After watching President Obama’s health-care- address to the nation, last night (September 09, 09) a thought occurred to me. Beside the 30 million US citizens that will be added to the health rolls, and the fact that the health-insurance industry will be unable to cherry-pick among their potential clients, or dump clients from their rolls --- all a good things. But another advantage for American health to come out the Obama Health Plan overhaul is that the health-insurance industry, when it is unable to dump patients—will have to actually work to improve their health—or face the financial consequences of poor health. Mike Pollan in a NY Times Op-Ed piece “Big Food vs Big Insurance” notes: “A patient with Type 2 diabetes incurs additional health care costs of more than $6,600 a year; over a lifetime, that can come to more than $400,000. Insurers will quickly figure out that every case of Type 2 diabetes they can prevent adds $400,000 to their bottom line.” As a result of the Obama health-care overhaul--the health care system, as with other systems elsewhere in the modern industrialized world, will have a financial stake in the health of the citizenry. (Perhaps this is one of the main reasons why the lifespan, mortality and morbidity figures of populations in modern Europe are so much better than ours, even in the face of the fact that we outspend them more than two to one.) The health-industry will have to worry about how many of their clients are smoking, how many are obese, how many do not exercise, or eat healthfully.
These new concerns will surely lead them into conflict with the giant US food industry which makes its profits by encouraging people to consume too much cheap, high-fructose corn syrup and other sources of empty calories. The health care industry..instead of profiting from treating the results of the unhealthful and profit-making schemes of the food industry which lead to obesity, diabetes, circulatory disease and cancer, will in-the-future be in the business of encouraging their clients to avoid these health pitfalls—or suffer the consequences or have the their company suffer the financial losses of client poor health . Dr Mark Hyman MD in “Why our Health Care System is Making Us Sick” (http://stanford.wellsphere.com/general-medicine-article/why-our-health-care-system-is-making-us-sick/363234) states: “All the stakeholders in industries that affect our health -- the pharmaceutical industry, the food producers, agribusiness, and the restaurant industries -- profit when people eat unhealthy food, exercise less, and are more stressed. They're making money off of your poor health. Take the drug companies. They cajole us into believing that we can live any harmful lifestyle -- and fix our health problems simply by taking a pill. Just look at that commercial that encourages you to eat unhealthy food because an antacid pill or two will ease the indigestion it gives you. Worse, our healthcare system is based on the outdated idea that disease should only be treated, not prevented. It's really disease-care, not healthcare.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
JOE WILSON OBAMA HECKLER
I watched President Obama’s speech on health care last night. It made me feel more sanguine about the possible outcome. It was a powerful speech that will reunite Obama's troops. Also I heard the outburst of sixty-two year old Republican, SC representative, Joe Wilson, from West Columbia, South Carolina who yelled out an unprecedented ”You Lie!” for all to hear, when the President stated that the health bill would not provide care for illegal aliens. The incident was an embarrassment for the Nation, the Republicans..and an unpleasant reminder of the August silliness at town hall meetings which apparently some Republicans have not let go of—as yet.
I guess Joe Wilson is not concerned about the fact that “illegals” in SC, whom he would deny any health care coverage, might carry infectious diseases such as swine flu, malaria, TB, and HIV that could conceivably be transmitted to his family or his constituents…or the fact that North Carolina hospitals who treat the ill and indigent..as a public health measure…will still have to pick up the tab. The result of which is that the rest of the South Carolina public’s outlay is a considerably higher (so as to account for these –in the end--necessary and expensive services). Of course, Joe Wilson and his family have the cushy health benefits provided by the US Congress for legislators and staff..which all the rest of us American citizens pay for. Yes, Joe is the recipient of the largess of the American public—a public which he would deny having some of the same benefits he and his family enjoy.
Pictures released of this Republican stalwart http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/obama.heckled.speech/ indicate that he is in good health. He looked well cared for, well-tanned and very well groomed the night of the joint session. I hope he doesn’t have any sick “wetbacks” spreading germs as they work on his local golf course, clean his country-club’s kitchen, or cut his expansive home lawn. Good luck Joe!
Joe’s career was marred earlier by a similar outburst when, during a debate on the Iraq War, he attacked a colleague Congressman Bob Filmer as “viscerally anti-American” and stated the Congressman had a “hatred of America” when Filmer (truthfully) claimed that the US had supplied Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with chemical weapons. Wilson could not dissuaded by the fact that Filmer’s claims were factual and fully verified.
The result of this last outburst will be that Joe Wilson’s career—what is left of it--will be asterisked forever as the typical white southern, protestant, politician who so ferociously and mindlessly resisted health care reform–that he actually called the President of the USA a “liar”—to his face with the entire Nation looking on during one the most formal and august of settings…a joint meeting of the House and Senate.
Joe Wilson will be the “Obama Heckler” for the remainder of his life.
Immediately after the speech, Joe Wilson left the House, in a hurry and unaccompanied, while back down in South Carolina, Rob Miller, Wilson’s Democratic rival for his seat had a fundraising windfall.
Good Luck Joe-- on your next election…what is it now…a bit more than a twelve-month away?
Get the picture?
rjk
I guess Joe Wilson is not concerned about the fact that “illegals” in SC, whom he would deny any health care coverage, might carry infectious diseases such as swine flu, malaria, TB, and HIV that could conceivably be transmitted to his family or his constituents…or the fact that North Carolina hospitals who treat the ill and indigent..as a public health measure…will still have to pick up the tab. The result of which is that the rest of the South Carolina public’s outlay is a considerably higher (so as to account for these –in the end--necessary and expensive services). Of course, Joe Wilson and his family have the cushy health benefits provided by the US Congress for legislators and staff..which all the rest of us American citizens pay for. Yes, Joe is the recipient of the largess of the American public—a public which he would deny having some of the same benefits he and his family enjoy.
Pictures released of this Republican stalwart http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/obama.heckled.speech/ indicate that he is in good health. He looked well cared for, well-tanned and very well groomed the night of the joint session. I hope he doesn’t have any sick “wetbacks” spreading germs as they work on his local golf course, clean his country-club’s kitchen, or cut his expansive home lawn. Good luck Joe!
Joe’s career was marred earlier by a similar outburst when, during a debate on the Iraq War, he attacked a colleague Congressman Bob Filmer as “viscerally anti-American” and stated the Congressman had a “hatred of America” when Filmer (truthfully) claimed that the US had supplied Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with chemical weapons. Wilson could not dissuaded by the fact that Filmer’s claims were factual and fully verified.
The result of this last outburst will be that Joe Wilson’s career—what is left of it--will be asterisked forever as the typical white southern, protestant, politician who so ferociously and mindlessly resisted health care reform–that he actually called the President of the USA a “liar”—to his face with the entire Nation looking on during one the most formal and august of settings…a joint meeting of the House and Senate.
Joe Wilson will be the “Obama Heckler” for the remainder of his life.
Immediately after the speech, Joe Wilson left the House, in a hurry and unaccompanied, while back down in South Carolina, Rob Miller, Wilson’s Democratic rival for his seat had a fundraising windfall.
Good Luck Joe-- on your next election…what is it now…a bit more than a twelve-month away?
