@Did –
just for the record – I am all for “new” Europe being integrated into the E.U. framework and willing to pay for this. But please not on the conditions of neoliberal U.S. policies and not to enrich folks who already have more than their fair share of wealth.
And that is what is at work in Poland and the Ukraine and elsewhere. The leaders there seem spoonfeed by AEI associates. They push up “threats” to disguise the sellout of their countries while shortchanging their constituenty.
The elite of those countries damage and may kill the social security pacts in old Europe. In this they are opposed by the voters in these countries, not by the elites.
Putin and his consorts are just one of the gangs of looters in Russia, though in my view the most friendly one for their population in a lot of recent years.
As for Ukraine, one also has to understand the Russian (and a big chunk of Ukranians) feeling on this. Kiev was their capital and the Ukraine has longer been an integral part of Russia than it has not. The independence of Ukraine as a state may well be temporary.
Northern European behaviour versus southern European has changed as it is changing versus eastern Europe. Sure we have a fair share of idiots on both sides who want to derail that.
In general this is fight between some social-democratic half capitalist block and a free-loot-for-those-who-can block. So far the populations tend to prefer the first.

Posted by: b | Jan 2 2006 22:18 utc | 4

OT: jonku- the sitch in rwanda was far from irrelevant to the us/uk. we had some discussions/links on it back in may that you might want to check into to go along w/ what you heard from dallaire. here’s a link to some background from boutros boutros-ghali in that thread. also read this link, which i bungled in the may thread, but which malooga has pointed to a in a couple of his posts last fall.

Posted by: b real | Jan 3 2006 2:09 utc | 6

Gotterdammerung?
If even some of this is true, Intelligence indications and warnings abound as Bush administration finalizes military attack on Iran. It’s just a matter of time before America’s back will be broken never to heal. It’s enough to make me drink myself into a stupor tonight. Madness sheer utter madness.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jan 3 2006 6:25 utc | 8

b please don’t take any observations I make of germans or northern europeans as any sort of criticism.
The only thing I really know is that in my travels people are pretty much the same everywhere. Sure they have a bit of a cultural overlay which can sometimes conceal their actions/motives but take a group of 100 people from one society, plonk them in another and disregarding language barriers one will see pretty much the same range of behaviours from those 100 people as you would expect to see from any randomly selected group of 100 from within that society.
One of the difficulties that developing nations face is expectations being placed on them in the early stages of development that already developed countries didn’t have to deal with until they had successfully kick started their economies. I don’t want to go into this too much here I would rather save it for the thing
I’m working on.
One of the sticking points for the primary producer developing countries is that they were being asked to put a regulatory system which covered things as diverse as intellectual property, wages, environmental controls, health and safety that no developed country had been made to regulate in the early stages of their own development.
It is unreasonable to expect the former Warsaw Pact nations to have the same regulatory framework in place that the older EU nations have. To do so will leave them permanently crippled.
This sticking point is exactly the way that BushCo brought Kyoto undone. They argued that it was unfair developing countries should be allowed to increase their emissions at a greater rate than the US. Of course the fact that the developing nations were coming off a much lower base was completely ignored.
The result of the BushCo dismantling of Kyoto has been that mainstream opinion now holds there shouldn’t be a wide divergence between the rate of growth in first and third world countries and what there is should be transferable. In other words the first world should be allowed to exploit the third world for it’s emissions allocation just as at rips off everything else it considers of value from the poorer nations.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jan 3 2006 6:54 utc | 10

