The interference dilemma

Last week, nine Chinese workers and 65 Ethiopians were killed in the Ethiopian region of Ogaden during an attack by the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) on Ethiopian soldiers guarding an oilfield operated by the Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Bureau, a subsidiary of Sinopec. Seven other Chinese workers were held by the ONLF, but have been released in the meantime.

China's foreign policy is clear: China recognizes states and their recognized government and does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If in a country a new government comes to power, by elections or otherwise, the Chinese government will recognize it as legitimate and express the hope that under the new government, friendly and cooperative relations will be further expanded. This also means that China does not recognize separatist movements even dough they could have legitimate claims.

The Ogaden National Liberation Front says it does not recognize agreements between the Ethiopian government and foreign companies to explore for oil in the area in which is fights for independence.

Sinopec has already announced that the tragedy will not lead it to abandon its projects. On the other hand, the government of a state where it does business – in this case Ethiopia – may not have the resources to protect foreign workers and projects. It is also inconceivable that China would send its own armed security personnel.

This poses a dilemma for China: risk the lives of its workers or try to work out a deal with separatist movements. Both possibilities questionable. (The Financial Times: Attack may spur Beijing toward assertiveness)

Revenge of the CIA chief

Tomorrow, James Tenet's book “At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA” will be available at Amazon.com. Only the happy few, who were lucky to get hold of an advance copy, are entitled to comment, and I am not one of them. I'll order the book tomorrow and hopefully be able to read it in a fortnight or so. Even so, in the past few days, stories have been turning up all over the media web about Tenet's disgust of Bush's spin to invade Iraq.

(The Times: Washington awaits a CIA chief's revenge) (The Independent: Ex-head of CIA accuses Bush over rush to war) (The New York Times: Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq, Former C.I.A. Chief’s Memoir Irritates Some High-Ranking Readers) (The Washington Post: Tenet Details Efforts to Justify Invading Iraq)

Tenet's critique came too late, but better late than never. He should have attacked Bush's lies while still director of the CIA and thereafter promptly have submitted resignation. He didn't do that. Publishing a book exactly four years after “Mission Accomplished” is a bit tardy. Everybody with a few brain cells left knows by now that Bush is a liar and a war criminal. Who needs Tenet to tells us? Now he tells us there was no “slam dunk” evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Why didn't he pull Colin Powell's sleeve at the U.N. Security Council meeting in 2003?

Tenet waited to say the obvious till the obvious was obvious to anybody, with a few exceptions such as Bush and Blair. Still, let's read what he has to say. If it can damage Bush, Tenet may only end up in the first stage of Hell.

Webb on anti-Americanism (II)

Still according to Webb of the BBC, people in the Middle East don't hate America for what it does, but “because they fear the universality of its message, the power of the idea of individual liberty, or religious liberty”. Now this is pure racism on the part of Webb, because he considers the peoples of the Middle East to be too stupid to value individualism and religious liberty. The individualism of the U.S. is the individualism of the exploiters. Ask the workers of the U.S. and the workers in the countries under U.S. domination how they enjoy their “individualism”?

As for religious liberty, try to say out loud in the U.S. that you are an atheist, that you don't believe in any God, the reaction won't be much different from the ones in Saudi Arabia or Iran. It is in Europe, and yes in France – so despised by Webb – that there is freedom of religion, the freedom to be free of religion – the opium of the people. What's the difference if you can't get a beer in Salt Lake City or Mecca? As far as religious “freedom” is concerned, the U.S. has no lessons to teach to Muslim countries. Feudalist practices of oppression of women for example will be done away with by the peoples of the countries where they still exist. They don't need any help from the American imperialists who are creating hundreds of widows daily in Iraq.

Even Webb finally has to confess that “American attitudes to social and sexual matters have much more in common with thinking in Damascus than Paris”.

Webb descend into the depths of stupidity when he writes that most of the people of the U.S. “genuinely believe they have earned the right to lead the world, though not to coerce it.” Yes, perhaps they believe it. But why would the U.S. have the right to lead the world and not the Mongols? And they are not only “leading” but definitely “coercing”, to put it mildly. Webb concludes that if other nations will be in charge, “our children will long to have the Yanks back”. Now that is ... bullshit.

Webb says “the US does not kill civilians as a matter of policy”. Ask in heaven or hell the 650,000 Iraqis killed as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies manufactured by the neocons and only feebly opposed by the Democrats, so that the killings can go on unhindered. Sure, Shia are killing Sunni and Sunni are killing Shia, but under international law, the occupiers, that is the U.S. and its allies, are responsible for security under their occupation and therefore guilty of the killings. If they want to absolve themselves, they should leave Iraq immediately, although they will still be guilty of all the murders since March 2003.

According to Webb, peace campaigners should focus on the WMD held by other nations, not the U.S. This shows he wants to disarm all nations except the U.S., so that the U.S. could rule the world as the ultimate Empire of Evil. Webb missed his calling, or he should have been born a bit earlier. He could have been a great propaganda chief for Herr Adolf Hitler.

Webb on anti-Americanism (I)

BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb has written a series of articles on anti-Americanism, including attitudes on the U.S. in France, Venezuela and Egypt. Webb wants to challenge “the idea that the U.S. is an international bully, a modern day imperial power”. (BBC: Anti-Americanism)

We can guess he'll have a hard time :-) Let's see what arguments he can come up with.

According to Webb there is “a willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion [...] while leaving murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched”. Sure, there are many murderers and dictators in this world, but usually there are only capable of murdering their own people and perhaps those of a neighboring country. Not only has the U.S. completely wiped out its native inhabitants – the Indians – it has massacred peoples around the world, the list is really too long to mention here... Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, just to name a few. To Webb that's only a tiny indiscretion.

“Anti-Americanism was born in France ... well before the United States existed”. This remark is really to idiotic to even be worth refuting. How can anybody be “anti-American” even before the U.S. existed. This only shows Webb's twisted logic, who claims the French found the New World “ghastly”. Well now, the French also tried to colonize the New World, until they were defeated by English settlers. OK, maybe they are bad losers. But as even Webb has to confess, anti-Americanism also exists in the U.K.! While ranting about French anti-Americanism, Webb descends into the ugly depths of “anti-Frenchism”, too ugly to describe here. According to Webb the French can't stand ordinariness, such as epitomized by the U.S. or ... Belgium. Ahem, what about the aristocratic British with their stiff upper lip?

