Poll of troops in Iraq sees 72% support for withdrawal within a year

by Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes, Middle East Edition
WASHINGTON
Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.

The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.

But policy experts differ on exactly what those numbers mean.

Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst for the Cato Institute, called the figure alarming, and a sign that the Bush administration and troops in Iraq see the goals and the progress of the war very differently.

The president has opposed any plans for a withdrawal date, saying troops will remain until Iraq’s security is assured. Logan sees so many troops wanting a clear time line as showing “an alarming disconnect” between the policy and its implementation.

But Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, said troops who say the U.S. should withdraw could be concerned for their own safety, or they could be optimistic about progress so far, or they could simply be opposed to the idea of operations in Iraq.

“You have to pick apart each servicemember’s thought process to understand what that means,” he said. “I think this is about personal circumstances, and not proof there is a higher rate of troops who desire departure.”

Defense Department officials declined to comment on the poll, saying they did not have details on how the survey was conducted.

John Zogby, CEO of the polling company, said the poll was funded through Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, which received money for the project from an anonymous, anti-war activist, but neither the activist nor the school had input on the content of the poll.

Zogby said the survey was conducted face-to-face throughout Iraq, with permission from commanders. Despite the difficulty of polling in a war zone, he said, pollsters were pleased with the results.

“This is a credible and representative look at what the troops are saying,” he said. “Clearly there are those [in the U.S.] who will speak for the troops, so there is a real value in seeing what they are actually saying.”

The poll also shows that 42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq, and that 85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Ninety-three percent said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for the ongoing military action.

“We were surprised by that, especially the 85 percent [figure],” Zogby said. “Clearly that is much higher than the consensus among the American public, and the public’s perception [on that topic] is much higher than the actual reality of the situation.”

In terms of current operations, 80 percent of those polled said they did not hold a negative view of all Iraqis because of the ongoing attacks against coalition military forces.

More than 43 percent of those polled said their equipment, such as Humvees, body armor and munitions, is adequate for the jobs facing them, while 30 percent said it is not.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. and chairman of the Victory in Iraq Caucus, a group of 118 Republican lawmakers, said the poll does not diminish his opinion of the importance of the armed forces role in Iraq.

“Whatever the percentages are, I know 100 percent of our troops want to complete their mission over there,” he said. “My view is, whatever the poll results say, the bottom line is these are troops who will continue their mission, because they would rather fight the enemy overseas than at home.”

Of those surveyed, 75 percent have served multiple tours in Iraq, 63 percent were under 30 years old, and 75 percent were male.

Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering, by Joshua Frank

It happens all the time. If the antiwar movement takes on the Democrats for their bitter shortcomings, a few liberals are bound to criticize us for not hounding Bush instead. It doesn't even have to be an election year to get the progressives fired up. They just don't seem to get it. "How can you attack the Democrats when we have such a bulletproof administration ruling the roost in Washington?" somebody recently e-mailed me. "Don't you have something better to do than write this trash?!"

Well, not really. It's too cold in upstate New York right now to do anything other than fume over the liberal villains in Washington. "Why do I write about the putrid Democratic Party?" I responded, "I'll tell you, there's a reason this Republican administration is so damn bulletproof – nobody from the opposition party is taking aim and pulling the trigger."

And that's why the Dems are just as culpable in all that has transpired since Bush took office in 2000. They aren't just a part of the problem – the Democrats are the problem.

I mean, who is really all that surprised Bush and his boys wanted to conquer the Middle East? Not me. That's just what unreasonable neocons do: they stomp out the little guy, kill off the weak, and suffocate the voiceless. They only care about the girth of their wallets and the number of scalps they can tack above their mantles.

The Democrats aren't just letting the Republicans get away with murder, however: some of them are also reaping the benefits of the Bush wars. We constantly hear about Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton and how his ex-company is making bundles off U.S. contracts in Iraq. But what we don't hear about is how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband are also making tons of money off the "war on terror."

The wishy-washy senator now claims Bush misled her prior to the invasion of Iraq. I don't think she's being honest with us, though. There may have been other reasons she helped sell Bush's lies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Feinstein's husband Richard Blum has racked in millions of dollars from Perini, a civil infrastructure construction company, of which the billionaire investor wields a 75 percent voting share.

In April 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave $500 million to Perini to provide services for Iraq's Central Command. A month earlier in March 2003, Perini was awarded $25 million to design and construct a facility to support the Afghan National Army near Kabul. And in March 2004, Perini was awarded a hefty contract worth up to $500 million for "electrical power distribution and transmission" in southern Iraq.

Feinstein, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee as well as the Select Committee on Intelligence, is reaping the benefits of her husband's investments. The Democratic royal family recently purchased a $16.5 million mansion in the flush Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. It's a disgusting display of war profiteering, and just like Cheney, the leading Democrat should be called out for her offense.

And that's exactly why the Bush administration is so darn bulletproof. The Democratic leadership in Washington is just as crooked and just as callous.

Worldwide survey: war in Iraq has increased threat of terrorism

LONDON
The majority of those who responded to a 33-country survey believe that the U.S. and British military intervention in Iraq that began in March 2003 has increased the threat of terrorism in the world, according to a BBC poll published Tuesday.

Sixty percent of those surveyed believe that the invasion of Iraq has contributed to increasing the threat of terrorism in the world, while 12% believe the opposite, and 15% believe that nothing has changed since then, according to the poll, carried out by BBC Radio and reported by AFP.

The countries where respondents were most critical included China, where 85% of those surveyed believe that the terrorist threat is greater now; South Korea (84%); and Egypt (83%). In the UK, 77% of those surveyed share this opinion, as do 75% of Iraqis and 55% of U.S. Americans.

In Spain, 79% of respondents believe the threat is greater, and in France, 67% agree, while in Germany, it is 80%; Italy, 81%, and Russia, 58%.

Does it ever occur to ask: "Why is the USA so hated throughout the world?"

by Oscar Heck
The more I see pictures of Iraq, the more I cannot stop thinking about the criminality of the US government and of all those people who support it and encourage it. I don't need to make a list of those people who support Bush, we know who they are and they know who they are. People say things like, "We must support Bush because he is doing things in order to protect us from the evil of terrorism ... from the evil Islamic terrorists who hate us and who want to kill us ... from the evil Colombian narco-traffickers who hate us and who want to push drugs to our children ... from the evil people all over the world who hate us and who want to stop us from helping the world to be like us. Bush is protecting us and we must make sure that we are protected."

Does it ever occur to Bush supporters to ask the question, "Why are we so hated throughout the world?"

Of course not! It is ingrained in most people of the USA to assume that the USA is the best country in the world (the "holy land"), that they are the best, that their way of life is the best model for the world.

Such assumptions are completely erroneous and far from reality. Unfortunately, most people in the USA have no idea of the extent to which the US "way of life" is seen more as a cancer to the world than a "good thing."

After the USA invaded Iraq, the US government came up with some new labels: insurgents, insurgency, etc. ... blaming most of this type of activity on "evil" groups such as Al Qaeda. What most people do not realize is that most of the "insurgency" attacks against US (and ally) installations and operations in Iraq are simply attacks of revenge against those who participated in murdering innocent family members.

It has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or with "radical" Islam ... it has to do with revenge.

The other thing that people in our "western" world do not seem to realize is that many, if not most of the "insurgency" is probably perpetrated by the US government and by the US military itself and/or by US-friendly forces and US-backed mercenaries. I believe that it is the US military (and special forces) who are leading the insurgency campaign itself. It is exactly the same tactic which the US-financed Venezuelan opposition in Venezuela used in 2002 and 2003. They would hire mercenaries dressed as Chavistas (Chavez supporters) to shoot at pro-opposition rallies (their own people) in order to blame the massacres on Chavez.

When the Venezuelan US-financed opposition bombed the Colombian embassy in Chacaito (I was there at the time), the people who blew up the embassy made sure to scatter hundreds of pro-Chavez pamphlets around the building. The anti-Chavez media picked up on this immediately and publicly blamed Chavistas for the bombing and assassinations.