re: The Ukraine (which I always found was the most important country to control in the board game of Risk, for what its worth)–In many ways, this goes to show that the world was inherently more stable, and hence safer (at least from the advent of a WWIV), before the Soviet Union collapsed.
These are the machinations of the George Soros wing of the “Free Trade for US” party.
I was mortified to observe the alternative press in the U.S. uniformly celebrated the so-called “Orange Revolution” as being some sort of victory for “Democracy”–in any more than its most narrow formal sense. They missed an excellent opportunity to educate their listeners as to how the machinery of Democracy has been subverted, and choices preordained, by the limiting of choice to a faction of the ruling elite, even before the first ballot is cast or lever is pulled. There was precious little coverage of the economic interests behind the candidates, and Yushchenko’s campaign promises were treated completely seriously (in sort of the same unthinking way the MSM treated Bush’s campaign promises). (To his credit, it should be noted that Yushchenko is keeping his promise to remove troops from Iraq, but perhaps that is only to freshen them up before they are sent into Iran.) It should be noted that on the domestic front Yushchenko’s rule has been an unmitigated disaster.
We all know how much aid, and money, the leaders of the “Revolution” were given by the U.S, and its proxies. However, it is little known that the leaders of the “Revolution” were also tutored in Non-violent resistance techniques by people I know at the Albert Einstein Institute, using Gene Sharp’s work. In other words, even Radicals were unwittingly abetting the task of “expanding the empire.” I found this realization particulary sobering, if not to say downright depressing–in an Orwellian “Homage to Catalonia” realpolitik sort of way. I realized then that non-violent techniques were not inherently “good”, or even inherently any different than nuclear weapons: Both are just tools which can be misused to the peril of many. In other words, you can be too smart for your own good. Non-violent resistance techniques are very powerful–just be sure that whoever you teach them to has also been taught a deep analysis of the powers you would like them to resist, and what they will get as an alternative.

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 3 2006 8:56 utc | 12

Are these rumors of imminent attack on Iran all coming from the same place, Uncle? Cause I’m starting to get more and more concerned.
The words “tactical nuke” don’t help, either.

Posted by: Rowan | Jan 3 2006 9:56 utc | 14

Rawanda
RD = Romeo Dallaire (his real name) UN head of mission during the slaughter of eight hundred thousand people. I think that without the UN there, more would have died.
wow I thought I had read every thread here. Maybe I was on vacation while y’all discussed Rwanda back in May 2005 or maybe there’s just a lot more stuff under the moon than meets the eye.
Thank you again b real, the Mike Collins interview you linked to is an interesting juxtaposition to the Dallaire book.
The names are the same but the times are different, perhaps importantly so. I didn’t glean from the account I read that the US and UK were dominant, or that France was their purported enemy. Or even now …
although in late ’94 (after the slaughter according to RD and my memory) France did send many troops to Rwanda under UN Chapter 7, leaving Dallaire’s force in the unfortunate position of being a Chapter 6 force (UN charter, peacekeepers and human treaty boundaries) standing between the former Rwanda Government supported by a much larger French force of UN-sanctioned troops (under UN Chapter 7, empowered to use force to avert a humanitarian catastrophe — in other words, with guns and not afraid to use them) and the non-government rebels, ably commanded by Paul Katame (who RD commends as a very good strategist who allowed his people to die as he gained control over his enemy’s territory), apparently Katame is now Rwandas’s President? Looks like the rebels won.)
As RD states in a mien beyond black comedy, he commanded a tiny force of blue berets against or between an insurgent force and a second UN-sanctioned and supported force.
If you can’t imagine it, he used the phrase about being a mushroom and kept in the dark. The rebel leaders were flying to Paris while he was waiting for a water buffalo and eating German canned army food. The word scapecoat comes up in this book from time to time, as do the phrases killing, slaughter and genocide. Children too.
I tend to trust the Dallaire book because it is scholarly and researched with a team. And I just read it 🙂
I have to go now to read your sources.
Killing is wrong. Murder is wrong. On this we cannot disagree.

Posted by: jonku | Jan 3 2006 11:36 utc | 16

putin, who i perceive as implementing his country’s interests in a complex world just gave the ukrainians a gulp of their own medicine: want market ? pay market ! it was not like the russians would remain indifferent to the ukraine cozying up to the EU and allowing US bases on their territory.
yushchenko and his cronies have been pandering, nay, crawling into the arsehole, of the “west” at least since their sham “orange revolution” somehow expected the russians to keep quite and swallow it all, well, now they got their arse kicked badly.
if that inept gangster yushchenko had minimally managed the conflict, it would not have broken out into the public view, but he probably drank all the kool-aid his friends from CIA and yisroel served him, and he fucked up badly: the russians called ukraine a thief in public for “diverting” gas, and scared off his new “friends” in the EU.
the above commentary about sending gas via alternative routes ignores the fact that if the russians cut off gas supply there will be no gas to send via any routes, and the chinese will be happy to buy up any market surplus.
wayne madsen also has an interesting view on the gas dispute – in his post of 02.jan he states that the russians used this brawl to warn many EU countries from supporting an upcoming (nuclear) attack on iran by the US. i quote:
… European intelligence sources also report that the recent decision by Putin and Russia’s state-owned Gazprom natural gas company to cut supplied of natural gas to Ukraine was a clear warning by Putin to nations like Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Moldova, France, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, and Germany that it would do the same if they support the U.S. attack on Iran … The Bush administration charged Russia with using gas supplies as a “political tool.”
this is interesting. i found it weird that gas supply to europe “has been restored” after the cuts had affected “only ukraine”, in addition to the intercession of the EU and the US in what has been characterized in MSM as a dispute between neighbors.