Get the picture?
rjk
Monday, September 7, 2009
EL BARADEI ACCUSED WRONGLY BY FRANCE
The headline screams out at you. "AIEA Director, Mohamed El Baradei Left Out Evidence of an Iran bomb, France Claims. What is the real story? Iranian Bomb? Not so fast. To understand this you must carefully read between the lines. (See Catherine Phillip at:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6825263.ece
In the reactionary press and media Dr. Mohammed El Baradei Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA or in French AIEA) is often accused of being soft on Iran, after-all he is an Egyptian and a Muslim too, so that puts him at "two strikes". This year, after submitting his annual report (his last, he retires in November) France and Israel have openly accused him of having “left something out of his annual report” on the status of the Iranian nuclear issue. See: http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2009/09/07/l-iran-rejette-toute-discussion-sur-ses-droit-indeniables-au-nucleaire_1236839_3218.html#ens_id=677013
Israel is very eager to have “punishing sanctions" imposed on Iran, a neighbor in the Mid East it sees as the greatest threat to its own hegemony in the region. Though Israel with its hundreds of nuclear war heads, chemical weapons and sophistacted delivery systems is the "big shot" in the region. The idea that another nation may have even the "technology" to produce a weapon is a threat. It is determined to maintain the role of local hegemon. If it looses that it may have to actually bargain in good faith with its neighbors. That may result in compromises or even loss of some of the territory it covets.
In the reactionary press and media Dr. Mohammed El Baradei Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA or in French AIEA) is often accused of being soft on Iran, after-all he is an Egyptian and a Muslim too, so that puts him at "two strikes". This year, after submitting his annual report (his last, he retires in November) France and Israel have openly accused him of having “left something out of his annual report” on the status of the Iranian nuclear issue. See: http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2009/09/07/l-iran-rejette-toute-discussion-sur-ses-droit-indeniables-au-nucleaire_1236839_3218.html#ens_id=677013
Israel is very eager to have “punishing sanctions" imposed on Iran, a neighbor in the Mid East it sees as the greatest threat to its own hegemony in the region. Though Israel with its hundreds of nuclear war heads, chemical weapons and sophistacted delivery systems is the "big shot" in the region. The idea that another nation may have even the "technology" to produce a weapon is a threat. It is determined to maintain the role of local hegemon. If it looses that it may have to actually bargain in good faith with its neighbors. That may result in compromises or even loss of some of the territory it covets.
It is Iran, not Israel, which has signed the nuclear non-proliferation accords, and has no nuclear bombs. Iran is a nation which has no history of attacking anyone...ever. That can not be said for Israel. But those are the dull facts. They don’t arrouse readers and sell papers. Israel would prefer for us--opinion keepers--to continue to fear Iran's military ambitions (at least as presented by Israel) and its peaceful nuclear development, while Israel is the nation with the long history of mis-use of its own military prowess and a sixty-year illegal occupation of foreign lands.
On monday, September 7th, 2009, Le Monde ran a piece entitled: "The Director of the AIEA is accused of having concealed information against Iran." See: http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2009/09/07/l-iran-rejette-toute-discussion-sur-ses-droit-indeniables-au-nucleaire_1236839_3218.html#ens_id=677013. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner stated that "all of the information is not reflected in the report to the council of governors." Kouchner added: "France's only motivation is the full respect of Iran for its international obligations." Last week Kouchner, in front of the press, demanded to know why ElBaradei has failed to publish the appendicies of the last report. Le Monde states that at a meeting of the representatives of the 35 members states of the AIEA, in Vienna, El Baradei stated in front of the group that these accusations are "politcally motivated and completely without basis".
A full reading of Dr. El Baradei's report did include the fact that Iran has slowed its uranium enrichment, and has agreed to closer monitoring of its nuclear plants. Perhaps that’s not what Israel wanted to hear.
The French, in consert with Israel, have accused El Baradei of “leaving out" an important “appendix” of the annual report. According to them, that addendum had information about Iran's plans to build a bomb. Was damming evidence really left out? What are these addenda?
It turns out the materials in question are data and suppositions gleaned from western intelligence agencies (read here: the USA’s CIA, Israel’s Mossad, French DGSE, and UK's MI5, etc, etc). As far as our CIA is concerned --it's own record leaves much to be desired. On that score, Roy Gutman, from McClatchy News has some interesting comments:
"But the CIA has missed some big ones, including the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, and it predicted weapons of mass destruction would be found in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The CIA also overlooked the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan in 1996 and Osama bin Laden's effective hijacking of the Taliban regime by late 1998 — two events that at the time were thought to be minor. Based on four decades covering foreign affairs, much of it focused on closed communist societies, my observation is that intelligence officers, however well trained, equipped and motivated, are only as good as their human sources, which in dictatorial regimes, are scant. They also can become so closely identified with covert operations — for example, supplying weapons for the Afghan holy war against Soviet occupiers — that they miss the political big picture. Sometimes their political masters constrain them by deciding that some location — for example, Afghanistan in the 1990s — isn't worth watching." State(http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/roy_gutman/story/23170.html) downloaded September 8, 2009
But back to the accusations: The "intelligence" agencies presented the IAEA wth suggestions that Teheran may have secretly combined uranium processing, airborne high-explosives tests and efforts to revamp a missile cone in a way that would fit a nuclear warhead. Though the IAEA described these evidences as "compelling" and insisted that Iran clarify the matter--in deference to the sources it didn not reject the information as fabricated evidence (which it may likely be). The timesonline.co.uk, author Catherine Philip, states that the information probably did not meet the standards of proof required for inclusion in the report and El Baradei and his staff simply left it out.
So the headline is meaningless US-French-Israeli propaganda. Or is it?
A question that seems to hang there unanswered in the air is: Why is France doing this? What angle do they have? Particularly why did they air their greivances in public? Perhaps France is acting at the behest of the US which has already decided that its only course of action is to increase sanctions on Iran. That action will mollify testy Israel (perhaps that will hold off an unwise aerial attack and make demands made by Obama to stop construction in occupied lands more palatable) and also give the diplomats some further time. So they needed a reason to make the unhappy decison regarding sanctions...sell it to their citizens--thus the "missing annexes" became the proximate cause.
On monday, September 7th, 2009, Le Monde ran a piece entitled: "The Director of the AIEA is accused of having concealed information against Iran." See: http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2009/09/07/l-iran-rejette-toute-discussion-sur-ses-droit-indeniables-au-nucleaire_1236839_3218.html#ens_id=677013. French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner stated that "all of the information is not reflected in the report to the council of governors." Kouchner added: "France's only motivation is the full respect of Iran for its international obligations." Last week Kouchner, in front of the press, demanded to know why ElBaradei has failed to publish the appendicies of the last report. Le Monde states that at a meeting of the representatives of the 35 members states of the AIEA, in Vienna, El Baradei stated in front of the group that these accusations are "politcally motivated and completely without basis".
A full reading of Dr. El Baradei's report did include the fact that Iran has slowed its uranium enrichment, and has agreed to closer monitoring of its nuclear plants. Perhaps that’s not what Israel wanted to hear.
The French, in consert with Israel, have accused El Baradei of “leaving out" an important “appendix” of the annual report. According to them, that addendum had information about Iran's plans to build a bomb. Was damming evidence really left out? What are these addenda?