* It was later found out that these activities were carried out by the Venezuelan opposition ... it was also found out that most opposition groups were (and still are) being financed by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

If the US-financed Venezuelan opposition (whose leaders are members of Venezuela's elite) was capable of using such ruthless and subversive tactics in order to try to achieve their goals, then it is very easy to assume that the US military and the US government can do the same ... and even worse. If the Venezuelan opposition could so easily "sacrifice" (assassinate) some of its own people, then, hey, what's a few more dead US soldiers in Iraq?

* Why would the Venezuelan opposition shoot and kill its own followers ... and then blame radical Chavistas?

* Why would the US government want to blow up a major mosque in Iraq (the one with the golden dome, for example) ... and then say that it was blown up by some kind of radical Iraqi religious faction?

Because the US government, as in the case of the Venezuelan opposition, is ruthless.

* Because they want to create chaos, internal conflict, paranoia and fear.

The more chaos, the more internal conflict, the more fear and the more paranoia that can be created in Iraq, the more will be the requirement for the US military to remain present in Iraq. The more their presence is required, the more the US military will use bullets, missiles and bombs. The more missiles, bullets and bombs the US military uses, the more missiles, bombs and bullets the US government will need to buy. The more it purchases (from mostly US suppliers), the more it adds to the expenses which Iraq and the Iraqi people will owe the US government (while US firms profit from arms sales).

(Don't think that the US government is "helping" Iraq for free! The US military does not lose money. It is a profit-making enterprise, anchored deeply in US capitalism. They make profits, they do not lose money. I learned of this in Kuwait during the Gulf War.)

Eventually, when the Iraqi debt reaches a high enough level, most of the "insurgency" attacks will begin to slow ... and eventually disappear almost completely. At that point we will know that Iraq's debt to the USA is so high that it can never be paid back. At that time, the Iraqis will have to make deals with the US government, and in partial payment of their debts to the US government, they will have to "temporarily" hand over control of their natural resources, oil, gold, etc. and hand over partial control of Iraq to the US government and to other criminal institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. "Temporary" will really mean "eternal" ... as is the case with almost any country which the USA has "helped."

For example, look at most of Central America and the complete social devastation which was left behind after the USA "helped" them. This is the kind of scenario which Chavez is trying to avoid at all cost. Venezuela does not need "help" from the criminal US government, and neither does the rest of Latin America ... and neither does the rest of the world. The "good guy" days of the USA are gone ... and probably, forever.

So, why are "Americans" so hated throughout the world?

Because most people throughout our world know exactly how the US government and its cronies and supporters operate and how they coerce and rob people of their territories, of their natural resources, and in consequence of their ability for self-sustainment and self-governance ... of their dignity. Whilst most people throughout the world are well aware of this, most people in the USA have absolutely no notion of how their own government behaves outside the USA.

Most people in the USA have no idea of how criminal the US government is outside US borders ... and how criminal it is perceived to be.

In general, the people of the USA are living in their own little Hollywoodian bubble ... far away from the realities which are soon to come slapping them in the face repeatedly and consistently for generations to come.

One of the most used tactics by the US government is embargoes.

Take for example the US embargo restricting Venezuelan airlines from entering US airspace (mid 1990's). I read one report where, at the time, the US government would consider lifting the embargo if the Venezuelan government hired US firms to "help" Venezuela set up safer and more efficient air transport operations.

Do you see my point?

Do you see the money-making tactic?

The coercion?

The deceit? .

.. just like the Venezuelan opposition. The arrogance?

Finally, every time you see (on TV) a new "insurgency" attack in Iraq, question yourself, "Is the perpetrator really and 'evil' terrorist, as we are led to believe, or is he/she a US-paid mercenary whose aim is to add to the chaos and to the fear factor in order to prolong this profitable war effort ... or is it an angry father whose wife and children were blown to bits by a US bomb while he was at work?"

* Imagine coming home from work and finding your little girl's severed arm a hundred feet from your house, still holding her Barbie doll.

* Imagine then running toward the location where your house once stood and ripping away your wife's severed head from a small group of vultures.

And then imagine finding half of your baby boy's bloated body lying in a pool of maggot-infested mud ... the maggots having a furious feast with his tongue and eyes.

Think of these images every time you eat, every time you drink, every time you think, every time you speak, every time you go to bed ... and every time you pray to your god.

Then imagine what you would think of the USA.

AbramoffJournal.blogspot.com

Detailing the shenanigans of the Republican Party.

Contributors:

Willow

and

toniD

No Questions on Military budget.

The President has submitted a military budget of $440 billion dollars, with request for more than an additional hundred billion for the Iraq war expected later. It is finally time to say that the Pentagon budget has slipped its leash and is out of control. Not in the sense that the country is splashing money around without accounting for it but that the military budget process has escaped from meaningful political review and oversight. The Republicans know their biggest appeal to the American voters is as guarantors of their security, which they interpret as giving the Pentagon whatever it asks for, even as deficits climb. The Democrats are terrified of being seen as soft on defense so they don’t even dare ask questions. In this climate of fear we operate more on momentum than careful analysis and Congress can’t say “No” to the Pentagon on anything.

It is hard to make sense of the spending. We already spend more than the average peacetime levels of the Cold War and we are approaching Cold War peaks. Ah, but we are told the world is a very dangerous place today and we are fighting a hot war right now. That is true, but we need some perspective, and that has to come from Congress.
We are fighting a poorly defined, and probably weakly organized, set of groups that clearly wants to do us harm. But compare the military challenge of the Cold War. During the Reagan Administration, the Pentagon published annually a report called “Soviet Military Power.” It was meant to be a sobering read, and it was. The Russians had vast tank armies west of Berlin ready to roll to Lisbon and nuclear armed Soviet submarines constantly prowled up and down both coasts.

The threat to the country today is real but the military part of the threat from al Qaeda and the rest of the world is
tiny compared to that from the old Soviet Union. If we are spending as much on the military today as we were during the Cold War, then at least one of three things must be true, either we are grossly overspending, or we are applying the wrong tool to the problem, or we are guilty of breathtaking inefficiencies.

What about the all-too-hot war in Iraq? The exact dollar cost of the Iraq war is hard to know, but the Iraq-specific “supplementals” the Administration has submitted to Congress since the war began have been between a quarter and a fifth the size of the rest of the military budget. Turn those numbers around and they imply that the country’s normal, peacetime, day-to-day military operations are financially equivalent to four or five simultaneous Iraq wars.
Several mistakes combine to create this unjustifiable budget.

First, military spending is at Cold War levels because we are still fighting the Cold War. The world has been turned on its head since the end of the Cold War, yet the relative allocation of resources among the three military Services has not changed more than a few percent. This might reflect an astonishing coincidence but it more likely reflects entrenched bureaucratic inertia. We hear the military is stretched thin but don’t be fooled, the Army is stretched thin, not the military. Many of the most expensive weapons in the pipeline were conceived during the Cold War and designed specifically to counter the old Soviet Union and are destined for the Navy and Air Force. There are a dozen examples but the most egregious is without doubt the Virginia-class submarine that, at two billion dollars each, is now being promoted in part as a way to intercept phone calls.

The U.S military budget is roughly the size of every other country’s spending combined and most of the other big spenders—Britain, France, and Japan among them—are our allies, not our enemies. So the Administration has created military requirements that it freely admits are unhinged from any real threats. The Pentagon calls this moving from “threat-based” to “capabilities-based” planning, on the theory that threats in today’s world change too quickly. But capabilities-based planning also means that, if Iran, North Korea, and China were taken over by Quakers tomorrow, our military budget would not go down by a nickel.

This is more than a question of wasting money.

The wrong spending can actually undermine our security. We are confused by our own euphemisms. We call the military budget the “defense” budget. Without question, the military is the cornerstone of our defense and we have learned that we must be ready for war to ensure peace but our defense requires more than military might.
Is our security increased more by buying an additional submarine or spending those billions of dollars on improved port security and building girls’ schools in Pakistan? Congress needs to make decisions about how much it wants to spend on defense and, of that amount, how much should go to the military. The Nation has to stop measuring its security by the size of the Pentagon’s budget.

