THE AMERICANS ARE COMING..... TO IRAN

THE SANCTIONS ARE ANNOUNCED, THE BOMBS CANNOT BE FAR BEHIND


We live in odious times. Just yesterday it seems, a gang of criminals in the American leadership were able to carry out an illegal invasion of Iraq on fraudulent premises, against the wishes of the world community, except the bribed, the bullied and the British. The propaganda in support of that invasion included claims that Saddam Hussein had been involved in the 911 attacks, possessed weapons of mass destruction for use against America, and had actively been seeking nuclear weapons for the same purpose.

ALL of those claims were false, should have been known to be such – given the devastated state of Iraq since 1991 – and should have been treated with skepticism if not outright contempt by the international media and political leadership. Instead, partly (but only partly) because of the way in which the Bush administration bullied anyone who questioned its actions (accusing them of treason) those lies were swallowed whole, and the nation of Iraq was destroyed again, with some 650,000 casualties to date.

For the last year or so, similar deceitful propaganda has been broadcast about Iran and its leader Ahmadinejad.....whose principal problems seems to be his rejection of official Western narrative and the 'free' expression of alternative viewpoints. But the West does not wish to accord Ahmadinejad the right of free speech and has chosen to misrepresent his statements and intentions. Leading historians such as Niall Ferguson have published articles warning of 'Armageddon', because Iran wants to acquire nuclear energy, conveniently omitting to mention Israel's ownership of hundreds of nuclear weapons.

The same lies are being broadcast about Ahmadinejad and Iran, that had been spread about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Another calamitous attack is in the wings.....Iran is due to be destroyed (by bombs if not an invasion) just as Iraq has been.

Is there no one who will speak out against this obscenity?

ARE YOU GAY, IBBITSON?

TELL ME IBBITSON, ARE YOU GAY?


Hey John, or is it Roger? Tell me, are you gay? I gotta know. Because your love for the gays in Iran has touched my heart.

But I need to know if this was true brotherly love, or just gay love – you know the concern of a gay for his fellow gays in another country – which would seem to be a little tainted for my taste...

The sanctions against Iran have been announced. The bombs cannot be far behind......

Where will you be, John (or is it Roger)? Where will other loving souls like you, tortured by the persecution of gays in Iran, be, when the bombs fall?

Will you be in Teheran – organizing bomb shelters for the gays? Will you act as human shields protecting gay communities so the American bombs don't destroy them?

Will you be asking the Americans to use specially-smart-bombs which don't explode if they hit gays?

You should........ actually that would be a good plan – organize a group of Western journalists like yourself, deeply concerned about the rights of gays in Iran, organize them in bomb shelters, and make sure the Americans know where those gay shelters are......

As for the rest of the Iranian population who will be blown to bits by the tens of thousands of bombs falling from the sky, from those thousands of B-52 bombers safely ensconced at 50,000 feet, they don't matter, do they? After all, they're not gay.......and they're not Christian, either, eh..?

So get on with it, John, or is it Roger.......save the gays in Iran – they need your help – or the Americans will kill them all...!

DON'T PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T

Don't play it again, Sam.

You already made a huge mess in Iraq – poetic justice given the lies and fabrications that you engaged in to invade that country, not to mention the bribing and the bullying you did of small and weak countries to create the illusion of a 'Coalition' to mask your criminal intent.

Now you want to do the same thing to Iran, using similar devices. Don't do it. Already you are the most hated country in the world, but more importantly (because this is dear to your capitalist heart) your almighty dollar has taken a huge beating. That's what happens when you spend hundreds of billions of dollars (I know you don't care about the hundreds of thousands of lives you take) for ill-conceived invasions, but even more so when you rape your own citizens by giving hundreds of billions of $ in tax-cuts to your wealthy cronies (you know, like the ones who benefit personally from the sale of weapons abroad, and the commission of war-criminal invasions and other such interventions...) by taking money away from much needed social programs (like universal health-care, education, social-security...) for the average citizen..

Hey did you see 'Sicko'? Bet it didn't embarrass you, eh? Why should it? Your favoured friends can buy all the health-care they want from the welfare subsidies (oops – tax cuts) they get...so what does it matter if a few poor citizens (911 heroes, to boot!) have to travel to Cuba to get free medical care which you cannot give them, or should I say do not want to give them....as you thrust them into the clutches of mercenary HMO's.

There is a special place being created in hell for the likes of your Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their friends in the CIA (the world-beating terrorist organization) and the industrial-military-politico-bureaucratic complex....... and no amount of spin by your friends in the media will save these guys from that hell. Actually those media friends will be joining your guys in hell – as true friends in places high and low....

