49. Average cost per warhead to the U.S. to help Kazakhstan dismantle 104 SS-18 ICBMs carrying more than 1,000 warheads: $70,000
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project; Arms Control Association
50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
Copyright © 1998 The Brookings Institution
Source:
Update to this by Abby Martin from Russia Today.
--------------------
50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons
The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project was completed in August 1998 and resulted in the book Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940 edited by Stephen I. Schwartz. These project pages should be considered historical.
- Except where noted all figures are in constant 1996 dollars -
1. Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000
SOURCES: Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724; Condensed AEC Annual Financial Report, FY 1953 (in Fifteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1954, p. 73)
2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000
Maj. C.D. Hargreaves, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), "Introduction to the CEBMCO Historical Report and History of the Command Section, Pre-CEBMCO Thru December 1962," p. 8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, "U.S. Air Force ICBM Construction Program," undated chart (circa 1965)
4. Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
5. Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
6. Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types
U.S. Department of Energy; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
7. Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
8. Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000
History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons, July 1945 Through September 1977, Prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy), February 1978, p. 50 (formerly Top Secret)
9. Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200
U.S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
10. Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a "hedge" against unforeseen future threats: 4,900
U..S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
11. Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
12. Peak number of operating domestic uranium mines (1955): 925
Nineteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1956, p. 31
13. Fissile material produced: 104 metric tons of
plutonium and 994 metric tons of highly-enriched
uranium
U.S. Department of Energy
14. Amount of plutonium still in weapons: 43 metric tons
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
15. Number of thermometers which could be filled with mercury used to produce lithium-6 at the Oak Ridge Reservation: 11 billion
U.S. Department of Energy
16. Number of dismantled plutonium "pits" stored at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas: 12,067 (as of May 6, 1999)
U.S. Department of Energy
17. States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)
William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler, Taking Stock: Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council, March 1998)
18. Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
19. Total land area of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey: 15,357 square miles
Rand McNally Road Atlas and Travel Guide, 1992
20. Legal fees paid by the Department of Energy to fight lawsuits from workers and private citizens concerning nuclear weapons production and testing activities, from October 1990 through March 1995: $97,000,000
U.S. Department of Energy
21. Money paid by the State Department to Japan following fallout from the 1954 "Bravo" test: $15,300,000
Barton C. Hacker, Elements of Controversy: The Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947 -1974, University of California Press, 1994, p. 158
22. Money and non-monetary compensation paid by the the United States to Marshallese Islanders since 1956 to redress damages from nuclear testing: at least $759,000,000
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
23. Money paid to U.S. citizens under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act of 1990, as of January 13, 1998: approximately $225,000,000 (6,336 claims approved; 3,156 denied)
U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division
24. Total cost of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, 1946-1961: $7,000,000,000
"Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program," Report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, September 1959, pp. 11-12
25. Total number of nuclear-powered aircraft and airplane hangars built: 0 and 1
Ibid; "American Portrait: ANP," WFAA-TV (Dallas), 1993. Between July 1955 and March 1957, a specially modified B-36 bomber made 47 flights with a three megawatt air-cooled operational test reactor (the reactor, however, did not power the plane).
26. Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75
Bill Gulley with Mary Ellen Reese, Breaking Cover, Simon and Schuster, 1980, pp. 34- 36
27. Currency stored until 1988 by the Federal Reserve at its Mount Pony facility for use after a nuclear war: more than $2,000,000,000
Edward Zuckerman, The Day After World War III, The Viking Press, 1984, pp. 287-88
28. Amount of silver in tons once used at the Oak Ridge, TN, Y-12 Plant for electrical magnet coils: 14,700
Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb, U.S. Army Center for Military History, 1985, pp. 66-7
29. Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)
U.S. Department of Energy
30. First and last test: July 16, 1945 ("Trinity") and September 23, 1992 ("Divider")
U.S. Department of Energy
31. Estimated amount spent between October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1995 on nuclear testing activities: $1,200,000,000 (0 tests)
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
32. Cost of 1946 Operation Crossroads weapons tests ("Able" and "Baker") at Bikini Atoll: $1,300,000,000
Weisgall, Operation Crossroads, pp. 294, 371
33. Largest U.S. explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo")
U.S. Department of Energy
34. Number of islands in Enewetak atoll vaporized
by the November 1, 1952 "Mike" H-bomb test: 1
Chuck Hansen, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, Orion Books, 1988, pp. 58-59, 95
35. Number of nuclear tests in the Pacific: 106
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
36. Number of U.S. nuclear tests in Nevada: 911
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
37. Number of nuclear weapons tests in Alaska [1, 2, and 3], Colorado [1 and 2], Mississippi and New Mexico [1, 2 and 3]: 10
Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project
38. Operational naval nuclear propulsion reactors vs. operational commercial power reactors (in 1999): 129 vs. 108
Adm. Bruce DeMars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy; Nuclear Regulatory Commission
39. Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs
Adm. Bruce DeMars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy
40. Number of high level radioactive waste tanks in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina: 239
U.S. Department of Energy
41. Volume in cubic meters of radioactive waste resulting from weapons activities: 104,000,000
U.S. Department of Energy; Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
42. Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995)
Bruce Blair, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
43. Cost of January 17, 1966 nuclear weapons accident over Palomares, Spain (including two lost planes, an extended search and recovery effort, waste disposal in the U.S. and settlement claims): $182,000,000
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy Interoffice Memorandum, February 15, 1968; Center for Defense Information
44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11
U.S. Department of Defense; Center for Defense Information; Greenpeace; "Lost Bombs," Atwood-Keeney Productions, Inc., 1997
45. Number of Department of Energy federal employees (in 1996): 18,608
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition
46. Number of Department of Energy contractor employees (in 1996): 109,242
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition
47. Minimum number of classified pages estimated to be in the Department of Energy's possession (1995): 280 million
A Review of the Department of Energy Classification Policy and Practice, Committee on Declassification of Information for the Department of Energy Environmental Remediation and Related Programs, National Research Council, 1995, pp. 7-8, 68.
48. Ballistic missile defense spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs. $2,600,000,000
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
49. Average cost per warhead to the U.S. to help Kazakhstan dismantle 104 SS-18 ICBMs carrying more than 1,000 warheads: $70,000
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project; Arms Control Association
50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project
Copyright © 1998 The Brookings Institution
Monday, March 8, 2010
China's view of dimplomacy shows insight toward the Middle East
Ongoing Iran diplomacy needed
By Zhang Haizhou and Cheng Guangjin (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-03-09 07:50
Hardline tactics will only push Teheran into corner, says envoy
Beijing: China's special envoy to the Middle East denied on Friday that interest in oil is the key reason why Beijing opposes tougher sanctions on Iran.
Wu Sike, a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), reiterated that Beijing hasn't given up diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue, but urged Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.
"We don't just focus on oil in our Iran issue policy. It's a very one-sided view to say China is doing this and that because of oil, though our oil cooperation with Iran is very important," Wu told China Daily on the sidelines of the CPPCC's annual session.
"We consider the (Iran nuclear) issue in the whole picture of Chinese diplomacy," he added.
China has been firmly against sanctioning Iran for its nuclear plan. Many in the West link Beijing's stance to its oil interests in Teheran. About 11 percent of China's crude oil import is reportedly from Iran.
But Wu said it has been China's "diplomatic achievement" to ensure stable oil imports from many countries to back its economic boom over the past decades. Beijing became an oil net importer in 1993.
China now has "wide oil cooperation" not just with the Middle East but with Russia, Central Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, he said, while acknowledging that more than half of China's imported oil is from the Middle East.
China imported more than 40 million tons of oil - more than 20 percent of its imported total - from Saudi Arabia, according to official figures.
The key reason Beijing is against sanctioning Iran is that tough measures may backfire, Wu said, adding that China is continuing its diplomatic efforts.
"Even though there's only 1 percent chance such measures would succeed, we should make 100 percent effort," he said.
On Thursday, an Associated Press report quoted a well-informed United Nations official as saying on Wednesday that key Western powers had sent a revised proposal to China and Russia seeking their cooperation for fresh sanctions against Iran.
The new sanctions are aimed at targeting Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard and toughening existing measures against its shipping, banking and insurance sectors, the report said.
Wu did not comment directly on the proposal, but said that sanctions may push Teheran into a corner where it may think there's "no way to turn back".
As an ancient civilization, Iran has very strong national pride, so Western countries need to treat it equally rather than just threatening it with sanctions or military power, Wu said.
But he also urged Iran not to develop nuclear arms.
"As a signatory nation to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran should obey it."
"China firmly preserves this treaty and is against Iran having any nuclear weapons. It's our basic policy, though we think Teheran has the right to use nuclear power peacefully," Wu said.
US needs actions
In the same interview, Wu said US President Barack Obama needs to have some concrete measures in the Middle East, other than just saying some beautiful rhetoric.
In June, Obama called for a "new beginning between the US and Muslims" in a major speech at Cairo University in Egypt. The comments were designed to reframe relations between the US and the Muslim world after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks and the US-led war in Iraq.
Quoting from the Quran for emphasis, Obama said in the speech that the "cycle of suspicion and discord must end".
"The Arab world pinned high hopes on Obama after the speech," said Wu, who visited Egypt and the Middle East later that month after the speech. "They hoped the US government would take concrete actions after releasing such a benign signal."
However, one year has passed with no effective moves, and Arabs' enthusiasm is cooling down, Wu said.
"The Israel-Palestine issue is left in a forgotten corner," Wu said.
"The Egyptian diplomats and I all worry that their hope will turn into disappointment, which will result in a new round of instability," Wu said.
By Zhang Haizhou and Cheng Guangjin (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-03-09 07:50
Hardline tactics will only push Teheran into corner, says envoy
Beijing: China's special envoy to the Middle East denied on Friday that interest in oil is the key reason why Beijing opposes tougher sanctions on Iran.
Wu Sike, a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), reiterated that Beijing hasn't given up diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue, but urged Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.
"We don't just focus on oil in our Iran issue policy. It's a very one-sided view to say China is doing this and that because of oil, though our oil cooperation with Iran is very important," Wu told China Daily on the sidelines of the CPPCC's annual session.
"We consider the (Iran nuclear) issue in the whole picture of Chinese diplomacy," he added.
China has been firmly against sanctioning Iran for its nuclear plan. Many in the West link Beijing's stance to its oil interests in Teheran. About 11 percent of China's crude oil import is reportedly from Iran.
But Wu said it has been China's "diplomatic achievement" to ensure stable oil imports from many countries to back its economic boom over the past decades. Beijing became an oil net importer in 1993.
China now has "wide oil cooperation" not just with the Middle East but with Russia, Central Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, he said, while acknowledging that more than half of China's imported oil is from the Middle East.
China imported more than 40 million tons of oil - more than 20 percent of its imported total - from Saudi Arabia, according to official figures.
The key reason Beijing is against sanctioning Iran is that tough measures may backfire, Wu said, adding that China is continuing its diplomatic efforts.
"Even though there's only 1 percent chance such measures would succeed, we should make 100 percent effort," he said.
On Thursday, an Associated Press report quoted a well-informed United Nations official as saying on Wednesday that key Western powers had sent a revised proposal to China and Russia seeking their cooperation for fresh sanctions against Iran.
The new sanctions are aimed at targeting Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard and toughening existing measures against its shipping, banking and insurance sectors, the report said.
Wu did not comment directly on the proposal, but said that sanctions may push Teheran into a corner where it may think there's "no way to turn back".
As an ancient civilization, Iran has very strong national pride, so Western countries need to treat it equally rather than just threatening it with sanctions or military power, Wu said.
But he also urged Iran not to develop nuclear arms.
"As a signatory nation to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran should obey it."
"China firmly preserves this treaty and is against Iran having any nuclear weapons. It's our basic policy, though we think Teheran has the right to use nuclear power peacefully," Wu said.
US needs actions
In the same interview, Wu said US President Barack Obama needs to have some concrete measures in the Middle East, other than just saying some beautiful rhetoric.
In June, Obama called for a "new beginning between the US and Muslims" in a major speech at Cairo University in Egypt. The comments were designed to reframe relations between the US and the Muslim world after the Sept 11, 2001, attacks and the US-led war in Iraq.
Quoting from the Quran for emphasis, Obama said in the speech that the "cycle of suspicion and discord must end".
"The Arab world pinned high hopes on Obama after the speech," said Wu, who visited Egypt and the Middle East later that month after the speech. "They hoped the US government would take concrete actions after releasing such a benign signal."
However, one year has passed with no effective moves, and Arabs' enthusiasm is cooling down, Wu said.
"The Israel-Palestine issue is left in a forgotten corner," Wu said.
