There, that's cleared that up...

instead of mindlessly cutting and pasting articles on subjects about which you apparently know nothing (otherwise you'd be writing your own stuff and not plagiarising that of others!) why don't you do what the grown-ups do and post a url.

For those of you who don't know what I mean, Frog stole all this stuff from:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/01_21_02/German_Spy_Says_U_S__Wrong/german_spy_says_u_s__wrong.html

Bottom line is, you've won places on the list of nearly all the types I hate because

a) you don't dare use your own name, which makes you a coward.

b) you're a plagiarist, and that makes you a thief.

c) you're a terrorist; you ram your (and more often, other peoples) opinions down our throats without asking if we want it.d) You're a sad loser; you're posting this stuff to the Crosby Channel, for chrissakes!!! look at the sort of posters TCC has. Most of them don't know there's a war on!

MInd you, I suppose that you realise that if you were to go out and play "open debate" with the big boys on one of the fora where this is acceptable, you'd be gobbled to bits in seconds, so maybe TCC is what you can handle.

Sad git.

The German newspaper, Der Tagesspiegel, recently interviewed Andreas von Bülow, the former head of the parliamentary commission that oversees the German secret services, about the terror attacks of Sept. 11.

Von Bülow, who was interviewed by AFP in early December, said the provocative Tagesspiegel interview, published on Jan. 13, was the first time the German press had asked him about the problems surrounding the attacks.

“The planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement—to hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers,” said von Bülow in the Tagesspiegel interview. “This is unthinkable, without years of support from state intelligence services.”

This led the interviewer to call von Bülow “a conspiracy theorist.”

“Yeah, yeah. That’s the ridicule from those who prefer to follow the official, politically correct line,” von Bülow responded. “Even investigative journalists are fed propaganda and disinformation. Anyone who doubts the official line is called crazy.”

Since Sept. 11, “public opinion is being forced into a direction that I consider wrong,” von Bülow said. “I wonder why so many questions have not been asked. Normally, with such a terrible event, various leads and trails appear and are discussed by the investigators, the media and the government: ‘Is there something here or not? Are the explanations plausible?’ In this case, that is not happening at all.”

Before a government goes to war, it must first establish who the enemy is, von Bülow said. “It has a duty to provide evidence.

According to its own admission, it has not been able to present any evidence that would hold up in court.

Concerning the video evidence, von Bülow said: “When one is dealing with intelligence services, one can imagine manipulations of the highest quality. Hollywood could provide these techniques. I consider the videos inappropriate as evidence.”

“There are 26 intelligence services in the U.S.A. with a budget of 0 billion, which were not able to prevent the attacks,” von Bülow said. “Officially, there is nothing.” he told AFP. “They say that they didn’t have any idea that this would happen.”

While four planes had been hijacked “for more than 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies kept the fighter planes on the ground,” von Bülow said, “however, 48 hours later, the FBI presented a list of suicide attackers. Within 10 days, it emerged that seven of them were still alive.

“Why has the director of the FBI not taken a position regarding these contradictions? Where did the list come from, why it was false? If I were the chief investigator in such a case, I would go before the public on a regular basis, and provide information on which leads are valid and which are not,” he said.

“And what about the obscure stock transactions? In the week prior to the attacks, the amount of transactions in stocks in American Airlines, United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased 1,200 percent. It was for a value of 5 billion. Some people must have known something. Who?”

Although von Bülow told AFP in December that he believes that the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, is behind the Sept. 11 attacks, such political discussion is beyond the pale in German journalism.

ISRAEL KNEW?

When asked by Tagesspiegel who might have known about the attacks, von Bülow’s comments about apparent Israeli culpability and the agenda of Israel’s Ariel Sharon were deleted.

Israel is protected in the German media, in which any criticism of the Jewish state is stifled. This is be cause of “the special relationship” between the two states.

However, the Israeli agenda has gone forward as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“With the help of the horrifying attacks, the Western mass democracies are being subjected to brainwashing. The enemy image of anti-communism doesn’t work anymore; it is to be replaced by peoples of Islamic belief. They are accused of having given birth to suicidal terrorism.”

The image of the new enemy comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two policy-makers of American intelligence and foreign policy, von Bülow said. “Already in the middle of the 1990s, Huntingon believed, people in Europe and the U.S. needed someone they could hate—this would strengthen their identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, the mad dog, as adviser to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the exclusive right of the U.S. to seize all the raw materials of the world, especially oil and gas.”

In his analysis of political processes, von Bülow said, a global map of civil wars and conflicts coincides with the locations of these strategic minerals.

“The same is the case with the third map: nodal points of the drug trade,” he said.

The huge raw material reserves of the former Soviet Union, as well as the pipeline routes, are now at the disposal of the United States and Britain.

The fact that the events of Sept. 11 “fit perfectly in the concept of the armaments industry, the intelligence agencies, the whole military-industrial-academic complex,” von Bülow says, is “conspicuous.”

Von Bülow, who told AFP that “95 percent of the work of intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation,” pointed to the false leads that were apparently planted to incriminate Arab terrorists in the attacks. These leads, he said, were like tracks left behind by “a herd of stampeding elephants.”

The abundance of such obvious clues, such as Mohammed Atta’s passport, which mysteriously survived the crash and explosion that allegedly destroyed the shock- and fire-proof cockpit recorders, were like the German childrens’ game Schnitzeljagd, or Schnitzel Hunt, in which small bits of paper are left behind as clues for the children, von Bülow said.

Atta’s passport, which he had reported as having been stolen long before Sept. 11, amazingly reappeared unburned and intact on top of a pile of rubble near the World Trade Center, according to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Atta, the suspected leader, allegedly left Portland for Boston on the morning of Sept. 11, in order to board the plane that later hit the World Trade Center.

“If this Atta was the decisive man in the operation, it’s really strange that he took such a risk of taking a plane that would reach Boston such a short time before the connecting flight. Had his flight been a few minutes late, he would not have been on the plane that was hijacked. Why should a sophisticated terrorist do this?” von Bülow said.

“They made payments with credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight instructors with their own names.

They left behind a rented car with flight manuals in Arabic for jumbo jets. They took with them, on their suicide trip, wills and farewell letters, which fell into the hands of the FBI, because they were stored in the wrong place and wrongly addressed.

Clues were left behind, like in Schnitzeljagd, which “were meant to be followed,” he said.

i) If it's OK with you?

As for Rotfmlao, I had to Google it up. I was able to add the ! effect unaided.

Actually, you know the world is going to hell in a hand basket when:

1) Anyone cares who's the best rapper

2) Anyone notices the colour of a sportsperson rather than their talent

3) Anyone gives a flying feck who the the winners of any sailing race are

4)Anyone bothers about Franco-American relations

5) It surprises you when ANY nation calls for a peaceful solution to a conflict.

If I were an advocate of conspiracy theories, I'd say you had something to hide (apart from who you really are...)

And I await, along with my fellow readers, for the "Crosby Denouement"

A nice f'rinstance would be that Eric Blair sailed to Malaya on a ship whose captain lived in College Road, or that said ship sailed from my own belovèd Gladstone Dock.

The denouement par extraordinaire would be that Barbara Bush was none other than Bagwash Babs, Queen Of The Caradoc, who met George Senior when he was in Crosby back in the fourties, convalescing from injuries received, at one of those nice houses on Marine Crescent!!!

From herely on, therefore, we oughta be looking into the essence of what we're the quintessence of, thusly to regale the world with it. At a reasonable fee, to be distributed and doled out to any bone-I-find poster at yearly Brooke Board Meetings, such poster for the use of. But yer've gotta show or be originally proxied with panache. FYI, I am cuurently well-stocked with ISO-9000 appro'ed panache certificates in both 'overt' and 'low-key' versions, mostly valid on the day. Orders to be placed on or before dispatch and pre-paid to my bank, under an assumed dame.

But I read it, and re-read it, and then, in thie interest of fair play, I re- re- read it, and again and again the question rises:

What's your effin' point? That the first victim of war is truth? Been there, done that, etc.

The trick here is to wander of into the wildest reveries, and suddenly give everything a "Crosby" twist. Birkdale? Where's Birkdale?

Our mass-media continue to offer up comic-strip "analysis", - childrens' bedtime stories about the "axis of evil", "regime change", "weapons of mass destruction", "evildoers", "the coalition", "war on terrorism", "liberate the iraqi people." This REALITY CONTROL and DOUBLETHINK has a familiar ring, doesn't it?

So there it is: what are the anti's anti and what are the pro's pro in the diverse Americanisms on offer? In today's ambiance, it might be worth clearing that stuff up a tad. Not forgetting that there has to be a Burbo connexion in there somewhere too.

Millions of people we're anti-Thatcher and what she did to Britain. Why? Because they were patriots.

Millions of people are opposed to coward Torchy the Battery Boy, the Rt. Hon Member for Texas North, and what he is doing in 'our name'. Why? Because they're pro-Britain and all it once stood for.

No, I haven't seen the latest Laconte, but that's because my girlfriends' ex discovered a hiatus in my education. I mentioned recently, "en passant", that I had just watched, and appreciated, Kieslowski's "Trois Couleurs" on Dutch telly. Next thing you know, he's presenting me with his copies of the "Dekalog" so I'm working my way through that lot.

Mind you, just downloaded "Amelie" from the net, as it is my favourite film of the last year. Strongly recommended for anyone who likes a good belly laugh. (meme-toi, mon brave Voltaire)

Shown it at the Plaza, yet John? Bit of a prob scheduling summat like that in Crosby, 'cos it's not akshully Art House, just a comedy "une peu ordinaire", but cos it's in French, it must be art, n'est pas?

In all fairness, though, practising a culpable blinkered disregard of facts is no-one's exclusive bailiwick: In their own way, them yanquis are at it too, having been a figure behind the pressure to fire New Zealand's Peter Arnett from NBC. For stating facts. As has been said, all the good guys aren't good and all the bad guys aren't bad. As it always was. Poor Peter was out of a job for hours on end but is now at the Mirror. Blimey days!

And, by the way, what is Americanism actually, that I may know whether I am pro or con?

And guys, I see no actual response to what was written but a rather hackneyed enumeration of terms denoting personal attributes, attributed, as such tend to be, to me. Why me? Bearing in mind the global nature of our channel, I seem to be hogging the attributes market, possibly engendering discontent among others whose attributes, all blooming, fresh and much nicer, still get no channel mention, all because my attributes are too busy being attributed. To me. AARRGH!

Glad to see Voltaire still defending to the death the right to free speech. Bon sur toi, mon vieux!

Dear Ffrank, In all our capacities as longstanding TCC posters of no fixed ability but good standing, at least in the earlier evening, I think your plan of letting slip in privileged circles that TCC is buyable, to the benefit of all longstanding and goodstanding guys and dolls, is the best original idea we've seen in a month of irresolution and disarray on all sides. I can certainly find a home for whatever's coming my way. Where do you think we should start the bidding? And would that be in Euros or greenbacks?

sycophnantic? Moi? Pas du tout!

Seriously, though...John Kelly has a tendency to keep up to date with facts rather than take on board second hand drivel. He also has the capacity to lateral thought, which means he can see a lot of that which is "about to happen". And he sends me a substantial cheque every month to promote him.

Nah, Voltaire, I hold no particular brief for John, but of one thing I can assure you; everything he posts is his own work, and not the regurgitated opinion of A.N. Other.

So no, I'm not with the Agency but your mention of that or obtuseness as the only options your mindset can process could be seen as displaying an infelicitously inflexible set of cultural expectations about Latin America on the one hand and a certain shyness about doing one's own thinking on the other. I'll give you a clue about the apparent impasse: under Venezuelan law, the use of arms to seize power is a 'coup' requirement. In the manifest absence thereof onb the day, even our court had to go the way it went. The only arms in evidence were those of government agents and the armed forces, brought out to fire on an undefended crowd, many members of which I know so anyone's 'We know better' won't cut the mustard. (while the shooting was going on, Chavez scheduled a so-called 'chain' broadcast, monopolizing all national TV and radio to prevent any live news transmission, btw). The formal military refused to fire on citizens and that triggered a sequence where Chavez rolled later into the Caracas military fort, Fuerte Tiuna, that night, in the company of the Archbishop of Merida, Msgr. Baltasar Porras, who reported that Chavez himself had insisted that it be on record that he came volutarily. Given his unpopularity, the military fort, where he could be protected, was the obvious place to go, on security grounds.

There's' plenty more but I can imagine that Janet's nails can only take so much of this stuff, so I'll knock off. If you'd like, e-mail me at jakelly@telcel.net.ve or call me on +58 212 979 3241, (office) from about 1.30pm, new UK time. It's always nice to talk ot a fellow Crosbegian.