Latin American countries have only themselves to blame for being poor, judges Webb. In each and every one of them in the past century a dictatorship has been imposed on the people with the all too active support of the U.S. Now that the Latin American countries are liberating themselves from this American yoke, Webb rants about Chavez's “anti-Americanism”. How much did the neocons pay him to write this nonsense, or is Webb really brain-death? What kind of “infrastructure” did the Yankees put in place in South America if not to plunder its riches? “Millions and millions of Latin Americans benefit every day from the powerhouse US economy – from relatives cleaning cars in Los Angeles, making beds in Las Vegas and picking fruit in rural Georgia,” Webb writes. And so they toil as wage slaves earning a pittance to make American capitalists rich. According to Webb, they should be grateful and kiss the Americans' ass.

And Webb wonders if Latin Americans will “reward US support and good behavior” in the future. What a stupid question! The U.S. will never show “good” behavior before its imperialism is destroyed by the rising opposition of the peoples of the world, and ultimately by the American people itself, which is also suffering under the system imposed on it by the robber barons.

It is a disgrace to the BBC that this individual is on its payroll. Webb should send his C.V. to Fox News or the Washington Times, where he belongs.

April fools deadline

The Democrat controlled House voted 218 to 208 to grant Bush another 124 billion dollar to conduct his murderous “surge” against the Iraqi people. When he's finished with it, he should let “our men and women in uniform” come home to the homeland, starting in October and ending on April 1, 2008. That's according to the Democrats.

Why leave the American occupiers another 12 months in Iraq? Why wasting another 124 billion dollars on a lost war? Why send another 1,020 American soldiers to their deaths in the deserts of Iraq – at the current rate of 85 a month, but this could get much worse... And of course another hundred thousand Iraqi deaths, which the Americans don't give a damn shit about.

The Democrats act like stupid fools. By April 1, 2008, the Americans will not retreat from Iraq, they will have been thrown out of the country, like they have been thrown out of Vietnam in April 1975.

Sustaining Bush's bloody war for another year with billions of taxpayers' money. Sending a thousand “fellow Americans” to their deaths. Murdering a hundred thousand Iraqis, and probably many more, in cold blood. That is the course taken by Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. They don't even dare to talk about impeachment of the war-criminal-in-chief.

Meanwhile, the U.S. strategy is working, General David Petraeus tells members of Congress. It sure is, packing “men and women in uniform” in body bags. (CNN: House passes Iraq withdrawal timetable; Top general says Iraqi sectarian murders are down)

There are no American heroes

One of the most “heroic” American war stories to come out of the Iraq War now turns out to be a bunch of lies manufactured in the basement of the Pentagon. On March 23, 2003, Jessica Lynch didn't fight heroically against her Iraqi attackers. One second after the crash of her military vehicle, she was badly wounded, incapacitated and incapable of firing a shot, even if she would have known how to do it. She was saved by Iraqis sympathetic to the plight of a 19-year old girl. The so-called rescue by American forces was an elaborate fraud. Jessica Lynch didn't even have the courage to say that the Pentagon was lying, until now, more than 4 years after the facts. Some kind of heroism...

Pat Tillman was gunned down in Afghanistan by his own buddies, not while putting up a heroic resistance in a Taliban ambush. Telling the truth would have been “a disaster, a brutal truth that the American public would undoubtedly find unacceptable”, his brother Kevin told the U.S. Congress. And so, the Pentagon manufactured another fake story of heroism. (CNN: Soldier: Army ordered me not to tell truth about Tillman)

Lies, lies, lies. That's the stuff the Pentagon is made of. There can never be heroism in aggression. In the eyes of their comrades, some Nazi soldiers certainly performed heroic deeds. That's besides the point. The death of an aggressor is lighter than a feather, the death of a resistance fighter weighs heavier than Mount Taishan, to borrow Mao's wise words.

In the eyes of the Iraqi people, there can never be any American “hero”.

The gravedigger of the U.S.S.R.

Boris Yeltsin died yesterday and his legacy is controversial. That's about the only thing everybody can agree on. Let's see what CNN has to say: “Former President Boris Yeltsin, who engineered the final collapse of the Soviet Union and pushed Russia to embrace democracy and a market economy,...” (CNN: Former Russian leader Yeltsin dead)

Let's take a moment to rephrase this:

... the final collapse of the Soviet Union ...: He managed to break up the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics into 15 separate states, leaving the world with only one superpower, the U.S.

... pushed Russia to embrace democracy ...: and only the super-rich oligarchs have enough money to get themselves elected.

... and a market economy ...: controlled and exploited by those same oligarchs.

Some also say Yeltsin was the man who beat Communism (The Independent: Yeltsin: The man who beat Communism; He shaped our world, for better or worse) The man who destroyed the socialist character of the Soviet Union was Nikita Krutchev, not Gorbachov or Yeltsin.

The fact that Soviet Social-Imperialism (as Mao characterized the country) disappeared at the end of 1990 is a good thing. It destroyed a superpower, which was – once again according to Mao – worse and more dangerous than the U.S. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, with all the contradictions pushed to the breaking point. Gorbachev had a hand in that. But then what did Yeltsin do? He promoted Russian great-chauvinism to the extent that the Soviet Union broke up in 15 pieces. That is Yeltsin's primary legacy and none of the peoples of the 15 countries, except those of the three Baltic states which joined the E.U., got a good deal. As for democracy, the Western media are saying Putin is already killing it.

One focus of the editorials and comments has been on Yeltsin the drunk. Well, let the guy have his vodka, as long as he doesn't confuse the nuclear button for the cap of the vodka bottle.

Yeltsin also got praise from the Chinese, because indeed, during his term as Russian president, relations with China improved a lot. Nowadays, the Chinese government only evaluates a foreign statesman on one criterion only: did he improve bilateral relations? That is indeed important, but it is not everything.

The West only cares about democracy and free markets, China about bilateral relations. Who gives a damn about the peoples of the former Soviet Union? Ask them if they liked Yeltsin, and they will tell you.