"The Egyptian diplomats and I all worry that their hope will turn into disappointment, which will result in a new round of instability," Wu said.
Will we go to war if nuclear weapons are involved?
US wants Israel military dominant in Mideast: Biden
Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:16:00 GMT
US Vice President Joe Biden
In a landmark visit to Tel Aviv, US Vice President Joe Biden will remind Israeli officials that the hefty military aid they receive from Washington should ease their worries about Iran's nuclear work.
Biden, who is slated to arrive on Monday, is expected to warn his hosts against an attack on Iranian nuclear sites, particularly now that world powers are trying to pursue fresh sanctions against Tehran.
In a Monday interview with a leading Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Biden assured Tel Aviv it will always have the backing of the US government in the event of a military confrontation with Iran.
“I can promise the Israeli people that we will confront, as allies, any security challenge it will face. A nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a threat not only to Israel — it would also constitute a threat to the United States."
Pointing to the huge US military aid granted to Tel Aviv each year, Biden said Washington has always sought to ensure that Israel remains the top military power in the Middle East.
This, according to Biden, should somehow put Tel Aviv's mind at ease with regards to Iran's nuclear program and eliminate the need for a military attack against the country.
“The Obama administration gives Israel annual military aid worth USD 3 billion,” said Biden. “We revived defense consultations between the two countries, doubled our efforts to ensure Israel preserves its qualitative military edge in the region, expanded our joint exercises and cooperation on missile-defense systems."
Biden hoped that Washington-led efforts to apply pressure on Iran, along with unilateral sanctions imposed by the US Treasury will be enough to subvert Iran's nuclear plans.
Israel, which is reported to have the region's sole atomic arsenal, has a long-standing tendency to take out suspected nuclear sites.
In 1981, Tel Aviv bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor and launched a similar attack on what it suspected to be an undercover nuclear program in Syria — a claim Damascus strongly rejects.
This has led observers to believe that the Israeli regime will act along the same vein with Iran's nuclear program.
Iran, unlike Israel, is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has opened its enrichment facilities to UN inspection.
Following numerous unannounced visit by UN inspector to Iranian nuclear sites, the International Atomic Energy Agency continues to confirm non-diversion nuclear materials in Iran.
Regardless, however, the United States and Israel allege that Iran is pursuing a military nuclear program — a claim Iran views as "unfounded and baseless."
Tehran says its nuclear program is solely aimed at the civilian application of the technology.
SBB/MMN
Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:16:00 GMT
US Vice President Joe Biden
In a landmark visit to Tel Aviv, US Vice President Joe Biden will remind Israeli officials that the hefty military aid they receive from Washington should ease their worries about Iran's nuclear work.
Biden, who is slated to arrive on Monday, is expected to warn his hosts against an attack on Iranian nuclear sites, particularly now that world powers are trying to pursue fresh sanctions against Tehran.
In a Monday interview with a leading Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Biden assured Tel Aviv it will always have the backing of the US government in the event of a military confrontation with Iran.
“I can promise the Israeli people that we will confront, as allies, any security challenge it will face. A nuclear-armed Iran would constitute a threat not only to Israel — it would also constitute a threat to the United States."
Pointing to the huge US military aid granted to Tel Aviv each year, Biden said Washington has always sought to ensure that Israel remains the top military power in the Middle East.
This, according to Biden, should somehow put Tel Aviv's mind at ease with regards to Iran's nuclear program and eliminate the need for a military attack against the country.
“The Obama administration gives Israel annual military aid worth USD 3 billion,” said Biden. “We revived defense consultations between the two countries, doubled our efforts to ensure Israel preserves its qualitative military edge in the region, expanded our joint exercises and cooperation on missile-defense systems."
Biden hoped that Washington-led efforts to apply pressure on Iran, along with unilateral sanctions imposed by the US Treasury will be enough to subvert Iran's nuclear plans.
Israel, which is reported to have the region's sole atomic arsenal, has a long-standing tendency to take out suspected nuclear sites.
In 1981, Tel Aviv bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor and launched a similar attack on what it suspected to be an undercover nuclear program in Syria — a claim Damascus strongly rejects.
This has led observers to believe that the Israeli regime will act along the same vein with Iran's nuclear program.
Iran, unlike Israel, is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has opened its enrichment facilities to UN inspection.
Following numerous unannounced visit by UN inspector to Iranian nuclear sites, the International Atomic Energy Agency continues to confirm non-diversion nuclear materials in Iran.
Regardless, however, the United States and Israel allege that Iran is pursuing a military nuclear program — a claim Iran views as "unfounded and baseless."
Tehran says its nuclear program is solely aimed at the civilian application of the technology.
SBB/MMN
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Will this man stop the next WAR or allow it to happen.
UN atomic boss feels the heat
Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:24:18 GMT
By Anoush Maleki
The new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general, Yukiya Amano, is stealing the spotlight with his dangerous approach to Iran.
The veteran diplomat, who took control of the UN nuclear agency after the 12-year reign of Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei, inherited one of the most chaotic eras in the agency's history — including the weak global security system meant to reduce nuclear weapons around the globe, while those non-members conducting nuclear programs — such as Israel whose nuclear arsenal of 200 to 300 warheads precedes the regime's reputation and its belligerent actions in the volatile Middle East — continue to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The IAEA was founded 52 years ago for two primary objectives: to provide a sound basis for the global development of civilian nuclear programs and to prevent the development and spread of nuclear weapons.
The agency, which consists of some 2,200 professional staff members from more than 90 nations, has dispatched teams of inspectors around the globe to monitor and find government that are breaking their commitments to the NPT.
Upon taking the reins at the IAEA in December, Mr. Amano, who comes from the only nation struck with nuclear arms, befittingly pledged to fight the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to promote and regulate the civilian nuclear industry.
Mr. Amano, however, spared no time to divert the agency's full attention toward Iran and the long lasting dispute over its nuclear energy program, which the world powers allege is a cover for developing and spreading atomic bombs.
His first report on Iran, released on February 18, claimed that the UN agency had "concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities" that could enable the Iranian military to develop a working nuclear bomb.
The agency, Mr. Amano said, will now seek to discuss with Iran projects "involving high precision detonators fired simultaneously; studies on the initiation of high explosives and missile re-entry body engineering; a project for the conversion of UO2 to UF4, known as 'the green salt project'; and various procurement related activities."
Iran, however, says it is not willing to discuss the alleged activities unless it is provided with the original documents that have allowed the agency to link the country's conventional military projects with its civilian nuclear program.
It also reserves the right not to share the information demanded by the IAEA, arguing that any country is entitled to keep its military secrets.
Nonetheless, Mr. Amano, who enjoys the full support of the United States and its allies, ignored the history of the nuclear dispute. And he even went on to contradict an American intelligence estimate in 2007 that claimed Iran had not conducted weapons-related activities beyond 2003.
"Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the agency's concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004," he said in the report.
In 2003, Iran announced its voluntarily suspension of uranium enrichment, which it is entitled to under the NPT, and reprocessing activities. The next year, the Iranian Parliament, Majlis, extended the confidence building measure while UN inspections at Iran's nuclear installations forced the then IAEA director general, Mr. ElBaradei, to declare in November 2003 that there was "no evidence" Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.
His assurance was ignored by the powers, who responded to Iran's decision to sign the Additional Protocol by the imposition of United Nations Security Council sanctions resolutions.
The accusations continued under Mr. ElBaradei, while the IAEA continued to verify the non-diversion of Iran's civilian program.
Mr. Amano, meanwhile, stepped into the spotlight by claiming that the "alleged studies" — branded by the ElBaradei administration — were "factual."
The unusual tone prompted Iran to accuse the Japanese diplomat of bowing to the White House pressure his predecessor had managed to fight for years.
Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said on February 22 that judging on the report, Mr. Amano — who worked as director general for the disarmament, nonproliferation and science department at the Japanese Foreign Ministry — has proven to be an amateur in the new position and must receive on the job training, according to the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA).
It is noteworthy that the IAEA report was released amid an effortless US campaign to win international support for penalizing Iran for its program and delays surrounding a nuclear fuel swap deal, which, if the West had shown flexibility, could have been a door opener for the struggling Obama administration on Iran.
Whether Mr. Amano wrote the report to lend an apparent hand to the White House and indoctrinate an international consensus against Iran remains to be uncovered but the report's immediate impact was likely to accelerate the confrontation between Iran and the Western countries.
Now, thanks to Mr. Amano, the dispute with no practical resolve in sight will continue to plague the ties between Iran and the United States.
The White House, under Congressional, Israeli and neo-con pressure, is fiercely pursuing a failure on Iran: Sanctions in the hopes of a breakthrough — not realizing, that even if China and Russia finally support such a measure, sanctions will not alter Iran's course of action.
The Japanese diplomat, meanwhile, needs to be briefed on the history of Iran and understand the beliefs and objectives of the Islamic Republic.
The IAEA chief needs to realize that when the Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, issues a fatwa — an Islamic declaration that all Muslims are obliged to comply with — and forbids the building and spreading weapons of mass destruction, including atomic bombs, he means business.
Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:24:18 GMT
By Anoush Maleki
The new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general, Yukiya Amano, is stealing the spotlight with his dangerous approach to Iran.
The veteran diplomat, who took control of the UN nuclear agency after the 12-year reign of Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei, inherited one of the most chaotic eras in the agency's history — including the weak global security system meant to reduce nuclear weapons around the globe, while those non-members conducting nuclear programs — such as Israel whose nuclear arsenal of 200 to 300 warheads precedes the regime's reputation and its belligerent actions in the volatile Middle East — continue to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The IAEA was founded 52 years ago for two primary objectives: to provide a sound basis for the global development of civilian nuclear programs and to prevent the development and spread of nuclear weapons.
The agency, which consists of some 2,200 professional staff members from more than 90 nations, has dispatched teams of inspectors around the globe to monitor and find government that are breaking their commitments to the NPT.
Upon taking the reins at the IAEA in December, Mr. Amano, who comes from the only nation struck with nuclear arms, befittingly pledged to fight the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to promote and regulate the civilian nuclear industry.
Mr. Amano, however, spared no time to divert the agency's full attention toward Iran and the long lasting dispute over its nuclear energy program, which the world powers allege is a cover for developing and spreading atomic bombs.
His first report on Iran, released on February 18, claimed that the UN agency had "concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities" that could enable the Iranian military to develop a working nuclear bomb.
The agency, Mr. Amano said, will now seek to discuss with Iran projects "involving high precision detonators fired simultaneously; studies on the initiation of high explosives and missile re-entry body engineering; a project for the conversion of UO2 to UF4, known as 'the green salt project'; and various procurement related activities."
Iran, however, says it is not willing to discuss the alleged activities unless it is provided with the original documents that have allowed the agency to link the country's conventional military projects with its civilian nuclear program.
It also reserves the right not to share the information demanded by the IAEA, arguing that any country is entitled to keep its military secrets.
Nonetheless, Mr. Amano, who enjoys the full support of the United States and its allies, ignored the history of the nuclear dispute. And he even went on to contradict an American intelligence estimate in 2007 that claimed Iran had not conducted weapons-related activities beyond 2003.
"Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the agency's concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004," he said in the report.
In 2003, Iran announced its voluntarily suspension of uranium enrichment, which it is entitled to under the NPT, and reprocessing activities. The next year, the Iranian Parliament, Majlis, extended the confidence building measure while UN inspections at Iran's nuclear installations forced the then IAEA director general, Mr. ElBaradei, to declare in November 2003 that there was "no evidence" Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.
His assurance was ignored by the powers, who responded to Iran's decision to sign the Additional Protocol by the imposition of United Nations Security Council sanctions resolutions.
The accusations continued under Mr. ElBaradei, while the IAEA continued to verify the non-diversion of Iran's civilian program.
Mr. Amano, meanwhile, stepped into the spotlight by claiming that the "alleged studies" — branded by the ElBaradei administration — were "factual."
The unusual tone prompted Iran to accuse the Japanese diplomat of bowing to the White House pressure his predecessor had managed to fight for years.
Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said on February 22 that judging on the report, Mr. Amano — who worked as director general for the disarmament, nonproliferation and science department at the Japanese Foreign Ministry — has proven to be an amateur in the new position and must receive on the job training, according to the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA).
It is noteworthy that the IAEA report was released amid an effortless US campaign to win international support for penalizing Iran for its program and delays surrounding a nuclear fuel swap deal, which, if the West had shown flexibility, could have been a door opener for the struggling Obama administration on Iran.
Whether Mr. Amano wrote the report to lend an apparent hand to the White House and indoctrinate an international consensus against Iran remains to be uncovered but the report's immediate impact was likely to accelerate the confrontation between Iran and the Western countries.