Just because it was an *unsuccessful* coup does not make it any less a coup...

Dear Frog, I looked at the stuff you cited there. I saw no mention of the very pliant supreme court's finding in a merits investigation of the military officers accused of the 'coup' that there was no merit for trying them of 'military rebellion' so, pace all your cited fellas, the official Venezuelan judicial finding has been reasonably quoted as dictating that there was no coup, as such, at all. On national TV, this decision was called 'Una plasta!' (A T**d! Imagine if Tony did that with the High Court) by the president. Thus fortified, the court has become its usual pliant self. The episode of April 11-13th was quite other though, at the time, many bought the government's story. As for the referendum mentioned in your guy's piece, that same court dictated the suspension of a perfectly legal consultative referendum (for 2/02/03) under the article 72 (see http://www.venezuela.gov.ve/ns/index.htm , top right, 'Constitución Bolivariana', under 'titulo III, de los deberes, derechos humanos y garantías' and whip it through an online translation service) whereof your writer is so proud and also that the referenda therein referred to must wait on the election of a new electoral council, members to be approved by the national assembly, but candidatures to be approved by ... a presidentially sanctioned panel.... The article also talks of a number of signatures needed for activating the various constitutional instruments: all those signatures were collected in a civil action on the same date, Feb 2nd, in a process called "El Firmazo", the "Great Signing Up". The court is now ensconced in its ensconcery, looking into one chamber's decision on a government request to declare whether the signatures are actually valid signatures as required under a signatures requirement for lotsa signatures that the government's constitutional framers never expected civil society to be able to produce, ever: seemingly, although the requirement has been satisfied and more, they are hard at it, seeking to invalidate the whole. Again. There are a number of other typically propagandistic misleaderies in the article, by the way.

Aw shucks, Bill. En, weet je, juist vandaag, precies an mijn verjaardag nummer twee en sestig! Bijzonder aangenaam von jou, oor!

please remember one thing: on the subject of Venezuelan oil and politics, jj is the man! He doesn't get his information from text books, or from the "Child's Garden Of Revolutionary Propaganda" websites. So if you want to show your ignorance of matters international, go ahead. Don't forget tho' the only reason he won't humiliate you totally is because he's a truly nice guy!

In a word matey, I can assure you that whoever gave you this tripe was giving you tripe. You should have a bill for it somewhere labelled, "Of goods".

Faced with failing to gain U.N. Security Council support for invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation (and Britain and Australia say they will go with it). They would act in breach of the U.N.’s very constitution, the U.N. Charter, to allegedly enforce U.N. resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many forces driving President Bush and his administration to invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. One of the biggest is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable future - the USA or the European Union.

Alongside that is physical control of oil – Iraq’s and Venezuela’s in the first instance (the world¹s second and fourth largest reserves), but once America has a massive military force based in the Middle East in territory over which it has control, where will it end? Iran is already on the agenda, named by Bush as part of the “axis of evil”, and Saudi Arabia, with the world’s largest oil reserves and the home of Al Qaeda, would be the obvious step after that.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in the economic confrontation. America had a monopoly on the oil trade, with the U.S. dollar as the fiat currency, until Iraq broke ranks in 2000, started to trade oil in the E.U.’s euros, and profited mightily. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the E.U. and its euro back into the economic sea.

Besides ensuring the dollar remains the premier world trading currency, physical control of oil reserves is vital to the U.S. to ensure supply at affordable prices. The USA¹s own oil reserves are very limited - it has capped wells to retain a viable on-shore reserve, but it would not last long - and because real world oil reserves are being rapidly depleted.

The invasion and take over of Iraq would make America’s position as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to the U.S. bandwagon.

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force - Russia would like to go European but possibly can still be bought off because of its current economic problems.

Oddly, while there has been no question from the outset that the United Staters is after control of oil, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about the oil trading currency issue. Are key people becoming aware of it? What does the recent slide in the value of the U.S. dollar mean - are traders afraid of war or are they afraid there will not be war, in which case, the US$ will not be a great currency to have in hand. Despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is developing around this issue, particularly on the internet.

Among the many articles: Henry Liu, in the Asia Times last June, it has been a hot topic on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics, and W. Clark's The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth has been published by the “Sierra Times”, Indymedia.org and ratical.org. Dr Colin Campbell’s Peak Oil, a presentation at the Technical University of Clausthal in December 2000, is a clear exposition of the world’s declining oil reserves.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the U.S. dollar monopoly on oil trading or from not gaining control of oil - that is a given - rather it is about exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying the impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. For example, Charles A. Kupchan makes no bones about the parlous state of the U.S. economy versus the strength of the European economies in his The Atlantic Monthly article, The End of the West.

OIL DOLLARS

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in U.S. dollars since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the U.S. dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in international markets. However, the E.U. is not yet united behind the euro - there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in Britain - and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the dollar's dominance.

In 2000, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious market.

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have - another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/ gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round - but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years - it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a “legitimate” excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his mates into submission.

At various times in recent years, the world has been pleasantly surprised to be told that oil reserves are higher than previously thought. The message - the energy driven party can go on forever.

But world oil expert, Dr Colin Campbell, is firmly raining on that parade. The announcements were not about new finds or even reserves that were significantly bigger than previously known. Rather, they were about the public announcement of reserves that actually were known, technological developments which will allow a little more extraction from known reserves (but at extra expense) and some small finds.

In fact, he points out that the biggest oil finds date back to the 1930s and 1940s and that there have been no big new finds since 1965. Technological developments and new knowledge which it was supposed would aid the uncovering of massive new oil deposits have done the opposite - they have helped confirm the limitations of oil reserves. They have helped measure the reserves of existing fields and uncover some very small new deposits, but they have also made it clear that the conditions for oil simply do not exist in vast areas previously thought of as possibly harbouring oil.

And while more and more technological expertise has found less and less oil, consumption has been rising steadily, so today it is far in excess of the amount of new oil found. Peak discovery of oil was in 1965; production, checked in the 1970s by the oil crisis, will peak just 40 years later, in 2005, Dr Campbell predicts, then it will start to decline.

America has limited reserves, the North Sea has more, but not much, and both, but particularly America, have to contend with huge consumption that far outstrips their supplies. Africa, Latin America, Eurasia and most of all, the Gulf, are where the oil is.

America¹s response to the euro and oil shortage threat was predictable. It has come out fighting.

It aims to achieve six primary things by going to war with Iraq:

* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in U.S. dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency and is reaffirmed as the reserve currency for world trade.

* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what will happen to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran has already received one message - remember how puzzled you were that in the midst of moderation and secularization, Iran was named as a member of the axis of evil? Venezuela is on the receiving end of another nasty message.

* Safeguard the USA¹s supply of oil by placing the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct American control and putting itself in a position to control, through threat or actual invasion, the rest of the Gulf oil. The U.S. needs a secular, subject state where it can maintain a huge force (perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and Australia) to dominate the Middle East and its vital oil.

* Severely setback the expansion of the influence of the European Union and its euro, the only trading bloc and currency strong enough to attack the USA’s dominance of world trade through the dollar.

* Provide cover for the U.S. to run a covert operation to overturn the democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an America-friendly military supported junta which would put Venezuela¹s oil into U.S. hands and ensure oil trading in U.S. dollars.

* Secure Israel’s position - the aim of an unlikely coalition of Christian and Jewish fundamentalists within the Bush administration which fits in handily with the power and economic ambitions of the hard-headed old conservatives in the back room.

Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate America's current position and make it all but impregnable as the dominant world power - economically and militarily. A splintered Europe (the U.S. is working hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but other Europeans have offered support in terms of U.N. votes) and its euro would suffer a serious setback and might take decades to recover.

Physical control of oil would secure the supplies which underpin the high energy consumption U.S. economy and place the U.S. in a position to profit directly from higher world oil prices resulting from the growing shortage of oil, a further boost to its economy, while disadvantaging economic challengers by forcing them to pay more for energy.

Establishing a strong military presence in Iraq would enable the U.S. to avoid or reduce its military presence in what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, the politically impossible Israel and surely the next state in its sights after Iran, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American sentiment. The USA, with a stable military base in Iraq, no longer constrained by treaties and agreements such as it has had to negotiate with host nations to date or by the host¹s links with the E.U., would also independent of Europe and able to give the faint whiff of military threat to Europe itself.

America is making the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in modern times. It is hardly likely to allow the possible slaughter of a few tens of thousand Iraqis stand between it and world domination.

America is so eager to attack Iraq right now because of the speed with which the euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs to become a much more powerful force in general international trade very quickly. Other nations would have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the “cheques” it has written, would start to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US2,000* for every single one of it's 280 million men, women and children. It is worse than the position of Indonesia when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently, that of Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising the various contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the U.S.’s difficulties would build. If only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that would do three things immediately:

* Increase the attractiveness to E.U. members of joining the “eurozone”, which in turn would make the euro stronger and make it more attractive to oil nations as a trading currency and to other nations as a general trading currency.

* Start the U.S. dollars flying home demanding value when there isn’t enough in the bank to cover them.

* Cause the usual panic attack in the world financial markets and in no time, the U.S. dollar’s value would be spiraling down.

The question of oil ownership or control is longer term - but only in terms of as handful of years. If the USA does not make its grab now while it still has control of the oil trading currency and is still the world’s biggest economic power, the opportunity would be lost.

In a few years time, America will still be far and away the world¹s largest military power - its current stocks of weapons will see to that - but if it is on the economic slide because it failed to contain the euro’s growth as an international trading currency, the rest of the world would be in a much stronger position to stare it down and contain it.

For America, with an economy and life style wholly dependent on cheap oil energy, that would be a disaster.

Obviously, the U.S. had to have some sort of cover story, a “legitimate” excuse to invade Iraq, so it began casting around for a reason to attack. That search has been one of increasing desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq was a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq’s military threat to its neighbours was raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s horrendously inhumane rule; finally there is the question of compliance with U.N. weapons inspection.

We are now told that war must be prosecuted forthwith because Iraq has chemical and biological weapons the U.N. inspectors have not been able to find and that it may develop nuclear weapons in a few years, and if it does, it may supply nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. Further, failure to lay waste to Iraq now will encourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons and increased the likelihood of “rogue states” passing them on to unnamed terrorists.

The USA’s justifications for invading Iraq, supported by Britain and Australia, have been looking less impressive by the day. The U.S.’s statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally without U.N. support and in breach of the U.N. Charter (constitution) make a total nonsense of any claim that it is concerned about the world body’s strength and standing.

The U.N. weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the U.N. weapons limitations - the final one being low tech rockets which exceed the range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the U.S. has so confidently asserted are to be found. Colin Powell named a certain North Iraqi village as a threat. It was not. He later admitted it was the wrong village.

Newsweek (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, told the U.S. in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and anthrax (Colin Powell’s 5 February presentation to the U.N. was just one example) they neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the U.S. that these weapons had been destroyed.

Parts of the U.S. and particularly the British secret “evidence” have been shown to come from a student’s masters thesis - now outdated.

America’s expressed concern about the Iraqi people’s human rights and the country’s lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA’s history of intervention in other states nor by its current actions. Think Guatemala, the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much larger pool of U.S. actions to tear down legitimate, democratically-elected governments and replace them with war, disruption, starvation, poverty, corruption, dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own economic ends. The most recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in fact that war reinstalled a murderous group of warlords which America had earlier installed, then deposed, in favour of the now hated and deposed Taliban.

Right now, as The Independent writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the U.S.s efforts to buy Algeria’s U.N. vote includes promises of re-arming the military which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape and murder Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000 people have died, and countless others been left maimed by the activities of these monsters. What price the U.S.’s humanitarian concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French are also wooing Algeria, their former North African territory, for all they are worth, but at least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian concerns.)

Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest Muslim nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is regaining strength on the back of the U.S.’s so-called “anti-terror campaign” and is receiving promises of open and covert support - including intelligence sharing.

AND VENEZUELA

While the world’s attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly and covertly supporting the “coup of the rich” in Venezuela, which grabbed power briefly in April last year before being intimidated by massive public displays of support by the poor for democratically-elected President Chavez Frias. The coup leaders continue to use their control of the private media, much of industry and the ear of the American Government and its oily intimates to cause disruption and disturbance.

Venezuela’s state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for American oil companies and provide the U.S. with an important oil source in its own backyard.

Many writers have noted the contradiction between America’s alleged desire to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively undermining the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above the line, America rushed to recognise the coup last April; more recently, President Bush has called for "early elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias has won three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early elections would be unconstitutional.

