Brazzil

Lula's Pharaonic Dream of Bringing Peace to Middle East Leads Him from Futility to Absurdity.

I disagree. I have read the editorial and unfortunately it is biased, because of the dislike the publishers have for Mr.Lula. Many may not agree with Lula on many things. But at least he had the balls to address the Knesset during his visit to Israel. "Estadão" can not say the same about the other gentleman in the picture. He spent almost a week in Brasil and declined to give a single press interview, citing "Security Reasons".

The so called "West" has difficulty in understanding that we are a neutral and secular country. The only "crime" Mr.Lula committed was to minimize the internal problems and try to solve the conflict in the ME that is not of our making. Anyway, he is in the final months of his mandate and the history will judge if his dream is "pharaonic".But..but.. it is still worth the try. Better to try and fail than never to try.

For PT and Garcia it's all about a permanent seat on the Security Council, isn't it?
No mention of Iran to the Israelis - criticizing the US when addressing the Palestinians. That's playing to the audience, not statesmanship or diplomacy.
So why doesn't the peacemaker come home and start a real Peace Plan, say, tackling 40,000 deaths a year on the roads...

I disagree. I have read the editorial and unfortunately it is biased, because of the dislike the publishers have for Mr.Lula.

And so you see, my friend how MSM wants to 'tear down' any new effort for peace that does not coincide with the 'status quo'. Hillary & Co are already moving from their 'outrage' position and temper their shame at being 'totally exposed' to their submission to Israeli expansionism.

That the Brazilian press would rather tear down their president than offer him constructive advice is rather telling. It 'was' a well understood practice in the US that America spoke with one voice outside the borders, and it is shameful for this 'media machine' to demean The Brazilian presidents efforts.

Surely Brazil has many issues, uplifting all of its people being first among them. Infrastructure to accomplish future growth must be addressed, but to 'slander' the effort for a more stable world, which result in more stable customers to validate that growth is just short of treasonous, and no wonder people like Mr. Castro and Mr. Chavez consider it criminal.

And I might add, for the complete information to all, that it is the 'non-aligned movement' that has accomplished more in the way of freedom than the United Nations. I know that many will challenge this, and we could go back and forth about who did what, but their influence in the Vietnam conflict surely assisted in the end to that conflict, and others.

...and for those who wish to 'misinterpret' my previous remarks, to say that I support Castro And Chavez approach in addressing a 'free press', nothing could be further from the truth. The truth I stated was, "anyone can recognize "why" they do what they do given such 'journalistic propaganda'"

I think we have established the fact that freedom is not without 'cost'. That society should expect some 'objectivity' in the activities of a free press should not be unexpected nor unwarranted. To allow lies and ignorance to prevail in the public discourse is to do disservice to the society and the national good.
For example, this Globo 'opinion' states;
On the Israeli side it won't be. First, because Lula's idea "to hear more people," as if the UN, the European Union, the United States and Russia weren't enough, is anathema to a government that thinks that most countries tend to be pro-Palestinian and want to force Israel to make "unacceptable" concessions (as curbing settlements in the West Bank and dividing Jerusalem in two).

They clearly expose here their pro-Israel bias, to continue settlements, and flaunt the very organs that are being ignored in the face of Israeli expansion. No 'unacceptable' Israeli concessions such as 'stopping' the theft of Palestinian property and acting deliberately in a way to inflame the passions of Muslims around the world.

If you percieve that I am angry with O Globo for their views you would be quite wrong, because I am actually happy that it is brought to my attention, again, how much deception and hypocrisy is the purpose of MSM.

For example, this Globo 'opinion' states;

I am afraid you are "barking" at the wrong Newspaper, Old Chap.

But...But..But.., it is jolly good of you to have reminded us all about the success of the "Non-Alignment" policy of many countries in the post war II era. Brasil´s policy has always been this. Mr.Ricardo Amaral touches upon "Andrada Doctrine" which in a way preached this policy. I wish Mr.Amaral and Lord Augustus would take some time off their busy schedule and join us.

My sincere apologies to the O Globo.

Perhaps O Estado has reason to be unhappy with Lula for the continuing censorship...but I find this attack on Lula unwarranted in light of O Estado's clear bias to continued Isreali occupation, settlement, and subjugation of Palestinians and their rights.

You see out of their own mouths you discern the truth; the Israeli "government that thinks that most countries tend to be pro-Palestinian". Well, I would think finally we have the truth. Israel has ignored the UN since it began making deals with the individual members of the Security Council, so that would be since 1948. Now they have this 'biblical' blood oath that ties Tel Aviv closer to Washington than any of the states in the US. 'Most' countries of the world 'do' want them to stop their absolute tyranny of the Palestinian people.

Mr. Ahmandinejad may be ignorant in his denial of the holocaust, but it is worse that such an event would be used as an 'excuse' to oppress others for your security or any other reason. If the Jewish people are indeed 'the children of God' then so much the worse that they should behave in such a manner. Yet we know that Jews also want peace, so it is for them to remove the Zionist control of their government, just as the Palestinians must control Hamas, and O Estado can return to being a credible Brazilian journal instead of a mouthpiece for Zionist agendas.

Perhaps O Estado has reason to be unhappy with Lula for the continuing censorship.

The censorship was not imposed by Mr.Lula, my friend. It was through a court order obtained by a son of one of the senior plantation overseers.

I have been reading this newspaper for years, because of its balanced views and very good coverage of the national and international news. I was perplexed by its editorial, though. Who knows, the ownership changed like in the case of WSJ.

But..But.., in spite of the editorial, still it gave very good coverage of Mr.Lula´s visit to Israel and its "surrounding" neighborhoods. It is a pity that Mr.Shimon Perez didn't want to give press interview while he was here last year.

I was perplexed by its editorial, though. Who knows, the ownership changed like in the case of WSJ.

Sorry to seem so biased in this discussion, as I recognize that I am...but...but...I have seen these MSM attacks against 'anyone' who dares question any Israeli action. It is terrible that Obama cannot even speak to what is happening in the ME because it would doom his domestic agenda. He knows this...and the US media are polite enough not even to ask any question about how the Israeli's backhanded his VP.

Not to worry, because although Israel has that kind of power over the US right now, the American people are waking up to why Israel has more authority over the American government than the US has any ability to influence Israeli actions or opinion. So far they do not have that kind of power in Brazil, but this attack on Lula, as I point out, is just a disguised warning to him 'not to interfere in the Zionist agenda'. I hope Israel never gets the type of power in Brazil that they have in the US.
I saw the same types of attacks when the South Africans were fighting for their freedom and again it was the 'non-aligned' movement that influenced the resolution of that conflict. You see the non-aligned movement(NAM) is an off-spring of the UN, but found their voices shut out by the members of the Security Council, and that's why nothing is done by the UN except pass resolutions that Israel ignores, so Iran is expected to follow UN edicts and Israel is free to continue building Greater Israel over the bodies of innocent Palestinians, as well as Hamas.
I am certainly no apologist for Muslim atrocities and royal leadership in most Arab societies, but peace is not in Israel's interest for many reasons. You might be surprised by the attacks against Lula for his effort, but if he continues it will only get worse, so I hope he just continues to speak the truth to both sides...and let O Estado try to match him 'truth for truth' instead of attacks under the cloak of supporting the Zionist agenda. Perhaps Mr Murdocks(WSJ) move to UAE will provide some media balance to the ME

Joao writes

That the Brazilian press would rather tear down their president than offer him constructive advice is rather telling. It 'was' a well understood practice in the US that America spoke with one voice outside the borders, and it is shameful for this 'media machine' to demean The Brazilian presidents efforts.

