us academy colonel redraws middle east map

.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Blood borders

How a better Middle East would look

Ralph Peters

related post and map: the bernard lewis map of the middle east


International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.
While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.
Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.
Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.
Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.
As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).
Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.
Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders — with essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns. But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.
The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived since Xenophon's day.
The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government — which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds would vote for independence.
As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the world's legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.
A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan.
A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal family's treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam's holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world's most bigoted and oppressive regimes — a regime that commands vast, unearned oil wealth — the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders. The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest.
While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim super-Vatican — where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely decreed. True justice — which we might not like — would also give Saudi Arabia's coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that subregion, while a southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a rump Saudi Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.
Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan — a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State.
What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.
The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate — as they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai, of necessity, would be allowed to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain within its current borders, as would Oman.
In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.
Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.
Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself. The current human divisions and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi, taken together with the region's self-inflicted woes, form as perfect a breeding ground for religious extremism, a culture of blame and the recruitment of terrorists as anyone could design. Where men and women look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies.
From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only the worst aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may provide a counterexample of hope — if we do not quit its soil prematurely — the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front.
If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.
• • •
WHO WINS, WHO LOSES
Winners —
Afghanistan
Arab Shia State
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Free Baluchistan
Free Kurdistan
Iran
Islamic Sacred State
Jordan
Lebanon
Yemen
•
Losers —
Afghanistan
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Kuwait
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
West Bank

Ralph Peters is the author of the new book "Never Quit the Fight," to be published on July 4th.
..........................................................................................................................................................................

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=36919

Zaman's turkish pro governement daily comment:

Carved-up Map of Turkey at NATO Prompts US Apology

A map prepared by a retired U.S. military officer that sketches Turkey as a partitioned country was presented at the NATO’s Defense College in Rome, where Turkish officers attend.
The use of the map at a conference meeting by a colonel from the U.S. National War Academy angered Turkish military officers.
Turkish Chief of Staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit called the U.S. Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, and protested the incident. U.S. military authorities admitted the mistake, for which they apologized to Turkey.
According to the reports, the incident took place on Sept. 15.
An American colonel who came to the Defense College for a conference began a lecture on technology.
However, a few minutes later he presented a map that showed Turkey as separated, and included an “independent Kurdistan” on Turkish territories.
In reaction to the U.S. colonel’s elaboration on the map, previously characterized by U.S. authorities as not reflective of the American view, the Turkish officers left the conference room.
The Belgian commander of the College was then informed about the incident.
The commander reacted, saying that academic freedom did not mean everybody could say anything he wanted, and cited the incident as unacceptable.
Turkish officers also briefed Ankara about the developments relevant to the incident.
The U.S. State Department assured Ankara that the map did not reflect the official American view, and denounced it as unacceptable.
The new Middle East map, prepared by retired Col. Ralph Peters and published in the Armed Forces Journal in June, had sparked reactions in Ankara.

29.09.2006

Suleyman Kurt Ankara

nuke war likely to solve dollar economy problem

the Threat of a Nuclear War

by General Leonid Ivashov

Global Research, April 9, 2007
Strategic Culture Foundation - 2007-03-30

Analysis of the current state of the conflict with Iran shows that the world faces the possibility of a new war...

General Ivashov

The US and its allies started the psychological preparation of world public opinion for the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons to resolve 'the Iranian problem'. The US propaganda machine is working hard to create the impression that a 'surgically precise' use of the nuclear weapon with only limited consequences is possible. However, this has been known to be untrue since the 1945 US nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the very first nuclear strike, it will become totally impossible to prevent the use of all of the available means of mass destruction. In the situation of a mass extermination of their nations, the conflicting sides will resort to whatever means they have without limitations. Therefore, not only the nuclear arsenals of various countries, including those whose nuclear status is not recognized officially, will come into play. No doubt, chemical and biological warfare (and, generally, any poisonous substances), which can be produced on the basis of minimal industrial and economic resources, will be used.
Currently, one can assert that peace and mankind are in great danger.
Consider the military-technical aspect of the situation. Practically, the operation's objective declared by the US - destroying some 1,500 targets on the territory of Iran - cannot be accomplished by the forces already amassed for the mission. This objective can only be met if tactical nuclear munitions are used.
An examination of the military-political aspect of the matter reveals even more significant facts. The attack on Iran is not planned to include a ground offensive. Strikes on selected military and industrial installations can cause a severe damage to the Iranian defense potential and economy. Casualties are likely to be substantial, but not catastrophic from the military point of view. At the same time, it is impossible to gain control of the territory of a country as large as Iran without a ground operation. The planned offensive will entail a consolidation of forces not only in Iran, but also in other Muslim countries and among the public throughout the world. The support for the country suffering from the US-Israeli aggression will soar. Certainly, Washington is aware that the result will be not the strengthening but the loss of US positions in the world. Consequently, the goal of the US attack against Iran has to be seen in a different light. The nuclear offensive must boost the use of nuclear blackmail in global politics by the US and fundamentally transform the world order.
Further evidence of the radicalization of the goals of the US and its allies is available. The early 2007 leaks, which exposed Israel's plans to use three nukes against Iran, were quite dangerous for a country in a hostile environment, but certainly they were deliberate. They meant that the decision on the character of Israel's activity had already been made, and all that remained to be done was to influence public opinion accordingly.
The pretext for the operation against Iran does not appear serious. Judging from both the technical and the political points of view, there is no possibility of it developing nuclear weapons in the near future.
One must remember that allegations of Iraq's possessing weapons of mass destruction were used by the US as a pretext for the war against the country. As a result, Iraq was devastated, and the civilian death toll rose to hundreds of thousands, but no evidence for the claims had ever been discovered.
The really important question is not whether Iran is capable of making nuclear weapons. The only function of small stockpiles of nuclear weapons not backed by various forms of support is that of containment. The threat of a retaliation strike can stop any aggressor. As for attacking other countries and winning a nuclear war in the situation of a conflict with a coalition of major powers, this would require a potential that Iran neither has nor is going to have in the foreseeable future. The allegations that Iran can become a nuclear aggressor are absurd. Anyone having at least some theoretical knowledge of military affairs must understand this.
What is the real reason why the US is unleashing this military conflict?
The activities having consequences of global proportions can only be intended to deal with a global problem. This problem itself is by no means something secret - it is the possibility of a crash of the global financial system based on the US dollar. Currently the mass of US currency exceeds the total worth of US assets by more than a factor of ten. Everything in the US - industry, buildings, high-tech, and so on - has been mortgaged more than ten times all over the world. A debt of such proportions will never be repaid - it can only be relieved.
The dollar amounts on the accounts of individuals, organizations, and state treasuries are a virtual reality. These records are not secured by products, valuables or anything that exists in reality.
Writing-off this US indebtedness to the rest of the world would turn the majority of its population into deceived depositors. It would be the end of the well-established rule of the golden calf. The significance of the coming events is truly epic. This is why the aggressor ignores the global catastrophic consequences of its offensive. The bankrupt 'global bankers' need a force major event of global proportions to get out of the situation.
The solution is already in the plans. The US has nothing to offer the rest of the world to save the declining dollar except for military operations like the ones in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But even these local conflicts only yield short-term effects. Something a lot greater is needed, and the need is urgent. The moment is drawing closer when the financial crisis will make the world realize that all of the US assets, all of its industrial, technological, and other potentials do not rightfully belong to the country. Then, it must be confiscated to compensate the victims, and the rights of ownership of everything bought for dollars all over the world - everything drawn from the wealth of various nations - are to be revised.
What might cause the force major event of the required scale? Everything seems to indicate that Israel will be sacrificed. Its involvement in a war with Iran - especially in a nuclear war - is bound to trigger a global catastrophe. The statehoods of Israel and Iran are based on the countries' official religions. A military conflict between Israel and Iran will immediately evolve into a religious one, a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Due to the presence of numerous Jewish and Muslim populations in the developed countries, this would make a global bloodbath inevitable. All of the active forces of most of the countries of the world would end up fighting, with almost no room for neutrality left. Judging by the increasingly massive acquisitions of the residential housing for the Israeli citizens, especially in Russia and Ukraine, a lot of people already have an idea of what the future holds. However, it is hard to imagine a quiet heaven where one might hide from the coming doom. Forecasts of the territorial distribution of the fighting, the quantities and the efficiency of the armaments involved, the profound character of the underlying roots of the conflict and the severity of the religious strife all leave no doubt that this clash will be in all respects much more nightmarish than WWII.
So far, the response of the world's major political players to the developments gives no cause for optimism. The inconsequent UN resolutions concerning Iran, the attempts to appease the aggressor who no longer disguises his intentions are reminiscent of the Munich Pact on the eve of WWII. The intense shuttle diplomacy focusing on all sorts of international problems except for the main one discussed above is also indicative of the problem. This is a usual practice on the eve of a war, aiming to provide for alliances with third-party countries or to ensure their neutrality. Such politics seeks to avert or soften the first strikes, which would be the most sudden and devastating ones.
Is it possible to prevent the bloodshed?
The only efficient argument that might stop the aggressors is the threat of their total global isolation for instigating a nuclear war. The implementation of the scenario described above can be made impossible by a complete absence of allies for the US-Israeli tandem, combined with loud public protests in the countries. Therefore, these days a definite and uncompromising stance of country leaders, governments, politicians, public figures, religious leaders, scientists, and artists with respect to the prepared nuclear aggression would be an invaluable service to mankind.
The coordinated public activities must be organized with the promptness adequate to the war-time conditions. The forces of aggression have already been amassed and concentrated at the starting positions in the state of full combat readiness. The US military do not make it a secret that everything can be a matter of weeks or even days. There are indirect indications that the US will launch a nuclear strike on Iran already in April, 2007. After the very first nuclear blast, mankind will find itself in an entirely new world, an absolutely inhumane one. The chances to prevent this outcome must be used completely.