Now, thanks to Mr. Amano, the dispute with no practical resolve in sight will continue to plague the ties between Iran and the United States.
The White House, under Congressional, Israeli and neo-con pressure, is fiercely pursuing a failure on Iran: Sanctions in the hopes of a breakthrough — not realizing, that even if China and Russia finally support such a measure, sanctions will not alter Iran's course of action.
The Japanese diplomat, meanwhile, needs to be briefed on the history of Iran and understand the beliefs and objectives of the Islamic Republic.
The IAEA chief needs to realize that when the Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, issues a fatwa — an Islamic declaration that all Muslims are obliged to comply with — and forbids the building and spreading weapons of mass destruction, including atomic bombs, he means business.
Now the Generals are scared of what a new war will bring forth.
Mullen Wary of Israeli Attack on Iran
By Ray McGovern – OpEdNews March 6, 2010
Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came home with sweaty palms from his mid-February visit to Israel. He has been worrying aloud that Israel will mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran.
This is of particular concern because Mullen has had considerable experience in putting the brakes on such Israeli plans in the past. This time, he appears convinced that the Israeli leaders did not take his warnings seriously--notwithstanding the unusually strong language he put into play.
Upon arrival in Jerusalem on February 14, Mullen wasted no time in making clear why he had come. He insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be "a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences."
At a Pentagon press conference on February 22 Mullen drove home the same point--with some of the same language. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being "on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization" and about its "desire to dominate its neighbors," he included this in his prepared remarks:
"I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive."
In answer to a question about the "efficacy" of military strikes on Iran's nuclear program, Mullen said such strikes "would delay it for one to three years." Underscoring the point, he added that this is what he meant "about a military strike not being decisive."
No Glib Talk About War
Unlike younger generals such as David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. It seems likely that this experience prompted this gratuitous philosophical aside at the press conference:
"I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It's messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth the cost."
Although the immediate context for the remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and time again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic, and economic equities at stake know he is right.
Firing "Fox'
Recall that one of Mullen's Vietnam veteran contemporaries, Adm. William ("Fox') Fallon was cashiered as CENTCOM commander in March 2008 for saying things like war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch." Fallon openly encouraged negotiations with Iran as the only sensible approach, and harshly criticized the "constant drum beat" for war.
Fallon's attitude appears to be shared by the more politically cautious and less rhetorically blunt Mullen, as the same war-with-Iran drumbeat reaches a new crescendo today. Fallon abhorred the thought of being on the receiving end of an order inspired by the likes of then-Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams to send American troops into what would surely be as Mullen would describe it a "bloody, uneven, messy, ugly and incredibly wasteful" war.
How strong the pressure was within the Bush administration to attack Iran and/or to give Israel "a green light" to go first can be read between the lines of a Feb. 14 exchange between ABC News' "This Week" host Jonathan Karl and former Vice President Cheney.
Karl: "How close did the Bush administration come to taking military action against Iran?"
Cheney: "Some of that I can't talk about, obviously, still. I'm sure it's still classified. We clearly never made the decision we never crossed over that line of saying, "Now we're going to mount a military operation to deal with the problem.' ""
Karl: "David Sanger of the New York Times says that the Israelis came to you came to the administration in the final months and asked for certain things, bunker-buster bombs, air-to-air refueling capability, over-flight rights, and that basically the administration dithered, did not give the Israelis a response. Was that a mistake?"
Cheney: "I can't get into it still. I'm sure a lot of those discussions are still very sensitive."
Karl: "Let me ask you: Did you advocate a harder line, including in the military area, in those final months?"
Cheney: "Usually."
Karl: "And with respect to Iran?"
Cheney: "Well, I made public statements to the effect that I felt very strongly that we had to have the military option, that it had to be on the table, that it had to be a meaningful option, and that we might well have to resort to military force in order to deal with the threat that Iran represented. " [But] we never got to the point where the President had to make a decision one way or the other."
Renewed Pressures
Clearly, those pressures have again grown during the first 13 months of the Obama administration. Today, it appears that Mullen has replaced Fallon as the principal military obstacle to exercising the war option against Iran.
From his recent demeanor, as well as his many statements since he became the country's most senior officer in October 2007, it is apparent that Mullen does not believe that a "preventive war" against Iran would be worth the horrendous cost.
Washington rhetoric, echoed by the stenographers of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) over the past eight years, has brought a veneer of respectability to the international crime of aggressive war, as long as it is launched or sanctioned by the United States. With nodding approval from the FCM, Bush and Cheney sold the notion that such attacks can be justified to "prevent" some future hypothetical threat to the United States or its allies. This provided a thin, fig-leaf rationale for invading Iraq seven years ago this month.
The Obama administration has not fully backed away from such thinking.
While in Qatar on Feb. 14, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed concern over what she called "accumulating evidence" of an Iranian attempt to pursue a nuclear weapon, not because it "directly threaten[s] the United States, but [because] it directly threatens a lot of our friends" -- read Israel.
Mullen, for his part, seems acutely aware that the Constitution he has sworn to defend makes no provision for the kind of war he might be sucked into in order to defend Israel. When he studied at the Naval Academy, his professors were still teaching that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that treaties ratified by the Senate become the "supreme law of the land."
It would be, pure and simple, a flagrant violation of a supreme law of the land, the Senate-ratified United Nations Charter, for the United States to join in an unprovoked assault on Iran without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, which surely would not go along--just as it did not go along on attacking Iraq.
Moreover, Adm. Mullen appears to be one of the few Americans aware that there is no mutual defense treaty between the United States and Israel and, thus, the U.S. has no legal obligation to jump to Israel's defense if it ignites war with Iran. In other words, in a strictly juridical sense, Israel is not our "ally."
Sorry, you can't create an ally by just repeating the word over and over.
Now you may scoff. "Everyone knows," you will say, that political realities in America dictate that the U.S. military must defend Israel no matter who started a conflict.
Still, there was a time after the 1967 Israeli-Arab war when Israel first occupied the Palestinian territories that the U.S. did take soundings regarding the possibility of a mutual defense treaty, in the expectation that this might introduce more calm into the area by giving the Israelis a greater sense of security.
But the Israelis turned the overture down cold. Such treaties, you see, require internationally recognized boundaries and Israel did not want any part of parting with the territories it had just seized militarily.
Besides, mutual defense treaties usually impose on both parties an obligation to inform the other if one decides to attack a third country. Israel wanted no part of that either.
This virtually unknown background helps to explain why the lack of a treaty of mutual defense is more than a picayune academic point.
Why Is Mullen Worried?
If Adm. Mullen is an old hand at reining in the Israelis, why is he so visibly worried at present? He is used to reading the riot act to the Israelis. What could be so different now?
Last time, in mid-2008, Cheney and Abrams were arguing for an aggressive military posture toward Iran but lost the argument to Mullen and his senior commanders, who in the final days of the Bush administration won the backing of the President.
When former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seemed intent on starting hostilities with Iran before Bush and Cheney left office, Bush ordered Adm. Mullen to Israel to tell the Israelis, in no uncertain terms, don't do it. Mullen gladly rose to the occasion; actually, he outdid himself.
We learned from the Israeli press that Mullen went so far as to warn the Israelis not to even think about another incident at sea like the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, which left 34 American crew killed and more than 170 wounded. With Bush's full support, Mullen told the Israelis to disabuse themselves of the notion that U.S. military support would be knee-jerk automatic, if Israel somehow provoked open hostilities with Iran.
Never before had a senior U.S. official braced Israel so blatantly about the Liberty incident, which was covered up unconscionably by Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, the Congress, and by the Navy itself. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Navy Vet Honored, Foiled Israeli Attack."]
The lesson the Israelis took away from the Liberty incident was that they could get away with murder, literally, and walk free because of political realities in the United States. Never again, said Mullen. He could not have raised a more neuralgic issue.
So, once more, what's different about today? How to account for Mullen's decision to keep expressing his worries about "unintended consequences"?
I believe the admiral fears that things are about to spin out of control. Whether there will be war does not depend on Mullen -- or even Obama. It depends mostly on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And Mullen does well to be worried.
Netanyahu's Impression of Obama
It is altogether likely that Netanyahu has concluded that Barack Obama is--in the vernacular--a wuss. Why, for example, does the President keep sending an endless procession of the most senior U.S. officials to Tel Aviv to plead with their Israeli counterparts, Please, pretty please, don't start a war with Iran.
Loose-cannon Vice President Joe Biden arrives on Monday, hopefully with clearer instructions than when he blithely told ABC on July 4, 2009 that Israel is a "sovereign nation" and thus "entitled" to launch a military strike on Iran, adding that Washington would make no effort to dissuade the Israeli government.
Will Biden be able to keep his foot out of his mouth this time, or will his four decades of experience in the Senate--learning how to position himself politically with respect to Israel--again reassert itself?
It is a safe bet that Netanyahu is wryly amused at such obsequious buffoonery. But his impression of Obama's backbone--or lack thereof--is key. The Israeli Prime Minister must be drawing some lessons from Obama's aversion to leveraging the $3 billion a year the U.S. gives to Israel. Why doesn't Obama simply pick up the phone and warn me himself, Netanyahu might well be thinking.
Is Obama so deathly afraid of the powerful Likud Lobby that he cannot bring himself to call me? Is the President afraid his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, might listen in, and then leak the conversation to neoconservative pundits like the Washington Post's Dana Milbank?
Benjamin Netanyahu has had ample time to size up our President. Their initial encounter in May 2009 reminded me very much of the disastrous meeting in Vienna between another young American president and Nikita Khrushchev in early June 1961. The Soviets took the measure of President John Kennedy, and one result was the Cuban missile crisis, bringing the world as close as it has ever come, before or since, to nuclear destruction.
The Israeli Prime Minister has found it possible to thumb his nose at Obama's repeated pleas for a halt in construction of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories--without consequence. Moreover, Netanyahu has watched Obama cave in time after time--on domestic, as well as international issues.
Netanyahu styles himself as sitting in the catbird's seat of the relationship, largely because of the Likud Lobby's unparalleled influence with U.S. lawmakers and opinion makers -- not to mention the entrée the Israelis enjoy to the chief executive himself by having one of their staunchest allies, Rahm Emanuel, in position as White House chief of staff. In the intelligence business, we might call that an "agent of influence."
Emanuel's father, Benjamin Emanuel, was born in Jerusalem and served in the Irgun, the pre-independence Zionist guerrilla organization. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Rahm Emanuel, then in his early 30s, traveled to Israel as a civilian volunteer to work with the Israeli Defense Forces. He served in one of the IDF's northern bases.
Mullen's Worries
Netanyahu is supremely confident of the solidity of his position with the movers and shakers in Congress, Washington opinion makers, and even within the Obama administration. And he gives off signs of being singularly underwhelmed by the President.
These factors enhance the possibility Netanyahu will opt for the kind of provocation that would confront Obama with a Hobson's choice regarding whether to join an Israeli attack on Iran.
And so Mullen continues to worry -- not only about "unintended consequences," but about intended consequences, as well. The most immediate of these could involve mousetrapping Obama into committing U.S. forces to war provoked with Iran.
And for those fond of saying that "everything is on the table," be advised that this would go in spades in this context.
Very little seems outlandish these days. Remember Seymour Hersh's report about Cheney's office conjuring up plots as to how best to trigger a war with Iran?
"The one that interested me [Hersh] the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy Seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up."
In other words, another Tonkin Gulf-type incident, like the one that President Johnson used to justify a massive escalation in Vietnam.
A modern-day Gulf of Tonkin-like incident in the Strait of Hormuz could be even more problematic, given the waterway's vital role as a supply route for oil tankers necessary for maintaining the world's economy.
The navigable part of the Strait of Hormuz is narrow, and things often go bump in the night without even trying. For example:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) On the evening of January 8, 2007, a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine collided with a Japanese oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's oil supplies travel, officials said. The collision between the USS Newport News and the Japanese-flagged motor vessel Mogamigawa occurred at approximately 10:15 in the evening (local time) in the Strait of Hormuz while the submarine was transiting submerged.
AP, March 20, 2009: "The USS Hartford nuclear submarine and the amphibious USS New Orleans collided in the waters between Iran and the Arabian peninsula today. Fifteen sailors were slightly injured aboard the Hartford"the New Orleans suffered a ruptured fuel tank, spilling 25,000 gallons of diesel".The ships were on routine security patrols in a busy shipping route."
Think back also to the bizarre accounts of the incident involving swarming Iranian motorboats and U.S. naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Jan. 6, 2008.