Surely Brazil has many issues, uplifting all of its people being first among them. Infrastructure to accomplish future growth must be addressed, but to 'slander' the effort for a more stable world, which result in more stable customers to validate that growth is just short of treasonous, and no wonder people like Mr. Castro and Mr. Chavez consider it criminal.

When was this a well understood practice for the press to not criticize the president when he was outside the country???? The Vietnam War, particularly the Gulf of Tompkin was a watershed movement for the US press. Previously there was an unspoken understanding that assumed that the safety and security of the nation was at stake in a war, and the press would not publish anything controversial or critical of the government without consulting with them. But those days are long gone. Once the press realized they were being lied to repeatedly in Vietnam, all bets were off on the old deal. The Pentagon Papers was even published in this era, being a secret history of the war and all the concomitant lies and deception practiced by the government. There is no such deal of speaking as "one voice" as you mention in the US between the media and the government. NOT AT ALL TRUE! For all its contradictions as a democracy, this is one of the unique and distinguishing virtues of US society: our media is independent to criticize without someone labeling their actions "short of treacherous". Unless they truly distort or present opinions as factual reality, I think this is what we expect from a free press. You quote Chavez and Castro as some kind of models for dealing with the media. God help Brazil or the rest of the world if we ever follow their repressive model! While we have redneck conservatives in the US who argue like you that the media should be behind the US government, this is only one pathetic perspective that knows very little about the constitutional right to free speech. Your view reminds me of such oppressive redneck rhetoric; you both share a blind jingoistic nationalism that would rather silence healthy debate and criticism. Such jingoistic rhetoric is what makes this blog read like a 24-hour, non-stop infomercial claiming all things Brazilian are extraordinary. Such silly talk! Cultivate a detached view of your government and a healthy critical streak: this would serve your country best. There is nothing scandalous about the media speaking out, in fact, to the extent that this has happened in Brazil, I would celebrate and praise your media for showing courage and doing what it is supposed to do. Thomas Jefferson said, that the right to vote and an independent press is critical to democracy. And if he had to be part of a government that could only have one of these institutions, he would choose the free press. Kudos to the Brazilian media for speaking critically. Your people should be proud of you. Except for India, and to a certain extent Russia, you have something other BRIC nations lack: free speech and free media. I would cherish this more than the economic growth of China INC. Let the people of Brazil hear various positions, and hopefully they will make informed choices about what policy is right. Don't call for a silencing of the press.

It is a pity that Mr.Shimon Perez didn't want to give press interview while he was here last year.

Mr. Perez is one who I had earlier thought would be an Israeli leader for peace, as was Mr. Rabin. The fact that he 'cannot' answer the difficult questions speaks only to his allegiance to the Jewish State. I still look to him as 'possibly' a voice of reason on the Israeli side.

Did you know that under the Israeli peace plan, each 'settlement' would have the same 'legal' authority as an Israeli embassy? Imagine if Cuba wanted to setup 50 embassies in Brazil that are not subject to Brazilian law. There are also "expansion for 'natural growth'" provisions that would allow for additional land grabs as the population of these 'embassies' grow.

I would certainly like to know how O Estado looks at these proposals, so if you come across this info please pass it on

written by hunh?, March 18, 2010


Joao writes

Excuse me, it was not me wrote it. It was Dr.Lloyd Cata who wrote.

Anyway my 2 centavos worth:

The Vietnam War, particularly the Gulf of Tompkin was a watershed movement for the US press.

Just for a few years they remembered the lessons they learned and then totally forgot about them. If they had long memory, they wouldn't have got excited about the WMDs in Iraq and swung the opinion of the American public in favor of embarking on misadventures all over the Middle east and beyond. If you have been keeping track of the news at home, you must be aware that Mr.Obama is quite upset that Fox TV is the mouth piece of the Republican Party. Anyway, Dr.Cata knows about Gulf of Tonkin , Ho Chi Minh trail and other parts of French Indochina and I will leave to defend what he wrote.

There is nothing scandalous about the media speaking out, in fact, to the extent that this has happened in Brazil, I would celebrate and praise your media for showing courage and doing what it is supposed to do.

I don't think that you know much about our Media. Otherwise you wouldn't get upset about our criticism of the "Editorial" that appeared in "Estadão". I have been reading that newspaper for years and I lately I find their policy leaning towards our "Neoliberals". Also the media are being monopolized by small powerful groups backed by politicians through "mergers" and "acquisitions". For example the state where we live, all the newspapers and a TV network belong to one single group.

Unfortunately, we also have our version of your "FOX" channel and I wonder if it is healthy for a democracy.

Did you know that under the Israeli peace plan, each 'settlement' would have the same 'legal' authority as an Israeli embassy?

Quite an innovative "plan", isn't it?

I would certainly like to know how O Estado looks at these proposals, so if you come across this info please pass it on

I will certainly do that. I am posting a link below on an article published about Lula´s visit to Israel in two other newspapers:

http://www.clubemilitar.com.br...oicote.pdf

http://www.clubemilitar.com.br/site/suporte_arquivos/destaque/protocolo.pdf

The second one is:

http://www.clubemilitar.com.br...tocolo.pdf

But those days are long gone. Once the press realized they were being lied to repeatedly in Vietnam, all bets were off on the old deal.

I am afraid you still misunderstood, in spite of my emphasis of 'past tense';
It 'was' a well understood practice

Perhaps you have João's and my input confused

But those days are long gone. Once the press realized they were being lied to repeatedly in Vietnam, all bets were off on the old deal.

Objections.I did not write this. Why address your comment to me? Some plot to discredit an honorable person like my excellent self?

Let me clarify one more thing. I did not write "Gulf of Tompkin either. I know the difference between "Tonkin" and "Tompkin".

A 'free press' has every right to criticize the president, and anyone else or anything else. Having clearly affirmed that 'right' is without question.

To expect an 'objective press' is clearly something that has become so politicized and influenced by financial considerations that it cannot be considered a 'fair medium' of information on either side, left or right. So as long as this is understood I have no issue with whatever 'trash' anyone wishes to spout. A free and 'literate' society can determine for itself what is truth. As I have consistently said, "even the poor and illiterate know injustice when they see it".

President Lula may not be the greatest leader Brazil has ever had, but this(below) certainly puts him near the top, IMHO;
The United States and the European Union, which each represented between 28% and 30% of the trade balance of Brazil - although trade with them has grown 20% on average since I was sworn in -, currently represent just 13%, because we have grown on all continents. When we created the G-5, the G-4, the IBSA (the group that includes India, Brazil and South Africa), when we created the UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations) and now, with the creation of the group of Latin America and the Caribbean, in 200 years of independence, this is the first time that Latin America joins forces alone, without the United States, without any European nation, without Canada.