Posted by: name | Jan 3 2006 13:58 utc | 18

The possible linkage between the Gazprom decision and a US attack on Iran had never occurred to me, but now that it’s been pointed out, it makes perfect sense. Russia is hardly a superpower anymore (other than having enough nuclear weapons to kill pretty much everybody), but it does possess substantial leverage through natural gas supplies to Western Europe. In this case, I think the message was twofold: (1) to Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and Hungary — don’t support a US attack on Iran (2) to Western Europe — convince the Americans this is a really, really bad idea.
That last concept is one that I suspect has a lot of us hung up. That attacking Iran would be a disaster for the United States on so many levels is so obvious as to require no elaboration. In thinking this through, however, I have come to the conclusion that, from the perspective of the Bush Administration, attacking Iran makes perfect sense. This doesn’t mean that the Bush regime will necessarily launch the attack, but I think it is worthwhile to review their logic, at least as I understand it.
First, Iraq was a huge gamble, and they knew it. The goals in invading Iraq were to remake the Middle East in the image of the US, ensure the safety of Israel, and, not incidentally, give the US control over a huge chunk of oil, oil that it could then deny China and other rivals. Except it wasn’t really supposed to be a gamble. I have reached the conclusion that Bush truly and literally believed that God wanted him to invade Iraq. Bush clearly sees himself as a world-historic figure chosen by Destiny to lead the United States forward into a new era. That’s why no planning was done for the post-invasion period — if God guaranteed victory, God would take care of the details. I’m not sure Bush’s Neocon supporters saw quite the divine role, but they too believed that the US invasion would represent a world-historical event, and that US domination (I don’t think that’s too strong a word) of the world was the shape of the future. Cheney and Rumsfeld are nationalist imperialists pure and simple, and Iraq would be the first step in an explicit Imperium. The bottom line is, anyone who has ever studied history in even a passing manner knows how incredibly risky war is, and that you can never be sure of the results. These folks — this cabal, if you will — were absolutely sure that Iraq was not only the right thing to do, but was required by history. There’s a strong whiff of Hegelianism in all this, which is totally consistent with the former Marxism of many of the neocons, by the way.
Of course, things didn’t turn out quite the way they expected. In fact, if you’re cynical, you could conclude that the real winners in Iraq have been the Iranian mullahs. But if you’re Bush and his supporters, this is good, because Iran has been the real enemy all along. Unlike Saddam, Iran’s rulers have been fervent supporters of international terrorism, Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear program, and Iran represents an attractive alternative to the US model in the Moslem world. As one neocon wit put it back in 2001, “everybody wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”
Yet it would have been impossible to attack Iran before now — there just wasn’t enough evidence, and more importantly, the US public had not been sufficiently cowed. Now we know that Iran is trying to build nukes, they have supported terrorism, and they are doing their darndest (quite successfully) to take over southern Iraq. The US public is used to the idea of us attacking countries for no cause. In a way, the increasing disenchantment with the war in Iraq actually supports an attack on Iran, for it will mean that the whole Middle Eastern adventure wasn’t pointless after all.
On the flip side, Bush and his cronies desperately need something to change the terms of debate. Not only has Iraq been an unmitigated disaster, but Congress and the public are (to the Bushistas) surprisingly upset over Bush’s cavalier treatment of the US Constitution. His Republican henchmen in the Chamber of People’s Deputies are shitting themselves over the Abramoff investigation. The US is in deep debt to Japan and China (the new bad guy), while Latin America is suddenly favoring Fidel over George. The Europeans aren’t actively opposing us, but they’re clearly mistrusful of the US. Under these circumstances, attacking Iran would be a lot like a gambler going down double or nothing in Vegas after a long losing streak — you’ve got to do something to change your luck, and there is a psychological tendency to conclude that that something must be dramatic.
The final reason Bush thinks he can attack Iran is that the US can get away with it. Especially if the attack involves tactical nukes, it will scare everybody else in the world shitless. Nobody will be willing to take the United States head-on. The US will have established itself as the only power in the world, and the Chinese in particular will do whatever we tell them to. Of course, then we’ll have to worry about terrorism even more, so Congress and the public will be eager to give Bush the unlimited dictatorial powers that he claims and craves.
The key to all this is the Bush belief that God has chosen him to do great things, and the neocon belief that history demands that the US act in this manner. To their way of thinking, the US can’t lose.
Just because things can happen doesn’t mean they will happen. I personally think a US attack on Iran is unlikely because it is in fact so incredibly stupid as to boggle the mind. Nonetheless, I think it is useful to try to look at things from Bush’s warped perspective, so that we can try to figure out what he’s going to do, and why we have to stop him.
Put on your ghost shirts.