Lies, Damn Lies and Poverty Statistics

by Christopher Moraff
How an archaic measurement keeps millions of poor Americans from being counted

Standing before the House rostrum on the night of January 31, President George W. Bush beamed as he recounted the state of the country’s economic health.

“Our economy is healthy,” the president declared during his State of the Union address. “Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it.”

What shape Bush has in mind is clear. While the administrators of the president’s economic policies champion 11 consecutive quarters of GDP growth, Bush-mandated tax cuts ensure that the government will continue to make less while the rich and large corporations eagerly fill their coffers. In 2005, federal revenues were just 17.5 percent of GDP, 1 percent less than the previous 50-year average. By contrast, the Feb. 12, 2005 Economist reported that in 2004, after-tax corporate profits reached their highest level as a proportion of GDP in 75 years.

In the meantime, everyday Americans are spending more than they make. For the second straight year, personal savings have been in the red, a phenomenon that has only happened once before, at the height of the Great Depression. Research conducted by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the indebtedness of U.S. households has risen nearly 36 percent over the last four years. As a result, the gulf between the “haves” and “have nots” is reaching crisis proportions.

Compounding the crisis is an archaic method for determining America’s poverty rate, which is then used to formulate the funding of programs that alleviate poverty. When President Bush sat down with his advisors to draft his FY 2007 budget, it’s debatable whether he took the time to examine the national poverty statistics provided each year by the Census Bureaus. What’s not debatable is that the Census Bureau’s methodology is woefully inadequate.

The current method for measuring poverty in the United States was developed in 1963 by a young statistician for the Social Security Administration named Mollie Orshansky. Using data from a 1955 Department of Agriculture survey, Orshansky developed a set of thresholds that set a poverty line at three times the annual cost of feeding a family of three or more under Agriculture’s “low-cost budget.” She developed the thresholds purely for her own research and said at the time that her data’s limitations would yield a “conservative underestimate” of poverty.

At that, Orshansky’s work might well have passed into history. But on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson uttered the famous words: “This Administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” It was a war Johnson intended to win, but missing was an official yardstick for gauging the problem and its ultimate resolve.

Not just any measure would do. Rather, the administration required a threshold that was sufficiently conservative to render eradication of poverty attainable—winning the war by moving up the finish line. Orshansky’s model fit the bill. But first, the Office of Economic Opportunity substituted the Agriculture Department’s “economy food plan,” which was still another 25 percent lower than the “low cost budget” originally chosen by Orshansky. Almost immediately, the new thresholds had an effect, and by 1968, the nation’s official poverty rate had dropped by more than 10 million.

Forty years later, with the War on Poverty no closer to being won, the Census still relies on the Orshansky Thresholds to calculate each year how many Americans live in poverty. That number then determines the nature and distribution of an array of federal policies and programs aimed at addressing the issue.

As critics have pointed out for decades, limitations of the Orshansky formula are manifold. For one, food doesn’t account for one-third of a family’s budget today, making it an unrealistic cost-of-living measure. The model also fails to take into account housing, transportation or health care—which together can amount to more than triple the average cost of food. Add in regional variations, childcare costs and the growth of single-parent families, and it’s fair to say that the Census Bureau is systematically undercounting the number of poor Americans.

Census data released this past August suggests that the number of Americans in poverty grew slightly in 2004 (the most recent year for which data is available) to 12.7 percent from the 12.5 percent recorded the previous year, representing about 37 million Americans. Since 2000, the number of people living in official poverty has increased by 5.4 million. But according to experts, that number vastly underestimates the real total. Duke University sociology professor David Brady puts it this way: “Each August we Americans tell ourselves a lie. The entire episode is profoundly dishonest.”

Brady says that based on his calculations the real number is closer to 18 percent—or 48 million Americans currently unable to afford the most basic necessities. Less conservative estimates have put the numbers of poor at 25 percent, or more than 70 million Americans.

Robert T. Michael, a renowned public policy scholar at the University of Chicago, explains the shortcomings: Orshansky “set a target level of income for a family of four at $3100 in 1963 based on evidence that she put together that basically was using 1955 data. That exact same number—augmented only by cost of living—is the official measurement of poverty today. If they’d done that at the time of Abraham Lincoln, you know, set a rate something like 100 years before, then we’d have a really low level of poverty today.”

What this means in real numbers is that the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2004 was an annual income of $19,307. It was $15,067 for a family of three; $12,334 for a family of two; and $9,645 for individuals. “It’s really egregiously in error,” Michael says.

In 1992, at the prompting of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences formed a panel to examine the poverty thresholds. Michael was asked to chair the panel.

After three years of work, in 1995 the panel released its report, “Measuring Poverty: A New Approach,” which proposed a number of reforms, notably a change to a measure adjusted regionally that takes into account variations in the cost of housing. But nobody in the federal government seemed ready to budge.

“We’ve gotten some movement and a lot of attention,” Michael explains, “but it hasn’t changed anything because politicians are politicians.” He blames the interests of the states—which have become financially dependent on the status quo—and an unwillingness of any administration to accept such a drastic rise of poverty on their watch.

“If they wanted to change it, it would be pretty easy to do,” agrees Brady. “The real reason it hasn’t been changed is because of politics.”

India Hates the FuckTard As Well...

'Bush is not certainly welcome in India'

Left parties to protest Bush's India visit

Karnataka opposition to protest Bush visit

Muslims, Leftists to protest Bush visit

PSA to hold anti-Bush demos on March 2

Russia Dampens Hopes on Iran Nuclear Talks

...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, called American and Russian nuclear arsenals a threat to the Middle East and called for them to dismantle their atomic weapons, although there was no indication he was making the demand part of Iran's negotiating position.
...

Free Range Feminist

Contributors:
Alice
nut-meg
Willow
toniD
Cathy in Seattle

This blog is maintained by some of the female bloggers at Majority Report Radio.

It will focus on women's issues.

Reports: Progress in Iran, Russia uranium talks

Russia and Iran reported progress Sunday on a Russian proposal for a joint uranium enrichment program, according to Russian news agencies.

According to the RIA-Novosti news agency, Iranian Vice President Golam Reza Agazadeh said negotiations on the agreement would resume soon in Moscow.

"We held talks with the Russian side on Russia's proposal yesterday and today. The talks saw good progress. Both sides are pleased with the talks," Agazadeh said.

He spoke at a news conference in Bushehr, Iran, where a Russian delegation toured Iran's nearly-complete nuclear power plant. Russia is aiding Iran in the plant's construction.

At the same news conference, the head of Russia's nuclear agency, Sergei Kiriyenko, said the talks -- which include negotiations for the completion of the Bushehr plant -- had further to go.

"Implementation of the proposal will give time and will increase confidence," Kiriyenko said. The two countries "have almost no organizational, technical or financial problems" relating to the proposal, he said, stressing that it "is just an element of a complex approach."

"More work is needed in the area," he said.

The ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying that talks between the two countries would continue until the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meets on March 6.

Last week in Moscow, Russian and Iranian negotiators talked about Russia's offer to enrich uranium for Tehran on Russian soil -- an offer Russia says is contingent on Iran completely halting its nuclear enrichment program inside its borders.

However, Iran has said in the past it won't engage in any negotiations or agree to any deal that would deny its right to enrich uranium on its own soil.

Russia, one of Iran's largest trading partners, is trying to resolve the nuclear dispute that has triggered major international concerns -- particularly from the United States -- and avoid sanctions that could potentially be imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

The IAEA is expected to report Tehran to the Security Council since Iran ended its cooperation with the nuclear watchdog agency.

Iran insists its nuclear research program is meant for civilian purposes and to produce energy, but many Western countries fear the move is an effort to create nuclear weapons.

Iran restarted work at its Natanz facility February 13, according to a diplomat close to the IAEA. But earlier on Sunday, foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said the work that began at that time did not include uranium enrichment.

Laith Mushtaq, Al Jazeera Cameraman - Interviewed by Amy Goodman

AMY GOODMAN: Laith Mushtaq, you were the cameraman that Ahmed is describing, holding your camera. When did you get to Fallujah?