Preventing Preventive War
The Persian Gulf would be an ideal locale for Israel to mount a provocation eliciting Iranian retaliation that could, in turn, lead to a full-scale Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear-related sites. Painfully aware of that possible scenario, Adm. Mullen noted at a July 2, 2008 press conference, that military-to-military dialogue could "add to a better understanding" between the U.S. and Iran.
If Mullen's worries are to be taken as genuine (and I believe they are), it would behoove him to resurrect that idea and formally propose such dialogue to the Iranians. He is the U.S. government's senior military officer and should not let himself be stymied by neoconservative partisans more interested in regime change in Tehran than in working out a modus vivendi and reduction of tension.
The following two modest proposals could go a long way toward avoiding an armed confrontation with Iran--whether accidental, or provoked by those who may actually wish to precipitate hostilities and involve the U.S.
1 Establish a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran, in order to reduce the danger of accident, miscalculation, or covert attack.
2 Launch immediate negotiations by top Iranian and American naval officers to conclude an incidents-at-sea protocol.
A communications link has historically proven its merit during times of high tension. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 underscored the need for instantaneous communications at senior levels, and a "hot line" between Washington and Moscow was established the following year. That direct link played a crucial role, for example, in preventing the spread of war in the Middle East during the six-day war in early June 1967.
Another useful precedent is the "Incidents-at-Sea" agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, signed in Moscow in May 1972. That period was another time of considerable tension between the two countries, including several inadvertent naval encounters that could well have escalated. The agreement sharply reduced the likelihood of such incidents.
It might be difficult for American and Iranian leaders alike to oppose measures that make such good sense. Press reports show that top U.S. commanders in the Persian Gulf have favored such steps. And, as indicated above, Adm. Mullen has already appealed for military-to-military dialogue.
In the present circumstances, it has become increasingly urgent to discuss seriously how our two countries might avoid a conflict started by accident, miscalculation, or provocation. Neither the U.S. nor Iran can afford to allow an avoidable incident at sea to spin out of control.
With a modicum of mutual trust, these common-sense actions might be able to win wide and prompt acceptance by both governments.
This article first appeared on consortiumnews.com
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for 27 years.
By Ray McGovern – OpEdNews March 6, 2010
Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came home with sweaty palms from his mid-February visit to Israel. He has been worrying aloud that Israel will mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran.
This is of particular concern because Mullen has had considerable experience in putting the brakes on such Israeli plans in the past. This time, he appears convinced that the Israeli leaders did not take his warnings seriously--notwithstanding the unusually strong language he put into play.
Upon arrival in Jerusalem on February 14, Mullen wasted no time in making clear why he had come. He insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be "a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences."
At a Pentagon press conference on February 22 Mullen drove home the same point--with some of the same language. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being "on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization" and about its "desire to dominate its neighbors," he included this in his prepared remarks:
"I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive."
In answer to a question about the "efficacy" of military strikes on Iran's nuclear program, Mullen said such strikes "would delay it for one to three years." Underscoring the point, he added that this is what he meant "about a military strike not being decisive."
No Glib Talk About War
Unlike younger generals such as David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. It seems likely that this experience prompted this gratuitous philosophical aside at the press conference:
"I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It's messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth the cost."
Although the immediate context for the remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and time again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic, and economic equities at stake know he is right.
Firing "Fox'
Recall that one of Mullen's Vietnam veteran contemporaries, Adm. William ("Fox') Fallon was cashiered as CENTCOM commander in March 2008 for saying things like war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch." Fallon openly encouraged negotiations with Iran as the only sensible approach, and harshly criticized the "constant drum beat" for war.
Fallon's attitude appears to be shared by the more politically cautious and less rhetorically blunt Mullen, as the same war-with-Iran drumbeat reaches a new crescendo today. Fallon abhorred the thought of being on the receiving end of an order inspired by the likes of then-Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams to send American troops into what would surely be as Mullen would describe it a "bloody, uneven, messy, ugly and incredibly wasteful" war.
How strong the pressure was within the Bush administration to attack Iran and/or to give Israel "a green light" to go first can be read between the lines of a Feb. 14 exchange between ABC News' "This Week" host Jonathan Karl and former Vice President Cheney.
Karl: "How close did the Bush administration come to taking military action against Iran?"
Cheney: "Some of that I can't talk about, obviously, still. I'm sure it's still classified. We clearly never made the decision we never crossed over that line of saying, "Now we're going to mount a military operation to deal with the problem.' ""
Karl: "David Sanger of the New York Times says that the Israelis came to you came to the administration in the final months and asked for certain things, bunker-buster bombs, air-to-air refueling capability, over-flight rights, and that basically the administration dithered, did not give the Israelis a response. Was that a mistake?"
Cheney: "I can't get into it still. I'm sure a lot of those discussions are still very sensitive."
Karl: "Let me ask you: Did you advocate a harder line, including in the military area, in those final months?"
Cheney: "Usually."
Karl: "And with respect to Iran?"
Cheney: "Well, I made public statements to the effect that I felt very strongly that we had to have the military option, that it had to be on the table, that it had to be a meaningful option, and that we might well have to resort to military force in order to deal with the threat that Iran represented. " [But] we never got to the point where the President had to make a decision one way or the other."
Renewed Pressures
Clearly, those pressures have again grown during the first 13 months of the Obama administration. Today, it appears that Mullen has replaced Fallon as the principal military obstacle to exercising the war option against Iran.
From his recent demeanor, as well as his many statements since he became the country's most senior officer in October 2007, it is apparent that Mullen does not believe that a "preventive war" against Iran would be worth the horrendous cost.
Washington rhetoric, echoed by the stenographers of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) over the past eight years, has brought a veneer of respectability to the international crime of aggressive war, as long as it is launched or sanctioned by the United States. With nodding approval from the FCM, Bush and Cheney sold the notion that such attacks can be justified to "prevent" some future hypothetical threat to the United States or its allies. This provided a thin, fig-leaf rationale for invading Iraq seven years ago this month.
The Obama administration has not fully backed away from such thinking.
While in Qatar on Feb. 14, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed concern over what she called "accumulating evidence" of an Iranian attempt to pursue a nuclear weapon, not because it "directly threaten[s] the United States, but [because] it directly threatens a lot of our friends" -- read Israel.
Mullen, for his part, seems acutely aware that the Constitution he has sworn to defend makes no provision for the kind of war he might be sucked into in order to defend Israel. When he studied at the Naval Academy, his professors were still teaching that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that treaties ratified by the Senate become the "supreme law of the land."
It would be, pure and simple, a flagrant violation of a supreme law of the land, the Senate-ratified United Nations Charter, for the United States to join in an unprovoked assault on Iran without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, which surely would not go along--just as it did not go along on attacking Iraq.
Moreover, Adm. Mullen appears to be one of the few Americans aware that there is no mutual defense treaty between the United States and Israel and, thus, the U.S. has no legal obligation to jump to Israel's defense if it ignites war with Iran. In other words, in a strictly juridical sense, Israel is not our "ally."
Sorry, you can't create an ally by just repeating the word over and over.
Now you may scoff. "Everyone knows," you will say, that political realities in America dictate that the U.S. military must defend Israel no matter who started a conflict.
Still, there was a time after the 1967 Israeli-Arab war when Israel first occupied the Palestinian territories that the U.S. did take soundings regarding the possibility of a mutual defense treaty, in the expectation that this might introduce more calm into the area by giving the Israelis a greater sense of security.
But the Israelis turned the overture down cold. Such treaties, you see, require internationally recognized boundaries and Israel did not want any part of parting with the territories it had just seized militarily.
Besides, mutual defense treaties usually impose on both parties an obligation to inform the other if one decides to attack a third country. Israel wanted no part of that either.
This virtually unknown background helps to explain why the lack of a treaty of mutual defense is more than a picayune academic point.
Why Is Mullen Worried?
If Adm. Mullen is an old hand at reining in the Israelis, why is he so visibly worried at present? He is used to reading the riot act to the Israelis. What could be so different now?
Last time, in mid-2008, Cheney and Abrams were arguing for an aggressive military posture toward Iran but lost the argument to Mullen and his senior commanders, who in the final days of the Bush administration won the backing of the President.
When former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seemed intent on starting hostilities with Iran before Bush and Cheney left office, Bush ordered Adm. Mullen to Israel to tell the Israelis, in no uncertain terms, don't do it. Mullen gladly rose to the occasion; actually, he outdid himself.
We learned from the Israeli press that Mullen went so far as to warn the Israelis not to even think about another incident at sea like the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, which left 34 American crew killed and more than 170 wounded. With Bush's full support, Mullen told the Israelis to disabuse themselves of the notion that U.S. military support would be knee-jerk automatic, if Israel somehow provoked open hostilities with Iran.
Never before had a senior U.S. official braced Israel so blatantly about the Liberty incident, which was covered up unconscionably by Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, the Congress, and by the Navy itself. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Navy Vet Honored, Foiled Israeli Attack."]
The lesson the Israelis took away from the Liberty incident was that they could get away with murder, literally, and walk free because of political realities in the United States. Never again, said Mullen. He could not have raised a more neuralgic issue.
So, once more, what's different about today? How to account for Mullen's decision to keep expressing his worries about "unintended consequences"?
I believe the admiral fears that things are about to spin out of control. Whether there will be war does not depend on Mullen -- or even Obama. It depends mostly on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And Mullen does well to be worried.
Netanyahu's Impression of Obama
It is altogether likely that Netanyahu has concluded that Barack Obama is--in the vernacular--a wuss. Why, for example, does the President keep sending an endless procession of the most senior U.S. officials to Tel Aviv to plead with their Israeli counterparts, Please, pretty please, don't start a war with Iran.
Loose-cannon Vice President Joe Biden arrives on Monday, hopefully with clearer instructions than when he blithely told ABC on July 4, 2009 that Israel is a "sovereign nation" and thus "entitled" to launch a military strike on Iran, adding that Washington would make no effort to dissuade the Israeli government.
Will Biden be able to keep his foot out of his mouth this time, or will his four decades of experience in the Senate--learning how to position himself politically with respect to Israel--again reassert itself?
It is a safe bet that Netanyahu is wryly amused at such obsequious buffoonery. But his impression of Obama's backbone--or lack thereof--is key. The Israeli Prime Minister must be drawing some lessons from Obama's aversion to leveraging the $3 billion a year the U.S. gives to Israel. Why doesn't Obama simply pick up the phone and warn me himself, Netanyahu might well be thinking.
Is Obama so deathly afraid of the powerful Likud Lobby that he cannot bring himself to call me? Is the President afraid his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, might listen in, and then leak the conversation to neoconservative pundits like the Washington Post's Dana Milbank?
Benjamin Netanyahu has had ample time to size up our President. Their initial encounter in May 2009 reminded me very much of the disastrous meeting in Vienna between another young American president and Nikita Khrushchev in early June 1961. The Soviets took the measure of President John Kennedy, and one result was the Cuban missile crisis, bringing the world as close as it has ever come, before or since, to nuclear destruction.
The Israeli Prime Minister has found it possible to thumb his nose at Obama's repeated pleas for a halt in construction of illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories--without consequence. Moreover, Netanyahu has watched Obama cave in time after time--on domestic, as well as international issues.
Netanyahu styles himself as sitting in the catbird's seat of the relationship, largely because of the Likud Lobby's unparalleled influence with U.S. lawmakers and opinion makers -- not to mention the entrée the Israelis enjoy to the chief executive himself by having one of their staunchest allies, Rahm Emanuel, in position as White House chief of staff. In the intelligence business, we might call that an "agent of influence."
Emanuel's father, Benjamin Emanuel, was born in Jerusalem and served in the Irgun, the pre-independence Zionist guerrilla organization. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Rahm Emanuel, then in his early 30s, traveled to Israel as a civilian volunteer to work with the Israeli Defense Forces. He served in one of the IDF's northern bases.
Mullen's Worries
Netanyahu is supremely confident of the solidity of his position with the movers and shakers in Congress, Washington opinion makers, and even within the Obama administration. And he gives off signs of being singularly underwhelmed by the President.
These factors enhance the possibility Netanyahu will opt for the kind of provocation that would confront Obama with a Hobson's choice regarding whether to join an Israeli attack on Iran.
And so Mullen continues to worry -- not only about "unintended consequences," but about intended consequences, as well. The most immediate of these could involve mousetrapping Obama into committing U.S. forces to war provoked with Iran.
And for those fond of saying that "everything is on the table," be advised that this would go in spades in this context.
Very little seems outlandish these days. Remember Seymour Hersh's report about Cheney's office conjuring up plots as to how best to trigger a war with Iran?
"The one that interested me [Hersh] the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy Seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up."