It turns out the materials in question are data and suppositions gleaned from western intelligence agencies (read here: the USA’s CIA, Israel’s Mossad, French DGSE, and UK's MI5, etc, etc). As far as our CIA is concerned --it's own record leaves much to be desired. On that score, Roy Gutman, from McClatchy News has some interesting comments:
"But the CIA has missed some big ones, including the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, and it predicted weapons of mass destruction would be found in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The CIA also overlooked the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan in 1996 and Osama bin Laden's effective hijacking of the Taliban regime by late 1998 — two events that at the time were thought to be minor. Based on four decades covering foreign affairs, much of it focused on closed communist societies, my observation is that intelligence officers, however well trained, equipped and motivated, are only as good as their human sources, which in dictatorial regimes, are scant. They also can become so closely identified with covert operations — for example, supplying weapons for the Afghan holy war against Soviet occupiers — that they miss the political big picture. Sometimes their political masters constrain them by deciding that some location — for example, Afghanistan in the 1990s — isn't worth watching." State(http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/roy_gutman/story/23170.html) downloaded September 8, 2009
But back to the accusations: The "intelligence" agencies presented the IAEA wth suggestions that Teheran may have secretly combined uranium processing, airborne high-explosives tests and efforts to revamp a missile cone in a way that would fit a nuclear warhead. Though the IAEA described these evidences as "compelling" and insisted that Iran clarify the matter--in deference to the sources it didn not reject the information as fabricated evidence (which it may likely be). The timesonline.co.uk, author Catherine Philip, states that the information probably did not meet the standards of proof required for inclusion in the report and El Baradei and his staff simply left it out.
So the headline is meaningless US-French-Israeli propaganda. Or is it?
A question that seems to hang there unanswered in the air is: Why is France doing this? What angle do they have? Particularly why did they air their greivances in public? Perhaps France is acting at the behest of the US which has already decided that its only course of action is to increase sanctions on Iran. That action will mollify testy Israel (perhaps that will hold off an unwise aerial attack and make demands made by Obama to stop construction in occupied lands more palatable) and also give the diplomats some further time. So they needed a reason to make the unhappy decison regarding sanctions...sell it to their citizens--thus the "missing annexes" became the proximate cause.
In regard to Obama, instead of actually pressuring Israel as he should, he is pressuring the other side and playing ball with Netanyahu.
Get the picture?
Get the picture?
rjk
US RAIDS AFGHANISTAN HOSPITAL
It appears from recent reports (see below) the loose norms and minimal respect for international law fostered by the Bush-Cheney White House have unavoidably filtered down into the mindset of our troops and officer-corps and now, may act as a stumbling-block for General Stanely McChrystal's new and revised plans for the US effort in Afghanistan.
A Swedish aid agency operating in Afghanistan for decades, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA), has reported that soldiers from the US 10th Mountain Brigade stormed through one of their hospitals last week, searching for wounded Taliban. They broke down doors, tied up hospital staff and visitors and generally roughed-up and threatened the staff. Afterward, they insisted that they (the US military) would decide who the hospital admitted and that the staff was to report on any wounded patients which might be insurgents. The Swedish Committee for Afghanistan complained that the actions of the US military were a clear violation of internationally recognized (see below) accords regarding the operation of hospitals in areas of conflict and also a clear breach of the civil-military agreement the US has concluded with the Afghanistan government. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/world/asia/08kabul.html?ref=global-home.
Such behavior clearly does not conform with the image we, here at home, have of our troops—at least as it is portrayed in the mass media. Such (illegal and inhumane) behavior can only make plans for a "new way" for the US in Afghanistan far more difficult to achieve. In regard to the incident, Lt Commander Christine Sidenstricker, a public affairs officers for the US Navy, stated that “We are investigating, and we take allegations like this seriously.” She added: “Complaints like this are rare.”
But uncharacteristic as it seems, it must not be as rare as the Navy public affairs officer claims, since after reading the above piece in the NY Times, I made a cursory google search of the words “US troops attack hospital” and came up with other instances, in Iraq--where US troops—chasing “insurgents” raided hospitals.
In “US Troops Raid Fallujah Hospital Again”, See http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=10165, (and http://newstrust.net/stories/2968)
posted on December 15, 2006, (downloaded September 6, 2009) the author relates an incident which occured following a roadside bombing on December 7, 2006, in which several Iraqi policemen were killed, the injured were taken to Fallujah General Hospital in Bagdhad, soon afterward a US marine was hit by sniper fire.
Fallujah General Hospital was raided by US troops many times, particularly during the assault on that city in April and November of 2004. In December 2004, the US military was accused of impeding Iraqi health care workers around and inside Fallujah, and also accused of deliberately targeting ambulances. In November 2005, another report indicated that the US military had raided two hospitals in Ramadi.
The antiwar.com article adds other allegations from Iraq, including US treatment of Iraqi doctors, many of whom were arrested by US forces and held for “supporting terrorism” (ostensibly because they were "guilty" of patching up wounds of men the US considered "insurgents"), as a result, many doctors fled the country. These professionals were guilty of nothing other than providing their essenstial services to the community. The article adds that the independent Iraqi Medical Association announced in November 2006 that of the 34,000 Iraqi physicians registered prior to 2003, over half have fled the country and at least 2000 have been killed. Actions which either cause or encourage harm to health professionals, while having modest effect on the "insurgents" over the long term, severely compromise the health, well-being and survival of the civilian population and particularly to vulnerable pregnant women, children and newborns. Such US actions can achieve no good end. That similar behavior patterns of US troops are being observed in Afghanistan are cause for grave concern.
On the December 7 occasion reported above, shortly after the policemen were admitted to the hospital, a US Marine was also wounded by a sniper. Other Marines responded to the attack, then after the shooting died down, they immediately turned their attention to the hospital across the Euphrates River. Their assumption was that if they had wounded the attacker, he might seek help at the hospital.
However, a retired surgeon interviewed for the (antiwar.com) Inter Press Service article quoted here, said that “Americans have some imagination to think that the injured man would go to that ‘so-called’ hospital.” Any Iraqi from around here knows not to go there, “one, because of the continuous raids by the US, and two, the hospital’s near complete “lack of medicines and equipment,” stated the former physician.
Eyewitnesses add that US soldiers often raided the Fallujah hospital as if it was “a military target”.
On the day of the (December 7th) raid, nurses and staff panicked at the way the soldiers kicked open doors and blasted open other locked ones with their weapons. When a doctor tried to tell them he had the keys for a locked door, they pointed their guns at his head and threatened to shoot him.
Finally, prior to their search, the soldiers ejected all the staff from the building and kept them under guard in the near-freezing outdoor-garden until the early hours of the next morning.
The troops would not permit the staff to re-enter the hospital even to get some warm blankets…though the temperature dropped to five degrees C (41F).
“We are used to that kind of behavior from American soldiers,” said one of the hospital staff. “This is the third time I’ve been handcuffed by them, and had my face pushed into the ground.”
These allegations, if true, are in contravention of the following articles of the Geneva Conventions…to which the US is a signatory nation.
A Swedish aid agency operating in Afghanistan for decades, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA), has reported that soldiers from the US 10th Mountain Brigade stormed through one of their hospitals last week, searching for wounded Taliban. They broke down doors, tied up hospital staff and visitors and generally roughed-up and threatened the staff. Afterward, they insisted that they (the US military) would decide who the hospital admitted and that the staff was to report on any wounded patients which might be insurgents. The Swedish Committee for Afghanistan complained that the actions of the US military were a clear violation of internationally recognized (see below) accords regarding the operation of hospitals in areas of conflict and also a clear breach of the civil-military agreement the US has concluded with the Afghanistan government. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/world/asia/08kabul.html?ref=global-home.