One element of the USA’s covert action against Venezuela is the behaviour of American transnational businesses which have locked out employees in support of “national strike” action. Imagine them doing that in the USA! There is no question that a covert operation is in process to overturn the legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan congressman, Jose Nayardi, made it public when he revealed that the Bush administration had asked for Uruguay’s support for Venezuelan white collar executives and trade union activists “to break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration". The process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA’s 1973 intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup to take over President Allende's democratically elected government in a bloodbath.

Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so many billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an action. But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of the entire U.S. economy and of ensuring U.S. dominance of the world now and into the future, the balance of the argument changes.

Further, there are three other vital factors:
First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because it is protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.

Second - in reality, war will cost the USA very little - or at least, very little over and above normal expenditure. This war is already paid for! All the munitions and equipment have been bought and paid for. The USA would have to spend hardly a cent on new hardware to prosecute this war - the expenditure would come later when munitions and equipment have to be replaced after the war which certainly will be short. But munitions, hardware and so on are being replaced all the time - contracts are out. Some contracts would simply be brought forward and some others would be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years the cost would not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at war compared with maintaining the standing army around the world, running exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively small sum.

Third - lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars spent outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how America will pay for these? By printing more of the dollars it is going to war to protect just as it does for other trade. The same happens when production begins to replace hardware. Components, minerals, etc. are bought in with dollars that go overseas and exploit America¹s trading advantage.

The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the USA - unless there were another way of protecting the greenback's world trade dominance.

AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES

Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent Iraqi war ploy?

Australia, of course, has significant U.S. dollar reserves and trades widely in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the U.S. dollar would reduce Australia’s debt, perhaps, but would do nothing for the Australian dollar’s value against other currencies. John Howard, the Prime Minister, has long cherished the dream of a free trade agreement with the USA in the hope that Australia can jump on the back of the free ride America gets in trade through the dollar’s position as the major trading medium. That would look much less attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the oil trade.

Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the U.S. takes over Iraq and blocks the euro’s incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have given his French and German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained more room to manouevre on the issue - perhaps years more room. Britain would be in a position to demand a better deal from its E.U. partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new currency could not make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant role in world oil trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from Europe and link with America against continental Europe.

Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious - America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates world trade through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil and a base for its forces in the Middle East, it would not add to, but rather would multiply its power.

The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the writing on the wall and are quaking in their boots.

France and Germany are the E.U. leaders with the vision of a resurgent, united Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its euro currency as a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining some of the free ride the United States enjoys now. They are the ones who initiated the euro oil trade with Iraq.

Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the day America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running a pipeline southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian oil fields. Currently, that oil is piped northwards - where Russia has control.

Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the possibility of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the U.S. itself. Russia already has enough problems with the fact that oil is traded in U.S. dollars; if the U.S. had control of Iraqi oil, it could distort the market to Russia’s enormous disadvantage. In addition, Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an American takeover could see them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could be beggared before a mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."

It'll be a while before you get as far down the road as the latest 'brave lads' whose mission you so lightly sneer at. And, with that thinking consistency, you'll have to take extra care you don't get lost along the way.

Dear Canuck, what have the yanks been and gone and done now then? I've seen nowt. Whatever it was, I am sure that you guys will quickly work things out. Canadian objections to US political rheotics along the line, unlike French ones, have been reasonable and straightforward, from what little I've seen (so fill me in, on TCC or by e-mail). Over time on TCC, whatever the trend, and we've had a few, Canada comes out smelling of Arrow-headed roses. You're gonna be just fine: remember, the yanks are navigating unknown seas and rivers just as much as everyone else and demonstrating much of that clumsiness that so characterises us h**o sapiens guys. Except Jacques. In a different vein and on a for your info basis, revolutionary Venezuela now has 'Cold Squad' and another Canadian series on Telly. Nice shots of Vancouver and an unbeautiful but somehow intriguingly attractive red haired lady policeable. Just how much of a lady she is isn't actually glimpsed but production skill is such as to rouse many to wondering how they would perform if given access to the chance to find out.

Rene Descartes.

Dear Adele, How do you do? My brother, Anthony Kelly, went to Sts Pete & Paul's school a while ago, about 1954-57-ish. The school was there on Liverpool Road opposite Merch's Girls, wasn't it? At that time, the old St Helen's was still extant and run by a benign Fr. McGuire, 'dean' McGuire they called him and his claim to fame, though he wasn't a fame claimer at all, was that he had been a mate at the seminary of the lately burgeoning Archbish John Heenan who'd gotten the cathedral plans underway again and downscaled the whole from a pharaonic monolith to the Paddy's Wigwam more in keeping with the times, the pockets of the faithful and architectural propriety. That was the St Helens where there was also a 'youth club' set up in a pre-fab affair, just a bit down from the Crosby Cross located at the rear entrance path to the church. Mark Pennington has a painting of the cross there and the little cottages that graced that section of town available at http://www.sunnyfields.freeserve.co.uk/crosby/Picture%20Gallery.html. You can also find a map of Crosby, '1946-1970' at that site.

Loved your post Heather: to hell in a bucket, to heaven in an old Ford car and hard cheese to the hindmost I had heard before but to school in a handcart indeed, that's an Irish solution to transport, getting the cart from here to there and making everyone else oogle-eyed at the scene, lunch sarney pack in hand and all! Great Balls of Fire!

Mike, I used to play tennis occasionally at the Coro Road Park courts, once even partnering Dot Courtney, a hang-about mate of the erstwhile Linda, now Lynda. And, yes, to your shame. It's great going back and not unbereft of oddness, seeing places where one was quite other, the longer away or the further, the 'otherer' yiz waz. But Lovely anyhow. When I've been, I've walked around, 'soaking up Crosby' and folk who've not been through the same separation think it's daft, especially as thay have Crosby on hand the whole time and see nowt at all to 'soak up', "Gertcha! Get soaked, more like!"

Dear Bill, I think the Escorial will be a bit cramped for Dave.

And what's your 'phone number?

The thing I hate more than bigots, old farts and warmongers is cowards who hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

As for the French connexion, do we have one? Did French cuisine really originate in Weld Blundell? Did Moliére(office keyboard)really go to the forerunning at the time of Merchant Tailors, majoring in French drama? Is there evidence of the Place De L'Etoile being a Cinq Reverebères knockoff?

Dear Hotrock, Wade for me!

Dear Albion; New world order. We have, at least speculations here in longsuffering Caracas are trending toward, "That's the end of the UN" and, over the road, in the other cafe, "The UN'll be stronger than ever now that this shakeup will make it easier to enforce resolutions. Just what they needed." How long before we hear, "Ariel, Ariel, wherefore art thou, Ariel?" Even Jacques and our continental French over-the-channellers, seeing their veiled venality progressively unveiled, have come through with an undertaking to help in the reconstruction work. "Bonjour, les gars! Je suis venu to sign some contracts paid for by sombody else mais, Mon Dieu, wash your 'ands please first after tout ce dirty travail you 'ave been at, alors!" "Up my jumper? Qu'est que c'est, 'up my jumper'?"

But the new order won't be an overnight thing and, as I mentioned before, this war, which was going to have to be fought, is only step one. The Saddam phenomenon is alive and widespread. Having seen what we have here, I'd say it's incumbent on all to start looking at what they stand for, bearing in mind that not all the good guys are good and not all the bad guys are bad. In other words, Mal in Aussie, there's only realpolitik. There is no other.

Dear Mr. Blum, With all your stuff, there, you fail to mention that not even the Iraqis are claiming the sort of bombing casualties that you seem to take for granted. And have you any real idea what those populist movements were and if so, which ones? Whilst not seeking to hold a blanket brief for the US or anyone else, I would ask how much better off would all these folk be had their populist movements triumphed? Maybe you're right though: this could be the time for the socially concerned protesers to get out their snapshots of protest actions they've been in, against all the decades of Columbian terror explosions, surely more worthy of their attention than empty office buildings in Baghdad; and the ETA car bombs and remote control devices and the IRA atrocities that they can only have been very energetically upset about; and the ongoing marches for the dead of Lockerbie arranged by Moammar's mates in Libya, not to speak of undying concern for the British policewoman shot dead from the embassy in London. That must be a huge photo album. Yes, let's all be concerned about what's done in our names but let's all too be consistent about it.

If you would protest then - and protesters are more socially concerned and a necessary conscience for society, I am sure - choose your targets with consistent care and knock real injustice as opposed falling into a rut that often seems to be more a steam valve appealing to a surlyness and rancour that, in hearts truly harbouring generous concern for folk, however expressed, has no place at whatsoever.

Moreover, if a guy is an old anything, then the very qualifier implies there are young versions of same. And don't ever forget, the sole reason anyone is behind Uncle Frank is because they didn't get underway 'til after. Which means you're going the same way but, as in all things futurely, Uncle Frank's distinct advantage is that he's sure of getting to 77. You're not. I lay down my portmanteau.

Colonial twitterings? Ah Clarence, a turn of phrase that hardly becomes you though, at the minute, I can see that it's the flavour of the week.

Not to worry Frank: next week, it'll be another flavour and maybe more to your taste. On TCC, they do come and go rather.

The State Department recently held a conference on how to improve America's image abroad in order to reduce the level of hatred; image is what they're working on, not change of policies. But the policies scorecard reads as follows: From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist movements fighting against insufferable regimes. In the process, the US bombed about 25 countries, caused the end of life for over 8 million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.

If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce that America's global interventions have come to an end and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- believe it or not -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to our victims and repair the damage from our bombings. There would be enough money. Do you know what one year's military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than 0,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.

Clear your mind of that baggage which only gets in the way of seeing beyond the clichés and the platitudes. I know it's not easy for most Americans to take what I say at face value. It's not easy to swallow my message. They see our leaders on TV and their photos in the press, they see them smiling or laughing, telling jokes; see them with their families, hear them speak of God and love, of peace and law, of democracy and freedom, of human rights and justice and even baseball ... How can such people be moral monsters, how can they be called immoral? They have names like George and D**k and Donald, not a single Mohammed or Abdullah in the bunch. And they even speak English. Well, George almost does. People named Mohammed or Abdullah cut off arms or legs as punishment for theft. We know that that's horrible. We're too civilized for that. But people named George and D**k and Donald drop cluster bombs on cities and villages, and the many unexploded ones become land mines, and before very long a child picks one up or steps on one of them and loses an arm or leg, or both arms or both legs, and sometimes their eyesight.

But our leaders are perhaps not so much immoral as they are amoral. It's not that they take pleasure in causing so much death and suffering. It's that they just don't care ... if that's a distinction worth making. As long as the death and suffering advance the agenda of the Empire, as long as the right people and the right corporations gain wealth and power and privilege and prestige, as long as the death and suffering aren't happening to them or people close to them ... then they just don't care about it happening to other people, including the American soldiers whom they throw into wars and who come home -- the ones who make it back -- with Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome eating away at their bodies. Our leaders would not be in the positions they hold if they were bothered by such things. It must be great fun to be one of the leaders of an empire, glorious in fact ... intoxicating ... the feeling that you can do whatever you want to whomever you want for as long as you want for any reason you care to give ... because you have the power ... for theirs is the power and the glory.

The leaders of the empire, the imperial mafia -- Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Powell and Rice and Wolfowitz and Perle -- and their scribes as well, are as fanatic and as fundamentalist as Osama Bin Laden. And the regime change they accomplished in Afghanistan has really gone to their heads. Today Kabul, tomorrow the world. So get used to it, world. The American Empire.

Well, it seems to me, from here in Venezuela where Saddam's (and Moammar's) operatives are flowing in to help with dismantling the modern oil industry and all institutions, from the Metro police now without any squad cars, motor bikes or riot gear (taken away to disable their control of the regime's rioters) to the courts, along with the rump oil company that now pays its bills at a 30% discount - "Your contribution to the revolution, Sir," that, regardless of the clumsiness and the cloudiness owing to France's pre-session blanket veto ensuring there'd be no vote and so too making certain the issues would never become historically clear-cut, this is a war that was going to have to be fought sooner or later and, if later, at a time and place of the terrorists' choosing. Historically, such altercations are less bloody and shorter when earlier rather than later. And, whilst no man is island enough not to be diminished by the death of another, the fact is that this war is being fought by soldiers in deserts and not by suicide bombers at the Waterloo Park, The Plaza, the Cavern, Liverpool Airport Departures Lobby or wherever else. As for the bombing and the city part, even Iraqi government casualty figures are below the number of murder victims in Venezuela this week. Not to speak of the number aboard the Lockerbie jet downed by terrorists.

