Thousands of significant Iraqi ancient sites still unguarded

Thousands of significant Iraqi ancient sites still unguarded

By Shaymaa Adel

January 30, 2012 Thousands of Iraqi archaeological sites remain unguarded nearly eight years after the 2003-U.S. invasion, said the chief of Iraqi Antiquities Department Qais Hussein. Hussein cited the southern Province of Dhi Qar, Iraq’s richest in ancient treasures, as an example where there are 1,200 archaeologically significant sites but only 200 guards. Dhi Qar of which Nasiriya is the provincial capital, was the center of Sumerian civilization which flourished in southern Iraq more than 5,000 years ago. The Sumerians invented writing and established the first urban settlements in man’s history. "We have been writing to the concerned authorities to allow us to appoint more guards but to no avail," he said. In the absence of guards, the sites become easy targets for illegal diggers, trying to uncover ancient relics and have them smuggled abroad. Some of Iraq’s finest Mesopotamian sites are reported to have been looted of some of their most significant contents. While most of the museum items that went missing in the chaos that followed the 2003-U.S. invasion, Iraqi scientists say huge numbers of relics dug up illegal from unguarded mounds are not changing hands between smugglers and illegal art dealers. Hussein said there were more than 12,000 archaeologically significant mounds in Iraq which by law are entitled for protection. But he said the Antiquities Department only has 1,200 guards, leaving more than 10,000 ancient sites without protection.

Multiculturalism has no place in Israel

"Multiculturalism has no place in Israel.
Israel was created as a Jewish state for the Jews"

Herald Sun	Australia's biggest-selling daily newspaper	September 27, 2000
Multiculturalism not for Israel - Leibler By John Masanauskas Isi Leibler Melbourne - Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel. "This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews," he told a Jerusalem newspaper. Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that "we are all proud being part and parcel of." The founder of Jetset Travel moved to Israel two years ago as chairman of the World Jewish Congress. He recently published an essay arguing that Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, was under threat in Israel by "post-Zionists". "A post-Zionist is someone who actually looks positively towards the end of the Jewish people in ethnocentric terms, as a national group, and no longer sees the Jewish people as one united people," he told the Jerusalem Post. Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state. But Mr. Leibler, 65, has the opposite view of multiculturalism in Australia. During the Pauline Hanson debate in 1993, he warned that multiculturalism was under threat by extremists. "There is a need to sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being part and parcel of, and which is really under threat," Mr. Leibler said.

The consequences [of race mixing] is that mongrels combine manifold characterlessness, lack of restraint, weakness of will, unsteadiness, impiety and disloyalty with versatility, intellectual alertness, freedom of prejudice and the distance of horizon. ... The future European race will be a mongrel race ... It will be the Eurasian-Negroide race ... Eventually, from persecutions a small community emerged, hardened by the martyrdom they heroically endured for an idea, thus purified of all weak-willed elements and intellectual poverty. ... Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility through spiritual grace. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated and thanks to Jewish emancipation.

Coudenhove-Kalergi, Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), Wien/Leipzig 1925, pages 20, 23, 50

Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, father of the EU-idea, was married to a Jewess and promoted an Eurasian-Negroid European nation to be led by a racially pure Jewish people in his book "Practical Idealism". It is striking that he refers in his book, published 1925, to a Jewish martyrdom at a time when no-one thought of a holocaust and nobody would have expected that Jewry could become a victim of a holocaust or of a similar martyrdom. Yet, Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote as early as 1925 that Jewry emerged purified from a martyrdom of destruction which moulded them into a future leader-nation. This means that he referred to the kept secret 6-Million-Holocaust of 1919 that was already required as the religious basis of Jewish world leadership. On October 31, 1919 the 'American Hebrew' (New York) announced: "Six million men and women are dying ... And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, ... but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood. In this threatened holocaust of human life ..." The first 6-Million "Burnt Offering" (Holocaust) of 1919 had been made, according the 'American Hebrew', in the Ukraine. It was after the Balfour-Declaration (1917) that granted the Jewish nation the right to "return" and to confiscate "the promised land". A Jewish priesthood interpreted God’s promise for the "return" to Erez-Israel as necessitating a "6-Million Burnt Offering" which had to be made before being permitted to return as a refined people and "purified nation of martyrdom". The foremost holocaust priest, Elie Wiesel, explained it in this way: "The Holocaust is a sacred mystery, whose secrets were confined to a priesthood of survivors." (P. Novick, ‘The Holocaust in American Life’, 1999, page. 211). The first holocaust of 1919 ("burnt offering") has, according to Coudenhove-Kalergi, obviously functioned as an "artificial selection process" from which the Jews emerged as a "refined and purified martyr nation" which enables them to be the leader nation of the future world. The "artificial selection process" for racial purity complies with God’s instruction. The Talmud states: "God speaks to the Jews: 'Do not come before me as a mixed people'." (Talmud, Goldmann Publishers, Munich 1988, p. 131) On the other hand the idea of multiculturalism forces all other races to inter-mix and therefore suffer a "weakness of will", according to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi. People with a weakness of will can be more easily directed and ruled than those with independent will-power by the "future leader-nation"

