Views: 3246|Replies: 30

"Britain, US make Mid-East unstable" [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-2-24 09:24:30 |Display all floors
Wed Feb 23, 2011

The UK Prime Minister has admitted that Britain played a direct role in destabilizing the Middle East region by supporting dictators who suppress their own people.

David Cameron conceded to his country's support for despots in the region while he was addressing the Kuwaiti Parliament on Tuesday on the second leg of his tour of the Middle East region where he was paying a visit along with the heads of eight giant British weapons manufacturing companies.

The Prime Minister said that popular uprisings now flaring across the Middle East showed that the West, Britain and the US in particular, had been wrong to support dictators and oppressive regimes that suppress human rights.

"History is sweeping through your neighborhood," he said.

"Not as a result of force and violence, but by people seeking their rights, and in the vast majority of cases doing so peacefully and bravely", added Cameron.

“Britain and other Western countries supported Hosni Mubarak, ousted by protests in Egypt. They have also backed authoritarian regimes in the [Persian] Gulf region, making few efforts to push allies towards democratic reform. That approach was wrong and counter-productive”, said the Prime Minister.

He said that Britain's economic and security interests would ultimately be advanced by a more democratic Middle East.

As Cameron was addressing the Kuwaiti Parliament, his entourage, including the CEOs of eight weapons manufacturers were busy negotiating to win contract for their products.

This is building democracy British style.

Bosses from major arms and aerospace companies such as BAe Systems, Qinetiq and Thales as well as other defense contractors including bosses from the Cobham Group, Ultra Electronics, Rolls Royce, Babcock International Group and Atkins are accompanying the Prime Minister on his tour that, he said he wanted to use to offer Britain's help in creating the “building blocks of democracy” in the region.

Critics say Cameron is promoting a mission to  weaponry to Arab dictators.

“It's an absolute disgrace that the Prime Minister has taken these arms dealers with him”, said Sarah Waldron, of Campaign Against Arms Trade.
No Virgin Girl in America

American can not live without SEX.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-2-24 11:51:52 |Display all floors


It was suggested by Henry Makow's correspondent that the New World Order is maneuvering the Middle
East for a lucrative war between the Arab countries and Isrealhell.This report seems to confirm that.You can
be sure of one thing,the common people will not benefit from anything the NWO does.Kamoron is a Zionist.
A war between the banker sponsored apartheid nuclear armed Zionist state and the Arabs would be lethal for
the latter and profitable for the Merchants of Death.I fear that Cairo and Tangier and Damacus and other
capitals could be nuked.I have also remarked that it is odd that most of the oil producing countries have not
been affected and neither has the price of oil.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-2-24 17:23:01 |Display all floors

'Stability, a cold code word with US'

Thu Feb 24, 2011

Interview with Professor Noam Chomsky, renowned American author and political analyst

US President Barack Obama has condemned the violent crackdown on pro-democracy protesters by Muammar Gaddafi's regime, calling it "outrageous and unacceptable."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also censured the Libyan government's severe suppression of Libyans and called for an end to the “bloodshed” in the North African country.

To learn more on the latest developments in the Arab world, Press TV has conducted an interview with renowned academician Professor Noam Chomsky who says the US and its allies have vested interests in stable dictatorships in energy rich countries rather than real democracies.

Here is the transcript of the interview:

Press TV: Professor Chomsky, I would like to ask your reaction to today's statements not only by Obama's administration officials but also by [UN Secretary-General] Ban Ki-moon as well considering the loss of life in Libya has been so high. Do you believe that they have done enough and said enough to meet the needs of the Libyan people?

Chomsky: I think that more can be done, what is happening is already pretty awful and that could lead to a really major bloodbath. Information is pretty sparse but at least the eastern province appears to be substantially under control by the popular uprising. Tripoli looks very dangerous. I think efforts could be made to provide assistance and protection to the parts of the population that have succeeded in liberating parts of Libya. However, nobody wants a western intervention. That would probably be not only wrong but also disastrous. But actions could be taken through the UN presumably.

Press TV: When the Egyptian revolution occurred, you along with several other American academics had actually written an open letter to President Obama urging him essentially to heed the will of the people. Is there any such movement currently underway within the US about Libya?

Chomsky: There have been pretty strong statements actually coming from pretty much the same sources, like the Campaign for Peace and Democracy in New York, which I think may have been the one that initiated the Egyptian statement, have also come out with the strong statement on this. Egypt is somewhat different. Remember in the case of Egypt, the US was in fact continuing to back the Mubarak dictatorship so the call was to drop that stand and provide at least verbal support for the popular uprising. Libya is a different story.