So I support 'our lads', regardless of why they chose to become our lads, and I think the implication that such support must be jingoistic or worthy only of cowards to be pilloried in the words of a signally civilised First War poet is signally dirty pool.

And the other detail, the one about the war being just about oil and D**k Cheney's greed: while few of us would choose to have our sons going out with D**k Cheney's daughters, as it were, if you're convinced that by pointing at oil, you've got to the root of the problem, you not only look no further but are blinkered to any contrary or additional evidence. In the case of this war, make no mistake, far from being purely about oil - a story concocted for and innocently swallowed by sky-pie mongers - this war is one step in a struggle to decide whether authoritarian absolutism will be running your children's school within a generation. Or not. You don't think so? Ask Andy Gilchrist.

No, while oil will loom very large the moment the guns of March are silent, it is not oil impelling this war, though it was solely oil impelling the French to queer the pitch. Not to look beyond the oil factor is be blinded by the that ploy and to play into the hands of those who would have you and all you stand for, inlcuding your right to object to the war, all slung in clink or simply shot. In other words, if you're into anti-war sentiment as a reflex reaction, often natural and refreshingly generous but equally often, unthinking, to the undoubted and multiple correctible flaws in the West - Enron, big business in its monolithic heartless incarnations (not all) and so on and so on - then, as arranged by the operatives skilled in these matters, you're not focusing on a) The price of doing nothing; or b) The irreversible flaws in the system you'll be welcoming in. All in the name of human rights. Reflected in some little mentioned human duties. (When was the last time you heard that phrase?)

As for the religion-referenced backdrop to all this, it is sobering to realise that Islam, founded a 'few centuries' after Christianity (in the UK, society's historical foundation), is being no more pigheaded and absolutist than was Christianity that same 'few centuries' ago. That gave rise to what we know as the 'Dark Ages'. Thanks, Christianity. The particular differences separating these two sectors of our societies then might more fruitfully be focused on as being two social approaches not very different but as out of sync with each other. A thought anyway, on the way to our coming to terms with living with our Muslim fellows in a free and open society.

When all is said and done and the flaws, blemishes and so on, are all clearer to everybody, we should be chastened enough to settle down to assembling that free and open society. That should be interesting, Ahmed, ol' fella.

I come from a long line of professional soldiers, and have at present a nephew who is a sergeant in an elite Dutch unit.

In this subject, as in others, I tend to speak on the basis of direct experience, rather than blowing bubbles.

I don't know you, Al, so I can't say that you don't know what you are talking about. I would, however suggest that if you want to have a discussion with me on this subject, you do it on the basis of adult rhetoric, and not by slinging insults.

war sucks, and as a general rule, we let children fight it. Hopefully, the real soldiers who lead them have enough sense to want to get themselves and their men out alive. This is not a motive which drives politicians.

You do not rid a people of an evil dictator by bombing the f.u.c.k. out of his "victims". You do get the oppurtunity to dictate what happens to 25% of the world's oil production, though!

Only advantage is that, after it's all over, there'll be a democracy in the Middle East, and that'll be a first.

Most people join up when they're hardly in a fit state to deecide what t-shirt they're going to wear that day.

And I'm still waiting to see the recruitment poster which shows corpses supperating under the sun, as opposed to skiing, deep sea diving, and mixing with cool chickies. Most of the idiots who join up do so to "learn a trade".

(Like there's much call for master armourers in civvy street)

Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me if Tony was represented at the various summits by some con-man or other.

I am a-political, therefore politics is not the motive...I assume you support the skirmish so much you are going down to the Army Information Centre in Bootle to sign on. Or are you like Tony and Dubyah; all in favour of war as long as it's some other mother's son who's getting shot at.

You're right. This is not a religious war, it's about oil. Nothing else. On Saturday, for the first time in years, I'll be tagging on at the end of a demo. I urge all of you to join it.

And what's with Gene Autry and his guit'?

to meet you

may the wind be

always at your back

May the sun shine warm

on your face

And the rain fall soft

upon your fields

And until we meet again,

May God hold you

in the palm of his hand.

—an old Irish Blessing

HAPPY ST. PAT'S TO ONE AND ALL!

Mis-spelling and disregard for rules of grammar are a commonplace sine qua yer wha' on TCC but your maiden speech effort was so developed them as to give the, perhaps truly meant and certainly bolstered by the Crosby Herald attatchment claimed, impression that you had not purposefullly disregarded the rules - a practice utterly in place and ok - so much as left them at the house of friend who had subsequently emigrated taking your copy with him for old times' sake.

You are of course welcome and all look forward to more of that imagery - who else would have come up with the baying pack of hyenas/wounded gazelle example? - not to be taken too far to be sure but hardly run of the millinery is it now?

Now, that 'forthwith-ery' meaning 'right away-ness' as opposed to 'from now on-ship', to regularize spelling and so forth isn't the thing either there being longstanding vacancies in the veiled references and unwhimsy departments along with a few more in special projects.

I can suggest a new department too: who(m) would Crosbylutians invite to dinner on a cold Winter's? I personally myself would be willing to spill soup on a placemat with Dag Hammarskjold; the SS-Sturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny(for his glider rescue prowess), The early 20thC Russo-British spy, Reilly; St. Theresa of Avila; Bill Shankly; Fletcher Christian and the list unrolls. Since Geneviéve Bujold is une dame fixe, I leave her out of the onetime guys, over there with other fixées, such as Kristin Scott Thomas and, but, enough of me, ....

Lookin' forward to yer stuff, then Herr Aldo, hopefully to-Moro....

Now, if you still want to plead guilty, then I would say, go for it anyway! I find it gets the whole business over so much sooner. Were your guys SeaChapped or LandGuyled?

Looks like we can actually expact a warming trend over the next week Eh?

"You're full name"? I gather that GCSE English is no longer a prerequesite for membership of the Fourth Estate.

Dear Heraldo, I am an even tempered, rather distinguished and prominent member of "none of the above" in any listing you care to name. From your admirable straighforwardness, I gather, and use your thrust entirely, that you seek my assistance in avoiding being rumbled as a two-bit hack, not much different from my own field of hackery though I hesitate to put a price on mine. You'll also notice that, were you to have put some addie or other, I coulda e-mailed you. Kinda thing. Whatever. I am John Kelly, erswhilely incumbed at Brownmoor Lane Mansions, a freshfaced and aspiring development of post-war dimension, low-keyed into the upper section of what used to be a shorter lane. In them days, like.

I went to St. Mary's, thereby achieving SMOB status before it was fashionable. I left in 1959 and tootled off to Liverpool, whence to Georgetown U. in D.C., all labeled 'chemistry'. I was there in DC when JFK got the chop. All memorable stuff. That means anything after 1963 is 'new' to me so, for instance, the 'New baths' never got past that and are now, I gather, the 'About to be razed' baths. I got to Venezuela finally in 1968 with Shell Chemical and married a local lass, Mercedes Magalí Luciani Massiani, herely born but ultimately of Corsican extraction, five months later. Our eldest is coming up 34 and our youngest is 30; we're gearing up for 35 of them come July.

That said, I would outpoint that TCC ain't per se'd exclusively at keeping up with the news of the day but also constitutes a link between folk who have a single common trait, namely, that of being Crosbegians; TCC is more of a Crosbylogical Diaspora Chronicle and Odds and Sods Purveyor of no fixed adobe, a term I adopt in acknowledgement to tropical input from Cantabfellow and Albion [who(m) yer reelie oughta talk to] located next to Venezuela, in quiet and peaceful Colombia. Notwithstanding its diasporic overtones, the Channel is based in, or in today's garbage, "out of", Crosby itveryself and does, of course, delight in posts from Crosby, Formby, Altcar, Lunt, Weld Blundell, Seaforth, Waterloo, Seafield and points beyond. And now, even Crosby, North Dakota.

Why do I like TCC? Rather for the reasons above. You have to bear in mind that, wherever and whenever, you never cease to constitute what you are and some acknowledgement of that is an inbuilt requirement, more for some, less for others. Any effort to be other than or failure to nod to what you are ends in falsehood, however sincerely undertaken. I was born in Wavertree but, having arrived at age 5 on a cold day in January, 1947, I am "from Crosby" so a part of my exercising being true to whatever it is that I constitute entails acknowledging that. So, being farflung as I (am), I find that TCC offers that option á la internet and nicely with it. I take them up on it.

You are free to cite and quote as you will, provided you attribute nothing of this lot to Beatrice Fiona Farquarson Rimmer Gilbertson Schmidt-Falke with whom I have no connexion whatsoever.

Two bit hack? By jove you should have signed on with the bluddy Echo, old chap, then again the spellings a bit precise for THAT!

Dear Donna, It is nice to see you back there! but I would take issue with your "one quickly gets more input on TCC than a simple prairie mind like mine.." the very embodiment of coy, demure and things! What simple mind? And why should a prairie mind be any simpler than a crisis fatigued mind in Crosby or Venezuela (Ay-Ay-Ay!)or the Cauca Valley. And that challengingly smiling comment, all innocence, "a big ship 'buff'.." tangentially commenting on the 'polished' style of our Wace Poetic Albion whose impeccable research - I did look at the Wace Poem and its Jersey French, all good stuff! - bedazzles with ease. You're a one, Donna, a Crosby Channel natural, seemingly. Maybe that mystical Burbo link bruited about by some charlie a while ago is already in place and you guys up there are oozing millennial wisdom effortlessy and "nice try-ing" us poor mortals from our Cornflakery in the old world?

But I enjoyed the Titanic thing too and having walked and run and chatted up talent, atremble at the knee, in those same roads, doubly so.

How far are you from Canada and do all those people speak like Frances McDormand fargo, fargo, fargone, fargamos, fargamos, fancy (irreg)

and I thought you meant the tickling the dogs behind.

Still looking, though now in 'veiled reference' mode, I ran into an unexpected harvest. There's spotter's 'Crosbeians' veiledly voting on the name options for the population. There's cantabfellow's irreverence with the 'wee' walk inasmuch as, in my experience with dog owners, all walks are 'wee' ones. When it comes to veiled references though, teacher Babs is in a class of her own, so easily taking the crumpet that she reminds one of that commentator's famous wind-up of a Derby decades ago, "Eclipse first and the rest, nowhere." In just two postings, we have 'dalliance' disguised as alliance but, preceded by "It is therefore ideally situated for the formation of an alliance ...", who could miss the implications? We have a lady at the pinnacle of her youth, whose name she wisely reserves, but also mentions how a certain all should stand up. Ar Babs, you are a one! Doling out those jealousy triggers with enviable ease and nonchalance! Enough said.

In deference to the newity of Donna's advent, I would also say that that signoff monicker, "prairiefemme" is mischievously piquant too, what with an "Oklahoma" nostaglgia inbuilt, and a chirrupping gold enaze on the meadow called up from one's times. Yes. times. And the 'femme' part is straighforward enough until mated with the front end, conjouring up the frontier lady, ravishingly independant and descended, at least in spirit, from adventurous and devil-may-care Canadien voyageurs of yesteryear who definitely frequented North Dakota in the late 18th and early 19th and whose evocative travelling songs still resound down memory's halls. (See Parkman's "Oregon Trail", which I am still plugging)

Effortleesly and without exertion then, TCC seems to have registered a very sui generis brand of barely respectable virtual licentiousness-in-waiting, globally threaded. Which bothers me not a bit. Congratulations, you rascals all!

And Donna, what's with your Crosby, Lass? Our Rive Gauche guys are waiting with baited breath for North Dakotan inputtables. And, being English among the Norge chaps, what bit of it are you from? And does Beowulf live up there in Elvis's house when he's away? And so on?

There are several points that you oughta get up to speed on though and one is the CNN, being Crosny Non-diet Normality or proper eating code which turns about the pivotal protein-free Bavarian Slice, a succulence from a local tuck shop called Satterthwaites, run, in the event by a very amiable gentleman who is a professional oceanographer. That should put you in the picture after a ricochet fashion, being a way of intimating, despite hard evidence to the contrary, that Crosby is the Eurocapital of Non Sequiturs writ biggish and degrees are awarded sporadically, summa c*m loud and magna c*m louder, from a University disguised as a pub on Brooke Road and creatively named, "The Brooke".

On TCC, we are also big on veiled references, despite hard evidence to the contrary and the language mostly used is akin to English on most days and your command of it, being merely a first step, is taken as read, or an assumption, in turn being a garment worn by Arle Ady for her famous exit and celebrated at Crosby's French outpost, Paris, under the guise of the famously Kanz Ooh about mid August or therabouts, give or take a day or sew.