General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’s Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies. General Ivashof is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Global Research Articles by Leonid Ivashov

british labour paedophiles links to casa pia

.
Waynemadsenreport.com

april 5, 2007 -- While British Prime Minister Tony Blair is under criminal suspicion in the "honors-for-cash" scandal that has rocked his Labor government, we have been told that there is an even more explosive scandal that Blair, up to now, has managed to hide behind the draconian British policy of issuing "D-Notices," government orders that prohibit the British media from reporting on certain "national security" cases.

In 1999, an international investigation of child pornographers and pedophiles run by Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed "under caution" by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair's government. However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice. Police also discovered links between British Labor government pedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).

In the United States, Operation Ore's counterpart was Operation Avalanche. However, U.S. authorities only charged 100 people out of 35,000 investigated. The international pedophile investigation began when Dallas police and the US Postal Inspection Service raided the offices of Landslide Productions of Fort Worth, Texas and confiscated records on thousands of people around the world who were child pornography customers of the firm. Landslide's halcyon days as a Fort Worth-based international online marketplace of kiddie porn was during the term of Texas Governor George W. Bush.

WMR has learned that the Bush administration, like that of Blair, is rife with pedophiles in top positions. The pedophile network also extends to the U.S. defense industry, particularly some of the companies that have been involved in the sexual abuse of minors at overt and covert U.S. prisons in Abu Ghraib, Iraq; Guantanamo, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Thailand, and now, at three prisons in Ethiopia.

possible strikes on iran

Operation Bite - April 6 Sneak Attack
By US Forces On Iran Planned

- Russian Military Sources Warn General Ivashov Calls For Emergency Session Of
UN Security Council To Ward Off Looming US Aggression

By Webster G. Tarpley

3-25-7 WASHINGTON DC -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account. The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov, lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories. The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out. The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran's nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites. Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world. Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: "I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran." Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences. Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill which would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and of Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni. "We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place," said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: " Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran's capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it," he continued. Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. "This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran," Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program. Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. "This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East," he commented. "Moscow must expert Russia's influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter," said General Ivashov. "In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force," he concluded.

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. ready to strike Iran in early April - intelligence source -

18:02 | 30/ 03/ 2007

MOSCOW, March 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike in early April, a security official said.
The source said the U.S. had already compiled a list of possible targets on Iranian territory and practiced the operation during recent exercises in the Persian Gulf.
"Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory," the source said.
American commanders will be ready to carry out the attack in early April, but it will be up to the country's political leadership to decide if and when to attack, the source said.
Official data says America's military presence in the region has reached the level of March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
The U.S. has not excluded the military option in negotiations on Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program. The UN Security Council passed a new resolution on Iran Saturday toughening economic sanctions against the country and accepting the possibility of a military solution to the crisis.
The source said the Pentagon could decide to conduct ground operations as well after assessing the damage done to the Iranian forces by its possible missile strikes and analyzing the political situation in the country following the attacks.
A senior Russian security official cited military intelligence earlier as saying U.S. Armed Forces had recently intensified training for air and ground operations against Iran.
"The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said.
Russian Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week the Pentagon was planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.
"I have no doubt there will be an operation, or rather an aggressive action against Iran," Ivashov said, commenting on media reports about U.S. planned operation against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite.
A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, was rather optimistic about the situation and said he ruled out a military resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.
"We are constantly working on how to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear program and other conflicts peacefully," Lavrov said. "This policy is unchanged and we will pursue it in the future."
Russia and the U.S. are two of the six negotiators on Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran says is aimed at generating energy.

wesley clark: war with Iran, Lybia, Syria, Lebanon and Sudan...

in:http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234&mode=thread&tid=25

" (...) I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me. (...)”

l'etre humain reduit a une marchandise

.
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/HD_05_2007.pdf

L’équité à l’encontre du néolibéralisme et de la mondialisation

A propos du dernier livre de Norbert Blüm* – une critique fondée envers la CDU d’Angela Merkel

«Nous avons affaire à une économie qui s’oriente de plus en plus vers la dictature,
du fait qu’elle tente de contraindre tout le monde dans la logique économique.
Il s’agit pourtant, ici, d’une logique dévoyée […]. Un système économique qui allie régulièrement la croissance des profits avec les licenciements de personnel
n’est, à la longue, pas viable.»
Les humains ne l’accepteront pas.

Norbert Blüm

Norbert Blüm, né le 21 juillet 1935, membre du Mouvement catholique des employés; de 1977 à 1987 président, au niveau fédéral, des commissions sociales du salariat chrétien-démocrate; de 1982 à 1998 ministre du Travail et des Affaires sociales.