Such behavior clearly does not conform with the image we, here at home, have of our troops—at least as it is portrayed in the mass media. Such (illegal and inhumane) behavior can only make plans for a "new way" for the US in Afghanistan far more difficult to achieve. In regard to the incident, Lt Commander Christine Sidenstricker, a public affairs officers for the US Navy, stated that “We are investigating, and we take allegations like this seriously.” She added: “Complaints like this are rare.”
But uncharacteristic as it seems, it must not be as rare as the Navy public affairs officer claims, since after reading the above piece in the NY Times, I made a cursory google search of the words “US troops attack hospital” and came up with other instances, in Iraq--where US troops—chasing “insurgents” raided hospitals.
In “US Troops Raid Fallujah Hospital Again”, See http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=10165, (and http://newstrust.net/stories/2968)
posted on December 15, 2006, (downloaded September 6, 2009) the author relates an incident which occured following a roadside bombing on December 7, 2006, in which several Iraqi policemen were killed, the injured were taken to Fallujah General Hospital in Bagdhad, soon afterward a US marine was hit by sniper fire.
Fallujah General Hospital was raided by US troops many times, particularly during the assault on that city in April and November of 2004. In December 2004, the US military was accused of impeding Iraqi health care workers around and inside Fallujah, and also accused of deliberately targeting ambulances. In November 2005, another report indicated that the US military had raided two hospitals in Ramadi.
The antiwar.com article adds other allegations from Iraq, including US treatment of Iraqi doctors, many of whom were arrested by US forces and held for “supporting terrorism” (ostensibly because they were "guilty" of patching up wounds of men the US considered "insurgents"), as a result, many doctors fled the country. These professionals were guilty of nothing other than providing their essenstial services to the community. The article adds that the independent Iraqi Medical Association announced in November 2006 that of the 34,000 Iraqi physicians registered prior to 2003, over half have fled the country and at least 2000 have been killed. Actions which either cause or encourage harm to health professionals, while having modest effect on the "insurgents" over the long term, severely compromise the health, well-being and survival of the civilian population and particularly to vulnerable pregnant women, children and newborns. Such US actions can achieve no good end. That similar behavior patterns of US troops are being observed in Afghanistan are cause for grave concern.
On the December 7 occasion reported above, shortly after the policemen were admitted to the hospital, a US Marine was also wounded by a sniper. Other Marines responded to the attack, then after the shooting died down, they immediately turned their attention to the hospital across the Euphrates River. Their assumption was that if they had wounded the attacker, he might seek help at the hospital.
However, a retired surgeon interviewed for the (antiwar.com) Inter Press Service article quoted here, said that “Americans have some imagination to think that the injured man would go to that ‘so-called’ hospital.” Any Iraqi from around here knows not to go there, “one, because of the continuous raids by the US, and two, the hospital’s near complete “lack of medicines and equipment,” stated the former physician.
Eyewitnesses add that US soldiers often raided the Fallujah hospital as if it was “a military target”.
On the day of the (December 7th) raid, nurses and staff panicked at the way the soldiers kicked open doors and blasted open other locked ones with their weapons. When a doctor tried to tell them he had the keys for a locked door, they pointed their guns at his head and threatened to shoot him.
Finally, prior to their search, the soldiers ejected all the staff from the building and kept them under guard in the near-freezing outdoor-garden until the early hours of the next morning.
The troops would not permit the staff to re-enter the hospital even to get some warm blankets…though the temperature dropped to five degrees C (41F).
“We are used to that kind of behavior from American soldiers,” said one of the hospital staff. “This is the third time I’ve been handcuffed by them, and had my face pushed into the ground.”
These allegations, if true, are in contravention of the following articles of the Geneva Conventions…to which the US is a signatory nation.
Article 12 of the First Geneva Convention states: "sick and wounded combatants shall be treated humanely and cared for by the party to the conflict in whose power they may be…any attempts on their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited.”
Article 24 (First Geneva Convention) “Medical personnel exclusively engaged in transport of sick and treatment of wounded and staff..shall be protected in all circumstances.”
Article 18 (Fourth Geneva Convention) reads: "Civilian hospitals ….may in no circumstances be the object of attack…but at all times be respected and protected by the parties to the conflict. "
Why was such obviously illegal, inhuman behavior tolerated in Iraq? Is it possible that US soldiers in Iraq (and now those in Afghanistan) are not regularly informed of their responsibilities regarding the Geneva Conventions?
With General McChrystal's new plan, summarized as: "Protecting the people is the mission. The conflict will be won by pursuading the population, not by destroying the enemy."
(As stated by David Ignatius:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103429.html).
For McChrystal to garner even some form of success in that country with his policy, he will have to make significant changes in the mindset of the US forces. That he seems not to have accomplished as yet.
We must ask ourselves this question--if we routinely ignore and undermine these humane, sensible and in the end, practical codes of conduct, how can we expect the Taliban or others to respect them?
After the Fallujah hospital attack, Lt. Col Bryan Salas, spokesman for the Multinational Forces in Iraq, responded to reporter-questions by indicating he was well aware of the alleged illegality of the actions of his men. His carefully crafted response (some may describe it as cagey and hypocritical) to reporters was: “Coalition forces searched the hospital to ensure that it continues to be a safe place for the citizens of Fallujah…and to receive the medical treatment they deserve.”
However, in other cases in Iraq, US officers frankly admitted they raided hospitals, perhaps blithely unaware that it was a war crime to do so.
In this piece, posted in Gulf News, on April 25, 2008, and downloaded September 6, 2009, Lt. Col. Steve Stover, spokesman for the US military in Iraq, clearly indicates his troops are on their way to attack a psychiatric hospital in Sadr City. See entire article at: http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10208328.htm
“In the latest violence, Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover, a US military spokesman, said his troops were attacked on their way to raid a psychiatric hospital not far from Sadr City.
We must ask ourselves this question--if we routinely ignore and undermine these humane, sensible and in the end, practical codes of conduct, how can we expect the Taliban or others to respect them?
After the Fallujah hospital attack, Lt. Col Bryan Salas, spokesman for the Multinational Forces in Iraq, responded to reporter-questions by indicating he was well aware of the alleged illegality of the actions of his men. His carefully crafted response (some may describe it as cagey and hypocritical) to reporters was: “Coalition forces searched the hospital to ensure that it continues to be a safe place for the citizens of Fallujah…and to receive the medical treatment they deserve.”
However, in other cases in Iraq, US officers frankly admitted they raided hospitals, perhaps blithely unaware that it was a war crime to do so.
In this piece, posted in Gulf News, on April 25, 2008, and downloaded September 6, 2009, Lt. Col. Steve Stover, spokesman for the US military in Iraq, clearly indicates his troops are on their way to attack a psychiatric hospital in Sadr City. See entire article at: http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10208328.htm
“In the latest violence, Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Stover, a US military spokesman, said his troops were attacked on their way to raid a psychiatric hospital not far from Sadr City.
