Ahmadinejad Rants to UN on U.S. Foreign Policy, Structure of Security Council

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke late on Tuesday to the UN General Assembly, where he focused on "a few examples of the most pressing global issues: the unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities; and lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community." He argued against U.S. foreign policy and against American and British membership on the Security Council. He also worked in subtle arguments against the Security Council's legitimacy. The full translated text of his remarks are below.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD:  Madame President, distinguished heads of state and government, distinguished heads of delegation, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. I praise the merciful, all-knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran, and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community. I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues. 

Today humanity passionately craves commitment to the truth, devotion to God, quest for justice, and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth who aspire to a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion.

The youth have a right to seek justice and the truth, and they have the right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility, and I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

Madame President, Excellencies, what afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity. The Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them. By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

Some occupy the homeland of others thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes, their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country, and their homes reduced to rubble. Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the truth, to justice and to human dignity. 

The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?

A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem. A, the unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.   

Some powers proudly announce the production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or are these weapons in fact instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments?

How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? 

Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?

If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away, and no reason will remain for conflict.

This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice and from the powerful not being contented with their own rights striving to devour the rights of others. People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us.  Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators, other than the exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?

B, occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities. Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.

There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability.

Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the government of Iraq, only to be let loose under the various pretexts by the occupiers.

It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the government of Iraq seek justice? Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine. The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the second world war. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that war, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants. It was placed under the control of some of the war survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world who had not been even affected by the second world war, and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. 

This is a great tragedy, and with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland? 

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al- Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that the shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'etre of this regime, as it has. 

The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. 

Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime, but these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.

Worse yet is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.  Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land.  People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?

At the same time, a government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its ministers and its members of parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community. Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon. For 33 long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs, and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced. Meanwhile, some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily.

We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a cease- fire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why? In all these cases, the answer is self-evident.  When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this council fulfill its responsibilities?

C, lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community.  Excellencies, I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle.

Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends, including the production of nuclear bombs. And some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.

Which organization or council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council as an instrument of threat and coercion is indeed a source of grave concern. Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the council, the condemnation of their opponents by the council. The question is: What can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the council to maintain security?

Excellencies, a review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that, regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression. Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful.

Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility.

For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value.

This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected government of the Palestinian people is treated, as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that apparently does not violate human rights.

Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent upon the whim of certain major powers. Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a cease-fire. 

Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?

The prevailing order of contemporary global interaction is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world, and other nations as only second class in the world order.

Excellencies, the question needs to asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the U.N. can take them to account? Can a council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened?  In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council, and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner.

Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice? Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on the international decision-making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in the growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.

Excellencies, how long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies. The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity. 

Today it is undeniable that the Security Council most critically and urgently needs legitimacy and effectiveness. 

It must be acknowledged that as long as the council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. 

Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the council.

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?

Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state.

In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President, Excellencies, it is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of the divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety. Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill temperament, aggression and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community."

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world. It is for this reason that we state: Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world. 

We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations. Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples driven by their divine nature intrinsically seek good, virtue, perfection and beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of the Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we, too, contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

The Almighty and merciful God, who is the Creator of the universe, is also its Lord and ruler. 

Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption. He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression.

All divine prophets, from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses, to the Prophet Jesus Christ, to the Prophet Mohammad have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

I emphatically declare that today's world more than ever before longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity, and above all, longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

END.

Comments

[Hepzibah The Watchman]

We are not fighting the Iraqis in Iraq, but the Syrians and Iranians who continue to flood across the border.

So Mr. Ahmadinejad - who is occupying who?

[John Blake]

Truly bizarre. This self-righteous drivel, directed solely to besotted PC types in Western academia, media, and politics,will eventually boomerang on Iran and on Ahmadinejad himself. When cultures and State entities consistently and wilfully delude themselves, over time their extraordinary unrealism becomes unsupportable.