Whether O Estado or any other media wish to criticize him on specific issues is their right, but to cloak it in support for an inhumane practice of a foreign 'authority' is neither objective or responsible. It is an attack on the head-of-state for purely political reasons and as long as we understand 'that' then their lack of objectivity can clearly and fairly be acknowledged. So PBO did 'call out' FOX for the lack of objectivity, and they had no choice but to acknowledge it for what it is.

Leadership requires responsibility and foresight because it is not enough to address the 'temperance of the moment' which is the specialty of the media. Enough critique of Lula's efforts will be broadcast by foreign media and governments, of that you can be sure! But the extent of this 'attack' and its scarcely hidden agenda shows an incredible lack of responsibility on the part of O Estado. I simply could not shirk my own responsibility to respond to the example of a subject that is important, not only to Brazil, but to the 'issue' of how, today, in modern society, we address the objectivity and responsibility of a 'free press'.

(...and please forgive 'my' previous error in addressing my friends)

Thank you, sir for this link;
( http://www.clubemilitar.com.br...tocolo.pdf )

...it was most informative and I am overjoyed, and amused by such a well written analysis, specifically at the end;
We Brazilians are experts to follow the protocols. It is a known national obsession. I still can't stop laughing

Thank you, sir for this link;

It is a pleasure to keep you informed.

Hi, Joao. Just walked in from outside in an effort to avoid the rain and began reading your comments about Brazil being neutral. Do you really feel that way in light of Brazil's proud announcement of a "Strategic Alliance" with France? I keep giving the matter a great deal of thought. In addition, I feel that Brazil is unusually close to Israel, and I'm not stating that it is good or bad; it just seems so unusual for a country that believes itself neutral on such matters.
For instance, Brazil's strategic partner has a cruel habit of selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Need I mention Iraq and Saudi Arabia, as well as several new names which have just arisen recently. Not only that, but look at Israel. As I have said before, France empowered Israel during the 50's and 60's providing a huge bulk of its armed forces, including most of the air force. But what is particularly interesting is that France, Brazil's partner, helped create Israel's nuclear power, weapons, and missile industry.
In addition, during the Iraq/Iran war, France, Israel, and Brazil were sitting on Iraq's door, willing to sell it anything it needed to blow the brains out of the Iranians. Indeed, Brazil was Iraq's third largest supplier. But why, was that because Brazil's future ally, France? I think it quite odd that somehow, Brazil and Israel were right there, together, waiting to be of service. Brazil's contribution to that war is very interesting and sinister.
Now, as further proof of Brazil's neutral status in the world, we have BRIC, which means Brazil is now related by alliance to India, which strangely enough, is one of Israel's strongest allies. Indeed, those in the know are stating and not so quietly that India and Israel are involved in joint, clandestine operations against certain Arab nations. Again, we are often known by the company we keep. Look at the number of arms provided to Brazil's ally by Israel. India even launches Israel's secret spy hardware into space for them, presumably as a favor.
And China? Brazil, while still claiming neutrality considers China to be a new ally?
I don't think Israel has a better friend than China, although the common belief is that Israel's best friend is the US. Currently, the US is a odds with Israel over a number of things, including the transfer of American military technology to China through Israel. Indeed, the Americans are alarmed over the presence of a Chinese Patriot Missile copy that could have only come through Israel. But it doesn't end there. The Israelis are involved in selling American radar as well as cruise missile technology, in addition to a number of other things. The Yanks refuse to cooperate in the sale of stealth equipment to Israel, but that's a dead horse. India and Russia will soon be leaders in low-cost stealth technology. I would expect to see Indian/Russian stealth in Israel soon.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for letting me rant. Bye.
And now, Brazil is openly courting Israel by selling corporations dealing in technology Israel will need for future military development. And this doesn't even include 350 million dollars for the purchase of UAV's that Brazil could no doubt design and build on their own if Brazil's leadership would allow its own industry to reach for the stars. Now I'm getting upset! I'm still sickened by the fact Brazil is giving away a hard-earned surplus to invest in French fighter planes, aircraft carriers, submarines, helicopters, etc.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it bothers me that Brazil, in a reach to extend its well-known reputation for neutrality is crawling into bed with a lot of strange bedfellows.

Hi, Joao. Just walked in from outside in an effort to avoid the rain and began reading your comments about Brazil being neutral.

It must have been a downpour to have kept you grounded long enough to write this informative essay, Captain. You did bring in some points I was unaware of,such as the "strategic alliances" between some "nefarious" countries in the "East".. Not to forget the dubious alliance being formed between France and Brasil, thus completely outsourcing our defense to them.

When I said Brasil is a neutral country, I referred to our "traditional" foreign policy set by our founding fathers and mothers. I am of the opinion that the Brasil can (and fully capable to) achieve many things by pursuing that policy. Of course, it does not mean that the current government is following what I think it is good for the country´s present and the future.

However, the recent events and news show that there might be a shift in the current policy of striking "strategic alliances". I would like to list some if not all of them for you to mull over while you are cruising at 30,000 feet with the auto-pilot on.

a) This year´s elections b) The thrashing of Mr.Sarko´s party in the French regional elections c) Israel´s snubbing of Mr.Lula´s efforts to bring peace in the ME d) The news that Mr.Lula is being quoted to occupy the post of the U.N. Sec General at the end of 2011. e) Shaky position of Mr.Ahmdenijad .

All these have serious implications for us and only the time will say how things are going to work out.I still think that we are in for several big surprises in the coming months.

Hope the rain has stopped and you are ready to take off.

No need to apologize, my friend. You just called it the way it is

I'm still sickened by the fact Brazil is giving away a hard-earned surplus to invest in French fighter planes, aircraft carriers, submarines, helicopters, etc.

I'm still confused by this 'strategic military alliance' with the French; known provocateurs leading the way for the Empire. It is certainly a leap of faith for Brazil's leaders, ignoring the advice of their own FAB, to expand French influence in Brazil's military. Whatever has led to this decision is certainly not in evidence, and to ignore history, as pointed out by Mr. Brodie, the consequences hopefully will not be as destructive to Brazil.

No longer does Barack Obama have to be concerned with his legacy as POTUS. He has managed an unprecedented victory that is compared to the civil rights victories of the 1960's. It is, in fact, more important since it does lift 'all' Americans regardless of status. 32 million persons fearful of becoming ill will no longer have to wait until that illness becomes an emergency to see a doctor. An issue debated for 100 years and finally 'the Law' in the USA.

What does this mean for American foreign policy? Maybe nothing...but a president who is no longer looking behind his back for a domestic agenda success is more inclined to face squarely a foreign policy that is also in need of care.

The 'process' of his victory was not pretty. Anyone who is familiar with American politics will remember this as one of the most divisive political battles in American history, and there are still skirmishes to come in the courts and elsewhere, but they will also remember that when the battle seemed lost Obama rolled up his sleeves and went to work 'personally' to score a magnificent point for freedom. That is the effort and perseverance that will be necessary to change the equation in the Middle East and Cuba. That is the kind of effort that President Lula has committed himself for peace. If Obama would commit himself to join this effort seriously, instead of following the failures of the past, surely he will be seen as a World Champion and truly worthy of that Nobel Prize.

I'm still confused by this 'strategic military alliance' with the French;

If you pay more attention to Mr.Brodie and humble "peasants" like me, you wouldn't be confused at all.

That is the kind of effort that President Lula has committed himself for peace.