But meanwhile, please, please, please – Don't Play It Again, Sam.....leave Iran alone......don't shoot yourself in your second foot now, please...

INVASION OF THE BUSHITES - PART TWO

These guttersnipes have already raped and destroyed Iraq, but their innate evil urges them to now plunder the ancient land of Persia, called Iran. The most despised man on this planet is probably George Bush Jr., if a world-wide poll could be taken. However, in the unreal world of the Bushites which includes the lying media and members of the 'bribed and bullied' (where do they get their research funding?) academia (eg. Niall Ferguson - that Oxford-Harvard historian who defends imperialism as good medicine for the world) - that position belongs to Ahmadinejad.....

Hence their constant attacks on that man simply because he dares to stand up for Iran's rights to acquire nuclear energy, and for the rights of Palestinians to their own country, one that is denied them by the combined might of the United States and an Israel armed to the tooth by the United States - including with hundreds of nuclear weapons that can easily 'vaporize' Iran. But that is not relevant in the minds of the Western media and 'historians' like Ferguson who write of Armageddon if Iran builds a bomb, while breathing not a word about the 200+ BOMBS that Israel already possesses.

American attacks on Iran, whether an invasion (less likely after the rapid decline in the US dollar and international US prestige following the rape of Iraq) or simply waves of bombings (that a Bill Maher would correctly label as cowardly) by B-52's safe at 50,000 feet in the sky......are the next great calamity and war-crime waiting to happen. And it must not be allowed to happen.

These Bushites, these murderers, war-criminals, and looters of the resources of other nations, must be stopped. The lies of their supporters in the media and the academic world must be exposed......the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, including vigilance against the criminals in our own leadership, who plan the rape and murder of other nations in broad daylight, with the mushroom gas of their lies, so that our brains, already sapped by alcohol, sports, sitcoms, the insane world of 30-second propaganda ads, and a contemptible Jerry Springer culture of instant celebrity, narcissism, and notoriety, give in as we slowly and subliminally turn to zombies following the corporate agenda...

A BRILLIANT ARTICLE THAT ONE PRAYS WILL BE PROPHETIC

Sun sets early on the American Century

Even hard-headed realists in the U.S. power elite fear the Iraq war has crippled America's ability to lead
Oct 14, 2007 04:30 AM
Philip S. Golub

The disastrous outcome of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused a crisis in the power elite of the United States deeper than that resulting from defeat in Vietnam 30 years ago. Ironically, it is the very coalition of ultranationalists and neo-conservatives that coalesced in the 1970s, seeking to reverse the Vietnam syndrome, restore U.S. power and revive "the will to victory" that has caused the present crisis.

There has been no sustained popular mass protest as there was during the Vietnam War, probably because of the underclass sociology of the volunteer U.S. military and the fact that the war is being funded by foreign financial flows. However, at the elite level the war has fractured the national security establishment that has run the United States for six decades. The unprecedented public critique in 2006 by several retired senior officers over the conduct of the war, plus recurrent signs of dissent in the intelligence agencies and the state department, reflects a much wider trend in elite opinion.

Not all critics are as forthright as retired general William Odom, who tirelessly repeats that the invasion of Iraq was the "greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history"; or Col. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who denounced a "blunder of historic proportions" and has recently suggested impeaching the president; or former National Security Council head Zbigniew Brzezinski, who called the war and occupation a "historic, strategic and moral calamity."

Most public critiques from within the institutions of state focus on the way the war and occupation have been mismanaged rather than the more fundamental issue of the invasion itself. Yet discord is wide and deep: Government departments are trading blame, accusing each other of the "loss of Iraq." In private, former senior officials express incandescent anger, denounce shadowy cabals and have deep contempt for the White House. A former official of the National Security Council compared the president and his staff to the Corleone mafia family in The Godfather. A senior foreign policy expert said: "Due to an incompetent, arrogant and corrupt clique we are about to lose our hegemonic position in the Middle East and Gulf."

"The White House has broken the army and trampled its honour," added a Republican senator and former Vietnam veteran.

None of these, nor any of the other institutional critics, could be considered doves: Whatever their political affiliations (mostly Republican) or personal beliefs, they were – and some are still – guardians of U.S. power, managers of the national security state, and sometimes central actors in covert and overt imperial interventions in the Third World during the Cold War and post-Cold War.

As a social group, these realists cannot be distinguished from the object of their criticism in terms of their willingness to use force or their historically demonstrated ruthlessness in achieving state aims. Nor can the cause of their dissent be attributed to conflicting convictions over ethics, norms and values (though this may be a motivating factor for some). It lies rather in the rational realization that the war in Iraq has nearly "broken the U.S. Army," weakened the national security state, and severely, if not irreparably, undermined "America's global legitimacy" – its ability to shape world preferences and set the global agenda. The most sophisticated expressions of dissent, such as Brzezinski's, reflect the understanding that power is not reducible to the ability to coerce, and that, once lost, hegemonic legitimacy is hard to restore.