In other words, another Tonkin Gulf-type incident, like the one that President Johnson used to justify a massive escalation in Vietnam.
A modern-day Gulf of Tonkin-like incident in the Strait of Hormuz could be even more problematic, given the waterway's vital role as a supply route for oil tankers necessary for maintaining the world's economy.
The navigable part of the Strait of Hormuz is narrow, and things often go bump in the night without even trying. For example:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) On the evening of January 8, 2007, a U.S. nuclear-powered submarine collided with a Japanese oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's oil supplies travel, officials said. The collision between the USS Newport News and the Japanese-flagged motor vessel Mogamigawa occurred at approximately 10:15 in the evening (local time) in the Strait of Hormuz while the submarine was transiting submerged.
AP, March 20, 2009: "The USS Hartford nuclear submarine and the amphibious USS New Orleans collided in the waters between Iran and the Arabian peninsula today. Fifteen sailors were slightly injured aboard the Hartford"the New Orleans suffered a ruptured fuel tank, spilling 25,000 gallons of diesel".The ships were on routine security patrols in a busy shipping route."
Think back also to the bizarre accounts of the incident involving swarming Iranian motorboats and U.S. naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Jan. 6, 2008.
Preventing Preventive War
The Persian Gulf would be an ideal locale for Israel to mount a provocation eliciting Iranian retaliation that could, in turn, lead to a full-scale Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear-related sites. Painfully aware of that possible scenario, Adm. Mullen noted at a July 2, 2008 press conference, that military-to-military dialogue could "add to a better understanding" between the U.S. and Iran.
If Mullen's worries are to be taken as genuine (and I believe they are), it would behoove him to resurrect that idea and formally propose such dialogue to the Iranians. He is the U.S. government's senior military officer and should not let himself be stymied by neoconservative partisans more interested in regime change in Tehran than in working out a modus vivendi and reduction of tension.
The following two modest proposals could go a long way toward avoiding an armed confrontation with Iran--whether accidental, or provoked by those who may actually wish to precipitate hostilities and involve the U.S.
1 Establish a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran, in order to reduce the danger of accident, miscalculation, or covert attack.
2 Launch immediate negotiations by top Iranian and American naval officers to conclude an incidents-at-sea protocol.
A communications link has historically proven its merit during times of high tension. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 underscored the need for instantaneous communications at senior levels, and a "hot line" between Washington and Moscow was established the following year. That direct link played a crucial role, for example, in preventing the spread of war in the Middle East during the six-day war in early June 1967.
Another useful precedent is the "Incidents-at-Sea" agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, signed in Moscow in May 1972. That period was another time of considerable tension between the two countries, including several inadvertent naval encounters that could well have escalated. The agreement sharply reduced the likelihood of such incidents.
It might be difficult for American and Iranian leaders alike to oppose measures that make such good sense. Press reports show that top U.S. commanders in the Persian Gulf have favored such steps. And, as indicated above, Adm. Mullen has already appealed for military-to-military dialogue.
In the present circumstances, it has become increasingly urgent to discuss seriously how our two countries might avoid a conflict started by accident, miscalculation, or provocation. Neither the U.S. nor Iran can afford to allow an avoidable incident at sea to spin out of control.
With a modicum of mutual trust, these common-sense actions might be able to win wide and prompt acceptance by both governments.
This article first appeared on consortiumnews.com
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for 27 years.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Great Video on what war is about.
Smedley Butler was the most honored man in Marine Corps history. He wrote and spoke that the purpose of US wars is millions and billions in profits for America’s leading “bankers, industrialists, and speculators.” War is a “racket:” a deception whereby its purpose of blood money from American taxpayers to “insiders” is always disguised as noble and necessary ventures to keep Americans propagandized into paying again and again.
General Butler in his summative book, War is a Racket, on the costs of war to ordinary Americans:
Smedley Butler
General Butler in his summative book, War is a Racket, on the costs of war to ordinary Americans:
Smedley Butler
Here is test of Russias Tsar bomb. Frightening!!!
The bomb was tested on October 30, 1961 in Novaya Zemlya, an island in the Arctic Sea. The 57MT-bomb exploded and a mushroom cloud with a height of 64km rose to the sky...
This bomb is much more powerful than Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. I'm sure there are even bigger bombs and to even think our leaders consider using these does not bode well for humans.
This bomb is much more powerful than Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. I'm sure there are even bigger bombs and to even think our leaders consider using these does not bode well for humans.
Here is what a nuclear bomb will do.
I find it odd that people will know a lot about celebrities, sport figures, political peccadilloes etc. but have no clue on what we may face if we start more wars in the middle east. I can only wonder what these people are thinking when even considering this option.
How the ruling elite will make the planet more sustainable.
I find this alarming and can only hope humans are in charge rather than machines.
Nuclear War is not sustainable for humans
A UN nuclear watchdog report suggests Iran could be developing a nuclear bomb, apparently confirming long-held suspicions in the West. But Tehran denies the claims, again insisting that its atomic intentions are peaceful.
Michel Chossudovsky, who's from an independent Canadian policy research group, believes that what Iran says hardly matters, because the U.S. is planning for war.
Michel Chossudovsky, who's from an independent Canadian policy research group, believes that what Iran says hardly matters, because the U.S. is planning for war.
What can we learn from this video?
Watching this video after listening to the one by Charlie Chaplin I can see why we need to adhere to being vigilant and aware of what our countries goals are in the name of democracy.
A speech for our times.
Charlie Chaplin did this speech in one of his movies called the "Great Emperor" it somehow resonates a messages to all humanity. We have the power to change things if we so desire but we must first change our view about what we we stand for and believe in.
Friday, March 5, 2010
A humanist ahead of his time.
Nikola Tesla:
Nikola Tesla symbolizes a unifying force and inspiration for all nations in the name of peace and science. He was a true visionary far ahead of his contemporaries in the field of scientific development. New York State and many other states in the USA proclaimed July 10, Tesla’s birthday- Nikola Tesla Day.
He devised a way to provide free energy around the globe but it was never completed due to his venture capitol provider's need to meter the thing.
Great website about Tesla and his works.
Nikola Tesla Universe
Zurdo
=================================================
Tesla versus Edison
The following is a short Tesla bio that I did for school with the topic of "People who have gone against the status quo." -- Thomas Samstag
Tesla
Nikola Tesla
The Forgotten Father of Today
One of the greatest minds of the 19th and 20th centuries, responsible for today's modern world, Nikola Tesla is still virtually unknown to today's textbooks, teachers, and general public. Thinking back to your high school years and looking through an encyclopedia, who do you remember as the inventor of radio? The name that probably comes to mind is Marconi. And if I asked the same about X-rays, you'd probably say Roentgen. And a vacuum tube amp, probably de Forest. While you're at it, who invented the florescent bulb, neon lights, speedometer, auto ignition system, and the basics behind radar, the electron microscope, and the microwave oven? Chances are you see little, if any, mentions of Tesla. Very few people today have ever even heard of him. The all-around nice guy Thomas Edison made sure of that.
Nikola Tesla was born in Smijlan, Croatia (now Yugoslavia) in 1858. Young Nikola had a great memory and spoke six languages. He spent four years at the Polytechnic Institute at Gratz studying math, physics, and mechanics. The amazing thing about him was that he had a great understanding of electricity (remember that this was at a time when electricity was still at infancy, the electric light bulb hadn't even been invented yet).
Tesla moved to the United States in 1884. When he arrived, he worked as an assistant to Thomas Edison, then in his late 30's. Edison had just invented the electric light bulb, but he needed a system to distribute electricity to houses. He designed a DC (direct current) system, but it had many bugs in it. Edison promised Tesla lots of money in bonuses if he could get the bugs out. Tesla took the challenge and ended up saving Edison over $100,000, which was millions of dollars by today's standards. Edison later refused to keep his promise. Tesla quit not long after that, and Edison spent the rest of his life trying to discredit Tesla (which is the main reason why he is so unknown today).
In 1888, Tesla devised a better system of transmission, the AC (alternating current) system used in houses around the world today. By using Tesla's newly developed transformers, AC could be stepped up and transmitted over long distances through thin wires. Edison's DC couldn't be stepped up, required a large power plant every square mile and thick cables for transmission.
Electricity is useless if it can't do anything, so in 1890, Tesla invented a motor to run on AC, the same type of motor used in every household appliance today. Scientists of the late 1880's were convinced that no motor could work with AC. After all, AC electricity reverses itself 60 times a second, so all previous motors would just rock back and forth 60 times a second. Tesla solved this problem and proved them all wrong.
Word of AC eventually got to George Westinghouse. In 1893, Tesla signed a contract with Westinghouse to get $2.50 per Kilowatt of AC sold. Nikola finally had the money to conduct all of the experiments that he had dreamt of.
Tesla developed and used florescent bulbs in his lab some 40 years before industry "invented" them. At the World's Fair, Tesla took glass tubes and bent them into famous scientists' names- the first neon signs. Tesla also designed the world's first hydroelectric plant at Niagara Falls in 1895. Tesla also patented the first speedometer for cars in 1916. In fact, Tesla invented all of the things that are listed at the beginning of the paper.
But Edison soon had too much money invested into his DC system, and he tried his best to discredit Tesla by showing that AC was more dangerous than DC. Edison paid local children 25 cents for each stray dog they could bring him. Then he would hold press conferences and electrocute the dogs at public gatherings to frighten people. He claimed that DC could not kill, but in fact, it could. Below is a drawing from 1889 of a horse being electrocuted in Edison's Menlo Park Laboratory.
Edison felt that it was necessary to experiment by killing animals before he could guarantee his electric chair would kill efficiently.
Yes, it was actually Edison who invented the electric chair to frighten people away from Tesla's AC system, as shown in the below drawing from 1890.
But Tesla counteracted by staging his own marketing campaign. At the 1893 World Exposition in Chicago, attended by 21 million, Tesla demonstrated the safety of AC by passing high frequency AC through his body to power light bulbs. He was then able to shoot large lightning bolts into the crowd without harm.
When royalties owed to him by Westinghouse exceeded $1 million, Westinghouse ran into financial trouble. Tesla realized that if he kept his contract, Westinghouse would go out of business, so Tesla took his contract and ripped it up! Instead of becoming the first billionaire, he got $216,600 outright for his patents.
In 1898, Tesla demonstrated the first remote controlled model boat at Madison Square Garden.
After all of these technological breakthroughs, Tesla still had not achieved his lifelong dream. All Tesla's life, he had dreamt of free wireless energy and other signals to the world.
In 1900, Tesla was backed with $150,000 from J. P. Morgan. Tesla began construction of "Wireless Broadcasting System" tower on Long Island, New York. Tesla intended to use it to link the world's telephone and telegraph and to transmit pictures, stock reports, and weather information.
When Morgan found out that it meant FREE energy, he cut Tesla's funding. There is still a lot of controversy to what happened to Tesla's original tower. One story says that the government tore it down during World War I for fear that the German U-boat spies would use the tower as landmark to navigate by. Another story says that Tesla ran into financial trouble and sold the tower for scrap to pay off creditors.
The world thought that Tesla was crazy. Transmission of voice and pictures was unheard of in that time. What they didn't know is that he had already demonstrated the principals behind radio nearly ten years before Marconi's supposed invention. In 1943, the year that Tesla died, the Supreme Court ruled that Marconi's patents invalid due to Tesla's previous descriptions, but yet most textbooks and encyclopedias credit Marconi.
The Press started to exaggerate Tesla's claims. Tesla reported that he received radio signals from Mars and Venus. Today we know that these were really signals from distant pulsing stars.
In his Manhattan lab, Tesla made Earth into and electric tuning fork. He made a steam driven oscillator vibrate at the frequency of the ground beneath him. The result was a small earthquake in the surrounding city blocks. It was here that he contended that in theory, he could do the same to even split the earth in two. He accurately determined the resonant frequency of Earth almost 60 years before science could confirm it.
In his Colorado Springs, Colorado lab, in 1899, Tesla made what he thought was his biggest discovery ever-- terrestrial stationary waves. He sent waves of energy through Earth that bounced back to the source. When they came back, he added more electricity to it. He lighted 200 lamps without wires from a distance of 25 miles and created the biggest man-made lightning bolt ever, 130ft. long! That's a world record still unbroken. Strange electrical things happened near that lab. People would walk near the lab, and sparks would jump up from the ground to their feet One boy took a screwdriver, held it near a fire hydrant, and drew a four inch electrical spark from the hydrant. Sometimes the grass around his lab would glow with an eerie blue corona, St. Elmo's Fire. What they didn't know was this was small stuff. The man in the lab was merely tuning up his apparatus. Unfortunately, he blew out some of the power plant's equipment and was never able to repeat his experiment.