Ségo ou Sarko (I)

Or put another way: madame ou monsieur. Or simply: left or right.

The French voters clearly didn't want a re-run of the second stage in the last presidential election in 2002, where the choice was between Chirac and Le Pen. The whole French left had to hold their noses and vote for Chirac to prevent a victory of the fascist candidate Le Pen. This time, a record 84.5% of eligible voters turned out to vote, to guarantee that their favorite would reach the second round.

In the first stage of this year's presidential election, the small leftist parties suffered badly, because many on the left voted for Ségolène Royal to prevent a second stage run-off between Sarkozy and Bayrou or Sarkozy and Le Pen. The once mighty French Communist Party was nearly obliterated with just 1.93% of the vote. France must surely be the only country in the whole world with three, that is THREE (3) Trotskyist parties contesting the vote. Arlette Laguiller of Lutte Ouvrière made a disgraceful exit. The winner on the far left was Besançenot of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire with 4.08% of the vote.

On the far right, the French voters created an even bloodier bloodbath. Le Pen lost no less than one million votes. He failed to come out on top in even one département. Le Front National is history, set back twenty years with only 10% of the vote.

The big question now is what will happen on May 6. Will the winner be Ségo or Sarko? There's only a 5% difference between Sarkozy (31%) and Royal (26%). Ségo will get all the leftist votes and the votes of the migrants and their decedents. No immigrant in his right mind will ever vote for Nicholas Sarkozy, who called them 'scum'. But this guy will of course get most of the votes which went to Le Pen in the first round, although not all, because some disillusioned die-hards will boycott the second round. That leaves both candidates with about an equal number of votes. The outcome will be decided by those who voted for Bayrou. Will the majority tilt to the left or the right?

I believe Ségolène Royal has a good chance of winning, because the French want a change after 12 years of the Chirac presidency. Sarkozy is sometimes describes as an American neocon with a French passport. The French don't want a neocon president. But if Royal wins, it will be a very narrow victory. French society is split in two between left and right, and geographically Sarkoland in the north, east and south and Sègoland in the west and south-west. Even Paris is split. The French better take care to keep out the U.S. Army or it will start building a wall... If Sarkozy wins, the whole of France could erupt in riots. And Ségolène could surf to victory on a campaign of “ tout sauf Sarkozy” (TSS) – anything but Sarkozy. In the end, not the TGV, but the TSS could bring Ségolène Royal to power.

(The Guardian: Forever France; A clear choice) (The Independent: Sarkozy and Royal go through as 84 per cent turnout sets new poll record; Leading article: A result that shows democracy is alive and well)

Comrade Bishop

The head of the Catholic Patriotic Church in China and bishop of the Beijing diocese, Fu Tieshan, died in Beijing on Friday evening, aged 75. He was also a vice chairman of the National People's Congress (NPC) and thereby considered to be a state leader of China. His remains will be cremated next Friday at the Babaoshan Revolutionary Cemetery. Bishop Fu passed away after a long battle with cancer. (Catholic News Service: Beijing Bishop Michael Fu Tieshan, 75, dies)

He made his last public appearance during a preparatory meeting for the annual NPC session on March 4, but did not attend the March 5-16 session itself.

Fu Tieshan became the first “self-elected and self-ordained” bishop in 1979 at the age of 48, following the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976. He was not recognized by the Pope.

The major questions are: how will the Vatican react? Vatican-appointed Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun of Hong Kong said he would pray for Fu, but will probably not attend his funeral. Who will be Fu's successor, not only at the head of the Beijing diocese and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association but also as a vice chairman of the NPC. Will his successor be recognized by the Vatican? And if so, will he also become a vice chairman of the NPC? Too many questions waiting for an answer. And the major question of all: when will the Vatican and the People's Republic of China reconcile?

Even non-Catholics are interested to find out the answers...

A day before he died, president and party general secretary Hu Jintao visited Fu at Beijing Hospital. This shows he was not only a bishop, but also an honorary comrade. Even without the blessing of the Vatican, he inaugurated a new spring for Catholicism in Beijing. And the party and the government let it be.

“Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God” (Bishop Fu Tieshan, March 2003)

Berlin - Baghdad - Vermont

“I am a Berliner”, John F. Kennedy said. “Tear down that wall,” Ronald Reagan admonished the Soviet leaders. And indeed, in 1990, the Berlin Wall disappeared. Now guess what? The Americans are BUILDING a wall, not in Berlin, but in Baghdad, around the Sunni enclave of Adhamiya. The sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni, promoted, abetted and stoked by the American occupation is so devastating, the U.S. sees no other way but to build a wall, a wall of infamy. (The Guardian: Latest US solution to Iraq's civil war: a three-mile wall) (The New York Times: U.S. Erects Baghdad Wall to Keep Sects Apart)

Everybody, except Bush, Cheney and Blair, now agrees that the Iraq war is 'lost'. Mike Davis writes in The Guardian: “Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, paid a visit to the lunatic asylum known as the White House to inform its chief inmate that “the war is lost” [...] that US military strategy was now bankrupt.” Davis continues: “... car bombs ... destroyed any idea that Gen Petraus's brigades can secure Baghdad”. (The Guardian: Sinister symmetry) Four years after Bush fantasized he had “accomplished” his mission, the U.S. is thoroughly defeated in Iraq, reduced to a bunch of Wall Builders.

The U.S. military started building the 5 km wall on April 10, of course without asking the locals what they thought about it. Adnan al-Dulaimi, who heads the biggest Sunni bloc in parliament, said it will only breed more strife. Inhabitants of Adhamiya will only be able to return home through checkpoint where they will have to cue, forming an ideal target for car bombers. They don't want to be locked up in open air prisons like the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Meanwhile in Vermont...

The Senate of the State of Vermont has voted 16 to 9 to call on Congress in Washington to impeachm Bush and Cheney, the friendly local newspaper The Vermont Guardian reports. (The Vermont Guardian: Vermont Senate calls for impeachment of Bush, Cheney) It is the first state legislature to do so, others will no doubt follow. Not that it will matter much. The measure is called “non-binding, mostly symbolic”. The Democrats are too lame to impeach the war criminals.