The signs of slippage are apparent everywhere: in Latin America, where U.S. influence is at its lowest in decades; in East Asia, where the United States has been obliged, reluctantly, to negotiate with North Korea and recognize China as an indispensable actor in regional security; in Europe, where U.S. plans to install missile defence capabilities in Poland are being contested by Germany and other European Union states; in the Gulf, where old allies such as Saudi Arabia are pursuing autonomous agendas that coincide only in part with U.S. aims; and in the international institutions, the UN and the World Bank, where the United States is no longer in a position to drive the agenda unaided.

Transnational opinion surveys show a consistent and nearly global pattern of defiance of U.S. foreign policy as well as a more fundamental erosion in the attractiveness of the United States: The narrative of the American dream has been submerged by images of a military leviathan disregarding world opinion and breaking the rules. World public opinion may not stop wars but it does count in subtler ways. Some of this slippage may be repairable under new leaders and with new and less aggressive policies. Yet it is hard to see how internal unity of purpose will be restored: It took decades to rebuild the U.S. military after Vietnam and to define an elite and popular consensus on the uses of power.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is not the sole cause of the trends sketched. Rather, the war significantly accentuated all of them at a moment when larger centrifugal forces were already at work: the erosion and collapse of the Washington Consensus and the gradual rise of new gravitational centres, notably in Asia, were established trends when President George Bush went to war. Now, as the shift in the world economy towards Asia matures, the United States is stuck in a conflict that is absorbing its total energies. History is moving on and the world is slipping, slowly but inexorably, out of U.S. hands.

For the U.S. power elite this is deeply unsettling. Since the mid-20th century U.S. leaders have thought of themselves as having a unique historic responsibility to lead and govern the globe. Sitting on top of the world since the 1940s, they have assumed that, like Great Britain in the 19th century, they were destined to act as hegemon – a dominant state having the will and the means to establish and maintain international order: peace and an open and expanding liberal world economy. In their reading of history it was Britain's inability to sustain such a role and America's simultaneous unwillingness to take responsibility that created the conditions for the cycle of world wars and depression during the first half of the 20th century.

The corollary of this assumption is the circular argument that since order requires a dominant centre, the maintenance of order (or avoidance of chaos) requires the perpetuation of hegemony. This belief system, theorized in U.S. academia in the 1970s as "hegemonic stability," has underpinned U.S. foreign policy since World War II, when the United States emerged as the core state of the world capitalist system. As early as 1940 U.S. economic and political elites forecast a vast revolution in the balance of power: The United States would become heir to the economic and political assets of the British Empire.

A year later, Time magazine publisher Henry Luce announced the coming American Century: "America's first century as a dominant power in the world" meant that its people would have "to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation and exert upon the world the full impact of our influence as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." By the mid-1940s the contours of the American Century had already emerged: U.S. economic predominance and strategic supremacy upheld by a planetary network of military bases.

The postwar U.S. leaders who presided over the construction of the national security state were filled, in William Appleman Williams's words, with "visions of omnipotence": The United States enjoyed enormous economic advantages, a significant technological edge and briefly held an atomic monopoly. Though the Korean stalemate (1953) and the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons and missile programs dented U.S. self-confidence, it took defeat in Vietnam and the domestic social upheavals that accompanied the war to reveal the limits of power. Henry Kissinger's and Richard Nixon's "realism in an era of decline" was a reluctant acknowledgment that the overarching hegemony of the previous 20 years could not and would not last forever.

But Vietnam and the Nixon era were a turning point in another more paradoxical way: Domestically they ushered in the conservative revolution and the concerted effort of the mid-1980s to restore and renew the national security state and U.S. world power. When the Soviet Union collapsed a few years later, misguided visions of omnipotence resurfaced. Conservative triumphalists dreamed of primacy and sought to lock in long-term unipolarity. Iraq was a strategic experiment designed to begin the Second American Century. That experiment and U.S. foreign policy now lie in ruins.

Historical analogies are never perfect but Great Britain's long exit from empire may shed some light on the present moment. At the end of the 19th century few British leaders could even begin to imagine an end to empire. When Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee was celebrated in 1897, Britain possessed a formal transoceanic empire that encompassed a quarter of the world's territory and 300 million people – twice that if China, a near colony of 430 million people, was included. The city of London was the centre of an even more far-flung trading and financial empire that bound the world. It is unsurprising that, despite apprehensions over U.S. and German industrial competitiveness, significant parts of the British elite believed that they had been given "a gift from the Almighty of a lease of the universe forever."

