One of the gems on the frontpage involves a recent timeline of economic relations between China and Taiwan since the election of Ma.  Notice how it is almost the exact opposite of what the current US administration has towards Iran.

There is an old parable attributed to Frederic Bastiat which states that when goods and services do not cross borders, armies will.

One of the underlying reasons for why this observation typically holds true is that businesses and patrons have personal wealth at stake and can pressure the political class and military brass to be more diplomatic in negotiating with foreign states.

After all, in order to remain solvent, businesses do not want their employees, enterprises, buildings or customers to be blown up.

As a consequence to warming relations, in 2007 alone, cross-strait trade between China and Tawain grew 16% to more than $100 billion.

In contrast, for nearly three decades, the US federal government has levied both sanctions and penalties on firms that conduct business with Iranians.  And HR 362 will amplify this imperial boycott to the extreme, with a naval blockade.

See also: 1 2 3

Download audio file (08_06_30_hersh.mp3)

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, author of the book Chain of Command and many important articles about the Bush administration’s Iran policy, discusses his new one for The New Yorker magazine, “Preparing the Battlefield,” Secretary Gates’s warning about long term consequences of an air attack, the turning over of much of America’s covert action under the control of the Joint Special Operations Command to avoid oversight, the backing of Sunni radicals in Iran, Baluchistan, Kurdistan etc. in order to try to provoke the Iranian government into escalating as an excuse for war.

MP3 here. (6:18)

The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ”Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.

The bill’s key section “demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran” can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.

Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy Web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution.

Thanks to Geoffrey V. Gray for this submission.

For those interested in the 24-hour breakdown per country, the Mozilla team put together an interactive global map that allows you to see how many times FF was downloaded in each country.

With over 7 million downloads in 10 different languages, this map can serve as a rough guide for tech generalizations.

Unsurprisingly regions gripped with central planning and socialism rank at the very bottom. For instance, North Korea has had a grand total of zero downloads (due primarily to the fact that only one internet cafe exists in the entire country, personal computers are verboten and all communication is heavily regulated and censored).

On the other end of the spectrum most of the industrialized world and West are nearly ranked according to their respective GDPs, with America, Germany and Japan taking the top 3 spots.

And while there all sorts of odd numbers to be gleaned (like itty bitty Singapore flying equal with its significantly larger neighbors), the numbers within the Middle East are striking. As of this writing:

Iran: 208,215
Saudi Arabia: 7,412
Kuwait: 1,962
Qatar: 1,265
Iraq: 235

Of course, it could be argued that the numbers are skewed because the same user may be downloading multiple copies, but there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of a nationalistic push to compete in the FF3 Download Olympics (USA! USA!).

Much more could be written about ratios comparing total population with FF3 downloads or total amount of households with internet access with FF3 downloads. However, considering that even Iraq’s smallest peer speaks the same language, I think it is safe to say that the Arabic language is not a limiting factor, nor are time zones.

Rather, it is yet another footnote in the costs of occupation. Who is to blame for destroying the infrastructure and failing to rebuild it to even pre-war levels. (Here are some contemporary numbers from IWS)

Unfortunately, even with all of the neato features in this latest FF version, Iraqis don’t have the wonderful opportunity to worry about automated malware protection when basic services like electricity and running water are still unavailable (you know they actually have had to ration oil-products there too, right?). Maybe the numbers will jump after another few surges.

Legitimate milestone, maybe not. But it is difficult to see how another 5 years of occupation and enhanced interrogation will make the 4.0 release for Iraq any more popular. Maybe additional waterboarding will motivate them.

[Cross-posted to Mises.org]

Under the headline Terrorist hideout destroyed, a military press release touts the raid of a suspected “terrorist hideout”, the killing of a “terrorist” and the capture of 15 men.

How do we know it’s a terrorist hideout? Surveillance determined that the building contained “stockpiled food”, 12 bedrolls, and perhaps most damning of all, “men’s clothing”. How do we know the slain man was a terrorist? Well he was “near the target building” and made an unspecified sudden movement before being killed. Oh, and those 15 men who were captured? Well 3 of them were actually “wanted” for some crime or another. That would imply the other 12 were “unwanted”, wouldn’t it?

Here’s something conspicuously absent: weapons. Nowhere in the report is it alleged that this vitally important terrorist hideout, the destruction of which would, according to the story, “further degrade al-Qaeda’s terror network”, contained any IEDs, or explosive components, or the dreaded Iranian EFPs. Not one of these hardened al-Qaeda members was reported to be armed, and the story contains not one mention of a weapons cache, or even a single round of ammunition being present in the house: just food, and clothing.

And that “threatening” man somewhere near the building, the one so ably gunned down by Coalition forces? There is nothing in the story to suggest that he had a gun, or a suicide belt, or even a really pointy-looking stick. Just a guy, standing somewhere in Mosul, who made a sudden movement after being accosted by an unknown number of foreign troops. Now and forever though, he is a “killed terrorist”.

Says MNF Spokesman Major Hall “Our pursuit of these terrorists will continue to disrupt their ability to hinder the security, stability, and growth that Iraqi citizens are entitled to” Yet one must wonder how 15 unarmed guys in a building containing food and clothing posed such a dire threat to the citizenry of Iraq.

And check out Antiwar Radio’s new YouTube channel!

Arguably the fairest solution would be to have simply returned the money to the original taxpayers thereby removing the incentive for the Fed to expand the credit supply to fund the current war.

However, regarding a hypothetical mission to Mars, at the very least none of the astro guys would be kinetically detonating onto population centers.