Is he?

If you pay more attention to Mr.Brodie and humble "peasants" like me, you wouldn't be confused at all.

I think you remember my admonition that this was done for the Security Council seat, but you may convince me that Lula simply wants to be Secretary-General of the UN

That is the kind of effort that President Lula has committed himself for peace.
Is he?

The case presently in the US is that 'it is easier to make war than peace'. Iraq bein the latest example.
Peace is a difficult. The profits of peace are not evident, whereas the profit for war is clear;
( http://warnewsupdates.blogspot...rofit.html )
It is beneficial to remember that the Egyptian-Israeli 'peace-deal' is still costing American taxpayers $5Billion/yr for each country. The question becomes 'how much actual peace have the American people bought for their $250Billion?'. Will another $250Billion be needed when America cannot afford such a price? What is the real price of peace? Apparently only the Israeli's get to set the price, so how much is President Lula willing to ante up to play the peace-maker?

I think you remember my admonition that this was done for the Security Council seat, but you may convince me that Lula simply wants to be Secretary-General of the UN

I do remember your "admonition", but...but...I just want to remind you (not to convince you though) that both Ghana and S.Korea were not permanent members of the UNSC.

I am LMAO after reading the link you posted about Poodle. Thanks.

so how much is President Lula willing to ante up to play the peace-maker?

Depends. If it is our tax money, the "peace funds" are unlimited.

Dr. Cata, I for one agree with you, wholeheartedly. Oil on the outside may appear to be the reason, perhaps the whole reason behind war, but I wonder if the monetary rewards for the military industry itself doesn't play a factor.
For instance, there is no likelihood that any nukes Israel sends to Iran will be more than tactical in size and power. Perhaps an advanced bunker buster. Iran will easily absorb such an attack. However, what would seem more interesting would be the following spectacular arms race.
Most people believe that Israel, for instance, receives a great deal of aid from the Yanks. In the 70's perhaps they did, about as much as 25 percent, but now that is down to 2.5 percent of less, for Israel has become a true world leader in arms production and sales. What I'm trying to say is that this conflict could be a financial bonanza to certain countries such as China, Russia, and Israel.
Maybe I'm off track, but I noticed that one of Israel's strongest allies is not standing up to Iran over the nuclear power. Many people believe that is because China is a rouge nation when it comes to nuclear power. I disagree and believe the issue is far more complicated, far more.
Since the 70's, Russia has developed a superb ground-to-air missile capability in the s-300. It is a fearsome weapon and threat. I wonder if China, aware of the small dangers of a tactical nuke, has weighed the risks and decided that it would be better if the Israeli's were forced into countering the S-300. If they did, Israel would save the Chinese a great deal of expense, and in turn create another industry, and enhance the Israeli reputation.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the world has been through this incredible scenario with Syria and Russia against Israel in the Becca Valley in the 80's. The military world is still amazed by the Israeli technical skills concerning the radar fight of the battle.
Frankly, if I were the Chinese, I'd let Israel have a go at Iran, stay back, and enjoy the show and the thrill of knowing that my superpower rival, Russia, might get another shock of its life, and I, the Chinese, am going to save billions if the Israelis are successful.

I think the entire situation is far more complicated than the world realizes and maybe driven by some rather strange monetary reasons, oil just being a part of it pf the overall picture.

Which takes me back to Lula. I still think that Israel and many of the world's players don't take him seriously. I for one also believe that a seat on the security council deserves a greater depth of background experience. A few years of economic success, despite the cheering hearts of the media, does not qualify anyone for security council status. Indeed, I can't imagine why the Yanks even believe they belong there, especially after their conduct of the last few decades, and I don't see it getting any better under the current administration, perhaps even worse. Lula shouldn't feel bad, he has great company in the Americans.
Just my opinion, but I am beginning to think that there are more reasons behind the Iran/Israeli conflict than ideology and oil. I think that the economics of a successful military organization maybe as equally important.
Thanks for listening.

Ghana and S.Korea were not permanent members of the UNSC

? Oh! There's no connection between UN Sec.-Gen and permanent seat on the Security Council. I'm certainly convinced that Lula wants the seat on the Council for "Brazil". That is something that transcends ideology or politics in Brazil, as well as Nigeria and others. However, he is a politician, and the Sec.-Gen. job is a crowning achievement to end a political career(and I don't discount that he may run for president again).
As I said before, US is opposing expanding the UNSC, so they will offer 'consolation prize' of Sec.-Gen.

BTW, I see they woke Sharon from his coma.

I wonder if the monetary rewards for the military industry itself doesn't play a factor.

Of course, you are correct. Without a doubt there is considerable influence from the military-industrial-complex in these conflicts. I'm not so concerned with the formal military as they are still committed to the 'rule-of-law' in obeying 'orders'. What I have been mostly concerned with is the rise of 'corporate armies' and their quasi-government alliances. IMHO, these forces are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda since their only allegiance is money. The capitalists have evolved their use of mercenaries and militias to these 'corporate soldiers' in their continued quest to control the 'commodities' of vulnerable nations; and that includes Brazil.

What I'm trying to say is that this conflict could be a financial bonanza to certain countries such as China, Russia, and Israel.

...as the Iraq War is to Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe, etc? Now US Defense Department investigating 'private contractors' in Pakistan. Each country has 'interests' in the conflict, and each uses 'cutouts' to hide their hand. "Profits in chaos"

I am beginning to think that there are more reasons behind the Iran/Israeli conflict than ideology and oil

So you suspect that peace in the ME is not really in Israel's interest? The Iranians need peace more to reduce the pressure of domestic instability, but most of the world simply do not even look at the map. Iran being surrounded by the Empire, to the East in Pakistan/Afghanistan, to the South by the US naval fleets, to the West by US troops in Iraq. Is it in Israel's interest to have the US withdraw from these areas before they can neutralize the mullahs in Iran? Something has to happen in the next 18 months!

( http://www.newsmax.com/Interna.../id/328081 )

BTW, I see they woke Sharon from his coma.

My favorite newspaper J.Post didn't report this "breaking" news, though.
Never mind their lapse. It is a good news and he can join Rudy & Poodle Security Consultants Inc. as an "associate".

Baen Brodie: “In addition, during the Iraq/Iran war, France, Israel, and Brazil were sitting on Iraq's door, willing to sell it anything it needed to blow the brains out of the Iranians. Indeed, Brazil was Iraq's third largest supplier….But why, was that because Brazil's future ally, France? I think it quite odd that somehow, Brazil and Israel were right there, together, waiting to be of service. Brazil's contribution to that war is very interesting and sinister.”


*****


Ricardo: I don’t know why you are trying to suggest that Brazil has been a close ally of Israel?

You are trying to make all kinds of connections between Brazil and Israel that never existed in the past.

You can’t rewrite history to fit your agenda regarding Israel.

The development of new markets for Brazilian goods in the last eight years with China and India has nothing to do with Israel – it was the right thing to do for a country looking for the new markets of the future.

The connection between Brazil and Iraq also had nothing to do with Israel.

As I mentioned on my article: “Brazil bought a lot of oil from Iraq under a special agreement, and Iraq bought from Brazil automobiles, chicken, beef and pork products, tractors, coffee, sugar, military armament, and Brazilian construction companies built the most important infrastructure projects in Iraq.