He said soldiers were attacked by roadside bombs and small arms fire, prompting the US military to call for helicopter support. Four gunmen were killed, Stover added. Iraqi forces eventually raided the Al Rashad psychiatric hospital but made no arrests, he said.
The hospital has been under the spotlight since its acting director was held on suspicion he was involved in passing on details of patients to Sunni Islamist Al Qaida.
He (the director) was released last week after being detained for two months. It was unclear if he was ever charged...."
Perhaps insidious illegal policies established by Bush-Cheney regarding the applicability of Geneva Conventions to the conflict, their characterizations of the enemy, and of the Moslem faith, their blatant propagandizing and their open flaunting of the rule-of-law has had its effects on the nation's thinking and particularly on the mindset of the young men and women who they sent into a war zone. But this unworthy philosophy must be renounced and unlearned for General McChrystal's and President Obama's new plans for "protecting the people and pursuading the population" in Afghanistan to ever succeed.
Get the picture?
rjk
The hospital has been under the spotlight since its acting director was held on suspicion he was involved in passing on details of patients to Sunni Islamist Al Qaida.
He (the director) was released last week after being detained for two months. It was unclear if he was ever charged...."
Perhaps insidious illegal policies established by Bush-Cheney regarding the applicability of Geneva Conventions to the conflict, their characterizations of the enemy, and of the Moslem faith, their blatant propagandizing and their open flaunting of the rule-of-law has had its effects on the nation's thinking and particularly on the mindset of the young men and women who they sent into a war zone. But this unworthy philosophy must be renounced and unlearned for General McChrystal's and President Obama's new plans for "protecting the people and pursuading the population" in Afghanistan to ever succeed.
Get the picture?
rjk
Sunday, September 6, 2009
THE SCENT OF HONDURAS AND OBAMA'S ROOKIE JITTERS
Is Obama’s timidity in Honduras—only a symptom of a larger problem..like rookie jitters?
Why won’t President Obama call a spade a spade in Honduras…where in the early morning hours of June 28, 2009 a Honduran military detachment entered the president’s palace and unceremoniously roused the pajama-clad official, hustled him off to an airfield, where at gunpoint he was pushed into a small plane, only to dumped off at a short while later, at an isolated place in neighboring Ecuador. The Honduran military—aligned with right wing forces abroad and in the US-- then assigned the President’s palace to their hand-picked right-wing rubber-stamp, Signor Roberto Micheletti.
Since then Obama and Ms Hillary Clinton have only tentatively (and that is very tentatively) supported the unfortunate Zelaya with mild and well-chosen, (some would say too carefully chosen words). But their deeds clearly say something else. After four months, they finally have gotten around to freezing $38 million in humanitarian funds to Honduras and also revoked the visas of officials who were involved in the coup. But these actions are very small potatoes.
Why won’t President Obama call a spade a spade in Honduras…where in the early morning hours of June 28, 2009 a Honduran military detachment entered the president’s palace and unceremoniously roused the pajama-clad official, hustled him off to an airfield, where at gunpoint he was pushed into a small plane, only to dumped off at a short while later, at an isolated place in neighboring Ecuador. The Honduran military—aligned with right wing forces abroad and in the US-- then assigned the President’s palace to their hand-picked right-wing rubber-stamp, Signor Roberto Micheletti.
Since then Obama and Ms Hillary Clinton have only tentatively (and that is very tentatively) supported the unfortunate Zelaya with mild and well-chosen, (some would say too carefully chosen words). But their deeds clearly say something else. After four months, they finally have gotten around to freezing $38 million in humanitarian funds to Honduras and also revoked the visas of officials who were involved in the coup. But these actions are very small potatoes.
The determined right-wing elements in Honduras have not been frightened. They will try to play for time. President Obama and Ms Clinton must know that their modest fig-leaf actions will not change anything. To many, it is clear that is just what the Obama team wishes. Their goal is to keep the Republican minority in Congress happy. Yes that is the party which was so resoundingly defeated during the last election. Team Obama is willing to undermine our international respect for law and order to keep favor with the disgraced and unmanned Republicans.
They have also fallen back on methods used by the disgraced Bush regime. The Bush-Cheney penchant for of parsing and redefinitions –such as in the Bush-World’s redefinition of “torture” defined so that the CIA and Pentagon could do anything short of shearing off someone's head and could continue to refer to the action as "mild enhanced interrogation”.
In the case of the June 28, Honduran putsch, Obama has defined the overthrow in such as way that …though President Zelaya was man-handled and pushed around by Honduran uniformed military officers, then hustled off in a military plane, ---then twenty-four hours later, after he had a shave and threw on some borrowed clothes--as he and some supporters tried to reenter Honduras—he was faced with massed Honduran military at the border threatening to shoot if he were to step across. According to Obama the clearly military action…is not a military overthrow. Why? Because labeling it “military” would force some really effective economic and political measures that Obama would rather not have to authorize. (Please see Time Magazine’s more complete write up at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1920725,00.html)
Obama has spoken forcefully and well about the Honduran coup, but he would rather do very little. Mr. Zelaya, a left-leaning Honduran who was attempting to liberalize his impoverished nation’s economy…and who is also an ally of the outspoken anti-US--Hugo Chavez—remains the only legally-elected President of that nation. Yet he remains an embarrassing refugee outside of Honduras.
They have also fallen back on methods used by the disgraced Bush regime. The Bush-Cheney penchant for of parsing and redefinitions –such as in the Bush-World’s redefinition of “torture” defined so that the CIA and Pentagon could do anything short of shearing off someone's head and could continue to refer to the action as "mild enhanced interrogation”.
In the case of the June 28, Honduran putsch, Obama has defined the overthrow in such as way that …though President Zelaya was man-handled and pushed around by Honduran uniformed military officers, then hustled off in a military plane, ---then twenty-four hours later, after he had a shave and threw on some borrowed clothes--as he and some supporters tried to reenter Honduras—he was faced with massed Honduran military at the border threatening to shoot if he were to step across. According to Obama the clearly military action…is not a military overthrow. Why? Because labeling it “military” would force some really effective economic and political measures that Obama would rather not have to authorize. (Please see Time Magazine’s more complete write up at: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1920725,00.html)
Obama has spoken forcefully and well about the Honduran coup, but he would rather do very little. Mr. Zelaya, a left-leaning Honduran who was attempting to liberalize his impoverished nation’s economy…and who is also an ally of the outspoken anti-US--Hugo Chavez—remains the only legally-elected President of that nation. Yet he remains an embarrassing refugee outside of Honduras.
Time Magazine calls Obama’s action a “mixed signal” and states: “When the military hauls away a democratically elected president, it's a military coup, period, regardless of who takes power afterward. It's a rule that needs to apply not just in Honduras, but whenever the U.S. has to take on coupsters.”
Time Magazine and this author ask: what impression does this give to other erstwhile military leaders in other South American nations? This author sees the Honduras situation as a paradigm of Obama’s last few months in office: crafting the good speech, delivering the words and then doing little afterward as follow-up.
Sidling away from tough issues because they might upset some element of Congress or the electorate is becoming all too common the hallmark of President Obama. He seems to actually want to hew to some middle line…as if there was one between the reactionary Republicans left in Congress. Republicans over the last few years have diverged so far right into their netherworld that finding a middle ground is tantamount to a cross-Pacific voyage. It is essentially impossible. It’s their way or the highway. So Obama has set himself an impossible task on that score.