The Jubilee turned out to be "final sunburst of an unalloyed belief in British fitness to rule." The Second Boer War (1899-1902) fought to preserve the routes to India and secure the weakest link in the imperial chain, wasted British wealth and blood and revealed the atrocities of scorched-earth policies to a restive British public. The world war that broke out in 1914 bankrupted and exhausted all of its European protagonists. The long end of the British era had started. However, the empire not only survived the immediate crisis but hobbled on for decades, through World War II, until its inglorious end at Suez in 1956. Still, a nostalgia for lost grandeur persists. As Tony Blair's Mesopotamian adventures show, the imperial afterglow has faded but is not entirely extinguished.

For the U.S. power elite, being on top of the world has been a habit for 60 years. Hegemony has been a way of life; empire, a state of being and of mind. The institutional realist critics of the Bush administration have no alternative conceptual framework for international relations, based on something other than force, the balance of power or strategic predominance.

The present crisis and the deepening impact of global concerns will perhaps generate new impulses for co-operation and interdependence in future. Yet it is just as likely that U.S. policy will be unpredictable: As all post-colonial experiences show, de-imperialization is likely to be a long and possibly traumatic process.

Philip S. Golub is a journalist and lecturer at the University of Paris VIII.

WHO'S THE F....NG LIAR, HERE, EH?

Much has been made of Iranian president's evasiveness in answering questions about anti-gay laws in Iran, and the treatment of women. Several journalists have used these topics as an excuse to dismiss everything he said as 'mendacious'. There are two serious problems with this approach. First it allows these journalists to behave as if the West has always been friendly to gays- an obvious lie since homosexuals suffered decades of persecution with extreme prejudice including savage beatings in some cases or suicide in others. Secondly, it allows them to ignore the real and valid allegations Ahmadinejad made about the terrorism and war-criminal acts of the West, particularly the US and UK.

There is therefore plenty of mendacity in the way Western journalists have reported Ahmadinejad's speeches. Brobdingnagian mendacity in fact. As an article in the Star recently stated, 2 gays were executed in Iran in 2005 under harsh laws, but the community of gays by and large functions without persecution so long as they stay closeted and don't become activists demanding rights. The principal privation that
Iranian gays seem to suffer then, is they cannot hold Gay Pride marches as in the West. Is that really a big deal? And how long did Western gays have to suffer and fight before they acquired this privilege?

Secondly - women's rights. Yes Iran is an Islamic country and behind the West in this respect. But the West's record once again on this subject is hardly laudatory, as women suffered exploitation and inequality (in some respects they still do) for ages before the Suffragists and Feminists changed the societal dynamic so far that now extreme misandrous (male-hating) feminist ideology is sacrosanct in Western society.

The high and mighty in the West must have an unbelievable amount of feminist 'skeletons' in their closets to have capitulated so cravenly to every extreme feminist demand, even in the face of contradictory evidence and protest from moderate feminists who have argued in vain that male-female relations are too complex to be adjudicated in the 'male aggressor, female victim' mold. And male academics who have tried to publish research contradicting feminist ideology have been ostracized, persecuted and marginalized. No wonder the Western media finds it profitable and safe to pay homage to feminist ideology rather than male-female realities.

Now on to the bigger mendacities of omission by the Western media. Journalists attacking Ahmadinejad's statements (not actions) should note the duplicitous, imperialist and frequently genocidal actions of their own governments, which the Iranian president politely tried to bring to the world's attention. They should mention the long-standing history of imperialist interference in the Middle East and other parts of the third world.

The Sykes-Pikot treaty, the CIA coup to remove Mossadegh and install the brutal Shah in Iran, the deceit and complicity of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in providing massive WMD to Saddam Hussein to wage war against Iran, the denial of Palestinian rights, the US's occupation of Iraq and their killing of 650,000 Iraqi civilians - these are all truths that the Western media doesn't want to mention.

Hence their focus on some things Ahmadinejad allegedly said, instead of what their societies and governments did. Academics who have tried to publish similar views in America, and even former leaders such as Jimmy Carter, have seen themselves ostracized. The West does not want to hear the truth about its own crimes.

Hence the media's refusal to report the fact that Ahmadinejad's views on Israel are supported by many Jewish groups opposed to Zionism and that the leaders of such groups actually met Ahmadinejad during his visit to New York as a gesture of support...... now that simply cannot be reported, can it?

The West and its media are guilty of far greater mendacity than they accuse Ahmadinejad of, and much, much, much else besides.