Was it really Cho who made the world weep? (CNN: Cho's family 'so very sorry' for Tech tragedy)

No, not madman Cho, but madman Bush.

Oh, and George, listen to Uncle Reagan: tear down that wall!

Linux spirng time

It's spring time again for Linux distributions. In the past few days, Mandriva released its 2007.1 Spring edition, Ubuntu 7.04 appeared on the servers and Linux Mint 2.2 joined the fray to conquer the "hearts and minds" of the Linux crowd. A new release of Fedora is also forthcoming.

It's testing time again, or spirng cleaning, reformatting hard disks, installing new operating systems, comparing, evaluating, deciding which is best, or at least which one is worth giving a try. The Dutch Slackware-based Nonux has also released a new version.

Meanwhile, Bill Gates is in Beijing acting like an idiot. Trying to promote his Vista-shit.

Sorry, Bill, too busy to listen to your nonsense... Testing Linux :-) Mandriva or Ubuntu or Fedora or Mint or Nonux, so many tasty ice cream flavors... Waiting for the next stable release of Elive...
"The Elive project has announced the release of Elive 0.6.7, the project's latest development build on the road to stable 0.7".

Iraq 2.0 U.S. edition will never be stable...

Bombs and blood

Horrific bombings continue to claim hundreds of lives in Iraq – daily. While America is traumatized by the 32 murders at Virginia Tech, perpetrated by a lunatic gunman who could buy a gun thanks to the laws of the Cowboys, Iraqis are dying – in the hundreds – today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, every day, as a direct result of the U.S. occupation. "Yesterday will go down as a day of infamy for Iraqis who are repeatedly told by the US that their security is improving", Patrick Cockburn wrote in The Independent: Hundreds killed on Baghdad's day of bombs and blood. (The New York Times: Bombs Rip Through Baghdad, Killing 171)

Here is a rundown of the deaths in some of the most bloody attacks - no doubt only partial figures:
+ January 16: 70
+ January 22: 88
+ February 1: 61
+ February 3: 135
+ February 12: 71
+ March 6: 137
+ March 27: 152
+ April 18: 170

Let's not forget: under international law, the occupiers are responsible for “law and order” in the territories they occupy. Compared to this Iraqi roll call, what's so terrible about the Virginia Tech massacre that it keeps on monopolizing the news? Because the Virginia students are "ours" and the Iraqis are somehow "sub-human"? When will the Americans finally shake off their racist attitudes?

Bush's "surge" is only leading to more bloodshed and destruction. Fairy tales of "improvements" are just that, fairy tales. On April 9 in Najaf, over a million of Iraqis were united to call for the withdrawal of the American occupiers. Bush's surge is floundering and the tide of resistance is rising.

The China Fantasy

Most books on China's politics and economy can be divided into two categories or put onto two separate bookshelves. “Things in China are headed in the right direction [...] China's economic development will lead inexorably to an opening of China's political system.” Free trade will lead to a democratic system as we know it in the West. In The China Fantasy - How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression, James Mann calls this the “Soothing Scenario”. Proponents of the second one, the “Upheaval Scenario”, believe that China will collapse under the weight of corruption, political unrest, farmers' protest, environmental degradation, ethnic strife and the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

James Mann opens the introduction to his book with the assertion that “This book is about the China I have encountered outside of China,” in the leading capitals and corporate headquarters of the world. In other words, a perception of China and where foreigners believe the country should be heading. Mann has been the correspondent of the Los Angeles Times in Beijing in the 1984-1987 period and is the author of Beijing Jeep, About Face and Rise of the Vulcans.

Both scenarios described by Mann are wrong. Free trade will not inevitably lead to democracy as defined in the West and China will not collapse anytime soon. James Mann is therefore looking for a “third way”. The problem is that it is a least as flawed as the first two scenarios. Mann is afraid that free trade will not lead to democracy and believes that the U.S. should denounce China's so-called “authoritarian regime” and its human rights abuses and impose democracy on China for the benefit of the Chinese people, which – according to him – is longing for it to happen. He criticizes Western companies doing business with China for not promoting political liberalization. We may ask: is that a task for foreign investors? As long as they follow international labor conventions and the laws of the country, foreign companies' aim is to make money, not regime change.

Perhaps the author stayed away from China for too long. The views in the corridors of power in Washington, Paris and Berlin are necessarily distorted. James Mann is doing nothing to correct them. He only adds a third meaningless scenario.To his credit, he is not arguing that “China will turn into some unimaginable military threat to the United States in the future”, as some neo-conservatives claim.

The handgun – a WMD

A gunman shot 32 people, including two professors, at Virginia Tech in the U.S. state of Virginia.

The U.S. government says it is leading a crusade against weapons of mass destruction (WMD) around the world. Let's not talk about nuclear weapons, of which the U.S. possesses the overwhelming majority and stubbornly refuses to dismantle them, never mind that as a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty, the U.S. is obliged by law to do so.

What exactly is a WMD? How many people do you have to be able to kill before the weapon becomes a weapon of “mass destruction”. A single atom bomb can kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million people. What about 32? There are millions of pistols and shotguns in the U.S. If every gun kills 32 people, together they can kill even more than a nuclear weapon.

What about a kitchen knife? Yes, you can kill people with a kitchen knife, but to kill, you have to get close to your victim. When you get to 10, it becomes rather difficult, because by that time the chance that you are overpowered is becoming bigger and bigger. So a kitchen knife can not be considered a WMD, but a gun could be.

Why is the U.S. not banning guns? Because the Americans are still behaving like cowboys. Now look at China. There have been a few shooting incidents, but all the culprits were police or soldiers. Guns are not for sale in China. Only the army and the police have guns, and they are kept under an iron discipline. Possession of a gun is a crime, punishable by a jail term. Social tensions are also running high in China, but people are not shooting at each other because they don't have guns.

Perhaps, for once, the U.S. can learn something from China. Brain-dead idiots will never learn. John McCain wants to keep his guns (CNN: Sen. McCain sticks to views on guns). “Obviously we have to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.” Every law-abiding citizen sometimes does get angry and is liable to turn into a law-breaking citizen. If a gun is within reach...

But of course, without the guns, McCain can't go for a stroll in a Baghdad market...