I know it has been only nine months--but these months have been pregnant with problems and policy pronouncements. And here below are some others policy issues that seem to have the smell of Obama’s Honduran behavior—his resistance to take a firm stand.
Let’s take Afghanistan. Why won’t Obama stand up to his military? Doesn't he know he is the commander-in-chief? He should be telling his generals what he wants them to do….not the other way around. Just recently President Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, but a recent report leaked by his staff has suggested that he was “pressured” to do so by his generals. I hate to think that the man we elected President must go hat in hand to a general and ask permission. Such behavior has the scent of Tegucigalpa.
On August 26th the “new man” in Afghansitan, General Stanley McChrystal who is widely touted as a brilliant ‘whiz kid” full of new ideas, has promised the President a “new way to win” in Afghanistan by “persuading” the long-suffering Afghanis that the US invaders are “concerned about their welfare”. But within a few weeks after that announcement, reports have surfaced of two disastrous US military blunders.
The first blunder occurred on Friday (September 4th) when a German NATO officer in Kunduz province Afghanistan called in an aerial strike on two stolen tanker-trucks (stuck at river crossing). The stalled fuel tankers were quickly mobbed by local civilians (or invited by the Taliban) carrying empty gerry-cans all eager to get a windfall of free fuel-- when the USAF F15’s missile struck. The result was giant fireball and a holocaust of civilians.
The immediate US military response was "the F15 attack killed only 'insurgents' ( as in the past this mantra proved untrue as it did over the past dozen or so US attacks casuing some 1200 Afghan civilian deaths). Their knee-jerk position of "no civilians killed" soon proved untenable when the local hospitals reported a flood of burnt bodies and patients--men, women, and children with horrible burns. The French daily “Le Figaro” was one of the few journals to publish a wide-angle view of the attack-site, which clearly shows the entire area littered with shards of metal as well as the burned and charred containers and canisters of the unfortunate locals.
Two days later, on Sunday September 6, 2009, another embarrassing military action, (and breach of the Geneva Conventions) surfaced when Reuters reported that US troops had entered a Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA) hospital in Wardak south of Kabul, where they rampaged through the facility, tied up employees as well as families of patients, and forced staff and patients (as well as some in beds) out of their rooms in their futile search for possible “insurgents”. (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5850OH20090906?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews.
If these actions are any indication of how effective the new McChrystal polices are going to be, more than a month after the top general in Afghanistan ordered his command (on July 2, 2009) to “embrace the people” and “build governance capacity”-- his efforts will be in vain.
Sidling away from tough issues because they might upset some element of Congress or the electorate is becoming all too common the hallmark of President Obama. He seems to actually want to hew to some middle line…as if there was one between the reactionary Republicans left in Congress. Republicans over the last few years have diverged so far right into their netherworld that finding a middle ground is tantamount to a cross-Pacific voyage. It is essentially impossible. It’s their way or the highway. So Obama has set himself an impossible task on that score.
I know it has been only nine months--but these months have been pregnant with problems and policy pronouncements. And here below are some others policy issues that seem to have the smell of Obama’s Honduran behavior—his resistance to take a firm stand.
Let’s take Afghanistan. Why won’t Obama stand up to his military? Doesn't he know he is the commander-in-chief? He should be telling his generals what he wants them to do….not the other way around. Just recently President Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, but a recent report leaked by his staff has suggested that he was “pressured” to do so by his generals. I hate to think that the man we elected President must go hat in hand to a general and ask permission. Such behavior has the scent of Tegucigalpa.
On August 26th the “new man” in Afghansitan, General Stanley McChrystal who is widely touted as a brilliant ‘whiz kid” full of new ideas, has promised the President a “new way to win” in Afghanistan by “persuading” the long-suffering Afghanis that the US invaders are “concerned about their welfare”. But within a few weeks after that announcement, reports have surfaced of two disastrous US military blunders.
The first blunder occurred on Friday (September 4th) when a German NATO officer in Kunduz province Afghanistan called in an aerial strike on two stolen tanker-trucks (stuck at river crossing). The stalled fuel tankers were quickly mobbed by local civilians (or invited by the Taliban) carrying empty gerry-cans all eager to get a windfall of free fuel-- when the USAF F15’s missile struck. The result was giant fireball and a holocaust of civilians.
The immediate US military response was "the F15 attack killed only 'insurgents' ( as in the past this mantra proved untrue as it did over the past dozen or so US attacks casuing some 1200 Afghan civilian deaths). Their knee-jerk position of "no civilians killed" soon proved untenable when the local hospitals reported a flood of burnt bodies and patients--men, women, and children with horrible burns. The French daily “Le Figaro” was one of the few journals to publish a wide-angle view of the attack-site, which clearly shows the entire area littered with shards of metal as well as the burned and charred containers and canisters of the unfortunate locals.
Two days later, on Sunday September 6, 2009, another embarrassing military action, (and breach of the Geneva Conventions) surfaced when Reuters reported that US troops had entered a Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA) hospital in Wardak south of Kabul, where they rampaged through the facility, tied up employees as well as families of patients, and forced staff and patients (as well as some in beds) out of their rooms in their futile search for possible “insurgents”. (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5850OH20090906?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews.
If these actions are any indication of how effective the new McChrystal polices are going to be, more than a month after the top general in Afghanistan ordered his command (on July 2, 2009) to “embrace the people” and “build governance capacity”-- his efforts will be in vain.
These two events suggest that in spite of McChrystal's new plan--now a full month in force-- the US forces remain unaware, unconcerned, and uninformed.
Other NATO forces consider the Americans "trigger-happy" and unsympathetic. If that characterization is false--these recent acts have not disproved them. Obviously these actions are not going to win us any Afghan friends and change the situation on the ground where perhaps more young Americans will die as a result.
These two stories only underscore the unfortunate truism that the military is a very blunt and unpredictable tool of foreign policy which should be used very sparingly, if at all, and then only when a nation’s survival is actually threatened. Obama does not want to step up to the plate and call for a retreat from Afghanistan. And he does not want to send more troops. I'm getting the scent of old Comayaguela.
In a recent piece in Time Magazine, columnist Joe Klein, took Obama to task for his tendency to “over-learn the lessons of past presidencies"—especially when such lessons permit the president to “avoid taking responsibility for hard decisions” See “Rookie Mistakes” http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1920050,00.html (downloaded September 6, 2009).
Klein lists several of what he considers Obama’s rookie mistakes. Such as not taking responsibility for a health-care plan, by deferring it to Congress, so now it is a badly muddled mess. He let AG Eric Holder run the game plan on whether to investigate the CIA for torture abuses, another serious deferral of responsibility Klein sees as a rookie mistake, but I might call “Honduran behavior”. In that case the President didn’t step up to the plate and make a decision one way or another. He did say he would not want to look back…but then he let Holder do it. I call that "Honduran" behavior. The result is a CIA investigation that is so limited and so meaningless, that according to Joe Klein, Holder might be faced with prosecuting one agent for threatening a prisoner with an electric drill and let off another who waterboarded a man 83 times! While the real miscreants who were responsible—Mr. Yoo and others-- and in the White House--Cheney and Bush-- are of course off Scott free.