Harinder Jadwani

AN ANGRY LETTER TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

AN ANGRY LETTER TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

In early 2003, your newspaper was one of many North American media organizations including newspapers and TV channels such as CNN and Fox, which supported the Bush administration's propaganda and lies which led to the American invasion, utterly illegal and based on false premises, of Iraq. That country, which had already been devastated in 1991 (though for more legitimate grounds, which nonetheless included the US's setting up Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait by suggesting
Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait did not concern the US) - 'bombed to the stone age' as some put it, then subjected to incessant economic sanctions which ended up killing a half-million Iraqi children, constant harassment with UN arms inspections until Hussein finally threw the inspectors out, and ad-hoc bombings by the US and the UK, whenever the US President's political ratings needed a boost, was once again destroyed. Since 2003, over 650,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, many through US bombings, although this piece of news is hardly reported in North America, or is otherwise marginalized.

The blood of those 650,000 Iraqis is not only on the hands of the war-criminals in the White House - Bush, Cheney and the erstwhile Rumsfeld - and their friends in the industrial-military-politico-bureaucratic complex, it is also on the hands of news organizations such as the Globe and Mail which supported the invasion by acting as propaganda agencies for the Bush administration and its neo-imperialist agenda. You are complicit in the crimes committed against Iraq.

But that hasn't deterred you from engaging in similar misleading propaganda about Iran. Some months ago - during the mini-brouhaha over 15 British 'hostages' captured by Iran, your editorial fumed about that nation's 'history' of taking hostages. But you didn't mention why Iran took those hostages - the history that led to that action. You neglected to mention that in the 1950s, the 'democracy-loving' US and its imperialist lapdog the UK, illegally and criminally removed Iran's democratically elected leader and installed the Shah - who for the next twenty-plus years ran Iran as a brutal police state, torturing and murdering tens of thousands of Iranian citizens. During this period, the US was able to profitably sell hundreds of billions of dollars worth of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) to the Shah, crippling Iran's economy and causing massive unemployment and unrest. It was this 'history' which you deliberately failed to mention in your editorial, which led to the overthrow of the Shah, the storming of the US embassy and the taking of 50 American hostages..... A reasonable person would conclude that this action, however unpleasant, was remarkably limited and mild given the catastrophic harm that the US had done to Iran.
And why was Mossadegh removed? Because he wanted to secure a better price for Iranian oil which was being extracted by the British oil company at virtually no cost, and for which Iran got virtually nothing. And what was the US response to this unpleasant but relatively mild Iranian protest? It gave massive support and arms to Saddam Hussein to prosecute an 8-year war against Iran which, as Ahmedinejad said at Columbia University, cost 200,000 Iranian lives, and 600,000 wounded casualties. Twenty years later, the loathsome Bush administration including the odious Rumsfeld who had personally offered the arms to Hussein, turned around and accused Iraq of waging war against its
neighbours!

As PM Stephen Harper euphemistically noted yesterday in New York, the US is hated in 'some circles'. In many circles, actually and for good reason. It has a 'history' of neo-imperialistic intervention in many parts of the world - through the CIA and other means of terror (yes terror - Professor Noam Chomsky of the MIT has published volumes of documented research on this). It has a 'history' of removing democratically elected leaders in third world countries, and replacing them with brutal dictators who serve the US's interests.

It brutally murdered millions of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians...through some of the most savage and inhuman bombings in history (if bombings can be anything other than inhuman)...

Unfortunately the actions of newspapers such as yours which parrot American propaganda may end up causing Canada also to be hated internationally.

Not content with your complicity in the Iraqi genocide, you now wish to support the Bush administration's posturing and lies against Iran. You deliberately portray Iran as seeking nuclear weapons and publish alarmist articles such as those written by prestigious neo-imperialist apologists like Niall Ferguson. You deliberately fail to mention that it is Israel that has hundreds of nuclear weapons. It is Israel that can easily 'wipe Iran off the map'. You deliberately misrepresent, as do the US media, the Iranian president's statements about Israel, to create the impression that Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Your journalist, John Ibbotson, knows very well that what
Ahmedinejad said was that Israel was created by force out of Palestinian land, in the process evicting millions of Palestinian Muslims who have lived for 60 years as refugees in terrible conditions - and that the original nation of Palestine incorporating Jews, Muslims and Christians should be reconstituted as a replacement for Israel.