…During these fourteen years the Brazilian government had very close ties with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. Brazil always had some kind of foreign exchange crisis happening, and the Iraqi government was the only Middle East government willing to trade with Brazil at that time.”

Brazzil Magazine – October 2004
“Building Bridges Between Brazil and the Arab World”
Written by Ricardo C. Amaral
http://www.brazzilmag.com/back...world.html

…Brazil and Iraq

In the past, Brazil had a great business relationship with Iraq, and during the years 1976 to 1990 Iraq became one of the major importers of Brazilian products and services.

Brazil exported over US$ 30 billion dollars of goods and services to Iraq during that period, a volume of business larger than the business that Brazil had individually with any European country.

Iraq was the ideal partner for Brazil at that time, and the Brazilian Ambassador Paulo Tarso Flecha de Lima had been the great architect of this partnership when he lead various commercial trade missions to Baghdad.

The trading with Iraq is the only example that we have of Brazil recycling the petrodollars with one of the petroleum producing countries of the Middle East.

Brazil bought a lot of oil from Iraq under a special agreement, and Iraq bought from Brazil automobiles, chicken, beef and pork products, tractors, coffee, sugar, military armament, and Brazilian construction companies built the most important infrastructure projects in Iraq.

The Brazilian construction company Mendes Júnior employed over 30,000 people in Iraq over the years, and among its most important projects they built the Baghdad-Akashat railroad, a major expressway, an irrigation system at the Tiger and Euphrates rivers.

During these fourteen years the Brazilian government had very close ties with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. Brazil always had some kind of foreign exchange crisis happening, and the Iraqi government was the only Middle East government willing to trade with Brazil at that time.


*****

Note: Adjusted for inflation that figure would be over US$ 100 billion dollars in terms of today’s prices. (Brazil exported over US$ 30 billion dollars of goods and services to Iraq during the years 1976 to 1990)

.

Ricardo: I had not checked Brazzil magazine for a while, and I just saw the above article about Lula and Israel.

Anyway, on March 19, 2010 I had posted the following on the Elite Trader Forum regarding this subject, and you can read the entire posting by checking the enclosed website:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/...enumber=17

…March 19, 2010

SouthAmerica: Here is the dumbest thing president Lula has done since becoming president of Brazil – an official trip to Israel.

Brazil has nothing to gain from involving itself in that mess in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab countries…


*****

My screen name on the Elite Trader Forum is: SouthAmerica

.

Ricardo, let me apologize on several accounts. First, I didn't mean that Brazil and Israel were in Iraq as partners. The Jewish situation in Iraq is historic. Indeed, many people don't realize that Iraq was at one time the homeland of most Jews, especially the intellectuals during the time of Christ. Israel's motivations for taking sides during the war were secretive and probably connected to bargaining to ensure the safety of Jews still living there.
And in retrospect, to call the Brazilian sales of armaments to Iraq during such a blockhead war "sinister" would be to label the armament sales by other countries as "sinister", which to me still somehow makes sense; probably because I can't understand such profit-driven motives from a traditionally peaceful country. However, I know the times are changing, and Brazil wasn't the only country selling arms.

Hi Ricardo,

Good you finally joined us! I did go through the comments in Elitetrader link and your view points are not too different from that of our esteemed friend Dr.Cata who had commented on the treatment Joe Biden received. In fact, he, Mr.Brodie and I have been discussing about the ME, our relationship with the region, "strategic alliances", etc; and it has been quite educative to all of us. Your input is interesting and informative. Especially the mentioning the important role of Ambassador Flecha de Lima in Iraq/Brasil relationship. I distinctly remember his negotiations with Saddam Hussein who considered Brasil as his friend. That is a long story and not many people remember it. My 2 cents worth comment:

SouthAmerica: Here is the dumbest thing president Lula has done since becoming president of Brazil – an official trip to Israel.

I don't think so and it is quite possible that was done with a purpose unknown to public at large. Lloyd Cata and I have been saying that there is going to be a major "event" in the ME, shortly. Something screwy going on there and probably Lula is attempting to defuse the tension. I believe that his relationship with Obama is more cordial than it appears on the surface and it is worth remembering that a few days before he left for Israel, HRC was here.

IMHO, the dumbest thing Lula can do at this point of time is to cancel his scheduled visit to Iran in May, due to pressures at home or from our overseas "strategic partners"! I for one is cheering that he doesn't call the visit off.

Ricardo: I am 100 percent in favor of president Lula’s trip to Iran in May 2010. And Brazil should not back up the efforts of the United States and Israel at the UN to impose further sanctions on Iran.

Brazil should vote “NO” at the UN.

Brazil should continue to trade with Iran and also support Iran regarding its nuclear development program.

And a little over 3 years ago I posted this information on the Elite Trader Forum regarding the website of the Brazilian Embassy in Iran.


********


March 6, 2007

Enclosed information is from the Homepage of the:
“Brazilian Embassy” in Iran.


The Brazilian Embassy in Tehran has launched its homepage with the intention to be a useful tool in the promotion of our bilateral relations with Iran. Although Brazil and Iran have enjoyed cordial and fruitful historic and diplomatic relations for more than a hundred years, Brazilians and Iranians still know little about each other.

The distance between the two countries, the cultural and historic experiences that naturally concentrate attention in the immediate geographical space of each nation, and the limited or distorted coverage of both countries by the international media are factors that contribute to this lack of mutual knowledge.

It is therefore my sincere wish and strong hope that through this webpage it will be possible to fill this gap so that Brazilians and Iranians could contact each other directly, not only to receive trade and tourism information, but also to experience the variety -and similarities- of the background information, in the fields of arts, economics, politics and scientific development, leading to a better understanding of each other nation.

Luiz Antônio Fachini Gomes
Ambassador

.

I believe that his relationship with Obama is more cordial than it appears on the surface

The 'symbolism' of Obama's meeting with Bibi last week was very telling.
1)Bibi is met at White House door, and escorted to the Oval Office,. by a 'social secretary'.
2)No statements or pictures allowed, before or after.
3)Bibi escorted back to his limo by same secretary.

Maybe all for media consumption and Arab sensitivities, but I cannot remember ever such treatment of an Israeli head-of-state, even after disagreement. Everyone recognized that the slap to Biden could not go without response and Bibi apparently took it well and kept his mouth shut. I think quietly Obama welcomes Lula's input because it will 'not' be a 'quiet' affair and Bibi will be less likely to run to his friends in the US for help.
The Israeli media machine will dog Lula's every step, but if he only accomplishes a reset of the 'real' issues instead of Zionist dogma, it will give Obama better leverage later to confront both parties with some fundamental truths. Lula's 'interference' is a win-win for Brazil and the US

Everyone recognized that the slap to Biden could not go without response

Did this "Everyone" include your favorite senator Joe Lieberman?

Did this "Everyone" include your favorite senator Joe Lieberman?

'Old Joe' has been very quiet recently. Even in the big fight on health care. I suspect he is not going to pick a fight with Obama yet, and Bibi's not going to jeopardize his 'inside man', yet.
Israel will continue settlements and Washington will continue to make disapproving noises. Arabs appear to welcome Lula's initiative, and I for one agree.