"Thus an Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles [non-Jews] are compared to dogs." Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Pluto Press, London 1994, page 94 (ISBN 0 7453 0818 X)

---

Patrick J. Buchanan-Who Wants War With Iran?

Who Wants War With Iran?

Jan 20, 2012

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On Sept. 21, 1976, as his car rounded Sheridan Circle on Embassy Row, former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier was assassinated by car bomb. Ronni Moffitt, a 25-year-old American women who worked with Letelier at the leftist Institute for Policy Studies, died with him.

Michael Townley, an ex-CIA asset in the hire of Chile’s intelligence agency, confessed to using anti-Castro Cubans to murder Letelier, in what was regarded as an act of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Which raises a question: Are not the murders of four Iranian scientists associated with that nation’s nuclear program, by the attachment of bombs to their cars in Tehran, also acts of terrorism?

Had the Stalin- or Khrushchev-era Soviets done this to four U.S. scientists in Washington, would we not have regarded it as acts of terrorism and war?

Iran has accused the United States and Israel of murder. But Hillary Clinton emphatically denied any U.S. complicity: “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.”

“The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,” added National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, “We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like this.”

Victoria Nuland, Clinton’s spokeswoman at State, denounced “any assassination or attack on an innocent person, and we express our sympathies to the family.”

The assassinated scientist was a supervisor at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility that hosts regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran is building a bomb, it is not at Natanz.

U.S. denial of involvement leaves Mossad as the prime suspect. Israel has not denied it, and this comes at a sensitive time in U.S.-Israeli relations.

In Foreign Policy magazine, author and historian Mark Perry, claiming CIA documentation, alleges that Mossad agents in London posed as CIA agents and contacted Jundallah, a terrorist group, to bribe and recruit them to engage in acts of terror inside Iran.

Jundallah has conducted attacks in Sistan-Baluchistan province, killing government officials, soldiers, and women and children.

According to Perry, when George W. Bush learned of the Mossad agents posing as CIA while recruiting terrorists, he “went totally ballistic.”

Yet Meir Dagan, head of Mossad at the time, denies it, and, ironically, has called any Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

Who is telling the truth? We do not know for sure.

What we do know is that “Bibi” Netanyahu is desperate to have the United States launch air and missile strikes to stop Teheran from becoming the world’s ninth nuclear power. And he is echoed not only by U.S. neocons, but GOP candidates save Ron Paul.

Nor should we be surprised.

To bring America into its war with Germany, Winston Churchill set up William Stephenson, “A Man Called Intrepid,” with hundreds of agents in New York to engage in everything from bribery to blackmail of U.S. senators to get the United States to enter the war and pull England’s chestnuts out of the fire.

This is what desperate countries do.

And while America First kept us out of the European war until Adolf Hitler invaded Russia, ensuring that Russians, not Americans, died in the millions to defeat him, eventually America was maneuvered into war.

Whoever is assassinating these Iranian scientists, be it homegrown Iranian terrorists, Jundallah at the instigation of Israel, or Mossad, the objective is clear: Enrage the Iranians so they strike out at America, provoking a U.S.-Iranian war.
Is such a war in America’s interests? Consider.

While U.S. air and naval power would prevail, Iranian civilians would die, as some of their nuclear facilities are in populated areas. Moreover, we cannot kill the nuclear knowledge Iran has gained. Thus we would only set back their nuclear program by several years. And a bloodied and beaten Iran would then go all-out for a bomb.

The regime, behind which its people would rally, would emerge even more entrenched. U.S. bombing did not cause Germans to remove Hitler or Japanese to depose their emperor. And we lack the ground troops to invade and occupy a country three times the size of Iraq.

All U.S. ships, including carriers in that bathtub the Persian Gulf, would be at risk from shore-based anti-ship missiles and the hundreds of missile boats in Iran’s navy. Any sea battle would send oil prices to $200 and $300 a barrel. There goes the eurozone.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shia of the Saudi oil fields and Bahrain, home port to the Fifth Fleet, and Iranian agents in Afghanistan and Iraq could set the region aflame.