Another, at least potentially, steaming issue here referred to veiledly by spotter is the word for inhabitants of Crosby, any Crosby. I am drumming up support for "Crosbegians" for midweek and "Crosbones" for weekends and feast days. To date, there has been no concensus and input from the great plains would be a breath of the freshly.

The mayor's little huddle of scientificklies under their Pinnacles have, with some hard evidence creatively gathered worldwide from libraries and history and stuff, been able to establish that Crosby, that is our version, which in honour of factual rigour, we egotistically tout as the Kellogs Cornflakes of Crosby's "The Original and The Best", has been the cradle of much if not all cultural breakables, having been Ramses II's first school and the inspiration of the Incas and their affable "Glad to Meetchu" approach to life, to name but a Phew!

In this verily vein, I think there should immediately be set in motion a move to twin our Crosby and yours thus to acknowledge the mystical axis running underly from the one to the other and let you partake of the global inspiration stuff that oozes sporadically from our offshore headquarters located secretly on Burbo Bank and which is rainswept when wet. In a word, put the "Great" back into Great Plains and I am sure that Andy Melia of worshipfullity will be happy to inaugurate y'all with his special inauguratably, in spite of the moral and realpolitikal overtones, pragmaticals and othersuch now wrenching the guts out of your two lands.

I say 'your' because I am located here in Caracas, Venezuela, very taken up just now with Human Rites, being mostly funeral ones with social turmoil and regional repercussions that no charlie in most of the rest of the world cares for much.

Now, your query on SMOB. The borough has a slew of schools, the oldest by far being one whose name escapes me but the next one down the line is Saint Mary's College, a high school with Stella Maris nautical connexions to St. Catherine of Siena and Tom the Aquine. I, for instance am rumoured to have gone to school at St Mary's and, for my sins, am a fare example, having often taken the bus, of the finely hewn and untinged straightforwardship tort there. And there are others. But I dye cress. The SMOB denotes both "Saint Mary's Old Boy" and, all confusingly, "Saint Mary's Old Boys", being an association doused in scandal in recent years and admitted to the bar, as a matter of coarse, if you get my drift. So there you have it, Donna, lass. A regular ordinary Crosby clarified in a few barely chosen words. We look forward to more of yours from your land. If you'd really like a bit of currant affairs stuff, I am sure we can give the BavSlice a miss for one weak moment.

And A Happy New Year to you too!

'Scouser'is from the word 'scouse'a native dish of Liverpudlians. Scouse is to Liverpool ( near Crosby ) as Schnitzel is to Vienna. My Father used to tell me it came from Labskaus a Sailor's dish. This would make sense since Liverpool is a port city.

Sniggery Woods is in the Crosby area and I think the name has something to do with eels. Am sure some enlightened soul will post something to provide more information on this.

Crosby is an Old Norse (Viking) place name, so maybe that's the tie up with the Norwegian descendents in your town.

It is a suberb of Liverpool, a large seaport in the north of England that breeds Beatles and footballers with strange haircuts.

The inhabitants of Liverpool are called Scousers. However, the people of Crosby (whether still living here or those who have emigrated) are an extremely strange lot. But they're absolutely harmless, and I'm sure you'll make many online friends.

Burbo Bank is an independent principality - a sort of loose federation of sandbanks off the coast of Crosby, of which I am honoured to be the worshipful Mayor.

Burbo Bank's esteemed mascot is Bonnie the Dog, whose photograph you can see in the top right of the screen in front of Cherie Blair( a Crosby girl), wife of Tony Blair, the Hon. Member for Texas North and also the British Prime Minister (but not for much longer).

Burbo Bank enjoys a world-wide diplomatic presence and has loyal Foreign Ministers in countries as diverse as Canada, Holland, Venezuela, Hampton Court and your very own Manhattan.

Crosby itself has a history of academic excellence, examplified by the infamous 'Crosby Research into Artistic Pinnacles' or C.R.A.P. for short.

As far as 9-11 is concerned, an awful lot of us got an almost overwhelming "chickens coming home to roost" sensation when we saw the images.

If what the U.S. is doing to Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is a typical example of how the U.S. government treats its former employees, I think your Labour Relations laws should be revised...

And bearing in mind your comments about Israel, your definition of "terrorism" needs some looking into as well.

The president of a country which is so lax in paying its contributions to the U.N. is using that same U.N. to give it a mandate to carry out a pre-emptive strike on a country which, however you bend it or twist it, DOES NOT FORM A THREAT, DIRECT OR INDIRECT to the U.S.A.

(Ted Turner was so ashamed of his country's tawdriness is paying its U.N. dues he is donating $1 billion of his own money to the U.N.)

The President of the U.S.A. is using a U.N resolution to justify the war; one of its major allies in the Middle East has chosen to ignore approximately 50 U.N. resolutions with the full collaboration of the aforementioned U.S.A.

You are either a member of the club, or you're not. It's rather like virginity; you is or you isn't...the expression "cherry-picking" comes to mind in relation to both concepts ;)

The U.S. WILL attack Iraq. The member for Texas East will follow him like the lap dog he is. I have a nephew in the army, who, given his training and experience may end up going out there. I don't want him to get damaged to protect the right of every U.S. citizen to drive a gas-guzzler.

As for Ali Rodriguez Araque, he is no longer OPEC general secretary, having been replaced by another Venezuelan to serve out his time after Alí called home by president Chavez to take charge of what has turned out to be the destructive dismantling of the state oil company voted most efficient globally, admittedly not a resounding accolade but nevertheless. So, on the state oil company front, there is now being set up an "Oil Council" affair, above the company's board under Alí, to tell it exactly what it's to do, all presided over by the national president. Thus, instead of being president of a potentially rich oil nation, Chavez has his very own oil company that the rest of the country depends on.

"Please, sir! Can I..."

That's that oil company that used to belong to the nation. Other nations like this are Iran and Libya, both with reduced outputs but where oil entities are entirely in the grip of their regime. As far as I know, Mr. Araque is, however, still on the editorial board of the Sao Paulo forum, along with Tirofijo, "Sureshot" Marulanda, the top FARC chappie.So, the "Project" is alive and well and living in Caracas. Notwithsatnding his Davos reception, I am not struck either with Mr. Lula, among whose early actions was to dispatch, at international prices, natch, gasoline ships to Venezuela to alleviate the stoppage and help Chavez to breast the storm. And Colombian guerillas wounded in action are given medical care in Venezuelan hospitals, the while.

For those who've not had enough of Venezuela and its dangerous tendancies as an integral part of a wider plan, you may feel I was being remiss were I not to mention the new education ministry initiative whereby our children and youngsters can opt for scholarships to go to Arab nations for free to study Islam, the Koran, Arab language, literature and, oddly, philology. The blurb tells of how we are really culturally much closer to Arabs and Islam than to Spain and the Western world, heretofore mistakenly seen as natural cultural family. Sala'am alecum, chaps! This is not new. I did the translation a year or more ago of the official stuff for distribution telling all about the second OPEC heads of state meeting in Caracas in 2000. The government went to great lengths to explain how the Spanish 700-year shoulder-rub with Arab culture was but a 'breather' for that culture on its way to South America. There were all manner of examples from music and poetry and so on and so on. Lotsa 'so on'.

For real McCoy background, in audio, on the advancing demise of democracy in Venezuela, with an English language option, put on your loudspeakers and access http://www.diatriba.net/itv/diatriba%205%202003%20ciao%20cd%2004%20the%20futile%20revolution/

And another thing, ... Well, maybe you're right. I shall leave it there.

And what a novel use for pots and pans. Mind you, if you've nothing decent to eat, you might as well bash them together, what?

Dear Spotter, What a delighful little piece. Has it been set to music? It certainly looks promising as a ditty for singing and acting out, becostumed all, during the performance of an elementary school end-of-term do. I think.

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow/ Between the crosses, row on row/ That mark our place; and in the sky/ The larks, still bravely singing, fly/ Scarce heard amid the guns below./

We are the Dead. Short days ago/ We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,/ Loved and were loved, and now we lie/ In Flanders fields./

Take up our quarrel with the foe:/ To you from failing hands we throw/ The torch; be yours to hold it high./ If ye break faith with us who die/ We shall not sleep, though poppies grow/ In Flanders fields./

FELIX RANDAL the farrier, O he is dead then? my duty all ended,/ Who have watched his mould of man, big-boned and hardy-handsome/ Pining, pining, till time when reason rambled in it and some/ Fatal four disorders, fleshed there, all contended?

Sickness broke him. Impatient he cursed at first, but mended/ 5 Being anointed and all; though a heavenlier heart began some/ Months earlier, since I had our sweet reprieve and ransom/ Tendered to him. Ah well, God rest him all road ever he/ offended!/

This seeing the sick endears them to us, us too it endears./ My tongue had taught thee comfort, touch had quenched thy tears,/ 10 Thy tears that touched my heart, child, Felix, poor Felix Randal;/ How far from then forethought of, all thy more boisterous years,/ When thou at the random grim forge, powerful amidst peers,/ Didst fettle for the great grey drayhorse his bright and battering sandal!

While Naomi Klein has written an article defending the president here, mainly by attacking his opposition, there is an application at the UN for his government's being declared 'rogue', being a government that actively or passively supports terrorism. Go Naomi! The families of policemen killed and wounded yesterday by the government's urban guerilla contingents, the three young soldiers executed last week, hands tied behind their backs and 19 dead (and 100+ wounded) last April and whose deaths haven't been investigated will be happy to see the insight from Canada. That girl really must have radar eyes á la Superman to be able to discern what no-one in Venezuela even suspects. Maybe President Chavez's acknowledgement of Saddam Hussein as his 'brother' and his blowing a kiss (Yes, I saw it!) to Fidel's departing plane at the international airport and interviews with the FARC ambassador here and the mysterious 60,000 cartridges for AK-47's (as used by the FARC but not for any rifle in Venezuela) imported recently triggered some special all-seeing device at the Klein level, the existence of which other mortals simply can't appreciate. Oh, and she was able to look beyond the six thousand million missing dollars too. You gotta give it to a bird with a feisty approach like that.

And Dear Babs, Half term? Half term? What do you teach then, lass?

The female urban terrorist who tried to worm her way back into the town got her comeuppance yesterday.

In full view of rush-hour traffic at Alexandra Hall roundabout, she received a full-on kick to the stomach from her "fiance." What a scene! Writhing in agony on the ground, this human flotsam was picked up by passers-by and taken to his parents home. No welcome was forthcoming though...Well done Ed, for speaking the only language she understands...

An even easier way is to send an online fax. Go to www.upmystreet.co.uk/ type in your postcode then click on "Your representatives" then follow the online advice.

While waiting for her none-too-quick-on-the-uptake "boyfriend" in a local bar tonight, she "asked out" the barman and pressed her phone number into his hand...

What has the gentleman offering the flat in Eshe Road North ever done to you, for you to wish him so ill???
Have you seen the exquisite lead-lighted windows and doors there? No doubt, they have graced his property since it was built. 100 YEARS!!!
Would you like to take a guess on how long they could remain intact, if your destructive little PARASITE had managed, with your help, to worm her way inside??? A FORTNIGHT, PERHAPS????!!!
Not very neighbourly of you, is it? Totally socially irresponsible, in fact!!! You must be extremely desperate, or in total DENIAL!!!
THERE IS AN ELEPHANT IN YOUR LIVING-ROOM AND YOU ARE ALREADY UP TO YOUR NECKS IN DUNG!!!

While you continue to humour her in this embrace of death, she follows the familiar, fatal course of her train-wreck excuse for a life...

Last Sunday, while you were discussing amongst yourselves re-launching this MISSILE on the unsuspecting people of Crosby - ON YOUR OWN NEIGHBOURS, NO LESS - she spent the afternoon seeking out FORMER BEDMATES, trying to raise a POSSE, bent on REVENGE....

In our comprehensive review of published academically accepted history we continually explore for the invisible power structure behind the visible kings, prime ministers, presidents and other official head men, as well as for the underlying hidden causes of individual wars and the long, drawn out campaigns not disclosed by the widely published and popularly accepted causes of these wars....

No, I didn't know thee chap;

I had nothing to do with it;

I have no BA shares;

I like many part of Northern England;

I am Central casting's idea of a nice guy;

In point of fact, I am generally numbered among the more prominent members of "None of the above" so my 'nice guy' status is virtually uncheckable but;

You can take my word for it.

Back to those Cornettos, we have them here, at least for the next few weeks, what with everything running out now, even though the local Spanish would call an ice-cream cornet a 'barquilla' where the 'qu' comes out a a 'k' and the 'll' approximates to a 'y' giving a phonetic rendering approaching 'barkiya' optically not unlike 'barkeeler' which brings me to the whole point, namely, John Profumo's anniversary at the War Office as was before it ceased so to be. And Candy Rice.