Les riches et les puissants font la cour à Angela
Merkel. Elle put, au forum économique de Davos, et cela pour la seconde fois consécutivement,
tenir le discours d’ouverture le 24 janvier. Ce discours montre bien pourquoi on se précipite aux pieds d’Angela Merkel. L’air de ne pas y toucher, elle prétend que la mondialisation
est une bonne chose, une véritable
chance et non pas un risque. L’unification du monde a toutefois besoin de cadres politiques.
Par exemple «plus de liberté». Pour Mme Merkel, cela signifie une extension du marché commun européen avec ses quatre principes de mondialisation: un commerce des biens et des services sans entraves, déplacement sans limites des humains, et surtout liberté de circulation
des capitaux. Et tout particulièrement: «une interpénétration économique accrue entre l’UE et les USA». («Neue Zürcher Zeitung» du 25 janvier) Merkel rêve d’une «structure semblable
au grand marché». (ibidem)
Merkel s’engage pour cette idéologie de l’Homo oeconomicus.
En revanche, le livre de Norbert Blüm, celui qui fut pendant 16 ans ministre du travail
et des affaires sociales en Allemagne, intitulé «Justice sociale. Une critique de l’Homo oeconomicus», va en sens opposé.
Blüm appartient au même parti qu’Angela
Merkel, mais un monde les sépare quant à leur vision de l’humanité, et ce n’est pas d’aujourd’hui.
Un comportement fait de droiture
L’auteur du présent article se souvient de l’automne 1973. Il était alors délégué, au plan national, du Cercle chrétien des Etudiants démocratiques (RCDS). L’assemblée se tint quelques semaines après le coup d’Etat sanglant
de Pinochet contre le gouvernement chilien
légitime. A l’intérieur du RCDS, proche de la CDU, les critiques qui s’étaient élevées contre ce putsch, organisé par la CIA, avaient été mal vues. De ce fait la prise de position de Norbert Blüm fut controversée. En effet, ce dernier ne s’en était pas tenu à la ligne informelle
du parti. Le droit lui paraissait plus important.
Il fit front et dénonça ce coup d’Etat. Cette prise de position est restée gravée dans la mémoire de l’auteur du présent article.
Dans son dernier livre, Blüm relate un événement,
soit une rencontre avec Pinochet lui-même, au cours de laquelle il dénonça, sans se gêner, les méthodes brutales de tortures de la part du régime et exigea plus de justice.
Norbert Blüm sut montrer son caractère dans une autre question. Depuis 2002, il s’engage
fortement pour les Palestiniens dans les régions occupées et, dans ce sens, il entreprit plusieurs voyages, en commun avec Rupert Neudeck, en Palestine. Blüm critique ouvertement
l’occupation israélienne et ne se laisse pas contraindre par d’éventuelles polémiques. La justice n’est pour lui, véritablement, pas qu’une question de discussion intellectuelle, mais une affaire de réalisations concrètes, de mise en pratique des idées fondamentales concernant
la communauté de vie des humains.
Le livre de Blüm contient un préambule et 6 chapitres.
Les chapitres sont intitulés «Quelles sont les motivations de ce monde?», «Equité», «Conceptions de l’homme», «Le néolibéralisme
», «La marchandisation de la vie» et «Un regard circulaire».
Le micro- et le macrocosme
de la mondialisation
Le préambule permet de jeter un regard tant sur le microcosme que sur le macrocosme de la mondialisation. Dans le triangle géographique
comprenant le Brésil–l’Argentine–le Paraguay
on construit un immense barrage. Blüm nomme ce projet «une symbiose entre la folie des grandeurs et la plaisanterie». Nous avons des exemples identiques dans le monde entier
– et précisément dans les pays qui sont le plus soumis au pillage. Des affiches publicitaires
surdimensionnées, des films et des émissions télévisées présentant le monde sous ses couleurs les plus vives, un spectacle abject d’éblouissement et de richesse. Blüm s’en tient à la réalité: «Malheureusement, on trouve derrière la façade du progrès l’image de la misère: exploitation, oppression, mépris des gens.» A vue d’homme de ce gigantesque barrage,
on assiste à la prostitution enfantine, au meurtre d’enfants. Les riches du pays vivent, isolés, dans des villas transformées en fortins. «Les gens ne veulent pas voir ce qui se passe en dehors» et «envoient leurs filles à l’école supérieure du commerce à Saint-Gall.»
Il existe des conventions internationales contre la misère. Mais tant qu’elles resteront collées au papier et que le nombre de ceux qui souhaitent les voir appliquées reste aussi modeste, il ne se passera rien.

Blüm cite aussi les chiffres du macrocosme.
Par exemple: «793 milliardaires
dans le monde se trouvent face à 3 milliards
d’êtres humains qui doivent vivre avec moins de 2 dollars par jour, dont 1,3 milliard
avec moins de 1 dollar par jour.» Ou bien «Dans 98 pays, les revenus sont moindres
qu’il y a dix ans.» Ou bien «1 milliard de gens n’ont pas accès à l’eau propre.» Ou bien «30 000 personnes meurent chaque jour parce qu’elles n’ont rien à manger ou rien à boire.» Ou bien «Les seules dépenses en Amérique (8 milliards de dollars) et en Europe (11 milliards
d’euros) pour les glaces et les produits
cosmétiques pourraient couvrir les frais pour assurer une éducation scolaire primaire et de l’eau propre à 2 milliards d’humains.» Ou bien, plus loin dans le livre: «Lorsque le cours quotidien des actions en bourse se modifie
de seulement 1%, c’est 400 milliards de dollars qui se répartissent, sans bruit. C’est trois fois autant que le salaire gagné ce jour-là par tous les travailleurs du monde.» Ou bien «La mondialisation est le jouet exclusif
d’une minorité de privilégiés, qui se prend pour l’humanité.»
L’aspiration à l’équité
«Les humains ne sont pas satisfaits du monde dans lequel ils vivent.» Cette phrase se trouve au début du 1er chapitre. Et à la fin de la première
section on trouve: «Une vie réussie et honnête dans une société juste et bonne est le bonheur vers lequel nous tendons.»
En réponse à la question «Comment voulons-
nous vivre ensemble?», Blüm rappelle les conquêtes spirituelles de l’histoire de l’humanité.
«La volonté de justice traverse toute l’histoire de l’humanité», et «L’équité est la marque de l’humanité», et: «La volonté de justice s’affirme d’autant plus que le monde apparaît dans son aspect le plus sombre», et:«les puissants doivent pouvoir être jaugés à l’aune de l’équité», et: «Ce n’est pas la loi du plus fort qui représente la justice […], la justice […] est l’arme des faibles. Les forts n’en ont pas besoin. Les forts et les faibles ne peuvent vivre ensemble que sous la protection
de l’équité», et: «Chacun a droit à la justice et personne ne doit être repoussé», et: «Le principe fondamental de l’équité est simple: reconnaître à chaque être humain sa dignité».

Equité: vertu et principe de société

L’équité est une vertu personnelle et un principe de société pour la formation des institutions
qui apportent de l’ordre dans la vie commune des humains. «Sans vertu, l’équité reste un voeu pieux, sans institutions justes, l’équité reste sans effet.»
L’équité n’a rien à voir avec une «philosophie de l’utilité». «Toute l’histoire de la philosophie,
d’Aristote à Kant s’inscrit en faux contre un tel dévoiement de la morale. Chaque
être humain doit être vu sous l’angle d’une fin et non pas de moyen.» C’est pourquoi,
l’équité ne pourra jamais accepter la «violation des droits humains».
Ces phrases sont d’une actualité brûlante face à la politique de puissance et de conquête
actuelle, au fait que le droit des peuples et des humains est piétiné!
La doctrine de l’équité évoquée par Blüm, en quoi il s’appuie sur la doctrine sociale chrétienne, comporte d’autres conséquences pratiques: en premier lieu pour l’organisation
économique dans un pays et dans le monde. L’inégalité scandaleuse entre les êtres humains, l’égoïsme féroce des profiteurs et la radicalisation de la conception du marché sont profondément injustes – et sont en contradiction avec les connaissances quant à la nature de l’être humain.
Dans la conclusion pastorale du deuxième concile du Vatican «Gaudium et spes» on peut lire: «L’ordre social et son évolution doivent s’orienter constamment dans le sens du bien-être des gens, car l’ordre des choses doit se mettre au service de l’ordre des personnes et pas inversement.»