LAITH MUSHTAQ: We went to Fallujah, I think, it was the 3rd of April. We went to Fallujah, and we were able to enter Fallujah before it was completely besieged. After we entered the city and before the siege took place, our feeling has become more eminent of responsibility, because there was no press there in the city. First, my going to Fallujah was voluntarily on my part as a photographer, and we were asked who was willing to go to Fallujah, so I did that, because I'm keen to transfer and report and picture and photograph. And secondly, I was anxious to work with Mr. Ahmed Mansur, because he is a prominent journalist in the Arab world, and it was my first experience to work with him in Fallujah.

When we entered Fallujah and the siege started of Fallujah, we were doing some consultative meetings as a team, that we distribute the duties amongst ourselves, and how we will move and go around because we were in a very difficult situation. The area we were in was the closest to the U.S. forces, because we were besieged, and we were able to move only for one day during the daytime. And we left and photographed after the clashes, and we tried to take pictures of the aftermath rampage.

And the first shot I took with my camera and the first photo as, Ahmed remembers, it was for a human being fired or burned completely. He was a wounded person. His family were transferring him to a hospital, which was close to the U.S. forces position, and it had the Red Crescent symbol and the Red Cross, because they put him in a pickup, so they put him in the outside in the pickup, and that was under fire. And I saw this person, the wounded person is torched, fired, burned. Even smoke was coming out of him. I was unable to go and see that scenery.

I left him to go alone, and I stood far, and my sight was really bad and terrible because on that day, when we went to the hospital, there was a lot of children in the hospital that were wounded. Some children were brought, and their families were dead already. Their fathers and parents were not accompanying them. That day made a terrible shock to me and shocked me extremely. I covered many wars, but every time you cover a war and you see corpses and dead people and children, believe me, every children I looked at, I remember my younger daughter.

I'm sorry, but in the end, I am a human being, and I have children. Every time I look at a wounded girl or who lost her family or is killed, I always remember my own little daughter. And I remember that I have to be here to protect those children. I have to report this to the whole world, so that the killing of all these children will stop, and all these vulnerable and simple people. This feeling destroyed myself, destroyed me completely. And I was overwhelmed, and I tried to separate between my career and my humanity, but sometimes I could not do that.

...

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with Al Jazeera's Ahmed Mansur and his cameraman Laith Mushtaq that we conducted in Doha, Qatar earlier this month. The two reported from inside Fallujah during the first U.S. siege of the city in April 2004, one of the bloodiest assaults of the occupation, 30 U.S. Marines and some 600 Iraqis killed. This is their first time speaking out about their experience in Fallujah. The interview is translated by Al Jazeera's Ali Matar. Laith Mushtaq, the cameraman, continues to tell the story.

LAITH MUSHTAQ: This was the first day. I stayed until the end of the siege of Fallujah. I left on the 10th, and I came back on the 12th, and I stayed inside the city. The 9th, which Ahmed spoke about, was similar to the day of judgment in Fallujah. It was a very harsh day, very hard, because we were coming out from a terrible experience of the two days of the siege. The first day of the siege -- the first two days, rather, we were unable to go even to the bathroom, because in Fallujah, the city is West Iraq, the bathroom is usually outside the rooms, so whenever we opened the door to go to the bathroom, we see the laser pointed at us, the sniper guns, and there's only 50 meters between us and them. Even some tapes, I photographed them from a window, and they were moving around in the street.

When we went to the hospital and reached the hospital, you cannot even imagine what my feeling was. First of all, I'm a human being. Second, I see corpses of children. I feel a responsibility, that a photographer or as a team, the only one here working, we are the only one who will write the history of what happened, and that's a great burden, and I was really tired. Ahmed was tired. The whole team was tired, but at the same time, who will photograph these people? And it was really amazing. The pictures come one after another.

I saw myself a lady -- I was sitting to smoke for a moment, and I saw an elderly lady coming with her children, going in a big truck to leave Fallujah or try to leave Fallujah. After a quarter of an hour, she came back as pieces, and even people, the -- when they opened the ambulance and I was photographing that, the minute the medics saw the body, they took us back stand from the gruesomeness of the scenery. One of them, I remember, was standing by. He said, in typical a Iraqi dialect, he said, "Be brave. Be honorable people. Imagine this is your mom. Will you leave her alone? Will you abandon her?" So people took her, and they tried to bury her.

The same day, I saw -- I'm sorry, after three days, it was the most difficult scene for me in my whole life. In Fallujah was the family of Hamiz. Hamiz is a person living in the neighborhood of al-Julan, which the U.S. forces tried to penetrate into it to go to the heart of the city. The family of Hamiz were gathered in the house of Hamiz, his sister and their family and their daughters. There was about four families in one place, children and ladies and women. Usually men leave to leave the -- some privacy for the children and the ladies. The planes bombed this house, as they did for the whole neighborhood, and they brought the corpses and bodies to the hospital. I went to the hospital. I could not see anything but like a sea of corpses of children and women, and mostly children, because peasants and farmers have usually a lot of children. So, these were scenes that are unbelievable, unimaginable.

I was taking photographs and forcing myself to photograph, while I was at the same time crying, because I used to move the camera from one picture of a child to the father Hamiz, who was still the only one left alone from that family. He was speaking with his children, and they had an infant, and the children was named Ahmed. He used to speak to him, so he used to use a nickname Hamudi as a nickname for Ahmed. So he used to talk to this child who was sleeping, and in his hand was a toy of a shape of a car. Half his head was gone. So he used to speak to him, "Come back, my beloved. Come to my lap. I am your father," and talking to the other daughter. I could not really find any one human being in one piece or intact. They were cut up. It's bombing of airplanes. You can imagine what could happen. It was a very saddening scene.

At the same time, I say it honestly and frankly, that people were there feeling a lot of responsibility. I did not see the civilians with this high spirit. There was no armed people or military, but the people were really strong. I think that we, the people of the city -- I am from Baghdad and from a known family. We used to imagine that we, the people of the urban cities, are more cultured, more educated, and we have prestigious personality. I saw some examples of Fallujah, of the people present at the time, that I’m just a small student, in patience, in dealing in a cooperative manner. A woman leaves the city of Fallujah to cook some food for the wounded.

The scene that’s really amazing was one man, an elderly, he was -- his back was leaning forward. His job was, because of the targeting of the ambulances from the U.S. forces, whenever an ambulance goes to move the wounded, there was firing on the ambulances. He used to leave at night, and he's 65 years old. He used to go to the bodies and try to move the bodies. He may even spend a whole night to pull one wounded person, and he will move this body to put it in the car and to come to the middle of the city, according to Islamic traditions, that he will be wrapped in clothing and be buried as a sign of respect.

And by the way, as my colleague Ahmed said, the stadium of soccer became a graveyard, but at the same time, in Hay Nazzal, the neighborhood of Nazzal, which is adjacent to the area, people also were buried in their own homes, in the gardens of their houses. A man would leave to take a sneak peek to see a safe place that he can go into, and the sniper shoots him, and he falls dead. Nobody was daring to leave outside, so they would pull them from their legs and dig in the ground and bury them. Therefore, after the battle, many of the people of Fallujah dug again in their own houses and took the bodies to the graveyard.

I saw a child. I even forgot to tell you this, Mr. Ahmed. I saw a woman in the Hai [inaudible], or the industrial neighborhood, under the control of the U.S. forces, had an infant. She's breast-feeding him. The baby died maybe because he's sick or other reason. They were forbidden from leaving and to go to the city. She is the wife of a guard who used to work in one of the plants in the neighborhood. I even saw leftovers of food of the U.S. forces, and I photographed that. After that, when I was able to reach the area, her son died, and they asked to go to the heart of the city to bury him in a graveyard. They said, "No. You cannot leave this place. There are battles taking place." So they buried their own infant daughter in the plant. And I saw the hole that this child was buried in.