At the beginning of World War I, the government desperately searched for a way to detect German submarines. The government put Thomas Edison in charge of the search for a good method. Tesla proposed the use of energy waves - what we know today as radar - to detect these ships. Edison rejected Tesla's idea as ludicrous and the world had to wait another 25 years until it was invented.
What was his reward for a lifetime of creativity? The prized (to everyone but Tesla) Edison Medal! A real slap in the face after all the verbal abuse Tesla took from Edison.
Lacking capital, he was forced to place his untested theories into countless notebooks.
The man who invented the modern world died nearly penniless at age 86 on January 7, 1943. More than two thousand people attended his funeral.
In his lifetime, Tesla received over 800 different patents. He probably would have exceeded Edison's record number if he wasn't always broke - he could afford very few patent applications during the last thirty years of his life.
Unlike Edison, Tesla was an original thinker whose ideas typically had no precedent in science. Unfortunately, the world does not financially reward people of Tesla's originality. We only award those that take these concepts and turn them into a new, useful product.
Scientists today continue to scour through his notes. Many of his far-flung theories are just now being proven by our top scientists. For example, the Tesla bladeless disk turbine engine that he designed, when coupled with modern materials, is proving to be among the most efficient motors ever designed. His 1901 patented experiments with cryogenic liquids and electricity provide the foundation for modern superconductors. He talked about experiments that suggested particles with fractional charges of an electron - something that scientists in 1977 finally discovered - quarks!
Tesla was one of the world's most original and greatest inventors and thinkers, but because he was so original and out of his time, his genius was mistaken for insanity and science fiction. Maybe next time, the world will recognize a true genius when it comes around.
Bibliography
"Nikola Tesla", Concentric Network. Online. Internet. Available http://www.concentric.net/~Jwwagner/
"Nikola Tesla", sound.net Network. Online. Internet. Available http://www.sound.net/~sheely/vm/tesla/index.htm
"Nikola Tesla", Useless Information. Online. Internet. Available http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/tesla/tesla.html
"Nikola Tesla- Man Out of Time", Nick Francesco's Site. Online. Internet. Available http://www.nickf.com/tesla.htm
"Nikola Tesla: the Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, and scientist", University of Pittsburgh Neurosurgery. Online. Internet. Available http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bogdan/tesla/index.htm
"Nikola Tesla: U.S. Patent Collection", Mall-USA. Online. Internet. Available http://www.mall-usa.com/BPCS/grant_tesla.html
Nikola Tesla symbolizes a unifying force and inspiration for all nations in the name of peace and science. He was a true visionary far ahead of his contemporaries in the field of scientific development. New York State and many other states in the USA proclaimed July 10, Tesla’s birthday- Nikola Tesla Day.
He devised a way to provide free energy around the globe but it was never completed due to his venture capitol provider's need to meter the thing.
Great website about Tesla and his works.
Nikola Tesla Universe
Zurdo
=================================================
Tesla versus Edison
The following is a short Tesla bio that I did for school with the topic of "People who have gone against the status quo." -- Thomas Samstag
Tesla
Nikola Tesla
The Forgotten Father of Today
One of the greatest minds of the 19th and 20th centuries, responsible for today's modern world, Nikola Tesla is still virtually unknown to today's textbooks, teachers, and general public. Thinking back to your high school years and looking through an encyclopedia, who do you remember as the inventor of radio? The name that probably comes to mind is Marconi. And if I asked the same about X-rays, you'd probably say Roentgen. And a vacuum tube amp, probably de Forest. While you're at it, who invented the florescent bulb, neon lights, speedometer, auto ignition system, and the basics behind radar, the electron microscope, and the microwave oven? Chances are you see little, if any, mentions of Tesla. Very few people today have ever even heard of him. The all-around nice guy Thomas Edison made sure of that.
Nikola Tesla was born in Smijlan, Croatia (now Yugoslavia) in 1858. Young Nikola had a great memory and spoke six languages. He spent four years at the Polytechnic Institute at Gratz studying math, physics, and mechanics. The amazing thing about him was that he had a great understanding of electricity (remember that this was at a time when electricity was still at infancy, the electric light bulb hadn't even been invented yet).
Tesla moved to the United States in 1884. When he arrived, he worked as an assistant to Thomas Edison, then in his late 30's. Edison had just invented the electric light bulb, but he needed a system to distribute electricity to houses. He designed a DC (direct current) system, but it had many bugs in it. Edison promised Tesla lots of money in bonuses if he could get the bugs out. Tesla took the challenge and ended up saving Edison over $100,000, which was millions of dollars by today's standards. Edison later refused to keep his promise. Tesla quit not long after that, and Edison spent the rest of his life trying to discredit Tesla (which is the main reason why he is so unknown today).
In 1888, Tesla devised a better system of transmission, the AC (alternating current) system used in houses around the world today. By using Tesla's newly developed transformers, AC could be stepped up and transmitted over long distances through thin wires. Edison's DC couldn't be stepped up, required a large power plant every square mile and thick cables for transmission.
Electricity is useless if it can't do anything, so in 1890, Tesla invented a motor to run on AC, the same type of motor used in every household appliance today. Scientists of the late 1880's were convinced that no motor could work with AC. After all, AC electricity reverses itself 60 times a second, so all previous motors would just rock back and forth 60 times a second. Tesla solved this problem and proved them all wrong.
Word of AC eventually got to George Westinghouse. In 1893, Tesla signed a contract with Westinghouse to get $2.50 per Kilowatt of AC sold. Nikola finally had the money to conduct all of the experiments that he had dreamt of.
Tesla developed and used florescent bulbs in his lab some 40 years before industry "invented" them. At the World's Fair, Tesla took glass tubes and bent them into famous scientists' names- the first neon signs. Tesla also designed the world's first hydroelectric plant at Niagara Falls in 1895. Tesla also patented the first speedometer for cars in 1916. In fact, Tesla invented all of the things that are listed at the beginning of the paper.
But Edison soon had too much money invested into his DC system, and he tried his best to discredit Tesla by showing that AC was more dangerous than DC. Edison paid local children 25 cents for each stray dog they could bring him. Then he would hold press conferences and electrocute the dogs at public gatherings to frighten people. He claimed that DC could not kill, but in fact, it could. Below is a drawing from 1889 of a horse being electrocuted in Edison's Menlo Park Laboratory.
Edison felt that it was necessary to experiment by killing animals before he could guarantee his electric chair would kill efficiently.
Yes, it was actually Edison who invented the electric chair to frighten people away from Tesla's AC system, as shown in the below drawing from 1890.
But Tesla counteracted by staging his own marketing campaign. At the 1893 World Exposition in Chicago, attended by 21 million, Tesla demonstrated the safety of AC by passing high frequency AC through his body to power light bulbs. He was then able to shoot large lightning bolts into the crowd without harm.
When royalties owed to him by Westinghouse exceeded $1 million, Westinghouse ran into financial trouble. Tesla realized that if he kept his contract, Westinghouse would go out of business, so Tesla took his contract and ripped it up! Instead of becoming the first billionaire, he got $216,600 outright for his patents.
In 1898, Tesla demonstrated the first remote controlled model boat at Madison Square Garden.
After all of these technological breakthroughs, Tesla still had not achieved his lifelong dream. All Tesla's life, he had dreamt of free wireless energy and other signals to the world.
In 1900, Tesla was backed with $150,000 from J. P. Morgan. Tesla began construction of "Wireless Broadcasting System" tower on Long Island, New York. Tesla intended to use it to link the world's telephone and telegraph and to transmit pictures, stock reports, and weather information.
When Morgan found out that it meant FREE energy, he cut Tesla's funding. There is still a lot of controversy to what happened to Tesla's original tower. One story says that the government tore it down during World War I for fear that the German U-boat spies would use the tower as landmark to navigate by. Another story says that Tesla ran into financial trouble and sold the tower for scrap to pay off creditors.
The world thought that Tesla was crazy. Transmission of voice and pictures was unheard of in that time. What they didn't know is that he had already demonstrated the principals behind radio nearly ten years before Marconi's supposed invention. In 1943, the year that Tesla died, the Supreme Court ruled that Marconi's patents invalid due to Tesla's previous descriptions, but yet most textbooks and encyclopedias credit Marconi.
The Press started to exaggerate Tesla's claims. Tesla reported that he received radio signals from Mars and Venus. Today we know that these were really signals from distant pulsing stars.
In his Manhattan lab, Tesla made Earth into and electric tuning fork. He made a steam driven oscillator vibrate at the frequency of the ground beneath him. The result was a small earthquake in the surrounding city blocks. It was here that he contended that in theory, he could do the same to even split the earth in two. He accurately determined the resonant frequency of Earth almost 60 years before science could confirm it.
In his Colorado Springs, Colorado lab, in 1899, Tesla made what he thought was his biggest discovery ever-- terrestrial stationary waves. He sent waves of energy through Earth that bounced back to the source. When they came back, he added more electricity to it. He lighted 200 lamps without wires from a distance of 25 miles and created the biggest man-made lightning bolt ever, 130ft. long! That's a world record still unbroken. Strange electrical things happened near that lab. People would walk near the lab, and sparks would jump up from the ground to their feet One boy took a screwdriver, held it near a fire hydrant, and drew a four inch electrical spark from the hydrant. Sometimes the grass around his lab would glow with an eerie blue corona, St. Elmo's Fire. What they didn't know was this was small stuff. The man in the lab was merely tuning up his apparatus. Unfortunately, he blew out some of the power plant's equipment and was never able to repeat his experiment.
At the beginning of World War I, the government desperately searched for a way to detect German submarines. The government put Thomas Edison in charge of the search for a good method. Tesla proposed the use of energy waves - what we know today as radar - to detect these ships. Edison rejected Tesla's idea as ludicrous and the world had to wait another 25 years until it was invented.
What was his reward for a lifetime of creativity? The prized (to everyone but Tesla) Edison Medal! A real slap in the face after all the verbal abuse Tesla took from Edison.
Lacking capital, he was forced to place his untested theories into countless notebooks.
The man who invented the modern world died nearly penniless at age 86 on January 7, 1943. More than two thousand people attended his funeral.
In his lifetime, Tesla received over 800 different patents. He probably would have exceeded Edison's record number if he wasn't always broke - he could afford very few patent applications during the last thirty years of his life.
Unlike Edison, Tesla was an original thinker whose ideas typically had no precedent in science. Unfortunately, the world does not financially reward people of Tesla's originality. We only award those that take these concepts and turn them into a new, useful product.
Scientists today continue to scour through his notes. Many of his far-flung theories are just now being proven by our top scientists. For example, the Tesla bladeless disk turbine engine that he designed, when coupled with modern materials, is proving to be among the most efficient motors ever designed. His 1901 patented experiments with cryogenic liquids and electricity provide the foundation for modern superconductors. He talked about experiments that suggested particles with fractional charges of an electron - something that scientists in 1977 finally discovered - quarks!
Tesla was one of the world's most original and greatest inventors and thinkers, but because he was so original and out of his time, his genius was mistaken for insanity and science fiction. Maybe next time, the world will recognize a true genius when it comes around.
Bibliography
"Nikola Tesla", Concentric Network. Online. Internet. Available http://www.concentric.net/~Jwwagner/
"Nikola Tesla", sound.net Network. Online. Internet. Available http://www.sound.net/~sheely/vm/tesla/index.htm
"Nikola Tesla", Useless Information. Online. Internet. Available http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/tesla/tesla.html
"Nikola Tesla- Man Out of Time", Nick Francesco's Site. Online. Internet. Available http://www.nickf.com/tesla.htm
"Nikola Tesla: the Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, and scientist", University of Pittsburgh Neurosurgery. Online. Internet. Available http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bogdan/tesla/index.htm
"Nikola Tesla: U.S. Patent Collection", Mall-USA. Online. Internet. Available http://www.mall-usa.com/BPCS/grant_tesla.html
Thursday, March 4, 2010
From the past we will learn our future path.
This is a story regarding Ishi an indigenous inhabitant of California. How he survived the genocide of his people but still remained human to the end. We can learn a lot from this man's soul. Having Native America roots this strikes a chord with me.
----------------------------------------
Media Portrayal and Anthropologists' Treatment of Ishi, the Last Yahi
by Chris Watson, ©2000
Introduction
In 1911, an aboriginal "wild man" walked into the twentieth century white man's world. I will describe how the media of those days portrayed the last wild Native American, Ishi, and I will propose some possible reasons why he was portrayed that way. Anthropology was a relatively new subject then, and Alfred Kroeber was a rising star in California. He was the sponsor of Ishi. I will describe some possible motivations of Kroeber before and after his time with Ishi, based on what I have been able to find out about mankind in general and Alfred Kroeber in particular.