As America started up the road to Baghdad in 2003, Gen. David Petraeus is said to have asked, “Tell me how this ends.”

Before some agent provocateur pushes us into war with Iran, Congress should debate the wisdom of authorizing President Obama, or anyone else, to take America into her fifth war in a generation in the Middle and Near East. 

---------------------------------------------

Patrick J. Buchanan-Who Commissioned Us to Remake the World?

Who Commissioned Us to Remake the World?

By Patrick J. Buchanan


U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul, Obama’s man in Moscow, who just took up his post, has received a rude reception. And understandably so.

In 1992, McFaul was the representative in Russia of the National Democratic Institute, a U.S. government-funded agency whose mission is to promote democracy abroad.

The NDI has been tied to color-coded or Orange revolutions such as those that dethroned regimes in Serbia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia and Lebanon. The project miscarried in Belarus.

The NDI is one of several agencies, dating to the 1980s, that were set up to subvert communist regimes. With the end of the Cold War, however, these agencies were not decommissioned, but recommissioned to serve as something of an American Comintern.

Where the old Comintern of Lenin sought to instigate communist revolutions across the West and its empires, post-Cold War America decided to promote democratic revolutions to remake the world in the image of late 20th century America.

In 2002, McFaul wrote a book: “Russia’s Unfinished Revolution.”

Vladimir Putin’s men are not unreasonably asking if he was sent to Moscow to finish that revolution. Putin has already accused Hillary Clinton of flashing the signal for street demonstrations to begin — to protest Russia’s December’s elections.

Nor is it surprising the Putin’s people are suspicious of McFaul, who added to his problems by meeting with anti-Putin dissidents the day after he presented his credentials.

McFaul says this is part of his “dual-track engagement” with Russian society. Before leaving for Moscow, he told NPR’s “Morning Edition”: “We’re not going to get into the business of dictating (Russia’s) path (to democracy). … We’re just going to support what we like to call ‘universal values’ — not American values, not Western values, universal values.”

But what, exactly, are these “universal values”?

And who are we to impose them on other nations? Did Divine Providence assign us this mission? Who do we Americans think we are?

After all, we do not even agree ourselves on what is moral and immoral, good and evil. Indeed, our own deep disagreements on what is moral and what is not are at the root of the culture wars tearing this country apart.

In America, women have a constitutional right to an abortion. Scores of millions have availed themselves of that right since Roe v. Wade. Yet traditionalists of many faiths — Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Orthodox and Jewish — reject any such woman’s right and regard it as a moral abomination.

Do homosexuals have a right to cohabit, form civil unions and marry?

In a few American states, yes; in others, no. But try to impose those values on nations of the Muslim and Third Worlds, where homosexuality is a moral outrage and even a capital offense, and our ambassadors will find themselves in physical peril.

Does McFaul believe democracy is a universally superior system of government? Yet our own founding fathers detested one-man, one-vote democracy. Democracy does not even get a mention in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Federalist Papers.

The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, believed society should be ruled by a “natural aristocracy” of “virtue and talent.”

If the promotion of democracy is a mission of our diplomats, are we to subvert the monarchies of Morocco, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?

When we see how democracy empowered the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis in Egypt, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, does it even make sense to insist that it be embraced by nations where the populations are pervasively anti-American?

What is the universally right stand on capital punishment — the Rick Perry position in Texas or the Andrew Cuomo position in New York?

In the United States, all religions — Santeria, Wicca, Islam, Christianity — are to be treated equally and all kept out of the public square and the pubic schools. In a Muslim world that contains a fifth of mankind, Islam is the one true faith. Rival faiths have few or no rights.

Are we going to push the Islamic world to treat all religions equally?

We celebrate religious, racial and ethnic diversity. The Chinese, who persecute Uighurs, Tibetans, Christians and Falun Gong, detest that diversity and fear it will tear their country apart.

We believe in freedom of speech and the press.

Yet, in France, if you deny the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians in 1915, you are guilty of a crime, while in Turkey if you affirm that the Turks committed genocide, you have committed a crime. Should U.S. diplomats battle for repeal of both laws? Or mind our own business?

If America wishes to lead the world, let us do it by example, as we once did, not by hectoring every nation on earth to adopt the American way, which as of now, does not seem to be working all that well for Americans.

McFaul should stick to his diplomatic duties.

Jefferson had it right, “We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country.” 

-----------------------------------