Qu’est-ce que l’être humain?

Une personne!
Mais qu’en est-il de «l’ordre de la personne», de l’être humain?
Ce n’est pas une petite roue dentée, échappée
ou enfermée dans un collectif. On trouve ceci dans «Gaudium et Spes»: «L’être humain
est dans sa nature profonde un être sociable et il ne peut ni vivre ni s’épanouir sans relation aux autres.» L’être humain est aussi bien un individu qu’un être social. L’être humain est une personne:
«Le personnalisme présente la ‹personne› qui se développe dans des relations humaines, en lieu et place d’un «Weltgeist» ou d’une matière sans âme. Ce ‹quelqu’un› est unique, mais pas seul». «Le fait d’être une personne signifie que je ne peux pas être exploité par quelqu’un d’autre, mais que je suis une fin en soi», ainsi s’exprima le philosophe religieux Romanoa Guardini. L’être humain n’est pas à disposition.
Norbert Blüm nous rappelle la question biblique: « Qu’as-tu fait au moindre de mes frères
et soeurs?» – et par là à la position de l’être humain dans le monde: «On ne demande pas à l’humain de justifier ce qu’il a entrepris pour soi-même, mais pour les autres.»

Les «anciens» néolibéraux de l’économie de marché sociale

La politique, l’ordre économique doivent être jaugés à cette conception. Les pères de l’économie de marché sociale le savaient. Blüm parle de l’«ancien» néolibéralisme et entend par là des scientifiques et des politiciens comme Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Alexander Rüstow, Wilhelm Röpke et Alfred Müller-Armack, mais aussi, d’une certaine façon l’ancien ministre allemand de l’économie et chancelier Ludwig Erhard. Ces personnalités s’étaient engagées contre un ordre économique dirigé par les multinationales et pour une véritable concurrence dans le cadre d’un ordre économique orienté vers le bien-être général de la société, pour une «troisième
voie» entre le communisme et le capitalisme. Il en va tout différemment avec le «nouveau
» néolibéralisme: «L’ancien libéralisme fut une conception de la société». Le ‹nouveau›
libéralisme s’est dévoyé pour devenir une ‹conception commerciale›.» Le profit est le «dieu des néolibéraux». «La communauté se dissout, la société est atomisée. Tout ce qui est durable a vieilli. La morale n’est plus qu’une concertation à terme. Les structures ne sont plus que des condensés qui s’évaporent comme des gouttes de pluie sous les rayons de soleil. […] La libéralisation est comprise comme déchaînement, la mondialisation comme marginalisation. […] Le néolibéralisme n’est, dans sa substance, rien d’autre qu’une idéologie d’une férocité sans borne.»
Le «nouveau» néolibéralisme: Une révolution culturelle, de l’argent, encore de l’argent, toujours plus d’argent Les trois principes du néolibéralisme sont: «dérégulation, concurrence et baisse des coûts». On peut y ajouter: la destruction d’un Etat, orienté vers le bien-être de sa population, et de ses missions; à la place, on met la course au profit dans tous les domaines d’existence, y compris les brevets privés pour les gènes et les cellules pour le «contrôle et l’utilisation du processus vital» – l’évocation prend le nom de «privatisation». Quant à l’être humain, déraciné,
il s’appelle «l’homme flexible», le «nomade» à la recherche d’un emploi.
C’est une révolution culturelle: «Comme Mao et ses disciples, les néolibéraux se débarrassent
de tout: la tradition, les conventions, les valeurs. […] Les nouveaux néolibéraux sont des maoïstes disparus de la circulation pour réapparaître dans les universités allemandes.
Comme leur maître secret Mao Zedong en 1974, ils combattent, trois décennies plus tard, les quatre maux: une vieille culture, une vieille façon de penser, de vieilles moeurs, de vieilles coutumes.» Leur personne idéale est un «autiste hédoniste». Ceux qui restent en rade n’ont droit qu’à des aumônes. Mais ni aumônes, ni prestations sociales ne remplacent l’équité. «L’inéquité ouvre de telles plaies que l’assistance ne peut suivre pour fournir les pansements.»
C’est véritablement alarmant d’entendre Blüm dénoncer la soumission de la «nouvelle
» CDU d’Angela Merkel, mais aussi celle des évêques catholiques allemands «modernes
» à cet état d’esprit d’aujourd’hui. Quand on dit «liberté» –est-ce celle des milliardaires?
«Plus de justice par plus de liberté» est le titre d’un projet de programme sur les principes
pour la CDU. Commentaire de Blüm: «Quelle nouvelle justice peut sortir de cet accroissement
de libertés? Plus de liberté pour le capitalisme financier, qui domine la mondialisation,
donne, il est vrai, une ‹nouvelle›, une autre justice, mais point en conformité avec celle entendue par le christianisme. ‹Plus de liberté pour Bill Gates› pour qu’il puisse ajouter quelques dollars à sa fortune personnelle de 55 milliards de dollars, tout en passant, en ce qui concerne le nombre de ses employés, occupés chez lui comme force d’appoint, du tiers des effectifs à la moitié? Est-ce que la multiplication de cette liberté à la Bill Gates se trouve être la justice dont on parle ici?»
Les évêques allemands avaient exigé en 2004: «Repenser le fait social». L’ancienne pensée sociale, estimaient les évêques, s’était développée vers une exigence «de mise en place d’une normalité toujours plus confortable». Alors Blüm s’interroge: «Le chômeur, qui a envoyé sans succès 200 demandes d’emploi, ne ressent pas sa situation comme ‹une normalité confortable›. Dans l’Etat social allemand, on a, au cours des dernières 20 années, plus réduit qu’ajouté. Où vivent les rédacteurs de tels textes?». Blüm met le doigt sur la personne à qui les évêques avaient confié la rédaction de leur texte: Hans Tietmeyer, l’ancien président de la «Deutsche Bundesbank» (Banque centrale allemande). Et Blüm cite les faits sur le plan social allemand:«11 millions de personnes dans notre pays sont pauvres ou en passe de tomber dans la pauvreté. 7 millions vivent au niveau de l’aide sociale, 5 millions n’ont pas de travail et 3 millions sont trop endettés. […] 10% de la population possèdent en Allemagne près de 47% de la fortune, et 50% doivent
se contenter de 3,8% de la fortune. […] Selon Caritas la fraude fiscale coûte à l’Etat allemand 65 milliards d’euros. Les abus dans l’aide sociale ne s’élèvent qu’à 120 millions d’euros.»
L’Homo oeconomicus n’est qu’une caricature de l’être humain
Blüm s’oppose à l’utilisation du terme de «responsabilité personnelle»: «Nous ne pouvons
atteindre la responsabilité personnelle qu’au travers de la responsabilité collective. L’être humain ne se suffit pas à lui-même et il n’est pas autonome. Son être n’est pas isolé du reste. […] Réserver la responsabilité personnelle à des efforts privés est une confiscation idéologique qui porte atteinte à la responsabilité de la personne.»
L’Homo oeconomicus, c’est-à-dire l’être humain réduit à une marchandise, est la figure
de proue du monde néolibéral. Son slogan est: «L’argent, c’est ce qui compte. L’argent mène le monde […] Aucun geste de générosité ou d’affection n’a de valeur si cela ne se présente pas positivement pour les affaires. […] Les humains sont dotés d’un prix. Ce qui ne coûte rien, n’a pas de valeur.»