And another thing, when I left Fallujah, our office in Baghdad, our bureau in Baghdad, took an initiative to cover both sides, so the U.S. forces requested that a photographer and journalist go with the U.S. forces, with the besieging forces of Fallujah. I went for a rest for two days, so I went at night to that place. I was in the heart of the city, then with the U.S. forces outside the city, with the Marines besieging this place, so we went in a Chinook plane from the Green Zone, and we went to the camp, and the second day there was a press conference for the leader of that division besieging Fallujah. I think it's the First Division – First Infantry Division, and they had a press conference with some journalists from news agencies, Americans, Europeans and otherwise. So they were sitting, and he said literally, "We are making advances positively in the battlefield, and we accomplished victories to kill the terrorists and the fighters present in the city." And I had a journalist, so we asked him, "What about the civilians?" He said, "Oh, there isn't civilians. There's no civilians. The people whom you see their corpses on Al Jazeera TV and on the media, it is for fighters wearing civilian clothing."

I could not handle myself, and I said, "What about the child? Is he a fighter disguised in civilian clothes?" We asked him. So he really tried to assure us that there is no presence for the civilians. My lady, we did not take photographs. We could not report, except one just tiny piece. Even if I was an octopus taking photographs of what is happening around me, it was a terrible scene. I could not move between the neighborhoods anytime. We were unable to sleep. Believe me. The days that I spent over there, 40 days, and I had 55 hours of recording of what has taken place over there, so what has really gone out to the media is a very tiny portion of reality.

AMY GOODMAN: And did you get the video out while you were in Fallujah or when you left?

AHMED MANSUR: The photographs you took, Laith, did you take them after you left?

LAITH MUSHTAQ: No. We took those photographs inside Fallujah, and after the siege was over, we took our videotapes, and we went to our bureau.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to point out that after Donald Rumsfeld said that your reports were -- his words – "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable. It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the next day, again, my colleague Jeremy Scahill pointed this out in a piece he did, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan, quoting a source telling the Mirror, "He made clear he wanted to bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. There’s no doubt what Bush wanted to do, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." That quote in the Daily Mirror as this memo, the Downing Street memo that we haven't seen. Ahmed Mansour, I think when people heard the report of this memo that is yet to be published, reportedly some have seen a synopsis of it, we did not have the context of this period when this was said in the midst of April 2004, in the midst of the siege of Fallujah. Your thoughts, Ahmed Mansur?

AHMED MANSUR: Of course, until now, Al Jazeera requested from the British government to unveil or to publish this document so that we get the bottom of the information. There are many reports that have been pointed to Al Jazeera. There's an anger from the U.S. administration toward Al Jazeera. I cannot really go into the credibility of this document, because the administration of Al Jazeera requested the British government to unveil or uncover this issue or disclose it.

What I can say is that we did our duty as journalists. If this battle took place on the land of the U.S. and I was the one covering it and American civilians were vulnerable to killing, I would not have done any little than what I have done at Fallujah. This is our duty towards humanity in general, as journalists, to report the truth from any place that we are in, regardless of this place and the people therein, except that they are civilians. Our role was to present the truth to what is happening to the civilians. We did that with documents and pictures, and no one could deny this, but the whole world reported and transferred this truth and these facts, and as Laith said and as I did, this is just a slight portion of reality.

I want to say, why did the Americans refuse the entering of any journalists or medias or TV stations to Fallujah in the second battle and they only limited to those who are embedded with them? Is it professionalism that the journalists wear U.S. clothing and they go with them in the planes and tanks to cover this and report this? The battles have to be reported from both sides. We were among the civilians, and we reported, and they had embedded journalists with those who launched this attack from the U.S. forces who occupied Iraq, and they reported what they wanted. We were trying to create an equilibrium or a balance, so that the truth is not lost.

AMY GOODMAN: Laith Mushtaq, you also saw your friend shot off the roof? When was this?

LAITH MUSHTAQ: That happened in Karbala, the fifth month. After I left Fallujah by 15 days, there were still skirmishes between the Army of Mahdi in Karbala and the U.S. forces. There was negotiations but also skirmishes and attacks on a daily basis. The U.S. forces tried to advance toward the big mosque in the middle of Karbala, and the Army of Mahdi was trying to take refuge in that mosque, and they were surrounding it. The U.S. forces were advancing at night to annihilate completely the remnants of the Mahdi Army, and so the Mahdi forces used to come back during the daytime, and it was going back and forth. We were in a middle ground between the U.S. forces and the army of Mahdi, in a hotel, and I was with Abdel al-Dim, our journalist and reporter and with the engineers.

We were like a big team, and I had the assistant -- my assistant, who was a friend of mine named Rashid. We were every day, Amy, as a photographer in hot areas, hot spots. I used to go to the roof of the building every day at night to sit and try to listen, despite the darkness, to listen. Is there any voice or sound of advancement of some forces that maybe I can predict a battle so that I'm ready to take pictures? So I went to the roof, and there was a big explosion that happened near our hotel, and I heard artilleries or tanks moving toward the big mosque, so I went down to the room, and I informed the team that there is a battle coming up.

Everybody went up to the roof, and I was taking refuge by a small wall, and I was wearing shields, and I was taking photos, wearing my armor. I asked everybody to go down, because they may be targets, so everybody went down, but my assistant was standing behind me, maybe with half a meter only, and I was taking photographs. The area that I was picturing or photographing was very dark, so I tried to reduce the shutter of the speed of the camera, so to get a clear picture as much as possible, and I used to photograph, and at that time there was a bullet that just passed by near me, and even I photographed that shot.

So I used to talk to Rashid, telling him, "Rashid, I think they are firing against us." I did not know that Rashid had already fallen down. Rashid fell down, but I did not know that, and I kept taking photographs and pictures. After that, immediately, the wall in front of me, which I was taking protection with, it was fired upon extensively. That is, very highly intense, so I took refuge, and I laid down on the ground holding my camera and looking, and then I saw Rashid smoldered in blood, and there was extensive firing. I could not even shout and call the rest of the crew, our team, and for a moment, I felt I cannot do anything. I tried to advance, then I go back because of the firing. Red firing on the roof. And after that was lightened a little bit, I held his leg, and I shook it, and I said, "Rashid! Rashid!" And he did not answer me, so I went toward his face and saw three bullets in his head in those areas. He had five kids. The older is nine years old, the eldest.

After that, the rest of the crew came, and we could not take his body from the roof, because of the firing against us, until the next morning, so he stayed from 12:30 a.m. until 6:00 a.m., and we waited for daylight to come, and the U.S. forces maybe withdraw. We were afraid that they fire against us, because we had to stand up when we carry him. We stayed in the hotel, and the firing against the hotel was also continuous. The hotel was empty, so we divided ourselves. In each floor was one person. I was on the highest level, and underneath me one reporter and the one below that, the assistant, and there was a generator and electricity. We turned off the lights, and we were unable to move because the ladder connecting -- the ladder was made from glass, so anyone can see us from outside if they have special machines,

So I ask, I wonder why journalists are targeted? Why Mr. Ahmed Mansur is attacked for his reporting? Why such-and-such journalist is subject to arrest because of a specific reporting? My lady, Ahmed Mansur carries a pen and Laith Mushtaq carries a camera. We don't have guns – machine guns and artillery. When you see documentaries from the Second World War of besieging, Stalingrad, you come to the area, and the reporter, you said, "Oh, you used to be with Hitler or you were with the communists in Stalingrad?" The reporter is not part of this. He only reports what happens. Believe me, if we were there and we saw the U.S. forces planting roses in the streets, we will also report that. Believe me!

Carlyle eyes renewable energy, predicts IPOs

by Michael Flaherty and Siobhan Kennedy
FRANKFURT
The Carlyle Group is set to boost its investment in the renewable energy sector as demand from U.S. state entities is rising, the firm's founder and managing director, David Rubenstein, said on Wednesday.

"We intend to be much more active in the wind, power, solar energy, biomass and geothermal areas," Rubenstein said.

"We think it's an extremely attractive area in which to invest, particularly because many states in the U.S. now require that utilities buy a certain percentage of their energy from solar, biomass, geothermal or wind power sources," he told Reuters at a private equity conference in Frankfurt where he also predicted that some buyout firms would go public within the next several years.