Background Information:
In August of 1911, an emaciated man walked into a slaughterhouse near Oroville, California, where he was discovered and turned over to the local sheriff. Nobody could understand his language. It was likely that he was one of the Deer Creek Indians (also known as Mill Creek Indians), who had been thought to be extinct until a surveyor's party had literally stumbled across their hiding place two years before, but how could anyone tell who he was since nobody could understand him? (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 92).
The first professor of the new Anthropology department at Berkeley, Alfred L. Kroeber, sent an associate, Thomas T. Waterman, with a list of words of a nearby tribe thought to be related to the "wild man" (Riffe and Roberts, 1992). Some communication was possible, but not much because the "wild man" was the last of his tribe, and the other tribe's language was not the same as his. Eventually, the Bureau of Indian Affairs gave permission for this man to go to the museum in San Francisco to be studied. The "wild man," now called Ishi, became a popular sensation. He lived several years at the museum, even working as a janitor there to earn his own keep, before dying of tuberculosis in 1916.
Ishi's character
All who spent time with him grew to respect Ishi's character. Ishi spent much time with Saxton Pope, an instructor at the University Medical School. Dr. Pope said of Ishi, "His affability and pleasant disposition made him a universal favorite" (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 225). T. T. Waterman described Ishi in this way: "He had...an inborn considerateness, that surpassed in fineness most of the civilized breeding with which I am familiar" (Heizer and Whipple: 293). When Ishi died, Waterman said: "He was the best friend I had in the world" (Riffe and Roberts). When the film by Jed Riffe and Pamela Roberts shows Ishi leaving Oroville at the train station in 1911, the narrator says: "I would have liked to have had some more time with him. I always thought there was something there I should know, that I would like to know."
What impresses me the most is how Ishi showed no bitterness towards the white people who had slaughtered his people. There were many massacres. I was especially sickened to hear of the Kingsley Cave massacre in 1871, in which one of the white men switched from a rifle to a revolver "because the rifle tore them up so bad, particularly the babies" (Riffe and Roberts). It is difficult for me to believe that these same white men were local heroes in their community. It makes me ashamed to be a human being.
How the media portrayed him:
The newspaper reporters were angry when the Indian wouldn't tell them his name or anything about his past. When I think of how his people were massacred, it angers me that they asked him to talk about it. Even if Ishi had shared his private memories, I am fairly sure the newspapers would not have dared to print the truth for fear of offending their white readers. After all, their primary job is to sell papers, not to report the truth! According to a textbook by Garbarino and Sasso, in the culture of all California Indians the names of the dead were never mentioned (196). The film by Riffe and Roberts says that Ishi believed that if the dead spirits hear their names, they might take it as a summons.
We never did learn his name for himself. Kroeber wrote in "Ishi, the Last Aborigine": "The strongest Indian etiquette...demands that a person shall never tell his own name, at least not in reply to a direct request" (Kroeber: 12). Kroeber called him Ishi, which means "man" in Yana, and that is all we know him by. Thomas Merton wrote a meditation on the subject of Ishi and the disappearance of the Yahi Indians, which concludes: "In the end, no one ever found out a single name of the vanished community. Not even Ishi's. For Ishi simply means MAN." (32).
However, the newspapers did not even give Ishi credit for being human. For example, the San Francisco Examiner of August 30, 1911 said this about him: "He is a savage of the most primitive type" (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 96). Grant Wallace was a reporter for the San Francisco Sunday Call, who arranged for Ishi to go to the Orpheum Theater. Afterwards, the edition of October 8, 1911 had a fanciful account of Ishi's reaction to the show (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 107). This account was apparently made up from the reporter's imagination. Professor Kroeber remembered things differently, that what fascinated Ishi was not the show or the lady singer but the sheer number of people in the audience (Riffe and Roberts).
Reasons for the media portrayal of him
I believe the newspapers had to call Ishi primitive in order to rationalize what the white man did to the Indians. Rationalization is a psychological defense to justify one's doing terrible things. The process is unconscious (Lindgren and Byrne: 242). Once it becomes conscious, it no longer works.
One way to rationalize terrible behavior towards other people is to dehumanize them. This frequently happens in wartime propaganda, when one calls the enemy a gook instead of a person. I believe this is why the media described Ishi as savage. The newspaper writers honestly believed what they wrote, because they honestly believed that the white man's race and culture were superior to all others. As Reynolds et al. point out in their work on ethnocentrism, this delusional self-aggrandizement or "chosen-people complex" is not uncommon human behavior. Thomas Merton says: "The Yahi, or Mill Creek Indians, as they were called, were marked for complete destruction. Hence they were regarded as subhuman." (26).
Manifest Destiny
There was also the concept of Manifest Destiny, the idea that "America was destined by God to expand its boundaries" (Current et. al.: 375). It was popularized by the new "penny press" newspapers during the 1840's (375) and revived during the 1890's when the European powers were carving up the world between them (599). These ideas were justified by religious and political ideals of the time. John W. Burgess, who founded Columbia University's School of Political Science, said in 1890: "There is no human right to the status of barbarism" (599).
Protestant Christianity
Even before Manifest Destiny crystallized as a concept, some Protestant Christians in America had the idea of an ordeal in the wilderness as a test of their faith. The ordeal is to be a time of physical or spiritual suffering to separate truth from falsity. Many saw Native American peoples as hopelessly lost to evil, and therefore the enemy (Hooker).
"The White Man's Burden"
Another reason for the media's portrayal of Ishi as a savage was the popular concept of the "White Man's Burden." Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in 1899 that warned of the cost of imperialism (Zwick). Ironically, the American imperialists took this poem as a rallying cry, believing that it somehow turned the conquest of native peoples into something noble instead of an abomination. In addition to expanding American influence overseas, Euro-Americans wanted to make the Native Americans over in their own image.
The End of the Trail
While much of early Euro-American history reacts with fear to the Wild Indian, by the time Ishi was discovered this picture had started to change. Now, the Indian was seen as a romanticized tragic figure (Riffe and Roberts). One of the most photographed sculptures at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition was "The End of the Trail" by James Earle Fraser. It was at the entrance to the Court of Palms (Todd: 334). It shows a Native American drooping over his spent pony. Ishi was also an "exhibit" at this exposition (Riffe and Roberts).
Alfred Kroeber's motives
Kroeber was into "salvage ethnography" (Riffe and Roberts), trying to write down descriptions of Native American cultures before the elders died along with their traditions. Kroeber explains his motives in The Mill Creek Indians and Ishi: "A record of their wanderings, their vigilance, their traits and habits, would appeal to the historian, while a knowledge of their ancient institutions and traditions, preserved from purely aboriginal times into the Twentieth Century, would be a rich mine to the ethnologist and anthropologist of the future" (Kroeber: 9).
Kroeber was young and ambitious, and when he heard about the Wild Man of Oroville, "he had found the Indian he was looking for" (Riffe and Roberts). An example of Kroeber's initial attitude towards Ishi is in the telegram he sent to the noted linguist Edward Sapir on September 6, 1911: "Have totally wild Indian at the museum. Do you want to come and work him up?" (Riffe and Roberts). Kroeber studied Ishi for several years. Ishi called him his Big Chiep [Chief].
Kroeber After Ishi
Kroeber was in Europe when Ishi died. On March 24, 1916, Kroeber sent a letter to E. W. Gifford to try to stop any autopsy in respect to Ishi's wishes. As Kroeber put it, "Science can go to hell. We propose to stand by our friends." (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 240). Contrast this with the content of the earlier telegram to Sapir, and it seems Kroeber's attitude has changed. It was too late. An autopsy was performed, and Ishi's brain was removed before his body was cremated.
After Ishi's death, Kroeber went into psychoanalysis for two years before returning to his work. I believe he was doing some serious soul-searching about the ethics of his work. Even though he went on to become the first great California anthropologist, he never in his lifetime published another word about Ishi, and when he spoke of him it was "with feelings of deep loss" (Riffe and Roberts).
Conclusion
I'm no expert at psychology, but the motives of the newspaper reporters seem pretty clear to me. First off, they wanted to sell papers, so they wrote what the public wanted to read. Secondly, they were part of a culture that believed the Native Americans to be inferior, so this was inevitably reflected in their descriptions of these people.
I am less sure about Kroeber's motives, but here is what I think. His goal was scholarly, but he was severely shaken when he finally realized that Ishi was a person instead of an object. What made it even worse for Kroeber was how good a person Ishi was. Ishi had desirable character traits, and I am sure that his white companions learned more from him than just Yahi culture. I think they also learned more about how to be human.
----------------------------------------
Media Portrayal and Anthropologists' Treatment of Ishi, the Last Yahi
by Chris Watson, ©2000
Introduction
In 1911, an aboriginal "wild man" walked into the twentieth century white man's world. I will describe how the media of those days portrayed the last wild Native American, Ishi, and I will propose some possible reasons why he was portrayed that way. Anthropology was a relatively new subject then, and Alfred Kroeber was a rising star in California. He was the sponsor of Ishi. I will describe some possible motivations of Kroeber before and after his time with Ishi, based on what I have been able to find out about mankind in general and Alfred Kroeber in particular.
Background Information:
In August of 1911, an emaciated man walked into a slaughterhouse near Oroville, California, where he was discovered and turned over to the local sheriff. Nobody could understand his language. It was likely that he was one of the Deer Creek Indians (also known as Mill Creek Indians), who had been thought to be extinct until a surveyor's party had literally stumbled across their hiding place two years before, but how could anyone tell who he was since nobody could understand him? (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 92).
The first professor of the new Anthropology department at Berkeley, Alfred L. Kroeber, sent an associate, Thomas T. Waterman, with a list of words of a nearby tribe thought to be related to the "wild man" (Riffe and Roberts, 1992). Some communication was possible, but not much because the "wild man" was the last of his tribe, and the other tribe's language was not the same as his. Eventually, the Bureau of Indian Affairs gave permission for this man to go to the museum in San Francisco to be studied. The "wild man," now called Ishi, became a popular sensation. He lived several years at the museum, even working as a janitor there to earn his own keep, before dying of tuberculosis in 1916.
Ishi's character
All who spent time with him grew to respect Ishi's character. Ishi spent much time with Saxton Pope, an instructor at the University Medical School. Dr. Pope said of Ishi, "His affability and pleasant disposition made him a universal favorite" (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 225). T. T. Waterman described Ishi in this way: "He had...an inborn considerateness, that surpassed in fineness most of the civilized breeding with which I am familiar" (Heizer and Whipple: 293). When Ishi died, Waterman said: "He was the best friend I had in the world" (Riffe and Roberts). When the film by Jed Riffe and Pamela Roberts shows Ishi leaving Oroville at the train station in 1911, the narrator says: "I would have liked to have had some more time with him. I always thought there was something there I should know, that I would like to know."
What impresses me the most is how Ishi showed no bitterness towards the white people who had slaughtered his people. There were many massacres. I was especially sickened to hear of the Kingsley Cave massacre in 1871, in which one of the white men switched from a rifle to a revolver "because the rifle tore them up so bad, particularly the babies" (Riffe and Roberts). It is difficult for me to believe that these same white men were local heroes in their community. It makes me ashamed to be a human being.
How the media portrayed him:
The newspaper reporters were angry when the Indian wouldn't tell them his name or anything about his past. When I think of how his people were massacred, it angers me that they asked him to talk about it. Even if Ishi had shared his private memories, I am fairly sure the newspapers would not have dared to print the truth for fear of offending their white readers. After all, their primary job is to sell papers, not to report the truth! According to a textbook by Garbarino and Sasso, in the culture of all California Indians the names of the dead were never mentioned (196). The film by Riffe and Roberts says that Ishi believed that if the dead spirits hear their names, they might take it as a summons.
We never did learn his name for himself. Kroeber wrote in "Ishi, the Last Aborigine": "The strongest Indian etiquette...demands that a person shall never tell his own name, at least not in reply to a direct request" (Kroeber: 12). Kroeber called him Ishi, which means "man" in Yana, and that is all we know him by. Thomas Merton wrote a meditation on the subject of Ishi and the disappearance of the Yahi Indians, which concludes: "In the end, no one ever found out a single name of the vanished community. Not even Ishi's. For Ishi simply means MAN." (32).