But in his closing remarks Joe Klein is optimistic:
"In the great sweep of history, this presidency has barely begun. The mistakes Obama has made are rookie mistakes that can be corrected. And the general tendency of his Administration — toward civility, as opposed to the ugliness we've seen in the past month — is the right one. But he can't allow his desire for civility to neuter the requirements of leadership. He has to lead, clearly and decisively, starting right now. "
I agree...we need a change...right now.
These two stories only underscore the unfortunate truism that the military is a very blunt and unpredictable tool of foreign policy which should be used very sparingly, if at all, and then only when a nation’s survival is actually threatened. Obama does not want to step up to the plate and call for a retreat from Afghanistan. And he does not want to send more troops. I'm getting the scent of old Comayaguela.
In a recent piece in Time Magazine, columnist Joe Klein, took Obama to task for his tendency to “over-learn the lessons of past presidencies"—especially when such lessons permit the president to “avoid taking responsibility for hard decisions” See “Rookie Mistakes” http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1920050,00.html (downloaded September 6, 2009).
Klein lists several of what he considers Obama’s rookie mistakes. Such as not taking responsibility for a health-care plan, by deferring it to Congress, so now it is a badly muddled mess. He let AG Eric Holder run the game plan on whether to investigate the CIA for torture abuses, another serious deferral of responsibility Klein sees as a rookie mistake, but I might call “Honduran behavior”. In that case the President didn’t step up to the plate and make a decision one way or another. He did say he would not want to look back…but then he let Holder do it. I call that "Honduran" behavior. The result is a CIA investigation that is so limited and so meaningless, that according to Joe Klein, Holder might be faced with prosecuting one agent for threatening a prisoner with an electric drill and let off another who waterboarded a man 83 times! While the real miscreants who were responsible—Mr. Yoo and others-- and in the White House--Cheney and Bush-- are of course off Scott free.
But in his closing remarks Joe Klein is optimistic:
"In the great sweep of history, this presidency has barely begun. The mistakes Obama has made are rookie mistakes that can be corrected. And the general tendency of his Administration — toward civility, as opposed to the ugliness we've seen in the past month — is the right one. But he can't allow his desire for civility to neuter the requirements of leadership. He has to lead, clearly and decisively, starting right now. "
I agree...we need a change...right now.
Get the picture now?
rjk
rjk
Thursday, September 3, 2009
NUCLEAR THREAT FROM IRAN HYPED: EL BARADEI
On the Iran front, that nation’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, was quoted in BBC on line as indicating that Iran has a “new proposal” for the UN and the "gang of six" countries which oppose its nuclear ambitions. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8231763.stm.
This seems to be Iran’s most recent response to President Obama’s promise to engage Iran in dialogue over the nuclear issue. The American proposed window for such talks is expected to close by the end of this month (September 2009). While last week, the prime minister of Israel, visiting in Europe called for “crippling sanctions” against Iran to force it to end its program to concentrate radioactive materials which can be used in a power plant—or if further refined-- in a nuclear bomb. My interpretation is that nuclear-armed Israel sees Iran as a threat to its regional nuclear and military hegemony and is dead-set against Iran even developing the know-how to concentrate nuclear fuels (and to build a bomb). On the other hand, Iran, the signatory to the nuclear disarmament treaty (unlike Israel), has an established right under that agreement to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran insists it is not interested in building weapons—only to develop technology for electrical power development. What gives many pause is that in the past, Israel, Pakistan, and India too-- all mouthed the same story--- until they actually tested a nuclear device.
Mohammad el Baradei the outgoing head of the UN atomic watchdog group states that he has “seen no evidence that Tehran has an ongoing weapons program”. El Baradei at a recent interview with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, (See BBC) has said that “many people are talking about Iran’s nuclear program as the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat is hyped.” This statement hit the wires as the arch-conservative Israeli PM, Mr Netanyahu visited heads of state in Europe to encourage the need for “crushing sanctions” against Iran, were it to continue on its present path. Netanyahu has coupled such statements with veiled (and not so veiled) threats to pre-emptively bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Were Iran to reach the technological level of refining nuclear materials and having the technical ability to produce weapons—(such as Japan) but not actually doing so—it could change the balance of power in the Middle East. This is a development that the President finds politically distasteful right now. But that benighted region is now so heavily tilted toward the US and its on-the-scene-ally-Israel that any real movement toward peace between Israel and Palestine is a perennial non-starter. Why bother to play fair with the competition or seek compromise if one player holds all the trump cards? A bit of a shakeup, such as a nuclear savvy Iran—even one with no actual stockpile of nuclear weapons--might force others in the region to more seriously consider peaceful solutions and compromises rather than resorting to napalm, white phosporous, aerial bombardment and home-made rockets to solve problems.
Such a nuclear-stand-off worked for the US during the Soviet-era cold war! And recall that nothing else has worked in the Middle East--so far! Now it's up to President Obama to make sure that Mr. Netanyahu does nothing really stupid...like following through on his bomb Iran threat.
rjk
This seems to be Iran’s most recent response to President Obama’s promise to engage Iran in dialogue over the nuclear issue. The American proposed window for such talks is expected to close by the end of this month (September 2009). While last week, the prime minister of Israel, visiting in Europe called for “crippling sanctions” against Iran to force it to end its program to concentrate radioactive materials which can be used in a power plant—or if further refined-- in a nuclear bomb. My interpretation is that nuclear-armed Israel sees Iran as a threat to its regional nuclear and military hegemony and is dead-set against Iran even developing the know-how to concentrate nuclear fuels (and to build a bomb). On the other hand, Iran, the signatory to the nuclear disarmament treaty (unlike Israel), has an established right under that agreement to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran insists it is not interested in building weapons—only to develop technology for electrical power development. What gives many pause is that in the past, Israel, Pakistan, and India too-- all mouthed the same story--- until they actually tested a nuclear device.
Mohammad el Baradei the outgoing head of the UN atomic watchdog group states that he has “seen no evidence that Tehran has an ongoing weapons program”. El Baradei at a recent interview with the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, (See BBC) has said that “many people are talking about Iran’s nuclear program as the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat is hyped.” This statement hit the wires as the arch-conservative Israeli PM, Mr Netanyahu visited heads of state in Europe to encourage the need for “crushing sanctions” against Iran, were it to continue on its present path. Netanyahu has coupled such statements with veiled (and not so veiled) threats to pre-emptively bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Were Iran to reach the technological level of refining nuclear materials and having the technical ability to produce weapons—(such as Japan) but not actually doing so—it could change the balance of power in the Middle East. This is a development that the President finds politically distasteful right now. But that benighted region is now so heavily tilted toward the US and its on-the-scene-ally-Israel that any real movement toward peace between Israel and Palestine is a perennial non-starter. Why bother to play fair with the competition or seek compromise if one player holds all the trump cards? A bit of a shakeup, such as a nuclear savvy Iran—even one with no actual stockpile of nuclear weapons--might force others in the region to more seriously consider peaceful solutions and compromises rather than resorting to napalm, white phosporous, aerial bombardment and home-made rockets to solve problems.