La représentation de l’Homo oeconomicus est matérialiste. C’est «la dernière marche
de la dégénération de l’homo sapiens». C’est une forme minable, «névrosée», avec un «horizon restreint» et une «vision amputée de l’humain», une «caricature de l’être humain réel», qui ne sait pas que la plus heureuse expérience humaine consiste à «aimer sans retour; à exprimer sa confiance sans exiger d’assurance; à se lancer alors même qu’il apparaît que ce n’est qu’une aventure sans lendemain et sans profit.» (Karl Rahner)
Les idées qui envahissent les têtes et les coeurs des humains Norbert Blüm pense qu’on taira son nouveau livre. Ce n’est pas surprenant et ne fait que démontrer où nous en sommes actuellement. En revanche, c’est une consolation de savoir qu’une idéologie fausse et imposée, ne correspondant pas à la réalité, ne peut se maintenir.
«Le capitalisme et le socialisme nous ont démontré que le matérialisme ne permet pas à l’humanité d’avancer. L’expérience pourrait nous faire gagner en intelligence.»
Il s’appuie sur la force des idées – mais il faut avant tout des gens qui s’impliquent pour ces idées: «Les gens qui se consacrent à une idée soulèvent des montagnes. L’idée du christianisme social est un grand espoir pour l’avenir; mais, sans le dévouement des humains, elles se perdent dans les sables.»
Très concrètement, Norbert Blüm expose à la fin de son livre une conception pour un monde du travail de plein-emploi, pour ceux qui le veulent. Non plus, essentiellement, dans la production, mais là où «les gens se rencontrent», un travail «qui sert aux gens», un travail qui se présente sous l’angle de cogestion et de copropriété. Et un système social
d’entraide solidaire. Il ne peut que suggérer. «Mon expérience propre m’a amené à considérer que les meilleurs objectifs sont ceux dont les gens sont convaincus qu’ils sont équitables. Des idées qui saisissent le coeur et la raison sont un élément puissant.» Sa dernière phrase du livre: «J’ai confiance en la force mondiale de l’équité. Elle gagne en puissance.»

Les faits tels qu’ils se présentent

Les chiffres ne sont pas capables d’expliquer notre monde, mais grâce à eux on peut se passer de mots. La fameuse liste des gens les plus riches, établie chaque année par la revue économique Forbes a connu en 2006 une nouvelle croissance, par la venue dans ce club de milliardaires de 102 nouveaux noms. 793 milliardaires sur notre planète se trouvent face à 3 milliards
d’humains qui n’ont pour vivre que moins de 2 dollars par jour, 1,3 milliard doivent
se contenter de moins de 1 dollar. Le terme milliard recouvre des réalités différentes: qu’il décrive ceux qui les ont en fortune ou ceux dont c’est simplement le nombre des malheureux. Les 38 pays les plus riches de cette terre, comprenant 1,2 milliard d’habitants ont tous ensemble un produit intérieur brut de 26,7 billions (en Europe un billion = 1000 milliards) de dollars. Les pays pauvres doivent se contenter de 4,8 billions de dollars à répartir sur 5,476 milliards d’êtres humains.
Si on compte par jour, on arrive pour les uns à un revenu moyen de 60,96 dollars
et pour les autres de 2,40. Dans notre pays [l’Allemagne] l’écart entre riches et pauvres est énorme. Le nombre de millionnaires n’a jamais augmenté aussi vite que dans les dernières années. En 1970, il y en avait 217 000, aujourd’hui ils sont plus de 1,5 million.
Les 358 familles les plus riches pos-sèdent la moitié de la fortune mondiale. Les 500 plus grandes entreprises privées du monde contrôlent 52% du produit social mondial. Les 500 multinationales
sont plus riches que les 133 pays les plus pauvres. Entre 1980 et 1995, la fortune globale des 100 plus grandes multinationales a crû de 700%. Ces chiffres ont été enjolivés au profit des riches et au détriment des pauvres. En effet, dans les chiffres concernant les pays pauvres on trouve aussi les revenus de leurs personnes les plus riches ce qui fait augmenter la moyenne. Cette dernière ne dit rien quant à l’étendue des données. Ce n’est qu’une moyenne arithmétique. Lorsque
la pauvreté et la richesse augmentent parallèlement, la moyenne reste la même. Cette dernière n’est donc pas fiable pour déterminer l’étendue de la différence entre riches et pauvres. Si une personne mange deux saucisses à rôtir et une autre aucune, la moyenne sera d’une saucisse
par personne, avec toutefois cette différence que l’un sera rassasié et l’autre affamé. L’écart entre riches et pauvres s’élargit. Les riches s’enrichissent et les pauvres s’appauvrissent. La fortune des milliardaires en dollars a augmenté de 57% entre 2003 et 2005. La différence de revenus entre les pays les plus riches et les plus pauvres ne cesse de croître. En 1820, l’intervalle était de 3 : 1, en 1950 il était de 35 : 1, en 1992 de 72 : 1. Dans 98 pays les revenus sont inférieurs à ceux d’il y a dix ans. En Afrique, ils se trouvent à 20% inférieurs au niveau d’il y a 25 ans.
Un milliard d’êtres humains n’a pas accès à l’eau propre. 600 millions ne vivent pas là où ils le voudraient du fait qu’ils ont été chassés ou qu’ils ont dû fuir. 30 000 personnes meurent chaque jour du fait de manque de nourriture et de boisson. Les enfants crèvent littéralement.
8000 enfants meurent chaque jour du fait de maladies qui auraient pu être évitées par la vaccination.
Pour beaucoup d’enfants, il n’y a pas de médecins, pas d’écoles, pour leurs parents
pas de travail. Il y a un manque dans tout ce qui est vital. 250 millions d’enfants sont contraints au travail et dans les mêmes régions 900 millions d’adultes sont au chômage. Les enfants plient sous la tâche, les parents sont condamnés à l’oisiveté à la maison. Les uns sont affamés, alors que d’autres sont de vrais pots de graisse. Doit-on parler d’une schizophrénie globale? Le monde est pris de folie. Les seules dépenses en Amérique (8 milliards de dollars) et en Europe (11 milliards d’euros) pour des glaces et des produits cosmétiques pourraient suffire à couvrir les frais nécessaires à l’enseignement primaire de 2 milliards d’êtres humains, et à leur fournir l’eau potable.
Un rien de plus de justice – pas plus –, et la misère ne serait plus de ce monde. L’être humain «le couronnement de la création», «enfant de Dieu» – homo sapiens – animal rationnel. Quelle discordance entre les belles paroles pour enjoliver l’être humain et la réalité de la détresse dans laquelle se trouve la plus grande partie de l’humanité. Nous sommes capables de transporter
des gens sur la lune, mais en même temps incapables de faire atterrir la justice
sur cette terre.
A quoi sert la sonde sur Mars, alors que les puits du Sahara sont à sec? L’être humain,
doté de raison, gaspille son intelligence dans des activités secondaires. Je ne participerai pas à la dispute sur les chiffres concernant la pauvreté. Car, même si les chiffres avancés étaient surfaits
– ce qui est peu probable – la misère est criante. Ya-t-il scandale quand un enfant
meurt de faim, ou bien en faut-il un million? Les chiffres, les statistiques, les diagrammes
sont un matériel mort. L’exigence de justice peut, par ces moyens, être soutenue, comme argument, mais ce n’est pas elle qui fera bouger les choses. C’est la conscience atavique des humains, d’avoir le droit d’être reconnus comme êtres humains, qui met le mouvement en marche. C’est un droit et non pas une aumône.