Press TV: Libya is important especially when it comes to the factor of oil and oil is obviously extremely important to the US and to the EU as well, which gets a lot of its oil from Libya. How will oil play out in this, considering the price of oil has been steadily increasing and there are a lot of fears about if this unrest continues, what will happen in that arena?

Chomsky: There is a reason why there is so much concern about the democracy uprising in the Arab world than in, say, the sub-Saharan Africa. This is where the major energy resources of the world are. There is quite a good reason why the US and its allies will pull out the stops to prevent any really functioning democracy from developing in the Arab world. To see why, that is enough to look at the studies of the Arab public opinion, which are well-known, they come from highly reputable sources, they are not published but they are certainly known to the decision makers and so on. So for example, the US will call for democracy in Iran just as it called for democracy in Eastern Europe states that are taken to be enemies but they know that the public doesn't agree with that, the Arab public. For the Arab public, the major threat by overwhelming majority is the US and Israel and Iran is considered a threat only a by small minority. Actually the figures are even sharper in Egypt than in other countries.

Press TV: When you mention about the fact that democracy in the region and the US's issues with that, certainly somebody within the administration, certainly somebody within all these officials of the EU as well, must understand that the people of the Arab world do understand what is going on and that will at some point in time backfire?

Chomsky: The leaders of the EU and of the US happen to agree with the ruling clerics in Iran that democracy is dangerous and intolerable. They know what the public thinks, they have always known so you can go back to, say, 50 years ago to the Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration. Eisenhower was concerned about what he called the campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world not among the governments that were mostly compiled but with the people and there was an analysis at the same time by the National Security administration, the highest planning body, which said yes, there is a campaign of hatred and the reason is that there is a perception that the US support dictatorships and blocks democracy and development. But the basic point in connection with this whole quite spectacular and remarkable uprising, the basic point was stated simply by a high Jordanian official who is now chief of the Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. He said the principle is that as long as people are quiet everything is fine, if the stop being quite, something has to be done to reassert control; but it they are quite, we do what we like. That is the basic principle of governance.

Chomsky: There is a lot of talk about what actually sparked this movement of revolutions within the Middle East and North Africa. A lot of people are asking why right now, because all these populace have been suffering under these dictators for many years?

Press TV: First of all, it is not just now. Take Egypt for example. There have been significant labor struggles going on for years. The immediate sparks for the January 25th movement was the April 6th group of young media-savvy activists but they picked their name from a major strike action in 2008 which was supposed to be on April 6th but was crushed by the government and it is only one of the series of labor struggles that have been going on for years and in fact the January 25th movement really got a major shot in the arm when the rising Egyptian labor movement joined in a few days later. So there is a background. It is not just Egypt, the same was in other places; things have been simmering for a long time. It takes a spark that lights a fire that carries it forward.

Chomsky: Others, like Henry Kissinger, have said the US essentially would need to choose between democracy and stability in the region. When the Egyptian revolution had begun, Israel had essentially shown its displeasure at the fact that there would be democracy at its door step in the Persian Gulf states and in North Africa as well. Why is so hard for the US to accept that is possible that there may be both democracy and stability together in the region?

Press TV: You have to remember that stability is a cold code word. Stability doesn't mean stability; it means obedience to US domination. So let's go back to Kissinger again. He was the primary agent in, among other things, undermining the democratic regime in Chile. He later commented that “The US had to destabilize Chile in order to establish stability.” If you understand the terminology, that is not a contradiction. It means the US had to undermine, through Kissinger initiative, the parliamentary government in order to institute an obedient dictatorship and that is what he manes by stability. He doesn't mean that things are calm and straightforward, he means they are under control. That of course it is inconsistent with democracy for the reasons I mentioned before. Just look at the studies of the public opinion.


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-2-24 17:29:48 |Display all floors

'US govt. usurps Libyan resources'

Interview with Ralph Schoenman, a political commentator from Berkeley, CA.

The US government takes full advantage of Muammar Gaddafi's puppet regime, usurping the country's resources for decades now, a political analyst says.

For over 40 years, under Gaddafi's regime, the US has annexed Libya with the people bearing the full weight, reports Ralph Schoenman, a political commentator from Berkeley, CA.

In an interview with Press TV, Schoenman shares his thoughts on Gaddafi's autocratic regime and US imperialist tendencies.

Press TV: To begin with, let's just go back to Sifol-Islam Gaddafi 's speech that he gave last night. It was rather long at times. I was a bit confused because I was the anchorman and it was hard at times to understand. What was your understanding of his speech, and perhaps the impact he wanted it to have on the situation in Libya, and the situation in the Middle East?