Wolfowitz: the war criminal

Paul Wolfowitz is under fire as president of the World Bank because he gave his girlfriend a hefty pay rise. At the worst, that is an infraction of the rules of the bank and therefore ground for dismissal. “His enemies were waiting for him to make a mistake,” one former bank official said, “and now he's given them their opportunity.” (The Independent: Wolfowitz's fate to be decided by ministers) (Le Monde: Le départ de Wolfowitz)

Weasel-mouthed finance and development ministers of European countries only managed to utter a mild rebuke, instead of firmly demanding his immediate resignation. Wolfowitz tried to defend himself saying: “I believe in the mission of this organization and I believe that I can carry it out.” Not only is this hypocritical as Eric Gutierrez, international policy coordinator for ActionAid said: "It is absolutely hypocritical for the World Bank to stand against corruption in poor countries when its president is embroiled in a corruption scandal." (The New York Times: Wolfowitz Won't Resign as Governments Show Unease) (The Washington Post: Wolfowitz Clashed Repeatedly With World Bank Staff) (The New York Times: Public Rebuke for Wolfowitz, but He Digs In)

The bottom line is: Wolfowitz is a despicable war criminal, chiefly responsible for the destruction of a whole country and the murder of 650,000 Iraqis. He should be arrested, dragged before the International Criminal Court, convicted of the crimes of aggression, genocide, crimes against peace and humanity, of which there is not the slightest doubt. The one deplorable thing is that the International Criminal Court does not allow for the imposition of the death penalty. He deserves it. His crimes are much much worse than those of Saddam Hussein and his ministers, some of whom have been hanged.

Meanwhile the world is debating whether to sack Wolfowitz for giving his girlfriend a pay rise.

And of course, the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal is riding to the rescue: The Wolfowitz files. The poor guy didn't do anything wrong. "Mr. Wolfowitz has apologized for any mistakes he's made, though we're not sure why. He's the one who deserves an apology." Move over Mr Goebbels, you're no longer the number One of fascist propaganda.

1, 2, 3 worlds...

Does anybody remembers the Theory of the Three Worlds? No, it doesn't involve three planets. It groups the countries of the world into three categories: the First World, the superpowers (the U.S. and the Soviet Union, now there is only one left); the Second World, developed industrial countries, now including Russia; and the Third World, the developing countries, still including China.

The Three World's Theory was first explained by Chairman Mao Zedong and subsequently further developed by Deng Xiaoping, who made it the highlight of his speech at the U.N. General Assembly in 1974.

In Mao's view, “Soviet social imperialism” was worse than “American imperialism”, therefore he invited Richard Nixon to China in 1972, sending shock waves throughout the world. China and the U.S. would play cards and the Soviet Union would be the loser.

Now, NPC chairman Wu Bangguo is taking things a bit too far. In early April he told a delegation of 25 U.S. Congress members in Beijing: “China and the United States have many more common interests than differences”. (Gov.cn: Top legislator: Common interests greater than differences between China, U.S.)

Today, the U.S. is the lone superpower. China is still part of the Third World. How can they have “more common interests than differences”?

Unless China is becoming a superpower too?

Lacking momentum...

A deadline agreed upon two months ago for North Korea to shut its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon has slipped today. The U.S. is – surprise, surprise – of course blaming the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK).

"We don't have a lot of momentum right now. That is for sure," U.S. assistant secretary of state Christopher Hill told reporters in Beijing before meeting his Chinese counterpart, Wu Dawei. The U.S. blocked USD25 million in accounts at the Banco Delta Asia in Macao and the DPRK wants its money back before implementing the nuclear deal. The 25 million was blocked, unblocked, free to pick up, too hot to handle...

Former U.S. deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage said North Korea was “using the excuse that the haven't actually gone to Macao to pick up the money yet”. First of all, Armitage should shut up. According to U.S. laws he is a criminal for leaking the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. Second, not even the Bank of China dares to handle the money out of fear for U.S. retribution. No longer a “communist” bank, the Bank of China's shares on the New York Stock Exchange may suffer if the White House farts. Third, if Washington really wants to put some momentum in solving North Korea's nuclear conundrum, why doesn't it put 25 million dollar in the pockets (or suitcase if his pockets aren't deep enough) of Bill Richardson who visited Pyongyang this week?

The U.S. is spending 12 million dollar every HOUR on the war in Iraq. The price of two hours and a couple of minutes of Iraq warfare could put some “momentum” in the North Korean process. Doesn't this prove that the U.S. simply doesn't want a peaceful solution to the North Korean stand-off?

Washington failed to resolve the bank issue within 30 days as promised. Why should the DPRK keep its end of the bargain?

Red alert in the Green Zone

The Iraqi resistance succeeded in setting of a bomb in the cafeteria in the parliament building in the Green Zone of Baghdad. No checkpoints, searches, scanners and security procedures can ever prevent the resistance to attack the occupiers. Without inside support, such an attack would not have been possible. It may very well have been committed by Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia or the Islamic Army, which are both guilty of stoking sectarian violence and therefore opposed by many, but if the American occupiers and their puppet parliament and government are targeted, their actions will be supported by the people.

The Iraqi people, Sunni and Shia alike, have had enough of the American occupation, and will only be free to rebuild the nation once the last imperialist troops have been airlifted from the roof of the U.S. embassy in the Green Zone. The attacks of today, at the parliament and at the al-Sarafiya bridge crossing the Tigris, have brought this day closer. Yes, they are only symbolic attacks, but they do count. Bush's surge is failing abysmally... Even conservative columnist Robert Novak says so.

Everybody except Bush and his ilk agree that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have been an utter disaster. A disaster for everybody: the U.S. and its British lackeys, the Middle East, the people of Iraq. Still, the American imperialists refuse to leave while they still can.

Every day they procrastinate, Iraq will become less and less safe for them, never mind their military bases, there fighter bombers and helicopters or their troop surge. An extension of the tours of duty of American soldiers will not solve a thing. Remember Saigon!
(The Independent: A bloody message from Iraq: nowhere is safe..., A forbidden city inside Baghdad, The spectre of Saigon looms over Baghdad). Also read this utterly stupid commentary in The Times, alleging that the US-Iraqi 'surge' is not failing and there is real evidence of tangible progress... (The Times: Battle for Baghdad)

The Mandarin Collar Society

I hate neckties. It is one of the most stupid vestments ever invented. It serves no purpose whatsoever, except to choke your neck. Some say its adds a bit of color to a man's outfit. That may very well be the case, but color can also be added in other ways.