I wasn't aware that there are so many Arabs in Brazil, so I guess this is a voting bloc that is all PT

I wasn't aware that there are so many Arabs in Brazil, so I guess this is a voting bloc that is all PT

You must have read the latest article by Isuara Daniel and my comment! These "Arabs" are "Ralph Nader" Arabs!! Came to this country a long time ago and consider themselves as Brasilians. Just like our Nippo Brasilians. The immigrants toiled on the soil and sent their kids to the schools and the universities. It is hard to make out their origin by their looks.( Of course, our Nippo brethren still have some traces of their origin )

They and the Nippos voting for PT? You must be kidding.. The mayor of São Paulo, Gilberto Kassab doesn't belong to PT, but...but.. to DEM. Yet he thrashed Lula´s preferred candidate Ms.Marta in the mayoral elections in 2008. He is a qualified engineer with a Masters degree in Economics. Heavens forbid, he is quite logical in his arguments and projects.

BTW, our "Arabs" have been trading with the ME for a long time, even before Mr.Lula started getting interested in that region.

B Brodie: interesting assessment of Brazil's Bric partners. Yet, you talk about others as if Brazil is some kind of babe among wolves. From what I have learned about Brazil, it is neither morally superior to the US who it often loves to demonize, nor much different from the Bric nations. Seems it's in good company, as R. Amaral has pointed out, a willingness to sell arms to whoever has the money. Perhaps rather than placing any of these nations above another (including my own country, the US), it would be more honest to see how they all have been implicated in some horrific self-interested military and business deals. The state of the world at large, and the human race seems to be striving so much for harmony, prosperity and peace, but we all seem to have so far to go. This moral development seems more critical to me than the economic development.

March 27, 2010

SouthAmerica: I wonder if the United States will ever wake up and realize that its close association with Israel goes completely against the short and long-term self-interest of the United States as a nation.

The longer the American people take to realize that fact the more costly it will be for the United States as a nation in terms of US dollars, prestige, and influence around the world.

The best thing the Obama administration can do regarding US foreign policy it is to distance the United States from Israel, and stop funding that country and its non-sense.

The United States continued funding of Israel year after year is one of the reasons that peace it will never be achieved in the Middle East – the continued US funding of Israel is a major incentive for Israel to sabotage any type of potential peace deals regarding that part of the world.

Israel got addicted to the gravy train that comes from the United States year after year, and Israel will do anything to keep the gravy train coming on a regular basis in the future.

I wonder is Americans are smart enough to figure out that simple fact.

Basically you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out – the gravy train from the United States is a major incentive for Israel to keep that mess in the Middle East going on in the future until Americans wake up and realize that the key to Middle East peace is to cut 100 percent any military and financial aid to Israel.

.

March 26, 2010
“Netanyahu pressed to resist US amid anger at treatment”
By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem
Financial Times (UK)

Benjamin Netanyahu returned to Israel on Thursday to face pressure from his coalition partners to resist the demands of the US and widespread public concern over the prime minister’s treatment at the hands of his foremost ally.

One Israeli columnist remarked that Mr Netanyahu’s reception at the White House had been fit for the “president of Equatorial Guinea”. Another said President Barack Obama’s administration had treated him no better than “the last of the wazirs from Lower Senegal”.

The Israeli prime minister dismissed suggestions of a big rift and even claimed to have found a “golden way” to revive the chances of peace while preserving Israel’s essential interests.

In truth, however, Mr Netanyahu is approaching precisely the dilemma that so many predicted from the day he took office last year. Unless the US backs down, Mr Netanyahu will be compelled to make a stark choice between keeping the support of the Obama administration or placating his rightwing coalition partners at home in Israel.

The issue at the heart of this crucial divide is the fate of occupied East Jerusalem. The US administration wants Mr Netanyahu to guarantee there will be no more announcements of construction in Jewish settlements there. This demand reflects the long-held Palestinian view that settlement growth creates facts on the ground that make a Palestinian state – with East Jerusalem as its capital – less viable by the day.

Mr Netanyahu, for his part, has made clear to Washington that settlement construction will continue in East Jerusalem, which Israel – unlike the rest of the world – regards as part of its sovereign territory.

That stance arises both from the prime minister’s firmly held beliefs and his instinct for political survival. Offering concessions on East Jerusalem would quite simply “put his coalition at stake”, according to Dore Gold, the president of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs and a former foreign policy adviser to Mr Netanyahu.

That assessment is widely shared in Israel and reflects the presence of far-right and religious parties in the ruling coalition, which regard Jerusalem as even more of a red line than does Mr Netanyahu.

Ministers from his own Likud party also called on the prime minister to stand firm against the US. “How did we get to the point that building in Jerusalem has turned into a stumbling block? If we blink now, we will lose everything, and when that happens, the government will collapse,” Silvan Shalom, the vice-prime minister, told Israeli radio.

Perhaps the biggest uncertainty for Mr Netanyahu is how the rift with Mr Obama will play out among Israeli voters. On the one hand, pollsters say Israelis have always wanted their leader to enjoy good relations with the US – a fact that may count against the prime minister.

Others argue, however, that the White House’s treatment of Mr Netanyahu may provoke a backlash against the Obama administration: “No one likes to see their prime minister mistreated and humiliated in such a way – no matter what people think of Netanyahu,” one Israeli official said on Thursday.

Mr Gold agreed: “The people of Israel saw how their prime minister was addressed and I don’t think that gave them much comfort.

“How the prime minister is addressed and treated affects how the people of Israel feel they are treated,” he said.

The most recent polls, released before Mr Netanyahu’s meeting with Mr Obama this week, showed that a majority of Israelis considered the US president’s treatment of Israel “fair and friendly”.

At the same time, they showed that most voters regarded Mr Netanyahu as the best leader for Israel. Unless the two sides can resolve their differences fast, at least one of those findings is all but certain to change.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/...enumber=18

.

If we are to believe this poll it should strengthen Obama's hand in insisting that a majority of Israelis want their politicians to sit down and negotiate with the Palestinian leaders instead of pandering to the Zionists by building more housing settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
A further example of Netanyahu's clumsy, ill-timed and tension raising plans is a recent decision to add two Islamic sites- the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron and the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque in Bethlehem to a newly-founded list of Jewish heritage sites.


In addition, Nir Barkat, The Jerusalem mayor has made a decision to
destroy an entire Arab neighbourhood in the eastern part of the city in order to build tourist facilities.Demolition of dozens of homes in the Silwan district is just another attempt to judaise Arab East Jerusalem- ethnic cleansing, Palestinians argue.

General Petraeus, in a statement to the Senate’s Armed Services Comittee, said that a perception of American favouritism for Israel was fomenting anti-American sentiment- BBC, ‘from our own correspondent article’ on Saturday, 20 March.
The general publicly said that his job, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not being helped, that American lives are being endangered, by the widespread bitterness engendered by an unresolved Arab- Israeli conflict.
The article noted that such a ‘public' statement coming from a top US general was ‘highly unusual’.
American and European public resentment over Iraq and Afghanistan military involvement is going to increase and it's time that outdated Zionism gives way to universal plans for peace and reconciliation-plans which include the majority of young Israelis and Palestinians, sick and tired of racial and tribal prejudice,perpetuated by their political leaders.