Tiré du livre de Norbert Blüm:
«Gerechtigkeit. Eine Kritik
des Homo oeconomicus», p. 15 sqq

cocaine hillary for president

.
www.whatreallyhappened.com

January 22, 2007

Hillary for President?

Soon after Camp Casey in August, 05, I was meeting with some Hollywood people who pretended that they supported me, but really were big money donors and supporters of Hillary. I was told that the Senator was really against the war, but she was waiting for the politically correct time to come out against it. I was told that she was the best hope for the Democrats in 2008, and I should give her a break.

I don't know who Mr. and Mrs. Hollywood and Mr. Hollywood Got Rocks thought that they were talking to. My son was used as a "soldier of Christ" in BushCo's crusade against the world and a political pawn in such pro-war Democrat's moves to the White House. I was disgusted and noted this in many blogs that I wrote at the time.

My fellow Americans, please study the following photo.

Click for full size picture.(56.4K)

The above photo was taken in front of the White House Christmas tree with Hillary and Clinton campaign donor Jorge Cabreras. Jorge is a convicted drug smuggler and friend of Fidel Castro. According to the New York Times, April 4, 1997, Jorge was solicited for his donation by a Democratic operative in the lobby of a hotel in Havana! The $20,000 check to the Clinton campaign came from an account linked to cocaine money. At the time the above photo was taken, Jorge had two felony convictions, but the Secret Service cleared him to enter the White House anyway.

Remember what I said about America needing a President who places America first, second, and third.

- M. R.