To meet the energy demand, Carlyle, one of the world's largest private equity firms, is raising a fund that will invest in renewable energy infrastructure, sources familiar with the matter said.

Carlyle declined to comment on the fund. Rubenstein did, however, say the firm was set to launch a hedge fund within the next several weeks after announcing the move last year.

Soaring oil prices have prompted state and federal governments to explore alternative sources.

U.S. President George Bush in his State of the Union address outlined details of a federal initiative to provide a 22 percent increase in clean-energy research. The U.S. government's 2007 budget includes $44 million for wind energy research, a $5 million increase from the year before.

Investing in the current cycle of renewable energy interest has not taken off, with only a handful of firms actively pursuing opportunities.

J.P. Morgan Partners, the private equity arm of investment bank J.P. Morgan and rival bank Goldman Sachs are among companies investing in the projects.

CREDIT
Rubenstein was speaking at the annual Super Return conference in Germany, where private equity firms came under attack last year from a leading local politician, who branded them "locusts" who buy up companies and cut jobs.

Rubenstein said that charge was unfounded and encouraged German pension funds to invest in private equity funds.

"German political leaders and business leaders should encourage more German private equity firms to get started -- don't wait for the Americans to show up but support and encourage Germans to start their own funds and to do the same kind of things that the Americans are doing," Rubenstein said.

"They should also take a look at the facts about what is actually happening in the German economy as opposed to criticizing private equity people," Rubenstein said.

"We don't deserve all the credit for the German economy, clearly, but I think private equity people deserve some credit for trying to help get the German economy into the 21st century."

IPOS ON THE HORIZON

The buyout pioneer also predicted some private equity firms would look to go public within the next five years.

"Private equity firms are being beseiged by investment banks all the time to go public," he said, although he stressed that Carlyle would not be seeking a listing.

Others may be bought by an investment bank, he said.

He also warned that the current ripe conditions for buyouts -- huge funds, mountains of cheap debt, low interest rates and strong economic growth -- might not last forever.

"Right now we're operating as if the music's not going to stop playing and the music is going to stop. I am more concerned about this than any other issue," Rubenstein said.

He also cautioned about the rush of private equity funds to do ever-larger club style deals, where up to five or six firms get together to buy assets, piling on billions of dollars in debt as part of the process.

"It might be easy to buy into these ... when things are going good. I worry these deals don't look so smart when economies turn down," Rubenstein said.

Conason: Bush's strong support of the Dubai ports deal isn't so surprising in light of his family's many financial ties to Arab sheikdoms

To hear George W. Bush urge calm upon the nation is a refreshing change from his administration's habitual encouragement of fear for political advantage. No more color-coded terror alerts, election-timed warnings or partisan-tinged posturing will emanate from the White House, or at least not until Dubai Ports World has safely completed its takeover of several major American shipping terminals. The president's shift in tone is as remarkable as his threat to use his first veto in five years to protect the Dubai deal in the face of bipartisan congressional opposition.

---

What seems worrisome even to some who might ultimately accept the Dubai ports deal is the "casual attitude" of the Bush administration in vetting the company, as Sen. Carl Levin put it. Considering the history of Bush entanglement with the oil despots of the Gulf, that lax indulgence was bad policy and worse politics.

For the president, his administration's lenience toward the Emirates recalls the unpleasant history of Harken Energy, the loser oil exploration firm that provided him with a handsome profit when he unloaded his shares during the summer of 1990. Years earlier, Harken had been rescued from bankruptcy by timely investments of millions of dollars from the scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International, also known as the "bank of crooks and criminals." Although dominated by Saudi friends of Dubya's dad, BCCI was headquartered in the Emirates, specifically in Abu Dhabi.

---

Consider the Carlyle Group, the huge, politically wired private equity firm that has employed both the president and his father -- and from which the members of the Bush family and their closest associates, such as former Secretary of State James Baker III, have profited handsomely in recent years. With its sole Middle East office headquartered in Dubai, Carlyle has managed to attract substantial funding from the UAE government, which controls most of the tiny nation's oil wealth and channels that money into foreign investments.

Iraq Veteran on US Bases in Bulgaria, by Val Todorov

The allies of Eastern Europe are nothing more than puppet governments under the control of US hegemony... The Pentagon sees a strategic advantage in using Bulgaria as a staging ground to deploy troops and equipment not only to Iraq, but possibly even Iran or Syria in the near future. In this case, Bulgaria would have more to fear than just terrorism. Bulgaria would then be a strategic target for conventional or nuclear strikes from neighboring enemies as well.

This interview was provoked by several articles on Indymedia Bulgaria under the heading "In the Periphery of Empire of Bases and Secret Prisons". The Iraq veteran J.D. Englehart was so kind to answer my questions about the plans for stationing of US military bases in Bulgaria. Seeing combat in Fallujah, he became an antiwar activist for Iraq Veterans Against War. He has given several interviews for the mainstream press and also to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! His blog Fight To Survive is well-known among the global antiwar movement.

J.D. knows firsthand not only the live of a soldier in Iraq but also on the US bases in Germany and Kosovo. He did visit even Bulgaria while stationed in Kosovo in 2003, so the Balkans with their specific mentality and special role in the Pentagon's plans are not an unfamiliar territory for him. Although the context of the questions and my previous articles are critical towards the US militarism in general and the plans for US military bases in Bulgaria in particular, I'd like to emphasize that I feel nothing but respect to J.D. Englehart and his friends from Iraq Veterans Against War. People like him are always welcome to our hospitable country. Unlike the military outposts of Empire.

First, would you introduce yourself?

I am J.D. Englehart, (Former) Specialist, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. I joined the United States army just prior to September 11, 2001. After basic training in Ft. Knox, KY as a cavalry reconnaissance scout, I was stationed in Vilseck, Germany, just outside of Grafenwoehr Training Area. Throughout my service from 2001 to 2005, I was involved with Task Force Falcon IV - a Kosovo peace keeping mission - in 2003, and Operation Iraqi Freedom II during the year of February 2004 to February 2005. Upon being released from active duty in May 2005, I rejoined the civilian sector in the United States and am currently working as an activist for such groups as Iraq Veterans Against War, Veterans For Peace, SeptemberACTION, and various other affinity groups dedicated to ending war and oppression worldwide.

Chalmers Johnson wrote, "The Pentagon always imposes on countries in which it deploys our forces so-called Status of Forces Agreements, which usually exempt the US from cleaning up or paying for the environmental damage it causes". How would you comment?

I would have to agree with Chalmers Johnson's concern that US forces neglect the environmental responsibilities of a hosting country. I have seen both sides of the US military's behavior in regards to environmental concerns. For instance, while I was stationed at the enormous training ground in Grafenwoehr, Germany, our forces were held to very strict environmental protection guidelines. The restrictions that our forces abided by were largely enforced by local German environmental authorities. These agencies were highly efficient in ensuring that US forces were keeping a good, clean order in their country. For example, although our military equipment was not regulated for bad exhaust emissions, it was a German law that running equipment be turned off if not actually in the process of moving.

Furthermore, a US military regulation required that all military vehicles, while parked stationary, were to have a "drip-can" placed under any leaking parts of the vehicle. If in the event of an oil spill on the ground, German law required that US personnel dig the tainted soil, remove any contamination, and replace the damaged area with fresh soil. It is very common during field exercises to see German environmental authorities conducting inspections to see that US forces are engaged in clean environmental usage-ranging anywhere from proper equipment cleanups to the safe removal of all trash and garbage.

However, these strict environmental guidelines are only in place because a respected country such as Germany is the host nation. Where other US operations were held, such as the Czech Republic, Kosovo, and Iraq, I saw firsthand the environmental damage a war machine was capable of. In areas of Eastern Europe, where we conducted training missions and peace-keeping missions, it was more than common for our tanks and heavy track vehicles to rip and plow the earth, rendering once green and fertile farm lands into quagmires of soupy mud. Paved streets were also heavily damaged during tank movements, leaving craterous pot-holes in their wake. Road signs, fences, and even civilian vehicles were sometimes damaged as large equipment would traverse through narrow streets.