I say Candy when it was Mandy because, with spotter and Ozzy looking at Mandy's hind quarters, I'm keeping at a safe distance, way out beyond square leg.

A mentally-ill female "con-artist" is looking to rent in this vicinity!!!

BE WARNED!!!!
If you rent to this person, you will sooner-or-later experience any combination of the following.....
NON-PAYMENT OF RENT
DRUG-DEALERS FREQUENTLY VISITING YOUR PROPERTY
CONSTANT ANITISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBOURS/OTHER TENANTS
THREATS FROM HER AND HER FAMILY/"BOYFRIENDS"
LOSS OF NEIGHBOURING TENANTS
DAMAGE/DESTRUCTION OF YOUR PROPERTY...

BEWARE!! This person is initially quite presentable/attractive and may have a male in tandem...
A psychopath and expert manipulator, several local landlords already have cause to regret their encounter...

From the Freudian point of view:

Dubya may be acting out a classical Oedipal drama--overcome Daddy to get Mommy. By deposing Saddam, when his father did not, he may want to prove himself more worthy of his mother's love. His rationale that he is avenging the assassination attempt on George, Sr., may be a reaction formation- his way of hiding the true motive from himself.

From the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fourth Edition:

Antisocial Personality Disorder--301.7

There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others since age 15 years as indicated by at least three of the following: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others; 7) lack of remorse by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others.

Another possibility from DSM IV:

Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder) 300.14

A) The presence of two or more distinct identities, each with its own enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to and thinking about the environment and self.

B) At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior.

Narcissistic personality disorder 301.81

1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance- exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements;

2) in preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love;

3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people

4) requires excessive admiration;

5) has a sense of entitlement- unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations;

6) is interpersonally exploitative;

7) lacks empathy, is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others;

9) shows arrogant, haughty behavior or attitudes.

This set of characteristics may describe Rumsfeld and Cheney better than Dubya.

Or, for those who feel that he's just a puppet for others:

Dependent Personality Disorder 301.6

1) has difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive amount of advice and reassurance from others;

2) needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his life;

3) has difficulty expressing disagreement with others because of fear of loss of support or approval;

4) has difficulty initiating projects or doing things on his own because of a lack of self-confidence in judgment or abilities.

5. goes to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and support from others, to the point of doing things that are unpleasant.

From a Jungian point of view:

Dubya may be identifying with an archetype (as Hitler did with the ubermensch)--something out of Revelations, perhaps, whereby he sees himself as an instrument of God's will to bring about Armageddon.

by Michael Parenti

In October 2002, after several days of full-dress debate in the House and Senate, the US Congress fell into line behind almost-elected president George W. Bush, giving him a mandate to launch a massive military assault against the already battered nation of Iraq. The discourse in Congress was marked by its usual cowardice. Even many of the senators and representatives who voted against the president's resolution did so on the narrowest procedural grounds, taking pains to tell how they too detested Saddam Hussein, how they agreed with the president on many points, how something needed to be done about Iraq but not just yet, not quite in this way. So it is with Congress: so much political discourse in so narrow a political space. Few of the members dared to question the unexamined assumptions about US virtue, and the imperial right of US leaders to decide which nations shall live and which shall die. Few, if any, pointed to the continual bloody stream of war crimes committed by a succession of arrogant US administrations in blatant violation of human rights and international law.

Pretexts for War

Bush and other members of his administration have given varied and unpersuasive reasons to justify the "war"---actually a one-sided massacre--- against Iraq. They claim it is necessary to insure the safety and security of the Middle East and of the United States itself, for Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear missiles. But UN inspection teams have determined that Iraq has no such nuclear capability and actually has been in compliance with yearly disarmament inspections.

As for the fact that Iraq once had factories that produced chemical and bacteriological weapons, whose fault was that? It was the United States that supplied such things to Saddam. This is one of several key facts about past US-Iraq relations that the corporate media have consistently suppressed. In any case, according to UN inspection reports, Iraq's C&B warfare capability has been dismantled. Still the Bushites keep talking about Iraq's dangerous "potential." As reported by the Associated Press (2 November 2002), Undersecretary of State John Bolton claimed that "Iraq would be able to develop a nuclear weapon within a year if it gets the right technology." If it gets the right technology? What does that say about anything? The truistic nature of this assertion has gone unnoticed. Djibouti, Qatar, and New Jersey would be able to develop nuclear weapons if they got "the right technology."

Through September and October of 2002, the White House made it clear that Iraq would be attacked if it had weapons of mass destruction. Then in November 2002, Bush announced he would attack if Saddam denied that he had weapons of mass destruction. So if the Iraqis admit having such weapons, they will be bombed; and if they deny having them, they still will be bombed--whether they have them or not.

The Bushites also charged Iraq with allowing al Qaeda terrorists to operate within its territory. But US intelligence sources themselves let it be known that the Iraqi government was not connected to Islamic terrorist organizations. In closed sessions with a House committee, when administration officials were repeatedly asked whether they had information of an imminent threat from Saddam against US citizens, they stated unequivocally that they had no such evidence (San Francisco Chronicle, 20 September 2002). Truth be told, the Bush family has closer ties to the bin Laden family than does Saddam Hussein. No mention is made of how US leaders themselves have allowed terrorists to train and operate within our own territory, including a mass murderer like Orlando Bosch. Convicted of blowing up a Cuban airliner, Bosch walks free in Miami.

With all the various pretexts for war ringing hollow, the Bushites resorted to the final indictment: Saddam was a dictator. The United States stood for democracy and human rights. It followed that US leaders were obliged to use force and violence to effect regime change in Iraq. Again, we might raise questions. There is no denying that Saddam is a dictator, but how did he and his crew ever come to power? Saddam's conservative wing of the Ba'ath party was backed by the CIA. They were enlisted to destroy the Iraqi popular revolution and slaughter every democratic, left-progressive individual they could get hold of, which indeed they did, including the progressive wing of the Ba'ath party itself---another fact that US media have let slide down the memory hole. Saddam was Washington's poster boy until the end of the Cold War.

So why has George II, like his daddy, targeted Iraq? When individuals keep providing new and different explanations to justify a particular action, they most likely are lying. So with political leaders and policymakers. Having seen that the pretexts given by the White House to justify war are palpably false, some people conclude that the administration is befuddled or even "crazy." But just because they are trying to mislead and confuse the public does not perforce mean they themselves are misled and confused. Rather it might be that they have reasons which they prefer not to see publicized and debated, for then it would become evident that US policies of the kind leveled against Iraq advance the interests of the rich and powerful at much cost to the American people and every other people on the face of the earth. Here I offer what I believe are the real reasons for the US aggression against Iraq.

A central US goal, as enunciated by the little Dr. Strangeloves who inhabit the upper echelons of policymaking in the Bush administration, is to perpetuate US global supremacy. The objective is not just power for its own sake but power to insure plutocratic control of the planet, power to privatize and deregulate the economies of every nation in the world, to hoist upon the backs of peoples everywhere—including the people of North America ---the blessings of an untrammeled "free market" corporate capitalism. The struggle is between those who believe that the land, labor, capital, technology, and markets of the world should be dedicated to maximizing capital accumulation for the few, and those who believe that these things should be used for the communal benefit and socio-economic development of the many.

The goal is to insure not merely the supremacy of global capitalism as such, but the supremacy of US global capitalism by preventing the emergence of any other potentially competing superpower or, for that matter, any potentially competing regional power. Iraq is a case in point. Some nations in the Middle East have oil but no water; others have water but no oil. Iraq is the only one with plenty of both, along with a good agricultural base—although its fertile lands are now much contaminated by the depleted uranium dropped upon it during the 1991 Gulf War bombings.

In earlier times, Iraq's oil was completely owned by US, British, and other Western companies. In 1958 there was a popular revolution in Iraq. Ten years later, the rightwing of the Ba'ath party took power, with Saddam Hussein serving as point man for the CIA. His assignment was to undo the bourgeois-democratic revolution, as I have already noted. But instead of acting as a compradore collaborator to Western investors in the style of Nicaragua's Somoza, Chile's Pinochet, Peru's Fujimora, and numerous others, Saddam and his cohorts nationalized the Iraqi oil industry in 1972, ejected the Western profiteers, and pursued policies of public development and economic nationalism. By 1990, Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East (which may not be saying all that much), and it was evident that the US had failed to rollback the gains of the 1958 revolution. But the awful destruction delivered upon Iraq both by the Gulf War and the subsequent decade of economic sanctions did achieve a kind of counterrevolutionary rollback from afar.

Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, US leaders decided that Third World development no longer needed to be tolerated. Just as Yugoslavia served as a "bad" example in Europe, so Iraq served as a bad example to other nations in the Middle East. The last thing the plutocrats in Washington want in that region is independent, self-defining developing nations that wish to control their own land, labor, and natural resources.

Judging from what has been happening in Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Panama, Grenada, and elsewhere---we can anticipate that the same thing is in store for Iraq following a US occupation: An Iraqi puppet government will be put in place, headed by someone every bit as subservient to the White House as Tony Blair. The Iraqi state-owned media will become "free and independent" by being handed over to rich conservative private corporations. Anything even remotely critical of US foreign policy and free market capitalism will be deprived of an effective platform. Conservative political parties, heavily financed by US sources, will outspend any leftist groupings that might have survived. On this steeply unleveled playing field, US advisors will conduct US-style "democratic elections," perhaps replicating the admirable results produced in Florida and elsewhere. Just about everything in the Iraqi economy will be privatized at giveaway prices. Poverty and underemployment, already high, will climb precipitously. So will the Iraqi national debt, as international loans are floated that "help" the Iraqis pay for their own victimization. Public services will dwindle to nothing, and Iraq will suffer even more misery than it does today. We are being asked to believe that the Iraqi people are willing to endure another massive bombing campaign in order to reach this free-market paradise.

Another reason for targeting Iraq can be summed up in one word: oil. Along with maintaining the overall global system of expropriation, US leaders are interested in more immediate old-time colonial plunder. The present White House leadership is composed of oil men who are both sorely tempted and threatened by Iraq's oil reserve, one of the largest in the world. With 113 billion barrels at 5 a barrel, Iraq's supply comes to over .8 trillion dollars. But not a drop of it belongs to the US oil cartel; it is all state owned. Baghdad has offered exploratory concessions to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. But with a US takeover of Iraq and a new puppet regime in place, all these agreements may be subject to cancellation. We may soon witness the biggest oil grab in the history of Third World colonialism by US oil companies aided and abetted by the US government.

One thing that US leaders have been interested in doing with Iraqi oil---given the glut and slumping price of crude in recent years---is keep it off the market for awhile longer. As the London Financial Times (24 February 1998) reported, oil prices fell sharply because of the agreement between the United Nations and Iraq that would allow Baghdad to sell oil on the world market. The agreement "could lead to much larger volumes of Iraqi crude oil competing for market shares." The San Francisco Chronicle (22 February 1998) headlined its story "IRAQ'S OIL POSES THREAT TO THE WEST." In fact, Iraqi crude poses no threat to "the West" only to Western oil investors. If Iraq were able to reenter the international oil market, the Chronicle reported, "it would devalue British North Sea oil, undermine American oil production and---much more important---it would destroy the huge profits which the United States [read, US oil companies] stands to gain from its massive investment in Caucasian oil production, especially in Azerbajian." We might conclude that direct control and ownership of Iraqi oil is the surest way to keep it off the world market and the surest way to profit from its future sale when the price is right.

War and violence have been good to George W. Bush. As of September 10, 2001, his approval ratings were sagging woefully. Then came the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, swiftly followed by the newly trumpeted war against terrorism and the massive bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. Bush's approval ratings skyrocketed. But soon came the corporate scandals of 2002: Enron, WorldCom, and even more perilously Harken and Halliburton. By July, both the president and vice-president were implicated in fraudulent corporate accounting practices, making false claims of profit to pump up stock values, followed by heavy insider selling just before the stock was revealed to be nearly worthless and collapsed in price. By September, the impending war against Iraq blew this whole issue off the front pages and out of the evening news. Daddy Bush did the same thing in 1990, sending the savings and loan scandal into media limbo by waging war against that very same country.

By October 2002, the Republican party, reeling from the scandals and pegged as the party of corporate favoritism and corruption, reemerged as the party of patriotism, national defense, and strong military leadership to win control of both houses of Congress, winning elections it should never have won. Many Americans rallied around the flag, draped as it was around the president. Some of our compatriots, who are cynical and suspicious about politicians in everyday affairs, display an almost child-like unlimited trust and knee-jerk faith when these same politicians trumpet a need to defend our national security against some alien threat, real or imagined.