Such a nuclear-stand-off worked for the US during the Soviet-era cold war! And recall that nothing else has worked in the Middle East--so far! Now it's up to President Obama to make sure that Mr. Netanyahu does nothing really stupid...like following through on his bomb Iran threat.
rjk
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
TWO EQUALLY TOUGH CHICKADEES
Around our area of the northeast USA, the fall of the year brings madness to buck deer and moose which are known to attack pets, posts, trees and sometimes even clotheslines. In intra specific battles they are even more aggressive often striking each other so violently that their racks or antlers engage in a way so they can not be disentangled. The result is a slow death of starvarion for the combatants. After the rutting season, their bodies are sometimes found with their antlers locked together in a death tangle, the result of a mortal battle and normal male aggression. But what about other, less obviously aggressive animals? Some birds exhibit extreme aggression during the nesting season.
I recently came across an interesting bird story by Diane Porter entitled “Tough Titmouse”, (see: http://www.birdwatching.com/stories/tough_titmouse.htm. downloaded September 2, 2009) Ms Porter engagingly relates the story of an angry and aggressive titmouse which attacked its own reflected image in her living room window. The bird’s persistent and violent behavior moved from window to window and to the author's automobile mirrors and lasted through the breeding season and then continued on into winter. Ms Porter's intersting research revealed that unlike birds that migrate, tufted titmice (and the other members of the Paridae, such as chickadees, which live in small, non-migratory flocks) spend their whole lives on the very same territory that they will breed on in the spring. This pattern seems to lead to certain aggressive hebaviors. This particular titmouse, finding what it interpreted as another male in its range at Ms Porter’s window, attacked it…to maintain its status in the flock. In winter, the dominant male titmouse of each flock, according to Ms Porter, chases and pecks at all other males in the territory. Such displays tend to ensure that that one male titmouse will be the one that gets to breed on the flock's territory in the spring.
I report here on an example of what I interpret as male aggression in the black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) which I recently observed in Miller Place, New York, in early September 2009.
Walking my two small dogs, one afternoon, I spied what appeared to be a small dead bird in the short grass of a lawn just off the side of our road. My eye was attracted to a slowly waving bird's wing or tail being moved by the faint breeze and rising above the short grass. Thinking it might be a small bird recently struck by a passing car, I approached to find that the slowly waving tail was that of a chickadee, lying on its back. Closer inspection revealed two chickadees. The first bird with the waving tail lay on his back with his tail upright. The tail rythmically fanned the air while the second bird lay on top the first--its gray back the only part visible to me.
At this point both birds were still and appeared lifeless--except for the waving tail, which I attributed to the breeze. Their eyes were closed. But as I bent down and reached over to grip the short gray tail, I could see that at least one of the birds might be alive. At this point I imagined that perhaps they had become entangled in a fine piece of thread or mono filament fishing line. So gripping the upper bird's tail gently, I raised the two above the short grass to get a clear view. It was then that I observed that the bird whose tail I held, had his small black beak locked tightly on the leg(s) of the other individual. As I turned the tangled pair around, I could see that the second bird had his beak locked around the leg of the first bird! The two were engaged in a death grip! I jiggled the birds slightly, thinking I might disentangle the living one from the dead. But as I did so, raising the pair a few inches above the recently cut lawn, the second bird--the dead one, opened its eyes and seeing me, immediately released its grip on its enemy's leg! It was alive. It instantly dropped toward the ground, spread its wings and to my great surprise flew away, seeming no worse for its recent violent encounter. The second bird, whose tail I still held, ached upward and shook loose from my grip almost immediately afterward. It too flew away, to disappear into the branches of a near-by apple tree. Both birds were apparently unhurt and well--as far as I could tell.
I concluded that I must have arrived on the scene, sometime after the end of a fierce battle between these two (presumably male) chickadees, the result of which ended in a draw. Neither one was willing to release its hold on the other. I imagined them struggling and tumbling in the air, then falling to the soft-earth locked in a mutual grip that would not permit either of these equal-sized determined individuals to escape from the other's hold. Thinking the observation an unusual one, I have added it here to my blog, in the hope that perhaps it might entertain or illustrate the sometimes aggressive behavior of "two tough chickadees".
I recently came across an interesting bird story by Diane Porter entitled “Tough Titmouse”, (see: http://www.birdwatching.com/stories/tough_titmouse.htm. downloaded September 2, 2009) Ms Porter engagingly relates the story of an angry and aggressive titmouse which attacked its own reflected image in her living room window. The bird’s persistent and violent behavior moved from window to window and to the author's automobile mirrors and lasted through the breeding season and then continued on into winter. Ms Porter's intersting research revealed that unlike birds that migrate, tufted titmice (and the other members of the Paridae, such as chickadees, which live in small, non-migratory flocks) spend their whole lives on the very same territory that they will breed on in the spring. This pattern seems to lead to certain aggressive hebaviors. This particular titmouse, finding what it interpreted as another male in its range at Ms Porter’s window, attacked it…to maintain its status in the flock. In winter, the dominant male titmouse of each flock, according to Ms Porter, chases and pecks at all other males in the territory. Such displays tend to ensure that that one male titmouse will be the one that gets to breed on the flock's territory in the spring.
I report here on an example of what I interpret as male aggression in the black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) which I recently observed in Miller Place, New York, in early September 2009.
Walking my two small dogs, one afternoon, I spied what appeared to be a small dead bird in the short grass of a lawn just off the side of our road. My eye was attracted to a slowly waving bird's wing or tail being moved by the faint breeze and rising above the short grass. Thinking it might be a small bird recently struck by a passing car, I approached to find that the slowly waving tail was that of a chickadee, lying on its back. Closer inspection revealed two chickadees. The first bird with the waving tail lay on his back with his tail upright. The tail rythmically fanned the air while the second bird lay on top the first--its gray back the only part visible to me.
At this point both birds were still and appeared lifeless--except for the waving tail, which I attributed to the breeze. Their eyes were closed. But as I bent down and reached over to grip the short gray tail, I could see that at least one of the birds might be alive. At this point I imagined that perhaps they had become entangled in a fine piece of thread or mono filament fishing line. So gripping the upper bird's tail gently, I raised the two above the short grass to get a clear view. It was then that I observed that the bird whose tail I held, had his small black beak locked tightly on the leg(s) of the other individual. As I turned the tangled pair around, I could see that the second bird had his beak locked around the leg of the first bird! The two were engaged in a death grip! I jiggled the birds slightly, thinking I might disentangle the living one from the dead. But as I did so, raising the pair a few inches above the recently cut lawn, the second bird--the dead one, opened its eyes and seeing me, immediately released its grip on its enemy's leg! It was alive. It instantly dropped toward the ground, spread its wings and to my great surprise flew away, seeming no worse for its recent violent encounter. The second bird, whose tail I still held, ached upward and shook loose from my grip almost immediately afterward. It too flew away, to disappear into the branches of a near-by apple tree. Both birds were apparently unhurt and well--as far as I could tell.
I concluded that I must have arrived on the scene, sometime after the end of a fierce battle between these two (presumably male) chickadees, the result of which ended in a draw. Neither one was willing to release its hold on the other. I imagined them struggling and tumbling in the air, then falling to the soft-earth locked in a mutual grip that would not permit either of these equal-sized determined individuals to escape from the other's hold. Thinking the observation an unusual one, I have added it here to my blog, in the hope that perhaps it might entertain or illustrate the sometimes aggressive behavior of "two tough chickadees".
rjk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)