Oil Addiction and Identity
The end of Textbooks
Things which don't go away
Ace Combat: Joint Assault
Sitting Room Teaser
Give Peace a Chance
What Corporate Media Won't Tell You
An interview with Tom Engelhardt, editor of Tomdispatch.com about the Bush administration, the American empire and what corporate media won't write about.

Comments

Please log in to leave a comment.
You need to have been a member for 24 hours and validated your email before leaving a comment.
 
Stalin’s Ghost Over Georgia
17 aug  |  RENATE OGILVIE gives some historical context to the conflict in Georgia, a crisis that could put heat back into the Cold War.  . . read more
Mocking Soldiers film unsuspecting Children
25 may  |  Mocking Soldiers film unsuspecting Children . . read more
The Geopolitics of Georgia
14 aug  |  According to political economist F William Engdahl there are far bigger stakes being played out in Georgia than a territorial dispute. . . read more
Bush Will Be Impeached If He Attacks Iran - From Senator Joe Biden
11 dec  |  I don't think we went to war [in Iraq] because of oil, but the only thing I can fit together with Cheney and his gang is that they're smarter than they're acting. They went to war in the hope they would be able to do two things. One, have a government that sat on a whole bunch of oil that still exists in the world that would be indebted to us. Two, have permanent military bases in Iraq to dominate that part of the world to be able to control oil. Not to steal it for American oil companies, but to be able to control the pricing, control the access of it, a very Machiavellian view. There's nothing idealistic about Cheney.

I don't know what President Bush thinks, but I think he's bought hook, line and sinker the Cheney rationale that the only way for us to be able to be dominant in the 21st century is to use our overwhelming power in the face of the moral disapprobation of the rest of the world, threaten the rest of the world, and that's how we avoid war in the future...

[As for Iran] the president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people, unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him... I don't say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying... what we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done at this moment in our history. . . read more

Noam Chomsky on U.S. Policy Towards Iran
20 nov  |  Noam Chomsky, activist, intellectual and Professor of Linguistics at MIT, gives some historical context to the current confrontation between the USA and Iran and talks about how the Bush administration's assumptions about Iran may be wrong. . . read more
America Building Case Against Iran
18 sep  |  An interview with Phyllis Bennis, senior analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C., about the Bush administration's seemingly unstoppable path to war with Iran. "Iran remains the sole potential independent regional power with the capacity to challenge U.S. domination in the region. So it's not a surprise that U.S.-Iran tension has existed for a long time and is rising." . . read more
Noam Chomsky on U.S. Democrats and Iran
26 nov  |  Respected intellectual Noam Chomsky talks about the Democratic presidential race in the United States and whether they have a different answer on the issue of Iran. . . read more
Shooting War
18 dec  |  The year is 2011. The global war on terror is raging out of control. The American economy is deep in recession. The president is popping Prozac. When a suicide bomber blows a Brooklyn Starbucks to bits, hipster videoblogger Jimmy Burns is in the right place at the right time.  . . read more
Is Bush Planning to Attack Iran?
16 sep  |  Aijaz Ahmad, Senior Editorial Consultant and political commentator for the Indian news magazine Frontline, analyzes America's threats toward Iran. "This administration is determined to attack Iran before it leaves office." . . read more
The Rudd Delusion - From Antony Loewenstein
22 nov  |  The Federal election will be a contest between a social and economic conservative (John Howard) and a marginally less social and economic conservative (Kevin Rudd). Those so-called progressives, such as Robert Manne, hoping that a Rudd victory would usher in a period of more reflective foreign policy and the ability to say "no" to Washington, are kidding themselves... The Labor Party is not the utopia imagined by people like Manne, but rather a business that may tinker around the edges of domestic policy, but maintain an essentially U.S.-focused outlook. The key question facing a newly elected Rudd Government (or a re-elected Howard one) is a possible US or Israeli-led strike on Iran...

A Rudd Government would likely sanction a U.S.-led strike against Iran. Perhaps covertly, but Rudd has offered no assurances that he believes the Bush Administration should not be trusted over its Iran policy. Besides, arguing against the Iraq invasion is a luxury that Rudd would never indulge in power. Not unlike Howard and a host of past Labor Prime Ministers, Washington’s call is one that Australian leaders find impossible to resist...

A likely Rudd Government may be forced to make a decision on this matter within months of assuming office. Silence is not an option. If Rudd, like Howard, joins America in an unprovoked attack against a Middle Eastern nation, he will be as worthy of contempt as our current prime minister.  . . read more

blogs   100words
 
by Jack Freeman

As four months of travel in India is coming to an end I am finding
it continually confusing that many of the cultural atrocities that
come with this society of 1 billion strong are deemed "interesting"
and "profound".

Sitting in social circles from hostel to hostel, I have met forceful disagreement with my criticisms of the oppressive nature of India's cast system and their large Islamic community. The smug, "oh, you just don't get it" attitude you receive for owning such opinions is both condescending and misguided.

This is an enraging example of the pseudo, naive belief that this "exotic"society is unintelligible to (most of) us westerners. In this beautiful, richly diverse and all round fun country where, by the same token, you will be greeted by zero empathy of female lib, homosexual equality or my own personal faithlessness, I wish that travelers would not deny their education and morals on arrival. Is it not possible to balance both romance and a sense of rationality?