Being a journalist, there are not many occasions necessitating wearing a tie. I used to have a rule, that I would wear a tie if invited to attend a function including heads of state or government. Once I wore a tie to a press conference with French president Jacques Chirac and the former European Commission president Romano Prodi. My colleagues, who had never saw me wearing a tie, laughed at me. They thought I must be a Chirac fan. I also wore a tie to an interview with former Chinese premier Zhu Rongji. On such an occasion, unfortunately, not wearing a tie may be interpreted as a sign of disrespect. Having no chance to explain the absence of a tie, you better yield to the tie mafia. But those are the exceptions that confirm the rule: no stupid ties!

Now it seems the anti-necktie movement is gaining strength. The Shanghai Tang company has launched the Mandarin Collar Society with a strong statement opposing neckties. Shanghai Tang wants to sell elitist mandarin collar shirts. I am not sure that is the right way lo launch an anti-necktie movement, but anyway it may be a start. Moreover, all anti-necktie activists better unite to combat the necktie pest.

There are only a few well-known personalities who have never been photographed wearing a necktie. Chairman Mao never wore it. Today, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, chairman Kim Jong-il of the DPRK and businessman Charles Branson are famous for rejecting neckties.

Never mind the elitism of the Mandarin Collar Society, if you can make a fashion statement by not wearing a necktie, the struggle to liberate mankind from the scourge of the necktie has truly started.(The Times: Fighting over the ties that bind)

"Loosen the noose! End the oppression!", concludes the Mandarin Collar Society's manifesto.

No flying for peace marchers

Walter F. Murphy, an emeritus professor of law at Princeton University, was initially refused a boarding card because he was on the terrorist watch list. His crime? Giving a lecture at Princeton, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution.

A clerk for American Airlines also asked: “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” The law professor was finally allowed to board but warned that “they are going to ransack your luggage.” On his return flight, the professor's luggage was “lost”.

What does this mean? If you are for peace or otherwise criticize the Bush administration, you may end up on the terrorism watch list and barred from flying in the U.S., and if you do board, the Bush law enforcers will steal your luggage. The U.S. is more and more becoming a fascist dictatorship.

More on the professor's ordeal is published on the Opiniator Blog of the New York Times. You can also view the credentials of this “terrorist” on Princeton's website and buy his book “Constitutional Democracy: Creating and Maintaining a Just Political Order” at Amazon.com.

Still more obscene profits

Paying a 100,000 pounds for a rather boring story told in an hour or so may very well be obscene, but it is still not the height of obscenity. It may be a six-digit figure, but that is peanuts on the bank accounts of the real capitalist rich.

Occidental Petroleum's chairman and CEO Ray Irani earned more than 400,000,000 dollar (that's a 9-digit figure) in 2006. His salary and cash bonus was a mere 2.7 million, but stock options, undoubtedly offered at “favorable” prices, made up the rest. (Reuters: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006)

Now, this is truly obscene. Nobody, however clever, can make a difference of 400 million dollars in one year. He may be the successor to the legendary Armand Hammer, but still... Oracle CEO Larry Ellison did even better in 2001, earning USD706 million. At least Larry is fighting the Emperor of the Rich, His Excellency Microsh$t Bill Gates.

While recording losses of USD12.7 billion in 2006, Ford Motor paid its new CEO Alan Mulally USD28 million for a mere 4 months of work.

This only proves without a shred of doubt that...

... Marx was right. The rich are getting richer, and while the poor may marginally improve their incomes and living standards, the gap is widening ever more. In China and around the world. In the end, as Marx predicted, this will become unsustainable, the proletariats of the world will unite and overthrow their exploiters.

Communism has a bright future, but as Mao said, the road will be tortuous...

Obscene profits

A storm of criticism may still prevent the 15 British marines and sailors who were released by Iran of getting rich by selling their stories to the British tabloids. While they were being released, sporting brand new Iranian suits and presents offered by Iranian president Ahmadinejad, six of their colleagues were killed in Iraq. The living can still sell there stories, while the dead can't.

The Guardian (Anger over Iran hostages' media deals) noted that selling their stories might undermine “the reputation of Britain's armed forces”. In the eyes of the peoples of the world, their reputation has never been good anyway, first defending Britain's colonial empire and later acting as the running boys (and a gal or two) of U.S. imperialism. “The sailors and Marines held in Iran have been so compliant and have already said so much that they have caused excruciating embarrassment to many people in this country.” Oh dear! (The Times: Our Forces will pay with a worldwide loss of reputation)

But selling one's story for a 100,000 pounds is obscene indeed. “What can Faye Turney say that is worth a six-figure sum?”, asked The Times. We are not even talking about a book deal, but a mere newspaper story which can be told in an hour or so. That's 1.5 million yuan! Leading Sea-something Faye Turney was offered the money by The Sun and ITV. Her annual salary is less than 30,000 pounds. The result is not even worth reading (so I won't link to the story here), besides the fact that this lady uses the F*** word four times. It seems the British ladies have lost some class since the Victorian era.

It seems however, that some newspapers and TV-stations backtracked and canceled their offers of paying outrageous amounts of money. Anything worth telling could be told at a press conference – free of charge. It is unclear whether Faye was paid, Danny Masterton was paid a hundred pounds by the Sunday Mail and Chris Air offered his story free of charge to his local paper, the Manchester Evening News. (The Times: All at Sea)

And yes, “There is an inducement to say that things were as bad as possible.” (The Times) Moreover, the Ministry of Defense will try to put a spin on things. “The border between fact and fiction could be every bit as treacherous as that between Iraqi and Iranian waters” (The Independent: He who pays the piper calls a dubious tune) How can anything even remotely worth reading come out of this travesty of journalism?

In China, the press faces another problem. The newspapers don't pay their interviewees, it's the other way around. Some unscrupulous journalists or shady characters try to extort money, either not to publish unfavorable news, or to publish distorted positive news.