Posted by: Aigin | Jan 3 2006 15:55 utc | 20

I read that the only ex-Soviet-bloc country that has come up to the plate to support the upcoming bombing of Iran is Poland. (I’m still having tremendous difficulty in believing the reality of that scenario…) I’m sorry I can’t link, the article was crappy anyway, as no thorough review was undertaken; Turkey, though, was mentioned as refusing (again) with vigor.
Now, that is hardly surprising, pretty much what you’d expect, even if the details are not worked out or attested to, sourced.
Russia is against it, naturally. I wondered if Pooty Poot closing the taps was a kind of warning? I surmise that even if it was not, and was purely the outcome of Rus-Ukr quarrels, it will be felt as a warning by everyone linked to those pipelines. (Reading further down in the thread I see this is mentioned – I started to write before reading the whole thing..)
excerpt from Debs:
Until the slavs in the East have had to labour for tuppence a week the way that the mediterranean countries had to in the 60’s and 70’s during the consolidation of EU mark 1, they will be despised by ‘old’ Europeans in exactly the same way as the Southern Europeans were once regarded by Northern countries such as Britain, France and Germany.
Although there is some truth in what Debs says (particularly about human trafficking, see his post)- I’d like to present a contrary pov. Things have changed.
The ‘new’ EU countries represent, officially and vociferously:
a huge new market – an opportunity for cooperative business deals that will be immensely profitable – outsourcing that makes sense – a pool of highly qualified potential immigrants ready to travel (many have, and the massive immigration of the ‘poor’ predicted by doom sayers has not taken place) – the possibility of ‘fresh starts’ unfettered by the usual problems of colonialism, etc. – an extension of territory, of arable land, agriculture – the possibilty of cleverly changing the ‘tired’ demographics in the ‘old’ EU – consolidation of a large zone that might possibly compete sucessfully with the US (therefore the endless US efforts to create splits and divisions) – a chance to encourage, or enforce, the mobility of workers, students, and so on.
That leaves out cultural aims, mingling of expertise, the adoption of a common language (it will be English), and the assuaging of guilt. Many know that they took a terrible beating after 90, that NATO was responsible, reparations must be made (leaving out old history here…).
AND – a closer tie to the sources of energy the EU partly relies on (see above) …
Poles, Ukrainians, Serbs, etc. (to the same tune as Greeks..) are not immigrants asked to work for a pittance, and return home when they are done; legislation gurarantees that. They are no looked down upon. Not amongst the ordinary people I have spoken to in Holland, France, etc. Moreover, Hungary, Poland, others, receive ‘immigrants’ from the old EU – they go to earn money, learn from experts, have a freerer or more quiet or more sporty life, branch out, buy cheaper property and so on. (Ex-Yugo remains a black spot.)
It is not all roses of course. Just wanted to put in those 2 cents, very much an ‘official’ pov, but relevant nonetheless. Sexy Polish plumbers are .. cool!

Posted by: Noisette | Jan 3 2006 18:03 utc | 22

Yet another sideline to the pipeline crisis is that Germany’s conservative Minister of Economics, Michael Gloss, is very openly questioning the country’s decision to wind down its nuclear power industry. These bastards don’t miss a trick.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 3 2006 19:34 utc | 24