"Radical Islam" is in fact the Islam of 1400 years. Salafism with its Wahabi death-cult has only surfaced since post-WW II, due entirely to the Mideast's wallowing in vats of petro-dollars. When that supply dries up, as it will within a generation, these murderous dolts will sink back into the civilizational cesspools from whence they sprung. Can't be too soon.

I must say, he makes good points. How can the USA have nukes and yet attack Iran in the UN when they too try to gain them? I'd like to point out that the USA is in no way bared from selling nukes as it's never signed the treaty.
True this guys a nut job, but as long as a nation that supports the killing of civilans is on the SC with veto powers, how can the SC work?
I say good job President Ahmadinejad. At least you, unlike President Bush, can speak.

[TruthSeeker]

Gee John Blake, perhaps you could also be enamored with Adolph, Fidel, Mao... all great communicators. Also, don't you think that a dad that own a gun might nonetheless want to keep one from the hands of (as you say) a "nut job" homicidal teenager with delusions of grandeur. After all, by your logic it is only fair. I humbly think it would not be a good idea to let the teenager have the gun, or the apocolyptic "nut job" have the bomb.

TruthSeeker, I think you meant to direct your comment to the individual who posted with "no name" directly above your post. John Blake's post is in agreement with your thoughts on the threat of Iran.

[Endurion]

What Ahmadinejad is saying, simply, is that Israel must be destroyed by whatever means - militarily or politically - and that neither the US nor any other nation in the world has the right to thwart this "right" of "the peoples".

All of his nonsense is predicated upon his "God" being the One True God and his expected "perfect righteous human being" who is to come and rule the world for his "God" being the "real savior". Unfortunately for Ahmadinejad, neither of these are what he says they are.

The "commands" that he speaks of, for justice, for compassion, for truth are all lies. If you looked into the "commands" you would see that they are only lies.

[TruthSeeker]

Absolutely correct - humble apologies John Blake. I guess "no name" had not the courage of his discourse...

[Know Your Enemy]

Me thinks Ahmadinejad doth project too much.

Unfortunately, though, it's a great speech--the result of 1400 years of public relations experience--and will hit all the right notes with the PC multiculturalists.

Islam marches on.

[Morgan]

The concept that 'No one has superiority over others', though very PC, is one of the most blatent lies in the world. Places are referred to as first world when they're developed, successful, and at least somewhat respectful of individual rights.
Having a third world country have the same amount of power as a first world country isn't merely a dream (for success begets power), but a deranged dream at that! The common standard of living would fall under such a concept, not rise.
Personally, I'm still contemplating why the United Nations, who abjectly fails time and time again to stop genocides (its main reason for creation) and is deeply corrupt, is still considered a respectable organization.

[Endurion]

To: "Open your mind"

Did you not READ the speech that Ahmadinjead gave, the very content of this POST? How can this "labelling being the result of propaganda" when the evidence of his "apocalypticism" is completely revealed in the words in this very speech?

HE IS EXPECTING THE ISLAMIC MESSIAH to come and RULE THE WORLD. That is not apocalyptic or hardline? You are the ignorant one "Open your mind", whoever you are.

Try opening YOUR ears: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SDRcirpmXI

[Open your mind]

Let's not forget that the "deeply corrupt" UN you mention is predominantly run by the US and its allies.

Furthermore, why is Ahmadinejad labeled as an "apocalyptic nutjob". Open your ignorant minds and listen carefully: this labeling is a result of political propaganda, with the media as its vehicle, put in place to ease pre-war tensions.

Every reference to this president is made with derogatory adjectives such as "Hardline President", "Neo-Nazi", "Hitler", etc. This basic psychological technique enforces a negative image of President Ahmadinejad.

Do a search on google.com for "hardline president": 9 out of 10 entries is related to Ahmadinejad, the president who has never been to war with anyone; while other presidents who wage new wars as the season changes, are called freedom fighters.