These countries had no environmental guidelines to abide by and thus oil spills, garbage accumulation, vehicle emissions and general wear-and-tear of the area were usually ignored. In Iraq it is still a common practice for US forces to traverse through farm fields in tanks and armored trucks, conduct deforestation of palm trees for tactical purposes, and burn garbage in huge piles on base camps (sending plumes of toxic smoke from used oil and plastics into the air).

In all fairness to the US military, however, its armed forces do attempt to keep its surroundings clean and free from pollution. The US army, for example, enforces strict standards on its troops in maintaining the cleanest surroundings as possible and respecting the host country's environment. Although these rules are set place internally, it is impossible to maintain a military with such industrial might as the US without running into environmental damage. Most of these missions are conducted in developing or 3rd world countries where such practices as environmental protection are simply not in place…

…which is why I believe the US Pentagon would jump at opportunities to erect bases in Eastern Europe. It's simply cost efficient. With an ever-growing spread of US imperialism across the globe and a fruitless war on terror, expenditures for such aggression is placing the American tax-payer in a difficult bind. Furthermore, as seen recently in Germany, many US bases are closing down and relocating due east to avoid the high costs that the German government places on the US presence. By placing bases in the Balkans, for example, the US could easily take advantage of the relaxed environmental laws and dispose of waste without paying the already subservient host countries high prices for waste disposal and environmental contamination. Money, in these cases, is always a concern. The bottom line is by having military bases in Eastern Europe the US can coerce desperate governments into an "anything goes" mentality while cheaply exploiting acres of beautiful countryside and townships through the use of landfills and training grounds.

He also wrote, "Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base." Do you agree with that?

I certainly agree that one could gauge America's military empire by the vast number of overseas bases it has. The United States government seems inclined to spread western stylized capitalism across the globe. Military bases are needed by American empire to enforce US economic hegemony worldwide, as well as for strategic proximity to countries who wish to oppose its interests.

In my opinion, American overseas bases are undeniable proof of global empire. There are over 700 US bases in the world as well as thirteen naval task force units monitoring the waters outside US territory. And with the latest nuisance of the Bush administration, this worldwide stranglehold is being pursued to greater extents. Through wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, monetary backing of brutal dictatorships, the use of torturing and imprisoning at random, unwarranted surveillance of citizens, the proliferation of fear and misinformation, and complete disregard for the environment, Bush's agenda seems to be that of an Orwellian dystopia. This is not only greed and empire; this is ambitions for a totalitarian New World Order.

Do you know anything about keeping and using depleted uranium (DU) on the American bases?

Based off my experience in the army, I would have to conclude that anywhere US forces are, depleted uranium rounds and munitions can be found. Depleted uranium (DU) is a very common weapon in the US military arsenal. It is used specifically as an armor piercing warhead that can be fired by tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets and cruise missiles.

In most cases, DU is not used on training grounds or firing ranges. However, as these rounds are very common in the US arsenal, the negligent usage of DU can occur. Recently at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii, several environmental groups accused the US army of firing DU during training exercises. It was reported that"fifteen tail assemblies from spotting rounds made of D-38 uranium alloy, also called depleted uranium, were recovered in August by Zapata Engineering, a contractor hired by the military to clear the Schofield Barracks' range impact area of unexploded ordnance and scrap metal," according to a news release from the 25th Infantry Division. What this clean-up effort concludes is that DU was in fact used on a US installation, in the United States nonetheless. If such a round could be used so carelessly in the United States, one would have to wonder where else it is used and in what capacity?

Obviously, in war zones such as Iraq the use of DU is very frequent. While I was in Iraq, it was common knowledge that DU was fired at everything from insurgent bunkers to clay-brick buildings to cars and trucks. Since the initial ground war in March 2003 thousands of tons of DU rounds have been fired in Iraq, and are continuously being used today.

Depleted uranium rounds were also used during the US intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990's. Because of the longtime contaminating effects of DU, the health concerns of such usage are still a major issue. Even after these conflicts were over, US forces engaged in peace keeping missions built firing ranges to practice on. While there is not much evidence to prove whether or not DU rounds were fired on these ranges, the possibility of their usage may have occurred. What is important to realize is that wherever a US military base is built, depleted uranium rounds will follow. One would have to assume that not only are DU rounds stockpiled there, but could also be used for whatever reason the military deems necessary.

What do you think about the secret American jails in Eastern Europe and the practice of extraordinary rendition and torture?

The use of torture should be banned unconditionally. Not only is this atrocious practice completely inhumane, its use to extract information from suspects proves useless. A country such as the United States, who should be held to the highest standards of due process and human rights, should never stoop to the level of Saddam Hussein in order to wage war on terrorism. Torture in this sense is completely counter-productive. The unfortunate scandal of Abu Gharib not only placed US torture in the international spotlight, but was horribly detrimental in building relationships with Iraqi hearts and minds. The use of torture and extraordinary rendition will only lead to complete failure in the pretentious "War on Terrorism"; a war much better waged through diplomacy and humanitarian practices. Furthermore, any country that is willing to harbor US political gulags will most likely begin to see terrorist attacks themselves. This is the natural process of terrorism. Dr. Noam Chomsky once said, "The best way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it."

What is your opinion about the war in Iraq and the role of the so called Allies from Eastern Europe?

I believe that the war in Iraq is wrong. I believe that the reasons which were stated by the Bush administration for invading Iraq were based on lies. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Lie. Saddam Hussein was days away from launching a nuclear strike. Lie. Al Qaida was helping Saddam plan the attacks of September 11th. Lie. It was only after these false accusations were brought to light that the neo-conservatives in Washington opted to credit the war in Iraq to democracy in the Middle East. This concept of freedom and democracy has been force-fed to the American people in order to support a continued US occupation of Iraq. Although as of now 58% of Americans disapprove with the war in Iraq, the war rages on everyday.

But I believe the war in Iraq is wrong for a more simple reason: that being the unjustified and inane bloodshed happening everyday. Aside from coalition deaths, the real victims of this war are the Iraqi civilians, now estimated anywhere from 50 to 100 thousand. I would like to believe that this war is producing a democratic society for the Iraqis, but the facts simply prove otherwise. Already there is corruption and instability in their new democracy that shows no signs of improving. Iraqi insurgents, fighting against an illegal occupation, are predominately Iraqi, not foreign.

While I was in Iraq, our forces fought local farmers and shop-keeps who decided to take up arms against the occupier. The Iraqi insurgents have been fighting for three years now. Insurgent attacks are increasing dramatically. Insurgent attacks are better coordinated and constantly improving. The US military insists on using conventional methods in fighting a guerilla war, but seems to be losing. In the end, I believe the US will have no other option that to remove its forces from Iraq. This step should be taken immediately to prevent more senseless violence and more lives lost.

The real reasons for the occupation of Iraq can be debated all day, but I think the reasons are rather simple. War is money, oil is becoming scarce, and an empire needs to flex its muscle to remind other countries who is in charge. Again, a tyrannical New World Order.

The allies of Eastern Europe are nothing more than puppet governments under the control of US hegemony. It appears that these countries are involved with the war despite much opposition from their own people. However, these governments seem to jump at the opportunity to please the United States in order to receive fringe benefits in the form of trade agreements and monetary donations. This seems to be the case in Bulgaria, where US bases will be erected without properly weighing the pros and cons of such an action.

Having American bases on Bulgarian territory turns the country into a frontline in the USA War on Terror. Won't this increase the risk of terrorist attacks in Bulgaria?

I would say that having US military bases, either in the form of military installations or secret prisons, would make Bulgaria a very possible target for terrorist attacks. Bulgarian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is already placing Bulgarian citizens in a potentially dangerous environment on their own soil. With the edition of US bases in Bulgaria, and its close proximity to Arab nations, Bulgarian citizens suddenly find themselves on the frontline in the "War on Terror".