However, the newspapers did not even give Ishi credit for being human. For example, the San Francisco Examiner of August 30, 1911 said this about him: "He is a savage of the most primitive type" (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 96). Grant Wallace was a reporter for the San Francisco Sunday Call, who arranged for Ishi to go to the Orpheum Theater. Afterwards, the edition of October 8, 1911 had a fanciful account of Ishi's reaction to the show (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 107). This account was apparently made up from the reporter's imagination. Professor Kroeber remembered things differently, that what fascinated Ishi was not the show or the lady singer but the sheer number of people in the audience (Riffe and Roberts).
Reasons for the media portrayal of him
I believe the newspapers had to call Ishi primitive in order to rationalize what the white man did to the Indians. Rationalization is a psychological defense to justify one's doing terrible things. The process is unconscious (Lindgren and Byrne: 242). Once it becomes conscious, it no longer works.
One way to rationalize terrible behavior towards other people is to dehumanize them. This frequently happens in wartime propaganda, when one calls the enemy a gook instead of a person. I believe this is why the media described Ishi as savage. The newspaper writers honestly believed what they wrote, because they honestly believed that the white man's race and culture were superior to all others. As Reynolds et al. point out in their work on ethnocentrism, this delusional self-aggrandizement or "chosen-people complex" is not uncommon human behavior. Thomas Merton says: "The Yahi, or Mill Creek Indians, as they were called, were marked for complete destruction. Hence they were regarded as subhuman." (26).
Manifest Destiny
There was also the concept of Manifest Destiny, the idea that "America was destined by God to expand its boundaries" (Current et. al.: 375). It was popularized by the new "penny press" newspapers during the 1840's (375) and revived during the 1890's when the European powers were carving up the world between them (599). These ideas were justified by religious and political ideals of the time. John W. Burgess, who founded Columbia University's School of Political Science, said in 1890: "There is no human right to the status of barbarism" (599).
Protestant Christianity
Even before Manifest Destiny crystallized as a concept, some Protestant Christians in America had the idea of an ordeal in the wilderness as a test of their faith. The ordeal is to be a time of physical or spiritual suffering to separate truth from falsity. Many saw Native American peoples as hopelessly lost to evil, and therefore the enemy (Hooker).
"The White Man's Burden"
Another reason for the media's portrayal of Ishi as a savage was the popular concept of the "White Man's Burden." Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem in 1899 that warned of the cost of imperialism (Zwick). Ironically, the American imperialists took this poem as a rallying cry, believing that it somehow turned the conquest of native peoples into something noble instead of an abomination. In addition to expanding American influence overseas, Euro-Americans wanted to make the Native Americans over in their own image.
The End of the Trail
While much of early Euro-American history reacts with fear to the Wild Indian, by the time Ishi was discovered this picture had started to change. Now, the Indian was seen as a romanticized tragic figure (Riffe and Roberts). One of the most photographed sculptures at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition was "The End of the Trail" by James Earle Fraser. It was at the entrance to the Court of Palms (Todd: 334). It shows a Native American drooping over his spent pony. Ishi was also an "exhibit" at this exposition (Riffe and Roberts).
Alfred Kroeber's motives
Kroeber was into "salvage ethnography" (Riffe and Roberts), trying to write down descriptions of Native American cultures before the elders died along with their traditions. Kroeber explains his motives in The Mill Creek Indians and Ishi: "A record of their wanderings, their vigilance, their traits and habits, would appeal to the historian, while a knowledge of their ancient institutions and traditions, preserved from purely aboriginal times into the Twentieth Century, would be a rich mine to the ethnologist and anthropologist of the future" (Kroeber: 9).
Kroeber was young and ambitious, and when he heard about the Wild Man of Oroville, "he had found the Indian he was looking for" (Riffe and Roberts). An example of Kroeber's initial attitude towards Ishi is in the telegram he sent to the noted linguist Edward Sapir on September 6, 1911: "Have totally wild Indian at the museum. Do you want to come and work him up?" (Riffe and Roberts). Kroeber studied Ishi for several years. Ishi called him his Big Chiep [Chief].
Kroeber After Ishi
Kroeber was in Europe when Ishi died. On March 24, 1916, Kroeber sent a letter to E. W. Gifford to try to stop any autopsy in respect to Ishi's wishes. As Kroeber put it, "Science can go to hell. We propose to stand by our friends." (Heizer and T. Kroeber: 240). Contrast this with the content of the earlier telegram to Sapir, and it seems Kroeber's attitude has changed. It was too late. An autopsy was performed, and Ishi's brain was removed before his body was cremated.
After Ishi's death, Kroeber went into psychoanalysis for two years before returning to his work. I believe he was doing some serious soul-searching about the ethics of his work. Even though he went on to become the first great California anthropologist, he never in his lifetime published another word about Ishi, and when he spoke of him it was "with feelings of deep loss" (Riffe and Roberts).
Conclusion
I'm no expert at psychology, but the motives of the newspaper reporters seem pretty clear to me. First off, they wanted to sell papers, so they wrote what the public wanted to read. Secondly, they were part of a culture that believed the Native Americans to be inferior, so this was inevitably reflected in their descriptions of these people.
I am less sure about Kroeber's motives, but here is what I think. His goal was scholarly, but he was severely shaken when he finally realized that Ishi was a person instead of an object. What made it even worse for Kroeber was how good a person Ishi was. Ishi had desirable character traits, and I am sure that his white companions learned more from him than just Yahi culture. I think they also learned more about how to be human.
The Creator’s Perfect World
The Creator looked upon his creation. A world that contained everything needed to sustain life in human form. It was an achievement no human will ever accomplish in a lifetime or a millennium. It had beauty, life, and balance. Surely the humans that were to inhabit such a place would be happy and joyous existing in such surroundings. What else could be so perfect? To sustain life, human’s need very little and the earth has everything required to provide them with long-term sustenance. What the Creator provided was Heaven on Earth. What could possibly be more desired by the inhabitants of such a place?
It was not to be though. The Creator also offered humankind “Free Will” freedom to manipulate the land, utilize the resources, and develop societies based on various human convictions. What the Creator may not have realized in his infinite power and wisdom is he gave humankind the ability to destroy his creation of Heaven on Earth. Why the Creator would have done this has perplexed me over the majority of my life.
A world created for human inhabitation could not have been designed for us to destroy and misuse as we see fit. What do our educational intellects, religious aristocracies, and government bureaucracies have in mind for the long-term development of our home on earth. I’m sure it is not to fulfill the Creator’s wishes and desires or they would have done so.
In my limited existence on this planet I’ve yet to see or meet an individual or an institution that fully adheres to the ideals and maintains a lifestyle that their beliefs espouse. What I see are actions based on rationalizations. In order for the reigning aristocracy (whoever they may be) to sustain their existence they must attempt to prove that what they believe is right for all of humankind.
May the Creator of our planet forgive us all for not doing better in making this world a better place and help provide us with the strength and courage to seek out our true purpose in which to become the best we can be as humans regardless of faith or culture.
Don Zurdo
It was not to be though. The Creator also offered humankind “Free Will” freedom to manipulate the land, utilize the resources, and develop societies based on various human convictions. What the Creator may not have realized in his infinite power and wisdom is he gave humankind the ability to destroy his creation of Heaven on Earth. Why the Creator would have done this has perplexed me over the majority of my life.
A world created for human inhabitation could not have been designed for us to destroy and misuse as we see fit. What do our educational intellects, religious aristocracies, and government bureaucracies have in mind for the long-term development of our home on earth. I’m sure it is not to fulfill the Creator’s wishes and desires or they would have done so.
In my limited existence on this planet I’ve yet to see or meet an individual or an institution that fully adheres to the ideals and maintains a lifestyle that their beliefs espouse. What I see are actions based on rationalizations. In order for the reigning aristocracy (whoever they may be) to sustain their existence they must attempt to prove that what they believe is right for all of humankind.
May the Creator of our planet forgive us all for not doing better in making this world a better place and help provide us with the strength and courage to seek out our true purpose in which to become the best we can be as humans regardless of faith or culture.
Don Zurdo
Words to live by
Here are some lyrics from the album "Children of Sanchez" by Chuck Mangione. I think it say a lot about mankinds future.
If you haven't heard this check out the web for his album and the overture. This is played a lot in high school jazz bands.
DonZ
--------------------------------
Without dreams of hope and pride a man will die
Though his flesh still moves his heart sleeps in the grave
Without land man never dreams cause he's not free
All men need a place to live with dignity.
Take the crumbs from starving soldiers, They won't die
Lord said not by bread alone does man survive
Take the food from hungry children, they won't cry
Food alone won't ease the hunger in their eyes.
Every child belongs to mankind's family
Children are the fruit of all humanity
Let them feel the love of all the human race
Touch them with the warmth, the strength of that embrace.
Give me love and understanding, I will thrive
As my children grow my dreams come alive
Those who hear the cries of children. God will bless
I will always hear the Children of Sanchez.
If you haven't heard this check out the web for his album and the overture. This is played a lot in high school jazz bands.
DonZ
--------------------------------
Without dreams of hope and pride a man will die
Though his flesh still moves his heart sleeps in the grave
Without land man never dreams cause he's not free
All men need a place to live with dignity.
Take the crumbs from starving soldiers, They won't die
Lord said not by bread alone does man survive
Take the food from hungry children, they won't cry
Food alone won't ease the hunger in their eyes.
Every child belongs to mankind's family
Children are the fruit of all humanity
Let them feel the love of all the human race
Touch them with the warmth, the strength of that embrace.
Give me love and understanding, I will thrive
As my children grow my dreams come alive
Those who hear the cries of children. God will bless
I will always hear the Children of Sanchez.
Natural Muses
After much thought and research my blog is going to be more related to current events from 2000 onward. During my time in existence on this blue marble called earth I've seen and experienced many things which gives me some credibility in voicing my opinions and observations. What I really would like to promote on this blog is to have people use the grey matter we called a brain and do some research and find out what the truth is no matter how painful. We humans are faced with many issues and it will take many of us to help solve the long-term problems in our world. No solutions have been articulated by our current leadership except to create more WARS and financial ruin for many of us. Take heed and educate yourself on the worldwide library called the WEB and do some research. There is a lot to learn in order to become a participant in the future of our planet and now maybe a time to start. I'm going to update what I have posted over the past few years and hopefully a few fellow humans will be enlightened or understand more of how we got here in 2013.
A life of torment we shall reap, for voicing opinions far too deep.
Facing the chaos of plans gone awry, we the people are fed constant lies.
With leaders at evils ‘beckon call, humanity maybe facing a coming fall.
So fellow citizens I implore you before it’s too late, get your lives in order post haste.
For words of wisdom we no longer heed but actions of rulers based on selfish greed.
War is a racket it is sad but true, as summarized by Smedley Butler through and through.
Humanity strives for peace but falls short, when profit and power for rulers becomes more import.
The divine looks to souls who want to partake in spiritual awakenings to help resuscitate.
With natures cry for help will humans step up and discard their greed, to save a planet in dire need.
To call ourselves human we must first past a test, that is to live our lives to the very best.
Not to lie, kill, cheat, or steal, to gain the resources of others but to share it like we would our brothers.
Not by deeds alone will we be known but within our hearts our future sown.
Blessings all,
A life of torment we shall reap by Don Zurdo
Facing the chaos of plans gone awry, we the people are fed constant lies.
With leaders at evils ‘beckon call, humanity maybe facing a coming fall.
So fellow citizens I implore you before it’s too late, get your lives in order post haste.
For words of wisdom we no longer heed but actions of rulers based on selfish greed.
War is a racket it is sad but true, as summarized by Smedley Butler through and through.
Humanity strives for peace but falls short, when profit and power for rulers becomes more import.
The divine looks to souls who want to partake in spiritual awakenings to help resuscitate.
With natures cry for help will humans step up and discard their greed, to save a planet in dire need.
To call ourselves human we must first past a test, that is to live our lives to the very best.
Not to lie, kill, cheat, or steal, to gain the resources of others but to share it like we would our brothers.
Not by deeds alone will we be known but within our hearts our future sown.
Blessings all,
- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
- All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.
- All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
- In order for 'evil' to prevail, all that need happen is for 'good' people to do nothing.
- All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
- The surest way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
- All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.
- All that is necessary for the forces of evil to take root in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.
- All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.
- All it takes for Evil to prevail in this world is for enough good men to do nothing.
- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Explorans Algorithmus Veritatis
This is a journey worth exploring and I'm taking a bit of a hiatus from this blog to research some very interesting areas of Truth Seek...
-
Solution for Resolving the Oil Rig disaster. By Richard Rios In light of the recent oil rig explosion and subsequent oil flow into the Gul...
-
I find this video educational and upsetting that we do not hear of these atrocities that have been going on for decades and nothing is being...
-
In a time of war I must admit, most Americans don't give a shit. They eat and dine then like to whine basing their knowledge from ...