Do you see this play of words? Don't fall prey to everything you hear. Don't just open your ears; open your minds as well.

[matt cooper]

It is not at all the case this man is a nut job. I've now read this speech, the one he gave this same time last year, and courtesy of YouTube have watched him on video. I think there is a lot of stuff he can't say that he wishes he could say, but for fear of being assasinated while abroad.

Is it true that norman podhoretz (sic)recently insinuated that a bombing is all but assured after the Nov. elections? If true it is the same as I'm hearing from people in the know in the beltway. Best guess is Mahmoud can read the writing on the wall; it says "we are coming after you."

I'm ashamed at the evil men in our country who are pushing this man against a wall. What are they not telling us?

[My mind's open...]

My mind is fully open as are my eyes and ears. Iran and it's president are quite possibly one of the most prolific supporters and enablers of mass murder in history. There's a reason why he is associated with Naziism and Hitler. And it's not the media's desire to ease pre-war tensions. The parallels fall right where Ahmadinejad draws them. Hitler wanted to wipe out Jews. Ahmadinejad wants to wipe out Jews. Hitler was willing to use any means necessary to spread his message. Ahmadinejad is willing to use any means necessary to spread his message. These are not trumped up accusations. These are comments that have come from Ahmadinejad's own mouth. His speech to the U.N. is fanciful, it's farcicle, and what's scariest about it, people like you, Open your mind, buy it.

As far as the accusations of him being a hardline president coming from the media to drum up support from the war, what from the media in the last 3 years has led you to believe that they are looking to justify the war? The best thing that can happen for the media is continued struggle in Iraq (as conveniently funded by Iran). A happy, friendly, stable Iraq doesn't buy a lot of ink with which to print headlines. Ahmadinejad speaks. He is labeled accordingly.

And just for clarification, the U.S. and its allies hardly "run" the U.N. In fact, it's becoming more and more apparent that no one does. That's why it can't even fulfill the simplest tenets of its charter.

[TruthSeeker]

Gracious - facts are stubborn things.
In actuallity, countries in the UN vote against US nearly 90% of the time (see below). Maybe Bush has caused a falling out - OOPS - seems a State Department report in 1995 (Clinton years baby) noted that our vast amount of foreign aid and support of the UN very seldom led to reciprocal support for our interests in the UN.

We do not, thank goodness, conduct all matters with a "by your leave" of the UN, and it is a good thing, since the UN we dominate seldom sides with us.

The results of this tally were even worse (from a U.S. perspective) than the message quoted above indicates, with the countries named voting contrary to the U.S. position on U.N. resolutions an aggregate 88% of the time. (Even though India is neither Arab nor particularly Islamic, we included it in our chart because the widely-circulated e-mailed list did.)

Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Kuwait 10 61 86%
Qatar 9 64 88%
Morocco 8 62 89%
United Arab Emirates 8 61 88%
Jordan 9 64 88%
Tunisia 8 63 89%
Saudi Arabia 7 62 90%
Yemen 9 64 88%
Algeria 9 63 88%
Oman 9 63 88%
Sudan 10 60 86%
Pakistan 9 59 87%
Libya 8 63 89%
Egypt 10 63 86%
Lebanon 7 62 90%
India 14 52 79%
Syria 7 59 89%
Mauritania 7 63 90%

However, we also surveyed the U.N. voting records of several countries generally considered to be close allies of the U.S., and those results were none too impressive either. Only Israel consistently voted with the U.S.:

Country Times Voted With U.S. Times Voted Against U.S. % of Votes Against U.S.
Australia 33 26 44%
Canada 31 32 51%
Israel 56 7 11%
Japan 26 36 58%
United Kingdom 40 27 40%
France 36 31 46%

How much significance one should place in these figures is problematic, because most other U.N. Member States have records of voting against the U.S. that are equally as bad as the records of the countries named in the message above. U.N. votes on resolutions are frequently lopsided, pitting a single nation or a handful of nations against all the others, and more often than not the U.S. is the one nation at odds with the rest of the world. Of the 83 resolutions we surveyed for our informal tally, in ten cases the U.S. was the only Member State to vote against them, and in five cases only one other nation joined the U.S. in voting against them. In fact, in over half the total cases (42 out of 83), the U.S. was supported by five or fewer Member States in voting against a U.N. resolution. So it isn't just the Arab/Islamic states who consistently vote against the U.S. in the United Nations — pretty much the rest of the world does, too.