Ralph Schoenman: Well, we have to keep in mind that the Gaddafi regime, which has been a thorn in the side of imperialism for a period of years, has always been an autocratic regime, with very little empowerment of the population as such. Given that, and the ways in which the United States had setup Gaddafi, for example with that cause-flag operation in Berlin, which was an attack organized by the 'Mossad' as German newspapers and television established, let alone the so-called Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103, which has been documented in writings of mine called Iraq and Kuwaiti History Suppressed: an operation of US central Intelligence Agency, for a long time Gaddafi has been in the sights of US imperialism.

He has completely accommodated himself now to the ruling capitalist powers and the requirements to those of the United States, Italy, and Germany. And indeed, we have to keep in mind that Gaddafi was supporting Mubarak and Ben Ali in Tunisia, and extending his support to them even as the mobilizations in Egypt and in Tunisia were unfolding.

As to the speech of the son, it is a sort of concession to the opposition combined with threats of mass attacks by the armed forces on the population of demonstrators. It's a foundering speech of incoherence that reflects the fact that the regime is increasingly isolated regardless of the reality that imperialism always exploits an opportunity in a given country.

We have to bear in mind that it is the capitalistic and imperialistic powers that have been in complete accommodation with the Gaddafi regime for several years. And that the uprising is reflection of dissatisfaction of the people long disadvantaged and long disempowered by this regime. The uprising in Libya is part of a generalized revolt of the poor, hungry, oppressed, and exploited. There is an essential revolutionary content to the struggle in Libya as there is in the surrounding areas that we can be of little doubt.

Press TV: Government security forces are known to be very vicious in Libya no matter how high the human cost would be. They know they have to put these demonstrations down because if they fail they're the ones that will pay the highest price. They have absolutely nothing to lose.

Ralph Schoenman: I agree with you. The struggles in the East, in Benghazi, and the cities of the East are the struggles of the peoples who have been in all opposition to the regime, and who have been disposed by the regime. And the security forces of the Gaddafi government are largely mercenaries. And ironically enough, it's parallel to the way the monarchy in Bahrain operates.

Gaddafi draws on mercenaries from Chad, the Central African Republic, and Sudan because he cannot trust the army and police in his own country. As in most countries, rank-and-file soldiers, when put to the test of firing on their own population, do not do that. They have rebelled in Benghazi.

We have to recall the Iranian revolution when, in the final analysis, the soldiers in the barracks in Tehran handed out their weapons to the masses. And that was the end of the Shah's regime and the general strike of the oil workers. And let me emphasis, please, that in Libya the workers are on strike. The oil workers are on strike. The working class has joined in this struggle. It is rapidly assuming national proportions and I do not see that this regime of Gaddafi can withstand this generalized struggle. The more brutal at attempts to be, the more swift will be its demise.

Bear in mind, the generalized uprising of the hungry and oppressed in the region has now extended to Morocco, Oman, and Kuwait. This is not one country alone. This is a region. This is a whole population that is subject to imperial and Zionist domination. And, of course, the terrible exploitation of the capitalist order where food is beyond the ability of people to purchase and to obtain is in the area where the people are rebelling.

Press TV: The Unites States has shown it has this policy of preferring stability over democracy. Do you think it's satisfied with the ongoing situation or will it lead to the satisfaction of the United States?

Ralph Schoenman: When we speak about the United States, let's be clear that it's 1% of the population that owns over 95% of the national wealth and imperialism seeks to secure the resources of entire regions and cheap labor. And to do that it must destroy the sovereignty and national independence of countries and to put in place regimes that are basically semi-colonial country-ing regimes. Those are its constant objectives.

In Libya, they will seek to take advantage of the struggle against this regime. But the more that the population is empowered, and the more that the population seizes control over its own resources and seeks to create an economy in which the hungry are no longer hungry and the wealth of the country is used for the benefit of population. And the more that that is organized programmatically and politically, the more imperialism will be on the defensive. And we will see how quickly the imperialist turn on a popular government or a democratic rebellion against Gaddafi.

There are only 6 million people in Libya, not 80 million as in Egypt. And the country has enormous oil riches and wealth that could transform the lives of everybody who lives in Libya. Not only Libya but, in my politics, there should be a socialist federation of the entire region where nations are empowered together to utilize their riches and resources to advance social betterment under democratic control.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-2-24 17:30:15 |Display all floors


Press TV: The reason why I brought up this issue of the United States preferring stability over democracy is that [during] the Tripoli convention of 2003 with Washington Libya surrendered and Washington let Kaddafi and his son rule Libya. Libya also surrendered its atomic facility and weapons, and promised to pay about a billion dollars in compensation for the Lockerbie bombing. We see America is silent right now. Do you think the direction of events is to the satisfaction of America?