War also distracts the people from their economic problems, the need for decent housing, schools, and jobs, and a recession that shows no sign of easing. Since George II took office, the stock market has dropped 34 percent, unemployment has climbed 35 percent, the federal surplus of 81 billion is now a deficit of 57 billion, and an additional 1.5 million people are without health insurance, bringing the total to 41 million. War has been good for the conservative agenda in general, providing record military spending, greater profits for the defense industry, and a deficit spending spree that further enriches the creditor class at the taxpayer's expense, and is used to justify more cuts in domestic human services.

Late Wednesday night, 5 February, an Israeli sniper killed two nurses, Abed al-Karim Anwar Labad, 21, and Omar Saad al-din Hussan, 21, while they were working at the al-Wafa Hospital in Gaza City.

The killings occurred when Israeli soldiers invaded the area, firing randomly from an Apache helicopter at civilian areas. Israeli forces then invaded a home situated next to the hospital, from where a sniper shot at the two nurses -- killing them both with a single bullet.

According to Dr Moawya Hassanen, head of the emergency unit at Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza, "The bullet hit Abed al-Karim in the chest, exited through his back, and entered Omar's chest. The killings took place while the nurses were performing their duties, fully clothed in medical uniforms."

Dear Secretary General Annan,

Only firm opposition to war can serve and save the United Nations.

The peoples and nations of the world are looking to the United Nations to prevent the United States from waging a war of aggression against Iraq. This is the purpose for which the United Nations was created. To fail to firmly oppose military action against Iraq as a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law will propel the United Nations toward irrelevancy, or worse, apologist for an aggressor Superpower.

The great majority of the people and the nations of the United Nations oppose aggression against Iraq. By saying "no" to the scourge of war, the United Nations may save the United States from its own misguided leadership. It will at least save the moral stature of the United Nations.

If the United Nations yields its authority to United States aggression, it may never achieve independence to pursue its founding purpose, a world free of war and the domination of violent forces. Better to oppose U.S. aggression and struggle to preserve the principles and major participation of peoples and nations in its cause than yield to the coercive will of the Bush Administration. The balance of world political, social and moral power has shifted against further United States aggression. Through the courage now to say no to war, the United Nations will prevail.

Iraq Has Been The Victim Of U.S. Aggression For 12 Years.

Far from being a threat to the United States, or any other people, Iraq has been a victim of U.S. aggression for 12 years. Between January 16, 1991 and March 1, 1991 the U.S. acknowledges it dropped 88,500 tons of bombs the equivalent of 7 1/2 Hiroshima bombs, on a defenseless Iraq. The U.S. targeted and destroyed essential parts of the civilian life support system; water storage, pipe lines, pumping stations, filtration plants; food production, processing, storage and marketing; medical facilities services and supplies; transportation; communications; housing; schools; mosques, churches and synagogues.

Asked his assessment of Iraqi casualties in the U.S. assault in 1991 General Colin Powell then the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Armed Forces responded "It's really not a number I'm very interested in." Patrick Tyler, New York Times, March 23, 1991, p.A1.

The U.S. placed its casualties during its assault at 157. More than 1/3 were from friendly fire, the remainder from mechanical failures and accidents. Iraqi casualties were estimated repeatedly at 100,000 by General Norman Schwartzkopf during March 1991. The Wall Street Journal reported that General Schwartzkopf provided the Congress with a report estimating 100,000 Iraqi soldiers dead on March 20, 1991. The Defense Intelligence Agency on May 25, 1991 formally estimated 100,000 Iraqi casualties.

More deadly than that bombing, twelve years of sanctions have inflicted death on over 1,500,000 people in Iraq, the majority children under 5 years old.

You must remember the enormity of this genocide as you consider whether to agree to another major U.S. military assault on Iraq. U.S. plans for intense bombardment of Iraq followed by land invasion discussed daily in the media would take thousands of Iraqi lives, however successfully executed. Violence that could radiate out from such a criminal assault may have catastrophic effect far more deadly and long lasting than the sanctions on Iraq.

The Only Rational Explanation For President Bush's Obsession With Attacking Iraq Is Oil And Related Geo-Political Power.

No rational analysis can support war against Iraq from fear it now has, or might later develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not use such weapons when it was mercilessly bombed in 1991 though the U.S. falsely insists it used weapons of mass destruction "against its own people" during the Iran-Iraq war. See Stephen C. Pellstierre, N.Y. Times Op. Ed,, January 31, 2003, "Iraq was not to blame for the Halabja massacre." Iraq has not used weapons of mass destruction while enduring 12 years of sanctions.

U.N. Inspectors have searched Iraq over most of the past twelve years and found nothing. The U.N. Inspectors have reduced the risk that Iraq might develop, use, or provide others with weapons of mass destruction far below the risk of the more than forty nations known to possess, or considered to be seeking, such weapons. President Bush has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. Any realistic hope for the elimination and future prevention of weapons of mass destruction must began with nations known to possess them.

The certainty of violence in a war against Iraq and probability of prolonged and proliferating violence from it, far exceed any risk that Iraq might develop and use weapons of mass destruction, or commit acts of aggression.

The only rational explanation for a war on Iraq is an intention by the U.S. to control and exploit its oil, use oil sales to pay for the cost of the war and occupation, benefit U.S. oil companies and petroleum engineering firms with awards of contracts, control the price of oil to enrich the U.S. and enlarge U.S. geo-political power in the region.

Secretary Of State Powell's Presentation To The Security Council On February 5, 2003 Was A Rhetorical Exercise Without Credibility. "We're been looking at this for a year and we just don't think it's there." New York Times article on CIA and FBI summary of U.S. intelligence data of Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, February 3, 2003 p. A13.

President Bush and other high U.S. political officials have long stated they believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Their "belief" is not based on intelligence data. It is a falsehood designed to overcome resistance to the war they intend to wage.

Secretary Powell's charts, photos and electronic intercepts of conversations require authentication. They are repetitious of old tactics like the U.S. claim North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in 1964.Only later the U.S. admitted there were "no boats" there. Or the U.S. claim in early August 1990 that 250,000 Iraqi troops were poised to invade on Saudi Arabia's border, disproved by commercial satellite photos that showed no troops were there.

U.N. investigators have worked in Iraq for years. their knowledge of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq exceeds the knowledge of Secretary Powell. Their investigations impede any development of, or plan to use such weapons. Secretary Powell's rhetoric encourages the acquisition of such weapons by small countries as essential to sovereignty, self defense and survival.

The investigative agencies of the United States government relied upon to determine whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or has any links to Al Queda, do not believe such weapons, or efforts to develop them, exist.

And if everything Secretary Powell feared and professed to find was true, an attack on Iraq would still be unlawful. International law does not permit a war of aggression for non violent acts in the absence of an imminent threat of violence.

In Their Determination To Attack Iraq And Control Its Oil Resources U.S. Officials Will Say, And Too Often Do, Anything.

"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested [by the U.S.] in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." President George W. Bush, State of the Union message, February 4, 2003, broadcast and published worldwide.

President Bush was speaking of summary executions, or pre-emptive murder in the language of a grade B Hollywood movie on organized crime. His doctrine of "pre-emptive" or "first strike" war makes war prevention impossible and international law meaningless. His doctrine has increased violence, or the threat of violence in occupied Palestine, between India and Pakistan, on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere. It promises the reign of violence and lawlessness.

The United Nations and each of its nations must say "No" to war.

Sincerely,

Remember JFK? he made the mistake of believing he actually WAS the President, and could stop the Vietname war, and preventing ISRAEL from getting the BOMB....and HE paid the appropriate price for his conceit.

Since then, our "leaders" have proved more amenable to the realities of "power" - i.e. they recognise they don't have any power... WE (the Power Elite, the Consortium, the Military Industrial Complex) have the POWER!!!

It was laid out to Johnson in 1966, and to every subsequent president.

"Lasting peace, while not theoretically impossibe, is probably unattainable; even if it could be achieved it would most certainly not be in the best interests of a stable society to achieve it.

"War fills certain functions essential to the stability of our society; until other ways of filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained - and improved in effectiveness. Allegiance to the State requires a cause - and a cause requires an enemy.

"War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies. No alternate method of control has yet been tested in a complex modern economy that has shown itself remotely comparable in scope or effectiveness.

"War itself is the basic social system. It is the system which has governed most human societies of record, as it does today. War-readiness is the dominant force. It accounts for approximately a tenth of the World's total economy.

"The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer. The basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers...."

By Stephen White and Paul Gilfeather

UP to 100,000 body bags and 6,000 coffins have been secretly delivered to a US base in Italy, a Catholic archbishop claimed yesterday.

Archbishop Renato Martino, president of the Pope's Council of Peace and Justice, said the consignment had arrived at the Sigonella base near Catania on the island of Sicily 10 days ago.

He said:

"Americans are expecting a high number of casualties.

That is why so many body bags and coffins have been sent to the base.

"I am very apprehensive about this.

War brings only destruction, misery and hate.

It doesn't resolve anything and is always like this.

"A true preventative action would be to try and avoid war.

The consequences of this war will make themselves all too obvious on the American people when they start to see coffins with loved ones in returning home."

Archbishop Martino added that he would be willing to travel to Washington and meet President Bush if the Pope asked him to be his special envoy.

The naval air station at Sigonella has been an American "hub" command centre since 1959.

the articles you refer to were all plagiarised by our wagonman. The majority of the info comes from a Times article written by John Le Carré.

However, your comment about Haliborange was not entirely correct. If you are willinjg to regard the Beeb as a reliable source, go to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2119129.stm

Listen you effing halfwit, give us credit for being able to read and just place urls in future.

America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs, and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam war.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the domestic rights and freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded.

The hounding of non-national U.S. residents continues apace. "Non-permanent" males of North Korean and Middle Eastern descent are disappearing into secret imprisonment on secret charges on the secret word of judges. U.S.-resident Palestinians who were formerly ruled stateless, and therefore not deportable, are being handed over to Israel for "resettlement" in Gaza and the West Bank, places where they may never have set foot before.

Are we playing the same game here in Britain? I expect so. Another 30 years and we'll be allowed to know.

The combination of compliant U.S. media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press: See page A27 if you can find and understand it.

IRAQ WAR PLANNED LONG AGO
No American administration has ever held its cards so close to its chest. If the intelligence services know nothing, that will be the best-kept secret of all. Remember that these are the same organizations who brought us the biggest failure in intelligence history: 9/11.

The imminent war was planned years before Osama bin Laden struck, but it was Osama who made it possible. Without Osama, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favoring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor and the ecology; and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for U.N. resolutions.

But Osama conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The U.S. defense budget has been raised by another 0 billion to around 60 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, tailored to respond equally to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the hands of "rogue states." So we can all breathe easy.

And America is not only deciding unilaterally who may or may not possess these weapons. It also reserves to itself the unilateral right to deploy its own nuclear weapons without compunction whenever and wherever it considers its interests, friends, and allies threatened. Precisely who these friends and allies are going to be over the next years will, as ever in politics, be a bit of a conundrum. You make nice friends and allies, so you arm them to the teeth. Then one day they're not your friends and allies anymore, so you nuke them.

It is worth remembering here for just how many long hours, and how deeply, the U.S. cabinet weighed the option of nuking Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. Happily for all of us, but for the Afghans in particular, whose complicity in 9/11 was much less than Pakistan's, they decided to make do with 25,000-ton "conventional" daisy-cutters, which by all accounts deliver as much clout as a small nuke anyway. But next time it'll be for real.

Quite what war Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost in Iraqi lives? It is probably by now a state secret, but Desert Storm cost Iraq at least twice as many lives as America lost in the entire Vietnam war.

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it.

Those who are not with Mr. Bush are against him. Worse--see his speech of Jan. 3--they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall--just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

Old-style American colonialism is about to spread its iron wings over all of us. More Quiet Americans are slipping into unsuspecting townships than at the height of the Cold War.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an armlock on God.

And God has very particular political opinions....
God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America.

God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is: a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers one president, one ex-president, one ex-head of the CIA, the governor of Florida, and the ex-governor of Texas. Bush Senior has some good wars to his credit, and a well-earned reputation for visiting America's wrath on disobedient client states. One little war he hand-launched was against his own former CIA pal, Manuel Noriega of Panama, who served him well in the Cold War but got too big for his boots when it was over. Power doesn't come much more naked than that, and Americans know it.

CARE FOR A FEW POINTERS?
George W. Bush. 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company. 1986-1990: on the board of the Harken oil company.