[matt cooper]

Hey "My mind's open." Just a preface-Im young and have only voted in two POTUS election cycles, both times republican. Im a conservative; I'm not sure you are, so I'm prefacing this so you will know im opposed to the Democrat party platform.

Understand something. We are an empire. We must control oil flows or foreigners have no need to hold U.S. $$$. Do you know what it means for us if foreigners don't use FRNs to purchase oil? The answer is massive domestic inflation.

Also-do you know Sharia Law prohibits banking and interest as we know it? Do you realize that their civilization will NEVER be compatible with our own as long as they refuse to adopt our monetary supremacy and fiat currency? Do you think that might have something to do with why we are over there?

Iran and Iraq are about global domination by our own banks and corporations over people who want nothing to do with us. Israel is our bully in the region. We need them there to keep rebel countries from breaking off from our empire.

This whole situation is a charade and I doubt there will even be an issue if democrats win-they are part of this system too. Why do you keep insisting we need this war?

[Phximan]

I hate to admit that I agree with some of this as well as some of what Chavez said. I think that we need to stop trying to push "democracy" around the world. They are looking at it the way we looked at communism. Muslims are not allowed to have a democracy because of the death cult islam. Democracy would mean that men get to set laws. In their eyes only the filthy allah can do that. It is called sharia. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want that in our country.

The only reason that we need stability in that part of the world is to keep oil prices low. Granted we get no oil from iran, but their supply keeps world prices down. What we need to do is allow our oil companies to drill along the entire coast line of the US, from Alaska to Maine. We have enough for about 30 years with no imports. Then we pull our troops home. Let the sunni's and shia kill themselves. Let Russia and China deal with it. Give NO MORE forien aid, with a few exceptions. Take the money we are spending on the war and GIVE it to auto companies and energy companies other than oil companies, to develop the future sources of energy for out cars, trucks, and trains. If we don't need oil, who cares about the middle east.

Let someone else play 9-11 of the world.

[My mind's open...]

Mr. Cooper,

I'm not quite sure what your comment had to do with anything I said. I think you just needed an opportunity to vent, and you needed a target. Fair enough. My party identity and political leanings are really inconsequential to this conversation as they have little if nothing to do with the fact that this man preaches hate, intolerance, murder, oppression and inequality. To him, and others (note: not all) who advocate for sharia law, with which I am familiar, if you are not the right kind of muslim, you must convert or die. That's where he gets his labels and international infamy. In another parallel to Hitler, if you don't fit the image of the master race/religion, you must be part of the final solution.

As far as the rest of what you had to say, huh? Nice little interjection and somewhat well reasoned, but what does it have to do with anything? Yes sharia law forbids banking. Kosher forbids the eating of cloven-hoofed animals, what's it got to do with anything?

To respond directly to your question, when did I insist that we needed this war? The only thing I said about the war was to accurately characterize our media as critical of it and to suggest that the difficulties in Iraq have been good for circulation. I neither supported nor opposed the war. Either you directed your comments at the wrong poster (understandable) or you put words into my mouth (questionable).

[matt cooper]

Ok Open Mind-
I did want to vent and you were a target. Nothing personal. BTW I also agree with you that the media puts black on their income statement when the streets of run red.

your comment. "Yes sharia law forbids banking. Kosher forbids the eating of cloven-hoofed animals, what's it got to do with anything?"