R. Amaral: I basically agree with your reading and you may be interested in hearing that I am an American. Yes, it has been said by many for quite some time that the US has been supporting Israel fully and giving minor support to Palestinians. Generally, most people in the world see the Palestinians as oppressed by the Israelis and the US needs to redress this issue. I don't know the details about whether Netanyahu was treated so poorly in the US or the same about Biden Israel. I have heard some here refer to Biden being "sucker punched" or "slapped in the face". I think this is an exaggeration of the affront. The US will only face increasing Israeli resistance I imagine, so the announcement about building more settlements is just the beginning of tension between Israel and the US. This is not so bad, in fact, I think it is a welcome sign of renegotiating a new relationship.
I don't think the US is likely to ever cut military and other support for Israel "100%" as you call for, but even less drastic cuts would have dramatic effects on the relationship I believe. I hear many on this site drawing simplistic black and white pictures of the US-Israel situation, claiming Americans and the government are fully behind Israel, and that the Israelis are fully behind zionist exclusionary and segregationist practices. Neither the US populace nor Israeli is so monolithic. The Israel peace movement back in 2000-2003 was quite active and seeming to make progress in pushing for a two party state. I don't think this sentiment has simply vanished. With the right pressure, this group could come back to the forefront. Whether peace talks will ever be as successful as they were in Ireland is hard to say, but certainly the US needs to distance itself from oppressive practices of the Israelis against the Palestinians.

In regards to the issue of Lula aligning with Iran, I can only note recent decisions by the Iranian government to hang 6 members involved in peaceful street protests, as well as banning of the opposition party. Again, how can he align with Iran? Brazilians continue to condemn the US for supporting the dictatorship of Brazil, but for some reason it is fine for Brazil to support the dictatorship of Iran which is far more bloody and oppressive. Hypocrisy! Note that Petrobras is one of the major investors in Iran. Is this why Lula continues to defend them? Here is a link to various NY Times stories on the Iran's nuclear weapons development, including yesterdays revelation about 6 other hidden facilities: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/...ran&st=cse
But logic seems to be irrelevant to those here defending Lula, who presents no evidence to the contrary, but only seems to be trying to upstage the US and garner points with the locals by being contrary with the US. Boring statesmanship.
and as far as his visits to Israel, it seems like more hubris, motivated more by trying to upstage, but not offering and tangible solution to the problem. I would even welcome a Tony Blair in Israel since he was instrumental to negotiating the peace in Ireland. Anyone with credentials or skills in negotiating, but I see nothing unique about Lula's position.

I am also sensing a change in Washington's game plan toward Israel. The US is close allies with Israel for many reasons, and this won't disappear overnight. Jews comprise a dynamic, creative and respected position in US culture. Of course we don't shrug this off casually. After the holocaust, most Western powers had a new found respect for Israel.
But as far as the treatment toward Palestinians, I sense a change is in the works. I hear more talk coming from conservative military people acknowledging this issue and the contradiction of the US supporting Israel, no matter what happens to Palestinians.
I could be wrong, but I think Obama will steer the US more and more in that direction. My hunch is that they want peace negotiations more than ever. Certainly, they want the Israelis to do their part to allow this to at least begin. I think there is optimism that this is all in the realm of possibility if the Israelis are committed to it, as well as the Palestinians.

I just read D. Axelrod who says there was no snub of Netanyahu. I sense a change in policy regarding Israel, but I think it is slightly different from your perspective (R. Amaral). You call for the US to see it in its interest to cut ties with Israel.

Yet, the narrative they are presenting is more like we are still and will remain great allies with Israel, but we will work hard to make them see the importance with forging peace with Palestinians. Its not a matter of abandoning Israel, but more a matter of forging a genuine settlement that pleases the Palestinians. It is more a vision of security through mutual success and prosperity for Israel and Palestinians:

"We have a deep abiding interest in Israel's security and we believe the peace process is essential to that. We are doing everything we can to move that process forward," the adviser said in a broadcast that aired Sunday.

What are America's real interests in Israel? Actually, there are a number, and not those that the average member of the public perceives and never has been if the situation is looked at with any impartiality. The least of these concerns are Israel's security, for the Yanks have proven this time and time again.
Until Israel threatened to nuke the Arabs in '73, America had a tough arms embargo on the Jews that forced the Israelis to scrounge and beg for surplus arms from any malcontent that would pity them. Where were the Yanks in '48, or '56, or '67? I'm hardly pro-Israel, but I think the Americans are the biggest bunch of hypocrites. Oh, yeah, they love the Jews now because the Americans have such huge weapons depots and ammo dumps inside Israel's borders, and they know the Israels won't rob them blind like the Arabs would, and they also know that Israel is a safe port for the Sixth Fleet or a hungry airplane running out of fuel. And since '73, Israel has been a testing center for American military equipment, the quality of which America could only dream about earlier.
Land for Peace, we hear that everyday on the news, but I ask what land and what peace? The Jews gave the Sinai back twice and returned the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians lost East Jerusalem for a reason. Anybody care to remember what that reason was? Give me a break.
I could care less about the Jews, but I'm tired of the pontificating by Israel's so-called friends and the constant grinding of teeth by the rest of the world.
America abandoned the Jews during World War II, as did the rest of the world. If the world didn't want the Jews to flee to that worthless bit of land after WWII, maybe they should have stopped them, but they didn't, and now successive native-born Israelis have begun to see the worthless strip of land as their homeland. God, what a disaster.

Interesting comments, politically incorrect though. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you that the Yanks were responsible for the "disaster" which is the correct term to use. I would rather attribute the root cause to the Brits and the European powers. To set up a separate "Jewish State" for the ones who emigrated to Europe hundreds of years ago and send them back to their "land of origin" ? Horrendous idea. The Brits did not want the Sun to set on their empire and convinced their gullible American "cousins" that to fight the "Commies", they needed a forward listening and operational base right near the "Bear". Great till the fall of "Berlin Wall". Then the old Europe wanted the Yanks to remain "engaged" in the Middle-East and they invented the threat of the "Islamo-Fascists" and poor GWB walked right into the trap (or maybe not, since the Yanks have an alternative base in Iraq. Iraq belongs to them these days, doesn't it?).

Israel's grouchy old warrior "founding fathers" don't want to discuss peace, because it would offend their man(woman)hood. What is the difference between them and the old "caudilhos" in LatAM countries? A bunch of power mongers.

and now successive native-born Israelis have begun to see the worthless strip of land as their homeland.

I really don't blame the young Israelis for getting upset with their elected "rulers". I feel as sorry for them as for the Palestinians. At least the Israelis have the luxury of kicking their "caudilhos" through ballot, whereas the Palestinians don't enjoy that privilege.

Even though I am an optimist by nature, I don't see any peace in the ME in the foreseeable future.