D**k Cheney. 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company.

Condoleezza Rice. 1991-2000: on the board of the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her.

And so on....

But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God's work. We're talking honest values here. And we know where your children go to school.

To be an acceptable member of the Bush team it seems you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family, and God, is there to tell us which is which. I think I may be evil for writing this, but I'll have to check.

What Bush won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil--but oil, money, and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second-biggest oil field in the world. Iran, next door, is said to possess the world's largest repositories of natural gas. Bush wants both, and who helps him get them will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't, won't.

If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture and murder his citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day--think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt--but these are our friends and allies.

In reality, I suspect, Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbors, and none to America or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or American could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of American growth.

What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its over-arching military power to all of us--to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it a phony legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now, I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't get out. Ironically, George W. himself may be feeling a little bit the same way.

In One-Party Britain, Blair on a lousy turnout was elected supreme leader by about a quarter of the electorate. Given the same public apathy and the continued dismal showing by the opposition parties at the next election, Blair or his successor will achieve similar absolute power with an even smaller proportion of the vote. It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a glove on him.

But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: As our governments spin, lie, and lose their credibility, and the supposed parliamentary alternatives to them merely jockey for their clothes, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Politicians can never believe how little they deceive us.

Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that, at the 11th hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened U.N. will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?

Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the U.N., he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or the U.N. By doing so, Blair will have helped provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. He will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. Welcome to the party of the Ethical Foreign Policy.

There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without U.N. approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the Special Relationship.

The stink of religious self-righteousness in the American air recalls the British Empire at its worst. Lord Curzon's cloak sits poorly on the shoulders of Washington's fashionably conservative columnists. I cringe even more when I hear my prime minister lend his head prefect's sophistries to this patently colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaida with a territorial assault on Iraq.

We are in this war, if it takes place, in order to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship with America, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.

"Of course, child. It will all be over while you're still in bed."

"Why?"

"Because otherwise Mr. Bush's voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him after all."

"But will people be killed, Daddy?"

"Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people."

"Can I watch it on television?"

"Only if Mr. Bush says you can."

"And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?"

"Hush, child, and go to sleep."

Last Friday an American friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying "Peace is also Patriotic." It was gone by the time he'd finished his shopping.

© David Cornwell 2003

McWorld v Jihad.....

Dear Spotter, Cryptic stuff with eruditial trimmings and all. I was taken by 'darkling', always having wondered what Matthew was on about, not unlike George's excoursion 'she walks in beauty as the night' which also says something essential that I agree with and can thrill to but if challenged to explain, could not. Your choice of line there too has a ring of poetic irony in today's world, 'ignorant armies sent to clash in the desert night'. How apropos can you get? The line transmits an impression, an idea that, were one to ask the army, in small words, what they do, they'd say "We clash. It's our job. Mostly in the dark," and of course, dark has descended when we're down to folk sending armies and the social and political scene is bereft of hope, a desert, as it were. I know zip about Matthew Arnold but by jingo, he seems to have hitten a few nails on the head there.

And Five Lampery reburgeons onto the scene! Ah! For those days of your! -- yer wha'? -- ....when Ramses walked the Brighton le Sands and Sniggery was home to a devilish cabbage plot, repulsing German invaders driving late model Volkswagens with cries of ............... (fill in your fave here)

Oh to be in Crosby now that Caracas is sinking into the quickmire of ideological duplicity writ large and deviously. And Spring is around the corner, just beyond the Northern Road Heliport. You're right Andy, a bit of decent incongruentiality, unvarnishedly irreverenced through the South Road lights, accelerating through 3,500 revs and into third, ballraces ascream, toward the timelessly unpredictable Five Lamps, always ready to keep us guessing. Ah! The fresh air of it! Ah!

Ah!

Dear Spotter, Great to see your humouric sensibilty there with the Under'water' 'earth'quake activity, 'around' our sacredized Bank! And yourdevice of the typhoon rattling Typhoo(n) teacups is righta uppa my strada altogether. You can't keep a good man down! On my next time over, we could all get toegther one evening with those seismologists! And a coffee maybe. I'll bring the real McCoy with along. Like.

Another Zionist plot - The hairy rat of Colpoys Bay, Wiarton Williestein has just predicted an earl end to winter. Not having seen his shadow it is fortold that spring can only be six weeks away.

Most of the world regards Israel's policies, and especially its oppression of Palestinians, as outrageous and criminal. This international consensus is reflected, for example, in numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel, which have been approved with overwhelming majorities.

"The whole world," United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said, "is demanding that Israel withdraw from occupied Palestinian territories. I don't think the whole world ... can be wrong." [April 19, 2002]

Only in the United States do politicians and the media still fervently support Israel and its policies. For decades the US has provided Israel with crucial military, diplomatic and financial backing, including more than billion each year in aid.

Why is the U.S. the only remaining bastion of support for Israel?

Israel is embarking upon a more aggressive approach to the war on terror that will TARGETED KILLINGS IN THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER FRIENDLY COUNTRIES, former Israeli intelligence officials told United Press International.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has forbidden the practice until now, these sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Israeli statements were confirmed by more than a half dozen former and currently serving U.S. foreign policy and intelligence officials in interviews with United Press International.

With the appointment of Meir Dagan, the new director of Israel's Mossad secret intelligence service, Sharon is preparing "a huge budget" increase for the spy agency, one Israeli official said.

Another former Israeli government official said that under Sharon, "diplomatic constraints have prevented the Mossad from carrying out 'preventive operations' (targeted killings) on the soil of friendly countries until now."

He said Sharon is "reversing that policy, even if it risks complications to Israel's bilateral relations."

A former Israeli military intelligence source agreed: "What Sharon wants is a much more extensive and tough approach to global terrorism, and this includes greater operational maneuverability."

Does this mean ASSASSINATIONS ON THE SOIL OF ALLIES?

"It does," he said.

A congressional staff member with deep knowledge of intelligence matters said, "I don't know on what basis we would be able to protest Israel's actions." He referred to the recent killing of Qaed Salim Sinan al Harethi, a top al Qaida leader, in Yemen by a remotely controlled CIA drone.

"That was done on the soil of a friendly ally," the staffer said.

But the complications posed by Israel's new policy are real.

"Israel does not have a good record at doing this sort of thing," said former CIA counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson.

Gerald Bull, an Ontario-born U.S. citizen and designer of the Iraqi supergun -- a massive artillery system capable of launching satellites into orbit, and of delivering nuclear chemical or biological payloads from Baghdad to Israel -- was killed in Belgium in March 1990. The killing is still unsolved, but former CIA officials said a Mossad hit team is the most likely suspect.

Bull worked on the supergun design -- codenamed Project Babylon -- for 10 years, and helped the Iraqis develop many smaller artillery systems. He was found with five bullets in his head outside his Brussels apartment.

This Israeli government source explained that in the past Israel has not staged targeted killings in friendly countries because "no one wanted such operations on their territory."

This has become irrelevant, he said.

Dagan, the new hard-driving director of Mossad, will implement the new changes, former Israeli government officials said.

Former Israel Defense Forces Lt. Col. Gal Luft, who served under Dagan, described him as an "extremely creative individual creative to the point of recklessness."

A former CIA official who knows Dagan said the new Mossad director knows and has a "real killer instinct."

Yes, Nelson was a terrorist and paid a 27-year price finding stuff out and then practising it energetically, despite his advancement in years and that's what he's famous for. Not the bit before. In contrast, the famous Jackal is in jail in Paris and writes a regular column in a paper here in Caracas, believe it or not. Seemingly, he isn't interested in the fruitful and benficial road taken by Nelson but rather in enhancing his praise for the 9/11 terrorists. So he won't get to be be famous for the same thing that Nelson is.

I wonder too why someone who thinks that an anonymous 'tadpole' said nothing, feels he needs to tell everyone, anonymously, and then also say nothing. That's laying something on thick, isn't it?

But I must say. "Phew!" to the written confirmation that the world is nigh. I have long been convinced I was standing on it.

And for those who feel 'jj' isn't enough when writing of anonymity, I am John Kelly at +58 212 979 4391, in Caracas and we are four hours behind Brooke Winter Time, Hereinafter, "BWT". Ciaou Guys an' Dolls!

Mr Mandela declared: "It is a tragedy what Bush is doing in Iraq. All he wants is Iraqi oil. We must expose this as much as possible. He is making the greatest mistake of his life by trying to cause carnage."

He was equally damning about Tony Blair, sneering: "He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer Prime Minister of Britain."

Mr Mandela's astonishing attack stung the Bush administration and Downing Street. Mr Mandela has repeatedly slammed Bush's stance over Iraq - but never in such harsh terms.

He told a conference in Johannesburg: "What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight and who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

"Why does the US behave so arrogantly? THEIR FRIEND ISRAEL HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. But because it's their ally they won't ask the UN to get rid of them."

He said: "Both Bush and Tony Blair are undermining an idea (the UN) sponsored by their predecessors."

Mr Mandela said he would support without reservation any action against Iraq agreed by the UN. But action without that support was unacceptable and set a bad precedent.

The world STATESMAN went on to launch a withering attack on America's human rights record.

Referring to the US wartime atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagaski, he said: "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are they now to pretend they're the policeman of the world?

"lf there is a country which has committed unspeakable atrocities, it is the US...they don't care for human beings."

Dear Jeanette, My feet won't take me as far as Tesco or Mark & Sparks these days. They are very good feet and not short on 'cute' in their '40s kinda way but I always keep them in my house, for immediate use as needed, as it were. Our nearest Tesco is about 8000 kilometres, give or take and depending if you get the gate near the door or have to walk further. The same would apply to the M&S option. If, though, you ever find yourself on an aeroplane headed for South America and wonder whether you might know someone down there, I'm your man! I could be waiting for y'all, on arrival and do the market and on the way up from the Caribbean to Caracas. As things stand in Caracas just now, however, even the government's local embassy has advised all Brit nationals to leave the country. It'll be getting in touch with Liverpudlians next, no doubt!

Any blancmange, trifle and scOne reesype stuff still welcome!

They are

www.recipeweb.co.uk

www.recipesource>com

"Oh all right then. It certainly does have that glorious black and white and Regent sidealk 'Eh, Missus, take us in to the fillum what's an A?' authenticity doesn't it, M'dear?"

Throwing myeself on Crosbegian generosity and spontaneity, I look forward in hope to a few little somethings in the near term upcomings... and thanking you kindly...

FACT: the USA pays MORE in aid every year to the Zionist entity(for the lemmings' benefit, that's ISRAEL) than it does TO THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED... Anyone care to explain???

When the doo-doo (bloody net nanny) hits the rotor blades, he's going to be somewhere safe.

Meanwhile Arab public opinion is going to be buzzing with a few serious questions, like:

How come Israel has ignored at least 4 U.N. resolutions without being invaded, and has possessed weapons of mass destruction since the seventies, paid for by American money, without being chastised by anybody? "See what we mean, the Westerners hate Islam...Just sign here and you'll be a fully-fledged Al-Qaida martyr

The likelihood that invasion will create a terrorist backlash probably doesn't bother Mr. Blair or Mr. Bush as it will give them the opportunity to reduce individual freedom even more than in the months since 911.

Late in the day, there is of course the other promising Brazilian initiative underway under the auspices of the Organsation of American States, sitting in Washington, in which the US is taking part. Those guys will be down here this week. All of which is another story.

Still, for lively changes of gear, let me recommend "The Oregon Trail" incorporating in the same book, "The Pontiac Conspiracy"(Francis Parkman, Googleable). When you're through, let me know what you thought. The trail book was written in 1847 and is the account of the young Francis Parkman's trip beyond Fort Larramee, along that trail and includes details of his six-week stay with the Sioux indians, being the "Dahkotah" in his appelation. The Pontiac account covers the period of the Brit-French barneys in Canada in the two decades before the declaration of independence and even tells of a foray made during indian troubles on the Pennsylvania border under the command of an able young Brit colonial officer, one George Washington. This is all exciting stuff and a thorough from the learned, modernly couched pap often on offer. And, in terms of a nicht nur sondern auch event, I would energetically affirm that it readily falls into the category that delighted you as a youngster and maybe not-so-youngster and still delights me, namely, that of a "Good Yarn". And we do find that Pontiac himself, an amazing character, wasn't American as our US cousins and especially Michiganonians might have thought, but a great chief of the Ottawa tribe, not even associate members of the five nations. The book is probably available because until recently, it was virtually required reading in the US education system. Then Political Correctness caught up with it.

Gerry P's a Catholic priest, and P.P. of (if memory serves) St. Dominic's.