An entire region of the globe comprising a billion people wouldn’t be annoyed with the West for lofting 500 rocket scientists onto a barren rock. The same can’t be said for 500 pound bombs.

See also: The Broken Window Fallacy and Can the Future Do Without Economic Logic?

Here’s the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn’t we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That’s what strong countries do, that’s what strong presidents do, that’s what I’ll do when I’m president of the United States of America.

If you guessed Ron Paul you would be wrong.

The correct answer is Obama. Despite the fact that strict non-interventionists like Paul have stated similar statements over the past several months (decades even), it is not until the “credible” frontrunner says it that it becomes a widely-cited talking point.

A quick Google search finds that Paul stated something very similar more than 6 years ago:

Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?

In fact, Ron Paul has said similar statements many times. Back on November 11, 2007 Paul was interviewed on Face the Nation and he said:

I fear our policy towards Iran is a threat. [...] We [should] have a more sensible policy, we talk to them and trade with them. We remove the sanctions. I mean, the Soviets had 40,000 of them. I was called up for military duty in 1962 during the Cuban crisis. The height of the Cold War and we won the Cold War, we didn’t have to go a nuclear war. We won that by being strong by talking to the Soviets, we talked to Khrushchev. We have a lot more than Iran, Iran has none.

In March of 2006, Neil Cavuto interviewed Paul about this issue asking: Would our national security be threatened if Iran had the bomb?

Paul replied: “Could it be any worse than 30,000 nuclear missiles faced us down in the Cold War against the Soviets. Did we feel like we had to have regime change in the Cold War? Did we use containment and we can’t contain Iran?”

In the September 2007 debate hosted by Fox, moderator Brit Hume asked the candidates about a hypothetical situation involving an uncooperative, nuclear capable Iran.

Paul replied: “Thinking back to the 1960s when I was in the Air Force for 5 years and there was a Cold War going on and the Soviet’s 40,000 and we stood them down and we didn’t have to have a confrontation. We should back off. We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn’t be looking for the opportunity to attack them.”

In a post-debate interview with Bill O’Reilly regarding Iran, Ron Paul literally says many of the same things, including “How come we got through the Cold War when the Soviets had 40,000 of them?”

In November 2007 in an interview with CNN he is asked about a hypothetical situation in which Iran has nuclear weapons.

Paul replied: “I prefer them not to. I think if we have different foreign policy they wouldn’t have an incentive. But if they did, I wouldn’t do much about it — I wouldn’t bomb them. They are third rate nation. They are incapable of attacking their neighbors.”

These quotes are from just a cursory perusal of the large archive that can be found on YouTube (ron paul + iran).

I am not suggesting that Obama’s speech writer plagiarized but given that Paul has said the same thing for years one has to wonder if by sheer accident they caught a glimpse of the Paulian talking point and thought it made a lot of sense.

It sure is the sincerest form of flattery.

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. …

Read the rest.

The Sunday Times says the military is renewing plans for strikes at Quds Force targets in Iran, a further irony since the Quds Force is the father organization of the Badr Corps (AKA: Bush’s “Iraqi Army”).

And Secretary Rice has laid down the gauntlet, accusing Iran of everything under the Sun.

Any strikes against Iran seem almost certain to escalate into full scale war in southern Iraq, Iran’s nuclear facilities and who-knows-what else.

One notable portion of Cockburn’s article:

Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. “The Shia account for less than one third,” a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, “but if you want a war you have to sell it.”

Cross-posted at Stress.

What would that be like . . . .

FC [Field Commander]: Mr. President - we’ve got the 3rd highest ranking al’Qaeda commander in Iraq lined up in our sights, but if we bomb, we might kill more than 29 civilians. What should we do?

W [Dubya]: 3rd highest? Didn’t we already get him?

FC: Sir - this is the new, new 3rd highest in command.

W: Oh, well that sounds serious. I hate to butcher so many innocent Iraqis everyday. On the other hand, maybe that madman will someday muster the capacity to kill more than 29 people, so … let’s bring Dick in on this … Dick?

DC [Dick Cheney]: Look George, I thought we agreed that we were used to collaterally damaging Iraqi civilians by now, and that it’s worth it in our epic battle of good vs evil. After all, your predecessor set the precedent.

W: Huh?

DC: Remember the Leslie Stahl 60 Minutes interview with Madeline Albright?

[DEAD SILENCE]

DC: Where she said the death of 500,000 Iraqi children in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy was O.K.?

W: Ah, . . .

DC: Here, look at this video again - - -

.

.

W: Oh. Right. I guess if Clinton’s UN Ambassadors think 500,000 dead kids in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy is O.K. - - - - But don’t some of those Iraqis have families friends and loved ones who might turn into terrorists against us?

DC: No, they don’t. And anyway, remember, we agreed that all Iraqis are potential terrorists.

W: Oh yeah. Well go ahead FC. You have my authorization.

[Minutes pass]

FC: Sir - we obliterated the terrorist-nest village, but the madman seems to have escaped. Don’t worry, we’ll get him tomorrow. That’s one village that will never again harbor terrorists.

W: Weeee! Heck-of-a-job, FC! How many potential al’Qaeda recruits did we bring to justice?

DC: I’ve asked you before to stop asking that. Remember we aren’t supposed to keep count.

FC: Oops! They’re saying we targeted the wrong new 3rd highest in command. Apparently the real new 3rd isn’t in this part of the country. He was having a secret meeting with Condy.

W: Rat feathers! How many times have we missed like that?

DC: We don’t keep track of that either.

–And thanks to Fileman