You seem determined to support the Bush administration's plan to attack Iran on premises as shaky and deceitful as those used against Iraq. You want more blood, it seems on your hands. Well, perhaps you will get your wish, and even evade justice until the hereafter. But perhaps that will signal the end of the US as an 'hyper-power'. Bin Laden once said the US could never be defeated in battle - it could only be drained of its strength by engaging it in 2 or 3 intractable international conflicts. Well - nobody needed
to engage the US in Iraq - it did it all by itself, against the wishes of the international community, excepting the 'bribed and the bullied' and its British lapdog. Perhaps an invasion of Iran, though catastrophic for that nation, will finally bring down the American bully and war-criminal.

If your newspaper has an ounce of journalistic integrity, it will publish this letter.

Harinder Jadwani
Brampton, Ontario

NOT CONTENT WITH THE RAPE OF IRAQ

NOT CONTENT WITH THE RAPE OF IRAQ


It cannot have escaped the attention of anyone not hypotized by American propaganda, and unfortunately such people seem to have been in a minority, that Iran is now being set up as an invasion target much in the way Iraq was set up back in 2002.

Back then as well, it ought to have been obvious that Iraq could not possibly have been a threat to the US – it had been devastated in 1991 ('bombed back to the stone-age' as some put it), then kept on its
knees if not its back with economic sanctions which eventually took the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, harassed with incessant UN arms inspections (no doubt at the behest of the US and UK) until Saddam
Hussein finally threw the inspectors out, and with ad-hoc bombings by the American and British air-forces whenever the leaders of those two countries needed a boost in their domestic political ratings.
Even at the height of the Coalition's assault on Iraq in 1991, all the Iraqi dictator had done was use anti-aircraft flak (World War II technology), and had in fact parked the fighter/bomber aircraft that
survived the first day's attack on his airforce, in Iran....Had Osama been the Iraqi leader, it should be evident he would have used those aircraft very differently...

Nonetheless, in the post-911 paranoia, the Bush administration was able to bully or brainwash the American public, its political opposition the Democrats, and most of the already subservient or
unprincipled American media as well as some Canadian newspapers such as the Globe and Mail, And so the giant lie that Iraq was awash with WMD (weapons of mass destruction) being primed for use against the US, and that it had been complicit in the World Trade Center attack, was unleashed and eagerly seized upon by major news agencies like CNN, Fox and many others in North America.

Outside the bubble of unreality that was (and still is – see Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' or Al Gore's 'The Assault on Reason') North America however, people were not only unconvinced, but as many as 80% of Europeans believed the world's biggest terrorist and threat to peace was neither Saddam Hussein nor Osama Bin Laden, but President George Bush Jr.. Correctly, as events proved.

Four years later, Iraq has once again been devastated and over 650,000 Iraqi civilians killed, a fact that few North American new organizations pay much attention to, in their preferred role as propaganda agencies for the American government system, if not the Bush administration. Their concern instead is the comparatively few American lives that are being lost, or the way the 'war' seems to have spun out of US control. But has it spun out of US control, or is that just how the US is playing it, in order to justify a long-term occupation of that country? Certainly that is what Iran's President Ahmadinejad alleged this week at the UN with his statement "It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a
pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.".

The simple fact – which most reasonable people believe – excepting the fools, liars or spin-doctors in the US media and political system – is that the US went into Iraq for the oil. This is why they are now
building the world's largest embassy/fortress – to cover 104 acres – costing upto $1 billion dollars, in Baghdad. They are there to stay,
and the next goal in the US plan to re-arrange the Middle Eastern map (as Prof. Chomsky of the MIT has exhaustively and persuasively documented in several volumes) is to invade Iran.

That is why Ahmadinejad has been demonized for the past year or two, in a manner similar to the way Saddam Hussein had been. Perhaps he made ill-considered statements about the Jewish holocaust, but his statements about Israel have almost certainly been distorted and quoted without context. In either case, his sentiments flowed from his sympathy for the plight of the 5 million Palestinian refugees who have been living in camps for 60 years, with the world largely indifferent to their plight. What the Iranian president really said was that Israel had been created by armed aggression out of land belonging to the Palestinians, and therefore the original nation of Palestine comprising Jews, Muslims and Christians ought to be reconstituted through a referendum. Yes that would remove Israel from the 'map' but hardly the way it has been reported by the biased American media, which conveniently linked it to Iran's ambitions for nuclear energy to add 2 and 2 and create millions....of lies and misconceptions such as those used against Iraq.

Ahmadinejad also spoke of many things at Columbia University and the UN, which are accurate as well as tragic.... he spoke of how Iran had been victimized by American-supported terrorism, of how America's presence on the Security Council allowed it to be simultaneously aggressor/occupier, as well as prosecutor/judge/executioner in so many parts of the third world where its CIA and armed forces have acted to remove democratically elected leaders and replace them with brutal dictators serving the US's interests. Of how America had provided the WMD to Saddam Hussein to prosecute an 8-year war against Iran which had cost 200,000 Iranian lives and 600,000 wounded casualties. He asked how countries like the US (and Israel by the way) which had huge nuclear weapons arsenals had the right to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear energy...