Funny indeed. However empires are not threatened by dietary preferences. They are threatened when people do not pay the empire. In order to control this part of the world we need them in debt to us.

Our corporations rightfully realize that their operations can be nationalized by hostile rebel govts in the middle east. The way you prevent nationalization is through collateral. Problem is Iran/Iraq don't need to borrow because they can self-fund through their oil revenues. Before I lend money i need borrowers to post collateral. What collateral do we have over Iran and Iraq right now?

The issue of control is important. Its either everyone falls into line behind the system or the system goes bust. You can't have bank's dominating the "free" world and inflating away our own savings so long as rogue nations like Iran and Iraq are selling oil on their exchanges in their own currency and not borrowing from us. That type of scenario would lead to capital flight out of the empire and and evaporation of the market for the empire's sovereign debt.

That is what I think is going on here. So I'm really loathe to believe much of what I read in our own media as they themselves are in many ways tools of the empire and indebted to the bankers.

I hope Ahmadinejad succeeds in developing nuclear power...he will have even less need for us.

I pray for Christians and Jews in Israel. God knows they have a right to defend themselves. But I do not support sending money to them so they can be our bully in the region.

[Jonathon]

Your remark about controlling oil flow so foreigners hold US $$$ is
something I've never heard said before. Would you explain what you
mean?

You pointed out the US presence in the Middle East is related to the
fact that banking w/interest is violation of Sharia*, and in
maintaining the US empire in that area. You mean they are there to get
the oil in spite of the incompatibility of the economies?

You said you were conservative, but most conservatives support the war
and so-called imperialism of the US. Your post seemed a bit divided,
though. I couldn't tell whether you were for or against the activities
you were commenting on.

By the way, I'm neutral, I don't care what side you are on. I'm just
trying to learn about the issues.

[*] Sharia also prohibits adultery, but men have affairs and in some
places rape at will with impunity in that part of the world. And
Muslims in this country certainly have bank accounts that earn
interest. So it seems they choose what laws they obey, and when, like
people of most religions.

[Redcushion]

Jonathan is right on the mark as far as the selective obedience seen by Islamic men to the "Sharia" laws. Adultry, rape, murder, etc have all been documented in so called hardline Islamic government/dictatorships, i.e. the regime of the Taliban is a good example. Indeed at times we as a nation can be "pushy" when it comes to spreading democracy but there are indeed many simularities not only in principle but also in doctrine and practice with what took place in Nazi Germany during the 1930's. Take the time to read some of the speeches delivered by Hitler and you get the same chill down your spine as I did after reading the speech given Tuesday before the UN. A really good url for Hitler's speeches is http://www.hitler.org/speeches/

[Loki]

All you folks who are blaming the USA for the World's problems are absolutely right. The USA is using impoverished third-world labor to support its insatiable need for cheaper products.

I have an great idea. Since US, Japanese and European firms are taking advantage of those poor folk in under-developed nations, let's on-shore all those call-center and manufacturing jobs that have been exported! I'll bet those poor, disenfanchised workers who have been victims of aggressive Western globalization would thank us forever!

I've been so blind, but it all seems to make sense now!

[Matt Cooper]

Jonathan,
1st question.
Oil trades in U.S. $$$, these are contracts on futures and commodity exchanges. Site below is ok for details. Essentially there is a need to own reserves that are denominated in the same currency for which commodities are based.

http://www.energybulletin.net/12463.html

Lets take this example. The saudi's sell their oil in u.s. $$$, in turn the U.S., through its bully in the region Israel, and our 100,000+ troop strength on the peninsula since 1991 help keep their regime in power and defend them vs. uprisings and rival govs. In return they agree to only sell their chief export, oil, in US$ terms. This means if a European based refiner wants to buy oil so that he can make gasoline, he must take the euros his customers are paying him and buy u.s. $$$ on the foreign exchange. Then he can purchase the oil. The saudi's in turn use the $$$ to buy u.s. sovereign debt or u.s. stocks. Which leads to question about the Sharia and banking...