This post seems either terribly dated or terribly off topic as the thread has progressed. Nevertheless, I composed this this morning but had to leave before it was complete.
jonku stated,”Killing is wrong. Murder is wrong. On this we cannot disagree.”
Asked about the moral rightness of the Iraq war, the Dalai Lama offered only historical examples and ambiguity.
“History showed that the Second World War served us, protected,” he said. “The Vietnam War — same motivation, same goal — protect Vietnam.
and this from AFB:
The allied victory in World War II “saved Western civilization,” and conflicts fought in Korea and Vietnam were honorable from a moral standpoint, the 14th Dalai Lama said in answer to questions.
While I realize that I am not the religious thinker or leader that the Dalai Lama is, I hope that I am a more astute, and critical, political analyst. Therefore, this post may be taken as slightly tongue-in-cheek.
Even as a Jew, I cannot find a whole lot of moral light between the holocaust and the 97-99% extermination of the Native American. One might think that as a Native person–that is more or less historically native to the land he comes from, Tibet–His Holiness, the Dalai Lama might be slightly more critical of the attributes, and historical actions, of so-called “Western Civilization”, and not so attached to its propaganda forms. I would expect that even the average Buddhist in as environmentally sensitive an area as Tibet would question the myth of “Perpetual Growth based upon Industrial Progress, through effective control of Natural Resources”, which is inseparable from “Western Civilization”, far more than the Dalai Lama does. But then perhaps there is a spiritual difference, which I am not, as of yet, sufficiently sensitive enough to perceive, between the cutting down of Tibetan forests by the Chinese, and the cutting down of Indonesian forests by the Japanese, or the cutting down of Amazonian forests by the Brazilians, or the cutting down of North American forests by the Americans and Canadians.
As the book “The Jew and the Lotus” attests to, The Dalai Lama can be quite a deep and subtle spirtual thinker. But, donning the hat of political leader of his people, he is forced to spout the same inanities as all other politicians, in order to favor his people above others. That is why he is not free to criticize the neo-liberal policies of his host country, India, which are killing (in every sense of the word) thousands upon thousands of innocent native farmers and villagers. It is telling that in the book, the first question His Holiness put to the conclave of Rabbis that were meeting with him was, “What adaptations will my people have to go through, in order to maintain our uniqueness, and survive, now that we are in Diaspora? How can I learn from the Jewish experience?” Perhaps, instead of a few dessicated old Rabbis, the Wolfowitzs, and Pearles, and Sharons of the world can teach him how to not just adapt, but thrive, in Diaspora.
One never wants to see sausage being made, but it is so much uglier when it is being made by a vegetarian, like the Dalai Lama. In the spirit of Ahimsa, of course.
As far as the question of the morality of killing during WWII, or any so-called “just war”, I recall it being discussed and addressed in a far less doctrinaire way by fellow monks, including Japanese, when I was a monk-in-training at Shasta Abbey in the late ’70’s. Killing can always be justified, AND killing can always be impugned or rejected via accepted intellectual means. The only difference is who does the dying, and who does the apologetics. The Dalai Lama would rather perform major league apologetics than major league dying. Who can blame him, but who can acclaim him as a Global Spiritual Leader for doing so?
But all of this blather is only meant to lead up to my main point: Be very careful when you talk about “Just War.” Especially if you don’t completely understand all of the motivations, economically and politically, of the parties involved. While I am not competely opposed to all war, there is no getting around the fact that war does represent the imposition of one’s will upon others by force. That is a high bar to justify, even for a parent.
So we should all be particularly suspicious of any accounts of conflicts set out in the donminant media that ignore, or minimize, or mislead us regarding the economic or strategic interests of the U.S., and, if different, the ruling hegemon.
We should also be extremely sensitive to any of the following “myths” frequently perpetuated in the coverage of covert US proxy conflicts in seemingly remote corners of the world.
* “The remote corner of the world” myth There are no more remote corners of the world. The entire world has been assayed, geographically, resource-wise, faith-wise, value-wise, and in every other which way. Even thirty years ago, Anthropology students were hard pressed to find a unique place or angle with which to study people. The 1968 publication of “American Kinship”, which applied anthropological methodologies and categorizations to domestic “peoples” or societies, was considered avant garde when it was published; but within little more than a decade it was accepted by prospective grad students as, as much of a capitulation to the reality that the outer frontiers had been studied and restudied, and were therefore spent, as the intellectual tour de force that it had initially been aclaimed to be.
* “We didn’t know, or realize what was going on” We have, and have had people in the “State Department” (in quotes, since it is most concerned with not State, per se, but, Orwellianly, with “Out of State”, or Global dynamics.) studying every square inch of the planet since at least Truman, and predominately since Roosevelt, the original media phenomenon, that is “Rough Rider” Teddy.
* “We made a mistake by not acting” This is Clinton’s favorite apologia. Were it not for a deeper analysis of “American Interests”, and a deeper ignorance of the manpower, brought to bear, in the apparatus of State, this excuse might be more credible.
* “So-called “Primitive” people have different, and inexplicable morals which govern their, consequently, incomprehensible actions. Tribes which have lived together, in more or less homeostasis, for centuries will suddenly decide to annihilate each other–This is the Western premise. Are the tribes morals to blame, or Western influences?
* Life is cheaper among “Primitive” peoples. Look your loved ones square in the eyes before you opine how much you love this myth. It will only help you affirm it, as relatedness is everything here. OUR caring means more than THEIR caring, hands down. WE attest to it. Life truly is cheaper for our enemies than us, if not emotionally (which has never been proven), then in actuality. We can, and do, kill many more of theirs than they kill of ours.
* Historical perspective does not exist, or at best, is used very selectively. Thousands of years of Hutu/Tutsi relations are condensed into two sentences. The last sixth months of activity covers 100 column inches. I, too, have bowed down behind the decontextualized/emotionalized reporting of Philip Gourevitch and The New Yorker’s. No outside forces are acknowledged in this segment. The telescopic lens has truly zoomed in upon its subject. Objectivity has capitulated. There is no surrender to the onslaught of “Modern Media.” We are captive. The millimeter is the message.