Either way, money should be banned from the journalism profession, except of course a decent remuneration paid by the media to the journalists researching and writing the stories... Or as Peter Preston wrote in The Guardian: “Loot is the foe of truth” (Loot is the foe of truth).

An army of living Zombies

The death rate of American soldiers in Iraq is relatively low. After 4 years of war it is less than 4,000. Compared to the 55,000 in Vietnam and the 33,000 in Korea. The reason is, the physics of war have changed (The Washington Post: A Shock Wave of Brain Injuries)

In Vietnam, many soldiers died on the battlefield before medics arrived. In Iraq, thanks to better body armour, your legs and arms could be blown off your body, but the rest could remain rather intact. Without a scratch, or so it seems.

The Vietnamese resistance fought with rudimentary booby traps and poisoned bamboo spikes, the Iraqis fight with powerful so-called “improvised explosive devices” (IEDs). They kill and they shock. Those not immediately killed, will receive a true brain shocker, whereby the brain is rocked and rolled, rattled and shaken (that sounds like Elvis) within the skull. No helmet or body armor can defend against such a massive wave front, the Washington Post reports. About 1,800 American troops already suffer from traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). And as many as one-third of all combat forces are at risk.

American medics are scratching their unshaken skulls about how to treat those veterans. Because they have lost their minds. They don't know who they were or who they are. The Iraqi resistance turned them into Zombies. They do not return to the U.S. in body bags to be buried under the grassy knolls. They return to wander the streets of American cities and towns as Zombies. The living dead, returning to hound America.

The dead Vietnam vets rest in peace. The living dead Iraqi vets will terrorize America for decades to come. Stay the course, George.

American provocations

A Russian security analyst predicted that the U.S. would attack Iran on April 6. Well, it hasn't happened... yet! Putting a date on these kinds of things is not clever, unless you have a crystal ball. But it doesn't mean it won't happen and it doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

+ If the 15 British military personnel would have been American, it is very likely there would have been casualties and the U.S. Air Force would have been bombing Tehran by now.

+ The U.S. offered the British to launch aggressive combat patrols over Iranian Republican Guards bases. This could have led to the downing of an American fighter jet, exactly what the war mongers in the White House and the Pentagon were hoping for, to have an excuse to launch the long-planned attack on Iran. (The Guardian: Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace) The British told the Americans to stay out of it.

+ The U.S. is angry because Iran is so called “interfering in Iraq” (what exactly are the U.S. doing there anyway?). But the CIA is actively supporting a Baluchi group (which should be called “terrorist” but is not, because it is helping the U.S.) called Jundullah to carry out raids inside Iran. This could easily lead to a confrontation. (ABC News: ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran)

The U.S. might still find an excuse to launch an attack on Iran, this month, in May or in June... Who knows? There are already two aircraft carrier battle groups ready to strike and there is a third on the way. They are not fishing for tuna.

Drop Foxie!

The fascist, Zionist, neocon billionaire Sam Fox is so close to Bush he even got a nickname: Foxie.

George W. appointed Sam Fox to be the U.S. ambassador to Belgium. The appointment should have been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Bush knew he would not have enough votes. So he withdrew Fox's nomination minutes before the Senate was going to vote and appointed him while the Senate was on a one-week Easter break. Recess appointments were intended to give the president flexibility if Congress is out for a lengthy period of time, not to circumvent lawmakers' approval. Withdrawing a nomination minutes before a Senate vote and then appointing the candidate when the Senate is on a one-week vacation is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution.

What about the recess appointment?

Senator Chris Dodd: “This is underhanded and an abuse of Executive authority – sadly this behavior has become the hallmark of this administration [...] abusing the recess appointment beyond anyone's imagination.”

Senator John Kerry: “Never before has a president used a recess appointment to support a withdrawn nominee. Every time this White House shows that it can't win the game, they just change the rules, our democracy and the Constitution loses.”

Senator Joe Biden: “It is illegal for President Bush to use a recess appointment to install someone whose nomination was no longer even pending before Congress.”

Can anybody doubt that this is a blatant violation of the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution? The Senate was ready to vote, Bush withdrew the nomination and when the Senate went in recess for a mere one week, Bush recess appointed Fox, violating the constitution and the laws of the United States of America. Adding another crime and misdemeanor to his impressive list, warranting another ground for impeachment.

Certain recess appointments do not qualify to be paid out of the State Department budget. But if the position has a fixed pay rate, like an ambassadorship, the salary cannot be waived. So Fox cannot be paid and cannot volunteer either! There is no middle way. Either you get paid or you don't. Both options are against the laws of the U.S.

That's not the end of he story! Fox donated 50,000 U.S. dollar to the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” (of course there was nothing swift nor truth in this bunch of criminals) to blacken the Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and secure a second term for war criminal and dictator Bush. The “ranger” contributed more than 200,000 USD to the Bush campaign.

Fox is chairman of the Coalition of Jewish Republicans. He is thereby guilty of advocating genocide against the Palestinian people, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

If this fascist dares to appear in Belgium, the Belgian government should dispatch its anti-terrorist commando units to arrest him and deliver him to the International Court in The Hague. Standing accused of violating the U.S. Constitution and advocating genocide.

(Raw Story: State Department won't rule out paying Swift Boat donor Ambassador) (The Washington Post: A Poke in the Eye at Recess)

The winner is ... Iran!

The 15 British sailors and marines have been released in a goodwill gesture by Iran. It was a masterstroke by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Western press is endlessly speculating who is a hardliner and who is a moderate, invariably portraying Ahmadinejad as a hardliner and Larijani and Khamenei as moderates. There is no doubt that Ayatollah Khamenei calls the shots in Iran, but it was Ahmadinejad who basked in the limelight, quoting from the Quran, lambasting Britain and the U.S. and finally magnanimously setting the 15 free.

In his Dutch-language blog from Tehran, NRC's correspondent Thomas Erdbrink asked who was the winner of the stand-off. The majority said it was Iran, a few chose Erdbrink himself (as he could write a few stories for the newspaper) and a lonely soul said Britain won.