Keep in mind that in a fractional reserve system like we have today, our money is in the form of notes (technically debt) that is issued by a private corporation. (the federal reserve,) which is in fact private "Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)". That debt, or "money" as we know it first goes to the U.S. treasury who then distribute it to the govt. who can pay the money to halliburton and your sweet grandmother who is on social security. The U.S. promises this bank will never go into default because it can raise taxes and in fact does so under threat of force in order to pay off the bank. The interesting thing is these notes that are given to the govt. are printed out of thin air! This is why our system is incompatible with rogue arab nations! There Sharia prohibits a fractional system where there is no underlying specie (read hard currency: eg. gold, silver, other commodity)

I'm no expert on sharia mind you. But this definition below looks ok to me. Pay particular attention to the last sentence under "Principals in Islamic Banking."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_bank

We are at war because our govt. must defend itself against a default in its banking system! How did the worlds greatest creditor nation become the chief debtor? Why are a free people slaves to their own oppressive govt?

[Jonathon]

The US has become a selfish, materialistic society, where we care more about some guy named Beau losing 'American Idol' more than how our lifestyle impacts the world and even our own future.

[redcushion]

Matt,
"How did the worlds greatest creditor nation become the chief debtor? Why are a free people slaves to their own oppressive govt?"

One lesson that will never leave my mind from my Macro Econ class in college is that Financial Independence is essential to freedom. You mention the governement taxation and funding for blind contracts to Halliburton and the Social Security check for Jonathans grandmother. You answered your question before asking it. Today society is one that demands substance from the Government and as long as that continues, war spending aside we will forever see wasteful spending. Example being those who desire nothing more than to qualify for that monthly SSI check or other welfare support systems. Before you attack the banking system, lets start going after those who rather do nothing more than walk to the bank and cash that SSI check versus geting their lives in order and independant from government dependence. I'm all for taxation to provide to the nations defense, but how dare you take my money and give it to a person who is too lazy to work for even more than minimum wage. You want to know why jobs get outsourced? Because alot of these companies simply are not able to find a work force willing to work at a wage that is fully comparable to the job required. I know this from first hand experience as a former hire head for a large corporation.
I will agree that we are better off with a backed currency, but that currency right now means nothing if there is no one to trade it with, to barter with, exchange and trade with. That is what will happen if Iran develops Nuclear weapons, or North Korea is able to actually launch a nuclear war head as far as they hope for (beyond the Sea of Japan.)
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, the creation of a strong democracy takes time. In todays "now" attitude we quickly forget that our constitution, the worlds model to a democratic republic almost never came to be. In fact is was its own creation and verbage that nearly created "civil strife" among the colonies after their defeat of England. If you don't believe me, search the writings and diary of Benjamin Franklin and personal notes by George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. You will find contentious debate between the founding father over how the government should be structured, created, administered, etc. These are the very same things that are taking place now in Iraq.
Iran does not want a free Iraq. They say elsewise, but it proves to their benefit that a democratic Iraq not exist. If Iran truly means what they say, then let them, Syria, Jordan, etc offer to provide for the security of the Iraqi Government as they complete the crucial and delicate process of establishing their own democracy. But what am I dreaming? That will never happen.

[JDC]

I'm currently living in Germany, but still consider myself a Patriotic American. Having said that, I also understand some of the criticisims of the US that are currently coming out of Europe and elsewhere. If you do some research about Eugenics, you may start to understand why the rest of the world believes that America is hypocritical, and therefore cant be taken seriously. Things that we have forgotten about, the rest of the world still remembers. Until we can stop speaking out of both sides of our mouths, come up with some effective foreign policy to actually deal with terrorisim, and stop depending on dirty foreign oil, people like AHMADINEJAD will continue to build support by waxing poetic about the Evil United States.