Unfortunately the American media is unlikely to give much attention to these comments, or the terrible realities behind them, or care much about the fact that the US is (as PM Harper put it this week in New
York) 'hated' in many circles, for good reason.

Is it that unclear that the US has committed major war-crimes in Iraq?

As it did in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? Is the blood of 650,000 Iraqis not on the hands of Bush, Cheney, the erstwhile Rumsfeld, and their cronies in the American industrial-military-politico-bureaucratic complex?

The misconceptions and lies being spread about Iran with the full support of major North American news media organizations, seem ready to provoke another calamity in Iran......these murderers and
war-criminals are not content with their rape of Iraq, they want more blood on their hands....a lot more......and all for more money in their pockets.

AN ELOQUENT AND VISIONARY SPEECH AT THE UN, BUT THE LIARS IN NORTH AMERICA WON'T CARE

TRANSCRIPT OF AHMADINEJAD'S UN SPEECH

NPR.org, September 19, 2006 · The following is a transcript of remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

http://www.npr.org/templates /story/story.php?storyId=6107339

Madam President, Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Distinguished Heads of Delegation, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community.

I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations
regarding global issues.

Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek
justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.

Madame President, Excellencies,

What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them.

By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.

Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.

Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?

A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.

A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the
nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.

People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the
proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?

B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities

Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing
security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi
society, and instigate civil strife.

There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under
various pretexts by the occupiers.

It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.

Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?

Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine:

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the
displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the Warsurvivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'être of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has
been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an
instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not
myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.

Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.

Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?

At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of
democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.

Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon:

For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We
witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why?

In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?

C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international
community

Excellencies,

I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there
objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.

Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern.

Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?

Excellencies,

A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression. Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful; Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility;

For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights.

- Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.

- Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?

- The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

Excellencies,

The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the
Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more
clear evidence of injustice?

Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.

Excellencies,

How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies.

The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves
about the world in which they want to live?

Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest
organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President,

Excellencies,

It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.

Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position
themselves as the "international community".

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over 6 billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.

It is for this reason that we state:

Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security.

We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world.

We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.

Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection.
Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.

The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.

He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

AHMADINEJAD'S SPEECH AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

I saw Ahmedadinejad's speech yesterday on the CNN channel which I almost never watch since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was presumably invited by Columbia, but before he spoke the Columbia U president 'introduced' him by launching into a rant about his alleged holocaust-denial, and his statements that 'Israel should be wiped off the map'.

Ahmedinejad's speech protested the 'insults' and misreports, and then proceeded to give (a typical Islamic) meandering speech about how science (nuclear technology - which the US doesn't want Iran to have) is God's creation and the right of all...how Iran has abided by the IAEA's regulations and is 'against nuclear weapons, period.'. He spoke of how '2 or 3 monopolistic powers' want to deny Iran its right of self-determination, and asked what right the US which itself possessed many nuclear weapons, had, to deny Iran nuclear energy.

He spoke of how Iran had been victimized by terrorism (terror bombings) aided by the US, and how the US had supported Saddam Hussein in an 8-year war which cost 200,000 Iranian deaths and 600,000 wounded. He explained that Iran is not opposed to Jews, and that many Jews live in Iran peacefully and are protected (he said Iranians were entitled to 1 representative in Parliament for every 150,000 citizens, but that number dropped to 30,000 in the case of Jews) and also spoke of the thousands of years of peaceful coexistence in the Mideast between Jews, Arabs and Christians, and that Jewish persecution was an European phenomenon, not a Middle Eastern one..

He asked why the Palestinians were being punished for the Jewish holocaust, when they had no hand in it....he talked about how for 60 years this people (some 5 million) have been refugees in exile suffering attacks from helicopters and bombs, and why the world isn't concerned about it....

On the holocaust he asked why research on alternative perspectives of the holocaust was discouraged, referring to the jailing of such researchers (presumably holocaust-deniers) in Europe....

I got the feeling his views on both the holocaust and Israel (Sen. HIllary Clinton called him a holocaust-denier and enemy of Israel that she would not have invited to speak, but defended his right to express his views) have been reported out of context. On Israel, his infamous statement that Israel should be wiped off the map was probably not a threat to Israel, but an affirmation that Israel was created by force for Jews alone, in the process evicting millions of Palestinians, and that therefore it ought not to exist, but be replaced by a new state representing the rights of all the Palestinians - Jews, Muslims, and Christians - through a referendum of all these people.