The question in whose waters the 15 were captured will probably never be answered. The border is not fixed, which means there is no internationally recognized border, and a kilometer to the left or the right justifies nothing. The bottom line is: the British shouldn't be there, they should be defending the mouth of the Thames. Period. No so-called “U.N. mandate” can change that.

To celebrate the birthday of the Prophet [May Peace Be Upon Him] and Easter, Iran showed it could be generous. Can anybody imagine George W. Bush inviting the prisoners of Guantanamo to the White House, changing there orange jump suits for Western suits and set them free? They are all, except perhaps a few, innocent souls who have never crossed a border to commit the crime of aggression.

We all may disagree with certain aspects of Ahmadinejad's policy, but he is a statesman of a great nation. Some in Iran called for the execution of the British soldiers, but still Ahmadinejad set them free. Defusing the crisis was probably the will of the majority of the Iranian people. The overwhelming majority of the American and British people want their soldiers to leave Iraq. Do their so-called democratically elected leaders listen to the voice of their own people? Not at all! Their soldiers continue to murder the fighters who oppose the occupation, not to mention innocent civilians.

Nail house gone

After a three-year stand-off, a couple in Chongqing has finally vacated its house to be relocated in another part of town. Yang Wu and Wu Ping refused to move because the compensation offered was not enough to start up a restaurant elsewhere. Relocating a restaurant owner to an apartment may give him a roof above his head, but is also robbing him of his livelihood. The developer excavated a large construction pit, leaving the house standing on top of a ten meters high man-made hill and cutting off the water and electricity supply. The property became known as “the nail house”.

The couple was actually saying that nobody could touch their private property. It is a testcase for the new property law, which will come into force on October 1. However, a distinction has to be made here. Real estate developers do not have the right to demolish the houses of citizens just because they want to build a glitzy shopping center or office tower. But if the local government decides that the property has to be vacated, it can of course go to the courts to get an order, provided sufficient compensation is paid.

This procedure may work in countries were businesses, local governments and the courts are relatively independent. But in China, it is very difficult to get this thing right. All too often, developers, local governments and courts are all working together, with a lot of bribes changing hands. Ordinary citizens are the losers.

Finally, the nail house owners accepted compensation. This nail house may be gone, but a lot of others are still standing.

Going to the market

There are of course many ways to go to the market, but it usually involves arriving with an empty shopping bag, do some shopping and perhaps talk to some fellow shoppers and salespeople, and head back home with a full basket. Rather straightforward, isn't it? Millions of people have this experience every day all over the globe.

If you go to the market in Baghdad, it becomes a bit more complicated. For the simple reason you might get killed. Even more so if you are not an Iraqi, but a foreigner. No foreigner in his right mind would go for a stroll in a Baghdad market, because you might very well never make it back home.

Unless, your name is John McCain. Senator McCain. Presidential hopeful McCain. He just goes for a stroll to show how safe Baghdad has become thanks to Bush's surge. But wait a minute, he didn't go all by himself... Let's see: protected by a bulletproof vest, 100 heavily armed special forces, a fleet of armed Humvees, snipers on the rooftops, and a few helicopters overhead to provide cover.

“Like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime”, said representative Mike Pence, who accompanied McCain. Now that's news to me: I didn't know you needed a hundred soldiers, armed Humvees, snipers and helicopters to go to the market in Indiana. (The New York Times: McCain Wrong on Iraq Security, Merchants Say).

They did do some shopping after all. Senator Lindsey Graham bought five rugs for five dollars.

You can be sure the market will be the target of suicide bombers in the coming days and pretty soon nothing of it will be left. Thanks to John McCain.

Glossy paper war

For the first time, the U.S. has decided to impose countervailing duties on two Chinese companies exporting glossy paper to the U.S. following a complaint by an American company. Normally, countervailing duties are not imposed on a country with a non-market economy. The U.S. and the E.U. still do not consider China to have a market-economy. But in that case, according to their own rules, no countervailing duties should be imposed.

In order to justify the measure, the U.S. Commerce Department now says that China has changed a lot and now in fact is a market economy. But it provides no proof that the Chinese companies received subsidies. On the other hand, some American companies are certainly receiving subsidies. Just look at the billion dollar contracts Halliburton has received in Iraq with nothing to show for.

The imposition of duties on glossy paper imports paves the way for duties on other Chinese commodities and a possible trade war. The WTO could rule on the matter, but that will take a couple of years. In the meantime, a lot of damage will have been done.

Some anti-China elements in the U.S. will do anything to harm trade with China, not to protect American industry, but for political motives. They are already thinking of a future war with China and want to sabotage the Chinese economy. They are playing a dangerous game. China can also hurt the U.S. economy if it wants to.

"Inexcusable” actions?

It may very well be Palm Sunday, but that is no excuse for CNN to keep its main story headline unchanged for a whole day: Bush: Iran's actions 'inexcusable'. This is a blatant propaganda headline to stigmatize Iran and prepare the ground for launching war.

A dispute between Britain and Iran over a flimsy sea boundary has escalated and drawn in the big shots: U.S. president George W. Bush and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now, even Britain wants to get out of the dispute as quickly and as peacefully as possible. If a cold dispute turns into a hot war, the 15 will be part of history...

Like a brainless parrot, Bush is just parroting the British line: “The Iranians took these people out of Iraqi water”. “They were innocent. They were doing nothing wrong. And they were summarily plucked out of water.” Actually, they were doing everything wrong, violating the sovereignty of Iran. Now that Bush has entered the fray, the capture of the 15 British sailors and marines may very well become the casus belli Washington has been waiting for.

Meanwhile, the British and U.S. press are instigating war: “The British government has so far appeared all too reasonable and indecisive”. “The kidnapping [...] was a premeditated act of aggression by Iran” (The Sunday Times: The bottom line for Iran) “If I were in charge, the special forces would have been there already” (The Washington Post: In Captured Britons' Home Port, Fury With Iran Is Personal)

Following the Iranian New Year holiday, in Tehran, the mood is also heating up, as Iranian students are protesting in front of the British embassy. (The Sunday Times: UK Embassy in Tehran hit by violent protest)

And Russian intelligence sources say American commanders will be ready to carry out an attack on Iran in early April (RIA Novosti: U.S. ready to strike Iran in early April - intelligence source).