Ralph Schoenman: No. The question of American interests and satisfaction always has to do with their capacity to deepen exploitation and domination of entire peoples and nations. The Gaddafi regime has bent. The Gaddafi leadership capitulated to US imperialism. With you describing with respect to Lockerbie, by the way, to tell you quite frankly, there is a group called 'Interforce' in the United States, these are retired intelligence agents of the CIA, MI6, German intelligence, the Mossad who are into business for themselves and they offer their services for investigative work.

And after the Pan American bombing, the family members of those who died from the Pan Am 103 flight were suing Pan Am for responsibility; they hired 'Interforce' who did an investigative report. I have a copy of it that I obtained at the time, which established that the Central Intelligence Agency blew up Pan Am 103 because a series of US hired killers in Jordan and Lebanon who had been taking out radicals and nationalists according to imperialism in the region, and I mean killing them, some of them had observed that their own numbers were being removed by the CIA, and they were taking a flight in as it were coming in from the cold. That's the rational and reason why Pan Am 103 was blown up, thoroughly documented by these intelligence services, clearly described and reported upon in the Toronto Daily Star, and which I mention in my own book, and the evidence in Scotland verified this.

They could not obtain any evidence against these Libyan fall guys and asked Gaddafi under pressure to allow them to jail a Libyan national. The Libyan representation of the United Nations said we had done this but we had no responsibility or involvement in Lockerbie, what-so-ever. So the official records of Libya, not-with-standing their capitulation is based upon the evidence that of it stands. But the burden of this is that the regime is long since abandoned any pretense of resistance to imperialism in defense of the Palestinian people. They gave lip service to those old goals in the past but it has long since separated itself from the aspirations of the people in the region.

Press TV: Let's talk about the future, because we are very quickly running out of time here, we were talking about some of the basis, surrendering to people right now. People have been armed in some areas, within Tripoli, and especially in Benghazi. And it seems that the government, whatever move the people make, it wants to take the upper hand, for example, after people were being armed they brought their warplanes out there on the streets, they started bombing people. How bad do you think the violence is about to become in Libya?

Ralph Schoenman: I fear for the population. I have no doubt that the regime will crumble. The violence that is being threatened by a besieged oligarchy is very real. By the same token, as it begins to inflict that violence, the disaffection from the rank-and-file soldiers will join with that of the population. And I would not be surprised to find that Gaddafi and his entourage wind up like Mussolini, hanging from lampposts. This is a revolution that will not be contained by mercenary soldiers on behalf of a besieged autocratic regime.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-2-24 17:48:13 |Display all floors
This is a revolution that will not be contained by mercenary soldiers on behalf of a besieged autocratic regime.

this revolution will remake the whole of the middle east.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2011-2-25 08:17:29 |Display all floors

ME revolts threaten US military bases

Thu Feb 24, 2011

A US ship at its major military base in Bahrain

The recent uprisings in Arab states have raised serious concerns in the US over the major reliance of its military operations on its bases across Persian Gulf's Arab nations.

About 27,000 American troops are deployed at US military bases in numerous Arab countries in the region, including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, AFP reported.

As the Bahraini government brutally cracks down on the country's pro-democracy protesters, at least 4,000 American troops are stationed there as part of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters.

The persisting turmoil in the Persian Gulf state will most likely threaten US military operations in the Middle East region.

However, Pentagon has publicly described the ongoing uprisings as 'popular movements' that would not at all affect its naval headquarters or other bases in the region.

According to former American diplomat David Aaron, “No single base or agreement represents an Achilles heel, but in general, the network is critical for American military power.”

US military operations in most Arab states are mainly focused on exercising control over oil shipping routes in the Persian Gulf.

Taking into account the likely consequence of the Egyptian revolution and other mass uprisings in the other Arab world, there is a high possibility that the US will suffer a major decline in its vast military power and influence in the region.

The loss is certain to serve as a huge drawback for the US in the Persian Gulf area, as it would no longer be capable of monitoring Iran's military activities.



Shut down your bases and go back home US, the show is over, you lost.

Shahrokh Saadat-Nejad:
Taking Back the Middle East: US Military has threatened, attacked, raped, murdered the Middle East for over 60 years.
No Virgin Girl in America

American can not live without SEX.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.