the dangers of vaccination

. Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines Dr. James Howenstine, MD. Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National institute of health declared, "the only safe vaccine is one that is never used." Cowpox vaccine was believed able to immunize people against smallpox. At the time this vaccine was introduced, there was already a decline in the number of cases of smallpox. Japan introduced compulsory vaccination in 1872. In 1892 there were 165,774 cases of smallpox with 29,979 deaths despite the vaccination program. A stringent compulsory smallpox vaccine program, which prosecuted those refusing the vaccine, was instituted in England in 1867. Within 4 years 97.5 % of persons between 2 and 50 had been vaccinated. The following year England experienced the worst smallpox epidemic[1] in its history with 44,840 deaths. Between 1871 and 1880 the incidence of smallpox escalated from 28 to 46 per 100,000. The smallpox vaccine does not work. Much of the success attributed to vaccination programs may actually have been due to improvement in public health related to water quality and sanitation, less crowded living conditions, better nutrition, and higher standards of living. Typically the incidence of a disease was clearly declining before the vaccine for that disease was introduced. In England the incidence of polio had decreased by 82 % before the polio vaccine was introduced in 1956. In the early 1900s an astute Indiana physician, Dr. W.B. Clarke, stated "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an un-vaccinated [2] person." There is a widely held belief that vaccines should not be criticized because the public might refuse to take them. This is valid only if the benefits exceed the known risks of the vaccines. Do Vaccines Actually Prevent Disease? This important question does not appear to have ever been adequately studied. Vaccines are enormously profitable for drug companies and recent legislation in the U.S. has exempted lawsuits against pharmaceutical firms in the event of adverse reactions to vaccines which are very common. In 1975 Germany stopped requiring pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination. Today less than 10 % of German children are vaccinated against pertussis. The number of cases of pertussis has steadily decreased[3] even though far fewer children are receiving pertussis vaccine. Measles outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination rates over 98 % in all parts of the U.S. including areas that had reported no cases of measles for years. As measles immunization rates rise to high levels measles becomes a disease seen only in vaccinated persons. An outbreak of measles occurred in a school where 100 % of the children had been vaccinated. Measles mortality rates had declined by 97 % in England before measles vaccination was instituted. In 1986 there were 1300 cases of pertussis in Kansas and 90 % of these cases occurred in children who had been adequately vaccinated. Similar vaccine failures have been reported from Nova Scotia where pertussis continues to be occurring despite universal vaccination. Pertussis remains endemic[4] in the Netherlands where for more than 20 years 96 % of children have received 3 pertussis shots by age 12 months. After institution of diphtheria vaccination in England and Wales in 1894 the number of deaths from diphtheria rose by 20 % in the subsequent 15 years. Germany had compulsory vaccination in 1939. The rate of diphtheria spiraled to 150,000 cases that year whereas, Norway which did not have compulsory vaccination, had only 50 cases of diphtheria the same year. The continued presence of these infectious diseases in children who have received vaccines proves that life long immunity which follows natural infection does not occur in persons receiving vaccines. The injection process places the viral particles into the blood without providing any clear way to eliminate these foreign substances. Why Do Vaccines Fail To Protect Against Diseases? Walene James, author of Immunization: the Reality Behind The Myth, states that the full[5] inflammatory response is necessary to create real immunity. Prior to the introduction of measles and mumps vaccines children got measles and mumps and in the great majority of cases these diseases were benign. Vaccines "trick" the body so it does not mount a complete inflammatory response to the injected virus. Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome SIDS The incidence of Sudden Infant Death syndrome SIDS has grown from .55 per 1000 live births in 1953 to 12.8 per 1000 in 1992 in Olmstead County, Minnesota. The peak incidence for SIDS is age 2 to 4 months the exact time most vaccines are being given to children. 85 % of cases of SIDS occur in the first 6 months of infancy. The increase in SIDS as a percentage of total infant deaths has risen from 2.5 per 1000 in 1953 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1992. This rise in SIDS deaths has occurred during a period when nearly every childhood disease was declining due to improved sanitation and medical progress except SIDS. These deaths from SIDS did increase during a period when the number of vaccines given a child was steadily rising to 36 per child. Dr. W. Torch was able to document 12 deaths in infants which appeared within 3½ and 19 hours of a DPT immunization. He later reported 11 new cases of SIDS death and one near miss which had occurred within 24 hours of a DPT injection. When he studied 70 cases of SIDS two thirds of these victims[6] had been vaccinated from one half day to 3 weeks prior to their deaths. None of these deaths was attributed to vaccines. Vaccines are a sacred cow and nothing against them appears in the mass media because they are so profitable to pharmaceutical firms. There is valid reason to think that not only are vaccines worthless in preventing disease they are counterproductive because they injure the immune system permitting cancer, auto-immune diseases and SIDS to cause much disability and death. Are Vaccines Sterile? Dr. Robert Strecker claimed that the department of defense DOD was given $10,000,000 in 1969 to create the AIDS virus to be used as a population-reducing[7] weapon against blacks. By use of the Freedom of Information Act Dr. Strecker was able to learn that the DOD secured funds from Congress to perform studies on immune destroying agents for germ warfare. Once produced, the vaccine was given in two locations. Smallpox vaccine containing HIV was given to 100,000,000 Africans in 1977. Over 2000 young white homosexual males in New York City were given Hepatitis B vaccine that contained HIV virus in 1978. This vaccine was given at New York City Blood Center. The Hepatitis B vaccine containing the HIV virus was also administered to homosexual males in San Francisco, Los Angeles, St.Louis, Houston and Chicago in 1978 and 1979. U.S. Public Health epidemiology studies have disclosed that these same 6 cities had the highest incidence of AIDS, Aids related Complex (ARC) and deaths rates from HIV, when compared to other U.S. cities. When a new virus is introduced into a community. It takes 20 years for the number of cases to double. If the fabricated story that green monkey bites of pygmies led to the HIV epidemic, the alleged monkey bites in the 1940s should have produced a peak in the incidence of HIV in the 1960s at which time HIV was non existent in Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) began a African smallpox vaccination campaign in 1977 that targeted urban population centers and avoided pygmies. If the green monkey bites of pygmies truly caused the HIV epidemic the incidence of HIV in pygmies should have been higher than in urban citizens. However, the opposite was true. In 1954 Dr. Bernice Eddy (bacteriologist) discovered live monkey viruses in supposedly sterile inactivated polio vaccine[8] developed by Dr. Jonas Salk. This discovery was not well received at the NIH and Dr. Eddy was demoted. Later Dr. Eddy, working with Sarah Stewart, discovered SE polyoma virus. This virus was quite important because it caused cancer in every animal receiving it. Yellow fever vaccine had previously been found to contain avian (bird) leukemia virus. Later Dr. Hilleman isolated SV 40 virus from both the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines. There were 40 different viruses[9] in these polio vaccines they were trying to eradicate. They were never able to get rid of these viruses ontaminating the polio vaccines. The SV 40 virus causes malignancies. It has now been identified in 43 % of cases of non-Hodgekin lymphoma[10] , 36 % of brain tumors[11] , 18 % of healthy blood samples, and 22 % of healthy semen samples, mesothiolomas and other malignancies. By the time of this discovery SV 40 had already been injected into 10,000,000 people in Salk vaccine. Gastric digestion inactivtes some of SV 40 in Sabin vaccine. However, the isolation of strains of Sabin polio vaccine from all 38 cases of Guillan Barre Syndrome[12] GBS in Brazil suggests that significant numbers of persons are able to be infected from this vaccine. All 38 of these patients had received Sabin polio vaccine months to years before the onset of GBS. The incidence of non-Hodgekin lymphoma has"mysteriouly" doubled since the 1970s. Dr. John Martin, Professor of Pathology at the Univ. of Southern California, was employed by the Viral Oncology Branch of the Bureau of Biologics (FDA) from 1976 to 1980. While employed there he identified foreign DNA in the live polio vaccine Orimune Lederle that suggested serious vaccine contamination. He warned his supervisors about this problem and was told to discontinue his work as it was outside the scope of testing required for polio vaccine. Later Dr. Martin learned that all eleven of the African green monkeys used to grow the Lederle polio virus Orimune had grown simian cytomegalovirus from kidney cell cultures. Lederle was aware of this viral contamination as their Cytomegaloviral Contamination Plan[13] clearly showed in 1972. The Bureau of Biologics decided not to pursue the matter so production of infected polio vaccine continued. In 1955 Dr. Martin identified unique cell destroying viruses termed stealth viruses in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. These viruses lacked genes that would enable the immune system to recognize them. Thus they were protected by the body's failure to develop antiviral antibodies. In March of 1995, Dr. Martin learned that some of these stealth viruses had originated from African green monkey simian cytomegalovirus of a type known to infect man. The Lederle vaccine experience suggests that the higher-ups are not concerned about sloppy and dangerous preparation of vaccines. Animal cross infection is a huge unsolved current problem for all vaccine manufacturing. If this vaccine production sounds like an unbelievable mess to you, you are right. The influential Club of Rome has a position paper in which they state that the world population is too large and needs to be reduced by 90 %. This means that 6 billion people must be reduced to 500 to 600 million. Obviously, creating famines and genocidal wars such as wrecked havoc in Africa, and loosing new laboratory-created diseases (HIV, Ebola, Marburg[14] , and probably West Nile virus and SARS) can help reduce the population. Other elitist groups (Trilaterals, Bildenbergers) have expressed similar concerns about excess people on planet Earth. The company that was projected to produce the new smallpox vaccine in the U.S. was in serious trouble in England because of unsatisfactory quality of operations before setting up their facility in the U.S. Why would their performance here be any better than it was in England? If there are important powerful groups of people that are determined to reduce the world population, what could be a more diabolically clever way to eliminate people than to inject them with a cancer-causing vaccine? The person receiving the injection would never suspect that the vaccine taken 10 to 15 years earlier had caused the cancer to appear. Other Dangers From Vaccines In the March 4, 1977 issue of Science Jonas and Darrell Salk warn, "Live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis may in each instance produce the disease it intended to prevent. The live virus against measles and mumps may produce such side effects as encephalitis (brain damage). The swine flu vaccine was administered to the American public even though there had never been a case of swine flu identified in a human. Farmers refused to use the vaccine because it killed too many animals. Within a few months of use in humans this vaccine caused many cases of serious nerve injury (Guillan Barre syndrome). An article in the Washington Post on Jan. 26, 1988 mentioned that all cases of polio since 1979 had been caused by the polio vaccine with no known cases of polio from a wild strain since 1979. This might have created a perfect situation to discontinue the vaccine, but the vaccine is still given. Vaccines are a wonderful source of profits with no risks to the drug companies since vaccine injuries are now recompensed by the government. The steady escalation in the number of vaccines administered has been followed by an identical rise in the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, asthma) seen in children. While there is a genetic transmission of some of these diseases many are probably due to the injury from foreign protein particles, mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and other toxic agents injected in vaccines. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was recommended by the Center for Disease Control for all infants. When this vaccine program was instituted several infants died and many had life endangering bowel obstructions. Prelicensure trials[15] of the rotavirus vaccine had demonstrated an increased incidence of intussusception 30 times greater than normal but the vaccine was released anyway without special warnings to practitioners to be on the lookout for bowel problems. Children's vaccines are often not studied for toxicity possibly because such study might eliminate them from being used. A large study from Australia showed that the risk of developing encephalitis from the pertussis vaccine was 5 times greater than the risk of developing encephalitis by contacting pertussis by natural methods. Naturally acquired immunity by illness evolves by spread of a virus from the respiratory tract to the liver, thymus, spleen, and bone marrow. When symptoms begin, the entire immune response has been mobilized to repel the invading virus. This complex immune system response creates antibodies that confer life long immunity against that invading virus and prepares the child to respond promptly to an infection by the same virus in the future. Vaccination, in contrast, results in the persisting of live virus or other foreign antigens within the cells of the body, a situation that may provoke auto-immune reactions as the body attempts to destroy its own infected cells. There is no surprise that the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, asthma, psoriasis) has risen sharply in this era of multiple vaccine immunization. Vaccine Induced Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Dr. John Classen has published 29 articles on vaccine-induced[16] diabetes. At least 8 of 10 children with Type 1 (insulin needing) diabetes have this disease as a result of vaccination. These children may have avoided measles, mumps, and whooping cough but they have received something far worse: an illness that shortens life expectancy by 10 to 15 years and results in a life requiring constant medical care. Dr. Classen has shown in Finland, the introduction of hemophilus type b vaccine caused three times as many cases of type 1 diabetes as the number of deaths and brain damage from hemophilus influenza type b it might have prevented. In New Zealand, the incidence of Type 1 diabetes in children rose by 61 % after an aggressive vaccine program against hepatitis B.. This same program has been started in the U.S.A. so we can now look forward to many cases of Type 1 diabetes in children. Similar rises in Type 1 diabetes have been seen in England, Italy, Sweden, and Denmark after immunization programs against Hepatitis B. Toxic Substances Are Needed To Make Vaccines. Vaccines contain many toxic substances that are needed to prevent the vaccines from becoming infected or to improve the performance of the vaccine. Among these substances are mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum.[17] In the past 10 years, the number of autistic children has risen from between 200 and 500 percent in every state in the U.S. This sharp rise in autism followed the introduction of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in 1975. Representative Dan Burton's healthy grandson was given injections for 9 diseases in one day. These injections were instantly followed by autism. These injections contain a preservative of mercury called thimerosal. The boy received 41 times the amount of mercury which is capable of harm to the body. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can injure the brain and nervous system. And tragically, it did. In the United States the number of compulsory vaccine injections has increased from 10 to 36 in the last 25 years. During this period, there has been a simultaneous increase in the number of children suffering learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder. Some of these childhood disabilities are related to intrauterine cerebral damage from maternal cocaine use, but probably vaccines cause many of the others. Many vaccines contain aluminum. A new disease called macrophagic myofasciitis causes pain in muscles, bones and joints. All persons with this disease have received aluminum containing vaccines. Deposits of aluminum are able to remain as an irritant in tissues and disturb the immune and nervous system for a lifetime. Nearly all vaccines contain aluminum and mercury. These metals appear to play an important role in the etiology of Alzheimer's Disease. An expert at the 1997 International Vaccine Conference related that a person who takes 5 or more annual flu vaccine shots has increased the likelihood of developing Alzheimer's Disease by a factor of 10 over the person who has had 2 or fewer flu shots. When we take vaccines we are playing a modern version of Russian Roulette. We not only get exposed to aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde and foreign cell proteins but we may get simian virus 40 and other dangerous viruses which can cause cancer, leukemia and other severe health problems because the vaccine pool is contaminated due to careless animal isolation techniques. Congress has protected the manufacturers from lawsuits, so dangerous vaccines simply increase profits at no risk to the drug companies. U.S. children aged 2 months began receiving hepatitis B vaccine in December 2000.No peer-reviewed studies of the safety of hepatitis B in this age bracket had been done. Over 36,000 adverse reactions with 440 deaths were soon reported but the true incidence is much higher as reporting is voluntary so only approximately 10 % of adverse reactions get reported. This means that about 5000 infants are dying annually from the hepatitis B vaccine. The CDC's Chief of Epidemiology admits that the frequency of serious reactions to hepatitis B vaccine is 10 times higher than other vaccines. Hepatitis B is transmitted sexually and by contaminated blood, so the incidence of this disease must be near zero in this age bracket. A vaccine expert, Dr. Philip Incao, states that "the conclusion is obvious that the risks[18] of hepatitis B vaccination far outweigh the benefits. Once a vaccine is mandated the vaccine manufacturer is no longer liable for adverse reactions. Dr. W.B. Clarke's important observation that cancer was not found in unvaccinated individuals demands an explanation and one now appears forthcoming. All vaccines given over a short period of time to an immature immune system deplete the thymus gland (the primary gland involved in immune reactions) of irreplaceable immature immune cells. Each of these cells could have multiplied and developed into an army of valuable cells to combat infection and growth of abnormal cells. When these immune cells have been used up, permanent immunity may not appear. The Arthur Research Foundation in Tucson, Arizona estimates that up to 60 % of our immune system may be exhausted[19] by multiple mass vaccines (36 are now required for children). Only 10 % of immune cells are permanently lost when a child is permitted to develop natural immunity from disease. There needs to be grave concern about these immune system injuring vaccinations! Could the persons who approve these mass vaccinations know that they are impairing the health of these children, many of whom are being doomed to requiring much medical care in the future? Compelling evidence is available that the development of the immune system after contracting the usual childhood diseases matures and renders it capable to fight infection and malignant cells in the future. The use of multiple vaccines, which prevents natural immunity, promotes the development of allergies and asthma. A New Zealand study disclosed that 23 % of vaccinated children develop asthma , as compared to zero in unvaccinated children. Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890's. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke's finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason. Vaccines are an unnatural phenomena. My guess is that if enough persons said no to immunizations there would be a striking improvement in general health with nature back in the immunizing business instead of man. Having a child vaccinated should be a choice not a requirement. Medical and religious exemptions are permitted by most states. When governmental policies require vaccinations before children enter schools coercion has overruled the lack of evidence of vaccine efficacy and safety. There is no proof that vaccines work and they are never studied for safety before release. My opinion is that there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines are dangerous and the only reason for their existence is to increase profits of pharmaceutical firms. If you are forced to immunize your children so they can enter school, obtain a notarized statement from the director of the facility that they will accept full financial responsibility for any adverse reaction from the vaccine. Since there is at least a 2 percent risk of a serious adverse reaction they may be smart enough to permit your child to escape a dangerous procedure. Recent legislation passed by Congress gives the government the power to imprison persons refusing to take vaccines (smallpox, anthrax, etc). This would be troublesome to enforce if large numbers of citizens declined to be vaccinated at the same time. Footnotes: 1 Null Gary Vaccination: An Analysis of the Health Risks- Part Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients Dec. 2003 pg 78 2 Mullins Eustace Murder by Injection pg 132 The National Council for Medical Research, P. O. Box 1105, Staunton, Virginia 24401 3 Gary Null Interview with Dr. Dean Black April 7, 1995 4 de Melker HE, et al Pertussis in the Netherlands: an outbreak despite high levels of immunization with whole-cell vaccine Emerging Infectious Diseases 1997; 3(2): 175-8 Centers for Disease Control 5 Gary Null Interview with Walene James, April 6, 1995 6 Torch WS Diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunizations: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) Neurology 1982; 32-4 A169 abstract. 7 Collin Jonathan The Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients 1988 abstracted in Horowitz L. Emerging Viruses Aids & Ebola pg 1-5 8 Harris RJ et al Contaminant viruses in two live vaccines produced in chick cells.J Hyg (London) 1966 Mar:64(1) : 1-7 9 Horowitz Leonard G. Emerging Viruses AIDS & Ebola pg 484 10 Vilchez RA et al Association between simian virus 40 and non-Hodgekin lymphoma Lancet 2002 Mar 9;359(9309):817-823 11 Bu X A study of simian virus 40 infection and its origin in human brain tumors Zhonghu Liu Xing Bing Xue Zhi 2000 Feb;21 (1):19-21 12 Friedrich F. et al temporal association between the isolation of Sabin-related poliovirus vaccine strains and the Guillan-Barre syndrome Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 1996 Jan-Feb; 38(1):55-8 13 Horowitz Leonard Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola pg 492 14 Horowitz Leonard G Emerging Viruses: Aids & Ebola pg 378-88 Tetrahedron Inc. Suite 147, 206 North 4th Ave. Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 1-888-508-4787 tetra@tetrahedron.org 15 Null, Gary Vaccination: An Anatysis of the health risks-Part 3 Townsend letter for doctors & patients Dec. 2003 pg 78 16 Classen, JB et al. Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine BMJ 1999; 319:1133 17 Brain 9/01 18 Incao, philip M.D. Letter to representative Dale Van Vyven, Ohio House of Representatives March 1, 1999 provided to www.garynull.com by The Natural Immunity Information Network 19 Rowen Robert Your first consultation with Dr. Rowen pg 20 (c) 2003 Dr. James Howenstine - All Rights Reserved Dr. James A. Howenstine is a board certified specialist in internal medicine who spent 34 years caring for office and hospital patients. Curiosity sparked a 4 year study of natural health products when 5 of his patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis were able to discontinue the use of methotrexate (chemotherapy agent) after trying an extract of New Zealand mussels for the therapy of severe rheumatoid arthritis. Dr. Howenstine is convinced that natural products are safer, more effective and less expensive than pharmaceutical drugs. This research led to the publication of his book 'A Physicians Guide To Natural Health Products That Work'. This book and the recommended health products are available from www.naturalhealthteam.com