His speech was attended by heavy protest outside - presumably from people familiar with the reported US interpretations and depictions of him. And his explanations were given contemptuous dismissal by the CNN hosts covering the story.

I was left nauseated at how biased and arrogant the US media treatment of this politician has been.....

Harinder Jadwani.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SAYS OK TO SUING POLICE FOR NEGLIGENCE

It is a welcome piece of news that that police may be sued for negligence for faulty investigative work leading to the prosecution of innocent citizens. The erstwhile law allowing only suits for 'malicious prosecution' required a virtually nsurmountable standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt made doubly difficult by judicial bias in favor of police forces. Where is the proof of this bias? Just try and find successful cases where police have been held liable....

In those the rare cases in Toronto where police officers faced charges because their crimes happened to be videotaped by bystanders (although even that is not infallible - remember the Rodney King case? Racial bias is hardly absent in Canada..), we have seen police forces show up in force (pun intended) in court, ostensibly for educational purposes, but undoubtedly with the hidden agenda of exercising quite unsubtle intimidation of the judge(s) passing judgment or sentence on the police official(s) concerned.

However this new law also will not diminish vigilance on the part of citizens. Too often Supreme Court judgments can be rendered irrelevant by lower court judges 'finding' (if not inventing) 'distinctions' in the facts of the cases concerned. And since appeal court judges are reluctant to overturn so-called 'findings of fact' by lower courts, that is frequently that...

Strangely, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to care much when this happens....... well maybe this is not so strange after all, since according to Chief Justice of Canada Beverley MacLachlin - judges don't exist 'in a vacuum'.... No they exist in our real-world society of 'tangled webs', and bureaucratic, political and corporate corruption. The result includes judicial abuse, neglect and corruption as well - as shown by the actions of the US Supreme Court in 2000, awarding the Presidency to Bush Jr; despite clear evidence of voting 'irregularities' (that most slimy euphemism).

But then the 'justice system' (so to speak) has always been a place of awesome chaos and indecision, in which delay, obfuscation, prevarication, and obstruction have been the big players (along with big money of course) - something Mr. Dickens wrote about a century ago in 'Bleak House'.

Still, us poor folks have to keep on trying - to fight corruption. So here's another futile but quintessential plea to the Supreme Court.... make judges responsible as 'professionals' for their work, and make them liable for negligence. Give us po0r folks the right to sue these hoodlums in high places in the judiciary for damages....That would go a long way to reducing judicial abuse, miscarriage and obstruction, and deny judges their undeserved status as the last group of theoretical 'untouchables' in society, (excepting the American political leadership who no one can prosecute).



Harinder Jadwani
Brampton, Ontario

ODE TO AMERICA'S BURNING BUSH

ODE TO A PRESIDENT NAMED BUSH

Ode to a President named Bush
A real Christian he is, Born Again they say
He set out on a crusade against Evil
Evil of Bin Laden in Afghanistan
Of Saddam Hussein in Iraq

A real Christian crusader he is, Born Again

They lied against Jesus,
Called Him King of the Jews
They maligned Sita, said she'd been impure
So why wouldn't they lie about Bush
Good old Bush, the Born Again Christian

They say he knew about 911
Let it happen for bigger objectives
Like allowing Coventry to be bombed
Way back in the Second World War
So the Nazis wouldn't know their codes were gone
What's a couple thousand victims
When there's so many evil ones to kill
Like the 650,000 in Iraq, men women and children
Evil ones, all of them, so rightly they died
Killed by the Born Again Christian

And before them came the Afghans
Evil ones too they were, hiding Bin Laden
They got what they deserved
Their country was blown, as was Iraq
They got what they deserved
From the good Born Again Christian
Of God-Blessed America
Land of the Brave, Free and Christian

Don't believe what they say about America
Those savage Indians were simply asking for it
They were delivered from evil by Christians
Their lands were taken by Better Men all Christian
And it was Just - what the Africans got
A chance to redeem their evil existence
By serving the Good Christian Nation
Born Again - freed from the Savage Indian

America the Good America the Great
She freed Iran from the evil Mossadegh
And put in place the Good Shah
He too was – though this is unknown
A true Christian at heart, a Born Again Christian
He was Alas, removed by the Evil Ayatollah
But not before he did much good for Iran
Taught those barbarians Democracy for a while
Until their Evil Natures overcame it

Like the Evil of North Korea
Whipped mercilessly by Good America
(Oops that was the United Nations...
For once acting for Good America...)
Till the evil Chinese and weak Harry
Allowed old Kim to get away with it.
And join the Axis of Evil
That now the Born Again Christian
Has ridden against in Battle
The Mother of all Battles
The Battle of Good against Evil

Ode to the Born Again Christian