One could even argue that the Pentagon sees a strategic advantage in using Bulgaria as a staging ground to deploy troops and equipment not only to Iraq, but possibly even Iran or Syria in the near future. In this case, Bulgaria would have more to fear than just terrorism. Bulgaria would then be a strategic target for conventional or nuclear strikes from neighboring enemies as well.

How would you comment on the culture of "anything goes" and sexual aggression at the US bases? "Between 1972 and 1995, U.S servicemen were implicated in 4,716 crimes, nearly one per day, according to the Nihon Keizai Shimbun, a conservative Japanese newspaper."

I think the main issue with sexual aggression in the military is that the military is inherently very aggressive. Soldiers, especially those in the combat arms field, are molded from the very beginning to be outwardly hostile. Soldiers are primarily trained in two frames of mind: To follow orders and destroy the enemy. Self-restraint and control are only enforced by redundant rules and regulations, usually amounting in a slap on the wrist for the accused.

During my time in the army, I happened to be in an all-male combat unit, so sexual assault against women was not a huge issue. However, this outward aggression could be seen through physical violence against rival units, or even against civilians outside of base. The leadership's handling of this type of behavior was one of "just don't get caught". I do remember several instances when male soldiers would suddenly be accused of domestically abusing their spouse, or single soldiers being charged for raping women, both female soldiers and civilians alike. While I do not know how many of these cases turned out, I do know that sometimes, if the guilty was a high ranking sergeant or officer, the case would end up swept under the rug. That is not to say that military law neglected all of these cases, especially if the case was full-blown public. However, based from hard-line statistics and the behavior of soldiers in general, one would have to assume that sexual aggression does happen.

One has to imagine the paradigm in which soldiers are bred and conformed; the environment in which soldiers live and participate socially. First of all, soldiers live amongst themselves much of the time. Since a majority of the military is male anyways, it is common for soldiers in concert with each other to behave lewd and aggressive. This may be viewed as "boys will be boys", especially when understanding that a soldier's society is much different than that in a civilian world. It almost compares to a football locker room or college frat-boy party.

The concept of womanhood is not always respected, and many soldiers stand strongly opposed to women in the military in the first place. When these types of soldiers are turned loose onto a night of drinking and partying in a civilian sector, the behaviors of military elitism, chauvinism, misogyny and general disrespect can easily occur. This problem compounds itself if a soldier feels that he is above civilian law. None of this should be viewed as an excuse to dismiss violent behavior, but in all actuality the real responsibility should be placed on the chain of command for tolerating it.

How would you comment on the rape of a 22-year-old woman at the US Navy's former Subic Bay base in Manila?

I am not going to comment on whether or not I think that the six US servicemen are guilty. I firmly believe that everyone deserves due process and is innocent until proven guilty. However, as I mentioned above, given the type of training soldiers receive and the social environments in which they live, it is very possible that sexual aggression could be a serious problem at Subic Bay. Of course, with the amount of evidence surrounding the case, the six accused should be tried under fair proceedings by both military and Filipino law. Under no circumstances should the accused be given immunity and dealt with solely by US jurisdiction. In any case, there seems to be a major problem with sexual aggression in the military today. There have been several thousand implications in the military since the '70s. That is a very hard fact to turn your back on. Serious investigations should be conducted and military leaders should be held responsible for ensuring fair and equitable treatment of not only service members, but also for civilians in host nations as well.

What do you think may the externalities of the US bases be for the hosting country?

Externalities in the economical sense? Some may say that having US bases in Bulgaria would boost the local economy. While it is true that in other areas of the world US bases are a staple of local economies, it doesn't mean that it will boost the economy of an entire country. In Germany for instance, towns whose businesses enjoy US presence do not necessarily suffer after a US pullout. However, when we began to dismantle bases in Kosovo, it left hundreds of Kosovars (employed by Halliburton) unemployed and with no job prospects. Of course much of this depends on a country's overall stability, but from what I can tell the only businesses who prosper from US presence are the ones who offer specific services to GI's.

I am not an economist. But when considering the interests of soldiers, I do have a good idea of what they want. For example, if you have a base in a small coastal town, the general entertainment sector will prosper greatly. These soldiers would most likely dump their hard-earned money into restaurants and food vendors, night clubs and bars, the black market - for various products, including prescription drugs and narcotics, - and even the prostitution racket. Spending dollars in Bulgaria will be a welcome change for soldiers where the exchange rate plays in their favor. This may encourage a soldier to spend more of his money.

Of course, one would have to consider that US bases will surely hire Bulgarian citizens for various tasks. This would include everything from technological services, carpentry, store clerks, base maintenance, and janitorial cleaning. Many jobs will be available to persons who are hired by defense contractors. Then again, wages will most likely reflect that of the local economy, and not in US dollars.

So there are pros and cons to this debate. Sure, money will be put into an economy, but who profits? I figure organized crime will surely profit more than the average person, but I could be wrong. Most likely, anyone involved with entertaining a soldier will see profits. But I do not see how a US bases (stationed in small towns, as will most likely happen) can lift the economy of an entire country. That being said, not every Bulgarian citizen will see more money or more jobs. The fact that US bases can stimulate an economy can be misleading if all the facts are not weighed properly.

What do you think about the global anti-war movement?

I think that the world peace movement is, while sometimes gaining ground still faced with major problems of enormous proportions. Our three biggest adversaries are never-ending war (obviously!), global neofascism, and perhaps the most dangerous…outright apathy!

When I returned home and involved myself in activism, it was apathy that seemed to be the most prevalent sickness in America. People have a hard time breaking out of their shells, their "comfort zones", when weighing consciousness on the problems that face humanity today. Most people become too involved with themselves, their friends and family, or their jobs to look on the horizon and see a dark and foreboding future. But this apathy is not just common in America. While traveling Europe, I noticed it there as well. So the apathy is not just a problem in my home, but in all social fabrics of the world.

I feel that the worldwide spread of ultra-capitalism is infecting human beings like a virus. It breeds gross consumerism, materialism, and a jaded sense of what is inherently important in our lives. As a result, our environment is being destroyed as our social consciousness is lobotomized. Future generations are spinning into a dark unknown while human blood continues to fill the void.

Apathy is the most dangerous villain we have to confront. Some individuals resort to it after they realize the world is fucked, but feel nothing can be done to prevent the growing catastrophe. When global antiwar demonstrations were held just prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was an enormous voice of dissent that was completely ignored by the sadistic powers who orchestrate war. It was a serious blow for individuals who honestly care. However, just six years into the new millennium, it is now extremely important that we do not give up.

The pendulum now seems to be swinging the other way. The Bush administration is being exposed for the liars and criminals that they are. George Bush's impeachment is being openly discussed in America. While this may seem to be quite inefficient in light of the horrible travesties committed against humanity and true freedom, it is a huge step in the right direction. It means that people all over the world are beginning to awake from their slumber and place guilty parties responsible.

At this crucial time the antiwar movement has never been more important. Our solidarity must exceed national boundaries. We must continue to stand opposed to war and global oppression. Through peace and civil disobedience we can demand a more rational society. It is no longer a matter of fighting for a utopia of ideas, but rather a fight for survival as human beings.

Do you know who is Ken Nichols O'Keefe and what do you think about his struggle?

Ken O'Keefe is truly an amazing person and an icon in the struggle for human equality. His story is absolutely fascinating: An ex-marine and a combat veteran from the 1991 Gulf War. O'Keefe renounces his US citizenship and becomes a lawful citizen of a stateless World Government. Not only does he set a revolutionary example through ideas and wisdom, but he shows it in peaceful direct action. In addition to many other environmental and social actions in which he was instrumental, he also organized human shield demonstrations in Iraq (before the invasion) and relief works in Palestine. O'Keefe has been labeled "un-American" and accused of treason. He has been harassed by both domestic and international law for petty violations and renouncing his citizenship. He stands opposed to human oppression, environmental destruction, and belligerent racism. In short, Ken O'Keefe is the complete antithesis of everything that he is accused of and should instead be viewed as a leader for social change in the 21st century.

Thank you very much and you're always welcome to Bulgaria!