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 4 2006 1:46 utc | 26

Malooga- this might be of interest to you, re the (cia-asset) dalai lama
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth by michael parenti

Posted by: b real | Jan 4 2006 16:05 utc | 28

@malooga – thanks for those thoughts and thanks to all the other great commentators too.
I talked with the Dalai Lama about his position and he was aware of, and I hade the feeling he didn´t like, the two positions he is in.
– a religious leader with some very valuable things to understand
– an exiled feudalist state leader that has to make deals
But when you look at Tibetian history that was the trouble all the time. The leading religious leaders fought each other, while the real buddhist were those meditating in the mountain caves. That has not changed.
—
@Hannah – nukes when releasing their nasty residue into the air reveal with the mixture of elements the place where they come from. Any decent lab can analyse that mixture and tell where and by what technology the stuff was made. This can even go down to within what part of a reactor or what column of centrifuges the stuff was breaded. It would be quite a strech to try such a false flag operation.
—
@jonku – I concure with you. It is a major reason to take action against Iran. Many have tried to introduce Euro based energy deals, a lot of folks have pulled back. Some as Saddam have been punished.
It is at least a major motive for U.S. envolvement.

Posted by: b | Jan 4 2006 21:19 utc | 30

I agree with dan of steele on this one. Just like the aluminum weapon cylinders, it will at best be treated “fairly” by the dominant media as a “he says, she says” controversy, where the official story is given deference. The media shines at this stuff. Still, it is a very interesting thought, Hannah.
@aigin- Thanks for a great analysis. In this version of the “Great Game”, I think Russia holds a much stronger hand than is generally aknowledged. They still have the nuke capacity of the US, they are a net energy exporter with Europe as a client, and they have favorable balance of payments. Indeed, one could go so far as to argue that in terms of world wide image, the bear and the eagle have traded places. The US is now seen by the rest of the world as the unilateral aggressor to be wary of, while Russia, under Putin, seems to have mastered quiet behind the scene negotiations while holding very strong hands. The Ukraine statement has almost limitless ramifications that I’m sure everyone is talking about behind the scenes.
@b real- Thank you for the link! What a great article. I advise everyone to read it. Michael Parenti rocks! For those of you who are fans of his, you can download mp3’s of his talks from his website or radio4all.net
@b- The primary reason for my post was to address jonku about Rwanda and generalize the experience to dominant media coverage of far-off conflict. But the Dalai Lama stuff just crept in. Very interesting that you got to speak with him. I would love to hear more about it. I would also love to hear your response to the Michael Parenti article in Swan’s that b real linked to. Somehow, Dalai Lama, CIA operative, was one role that I had never thought of. I guess I’m sensitive to this issue because I knew a lot of Tibetan Buddhist cult types both in NY (inc. Richard Gere) and Boston for whom Tibetan Buddhism could do no wrong. It is a very naive political stance.
This can even go down to within what part of a reactor or what column of centrifuges the stuff was breaded.
sounds tasty…

Posted by: Malooga | Jan 5 2006 3:51 utc | 32