Joao. You may be correct on everything. However, I was always under the impression that the Brits did not want the Jews to return to Israel.
That is why they suggested Uganda as a new homeland for the Jews at the turn of the century and fought the Israelis when they tried to flee to Palestine after WWII. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the Palmach and the Haganah fight the British as well as fighting the Palestinians. And wasn't there a sordid British prison in Haifa for errant Jews? In fact, the Brits so disliked the idea of the Israelis returning to Israel that they went to great lengths to arm and train the Jordanian Army before leaving Palestine. Even after Israel was formed, was it not Brits in Spitfires who were shot down by Israelis in their Spitfires? I don't know; I'm getting too old to remember the details, and forgive me please for not being politically correct. Age and the brightness of the sun are having an effect on me. Although people tell me I'm obviously pro-Arab, I try to keep an open mind.
However, somethings must never change if civilization is to have any meaning, and there is one thing that certainly must be addressed. I believe there is a world-wide effort to confuse Crumpets with English muffins. Don't fall for the ruse, Joao. Remember, Crumpets are born on a grill and are made with batter, not dough, as is bread. And you don't split a Crumpet as you might an English muffin. And God forbid that anyone use peanut butter on a Crumpet. If you should see someone doing that, suggest to them that they wrap themselves in the flag of their home country so not to assail the sensibilities if those more civilized. In addition, lemon slices, not wedges, are a sign of a keen conversationalist. I'm sure that your breeding is above approach, Joao, and that you will remauin forever an asset to the international community.

Part 1 of 2

March 29, 2010

SouthAmerica: The Israeli propaganda machine has been working overtime, and it is becoming laughable their empty threats and pure BS about attacking Iran nuclear facilities.

First the Israelis have lost all their credibility about attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, and if they were planning to do it they would have carried the attack long time ago.

If they did not carry the attack in the last 5 years it is because they don’t have the capability to do it or they don’t have the balls, because of the consequences afterwards of such an attack.

The Israelis are becoming Pathetic with their empty threats, and at this point nobody is taking their Blah, blah, blah seriously other than The New York Times.

No wonder The New York Times is going broke and losing its credibility. I don’t know why The New York Times wasted an entire page on the Sunday March 28, 2010 on the Week in Review section with some crap about Israel attacking Iran?

Maybe The New York Times don’t have anything better to print on its pages anymore other than a silly simulation about an Israeli attack on Iran.

It is also possible that someone at The New York Times misplaced that article when the article were published on the Week in Review section, since that article really belongs in the comics section of the newspaper.

You can read the rest of this posting at:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/...ost2786527

.

B. Brodie: Well we wouldn't want civilization to fall over due to peanut butter on crumpets would we old boy?

I am guessing you are being ironic, and I can't really judge your comments nor character, since I don't know you and your comments are in the context of reply to Joao, but I want to say how they remind me of many Brazilians I met who love to fawn over and idealize British culture. One of the silliest and most pathetic trends I noticed was how certain aspiring wanna-be educated middle class Brazilians identified themselves with British English and culture over American English and culture. Americans were stereotyped as flag-waving morons, with a Coke in one hand and a Big Mac in the other. It didn't matter that neither I nor any of my American friends have not been in a McDonald's in many years, nor that most Brazilians I knew seemed to casually gobble up junk food and Mc Donald's more than any Americans I knew. In their mind, the British were considered well-manner, highly civilized and refined souls and Americans were country bumpkins. They would pepper their conversation with "old chap" and "I say ole boy", and so on, believing this somehow made them more cultured and refined than Americans and others. Of course there is also a well-entrenched Franco-phile trend in Brazil that reveres the French and relishes the opportunity to turn its nose up at the Americans or anyone else positioned as uncouth, uncivilized, and uneducated. Most of these Franco-philes would identify with the French intellectual trends such as deconstruction in the Humanities and Arts, even though, like most, they didn't have a clue as to what J. Derrida et al. were pedaling. But that didn't stop them from posing.

Nor did matter to any of these pseudo-aristocrat posers that even the British are increasingly shedding the trappings of 19th Century aristocracy and class hierarchies, viewing it as so much elitist oppressive trash. How amusing that Tory politicians shed their long titles and run under folksy names like simply like Joe:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/world/europe/23britain.html?scp=1&sq=posh&st=cse

Nor did it matter that your average Brit is possibly more admiring and familiar with American music, TV programs, and movies than many Americans since they love this shlock as much as this rest of the world. Nor could they accept that formal British English is virtually indistinguishable from formal American English at the syntactic and lexical level. If you questioned their assumptions, they would often talk about how British English is somehow more sophisticated, complex and refined than British English. They couldn't give you and real example of this, and of course professional linguists would laugh at such nonsensical hierarchies. I suppose you might liken such offensive snobbery to how some believe that Portuguese from Portugal is somehow more pure, refined, elegant, or rational than Brazilian Portuguese, which is just a degraded version of true Portuguese. Obnoxious, right?

A sociologist interested in how class hierarchies are constructed might find their
pretensions laughable and amusing if not for the fact that such assumptions are rooted in some of the most vile and toxic 18th century imperialist narratives of inherent racial and cultural superiority of the British. Again, it didn't seem to bother most of these Brazilian Brit-poser sycophants who were thrilled with the idea that if they sipped tea, ate crumpets and learned a few British catch-phrases, they could leap-frog rapidly over American culture, identifying up with what they believed were the far superior Brits, leaving behind their own misinformed Brazilian inferiority complex. It just seemed like one more variation on the common theme of Brazil uniting with some other lesser power, such as the BRIC nations to thumb their nose at the US. Kind of childish and dumb. And of course it perversely and eerily complements their own class position in a society with class divisions equally, if not starker and more dire than Dickensian England.
I met truly brilliant and renowned scholars in Brazil. They were by and large humble, and down to earth people who I admired and respected deeply. They had little need for showing off their "breeding" by flaunting some affiliation to British culture. Sadly, most of those who liked to show off their British English were some of the lesser educated folks I met. Despite their dreams of pomp and posh, about as close as they were going to get to England would be the Big Ben Farmacia in Belem. And despite erudite posturing, most were 3rd rate intellectuals who probably bought the college degree certificate that hung in their office at Casa da Bahia.

Lyod C: My apologies if I confused your comments with Joao. I have trouble here sometimes keeping clear the author, and title of a given entry. Also, I DON'T know the different character of the papers of Sao Paulo (or Brazil), so I admit I did not understand the fuller context. Certainly, if O Estadao is, as some suggested, anything like Fox News, then I hesitate to further celebrate them for criticizing Lula. Yet, I do find it objectionable that someone was likening the criticism of the media to treasonous acts, and hence they were able to understand why Castro or Chavez would want to squelch the press. This I could never find acceptable. Fox News can spew as much trash as they want; most Americans ( and others in the world) can see them for the idiots they are; this kind of journalism only will hurt them in time I predict. But repression of the press can never be justified.

B. Brodie:

I'm hardly pro-Israel, but I think the Americans are the biggest bunch of hypocrites. Oh, yeah, they love the Jews now because the Americans have such huge weapons depots and ammo dumps inside Israel's borders, and they know the Israels won't rob them blind like the Arabs would, and they also know that Israel is a safe port for the Sixth Fleet or a hungry airplane running out of fuel

Brazilians still rant about the US supporting the Brazilian dictatorship decades ago, yet it is fine for them to support the Iranian dictatorship which is far bloodier? hypocrisy! Brazilians calling Americans hypocrites. Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. Can't even begin to dredge up the hypocrisy and corruption that rules the politics of Brazil, but, never mind.... You don't understand my comment about the US having great respect for Jews. Aside from redneck nut cases and anti-semites, most of us see the obvious contribution of Jews to our culture as well as the worlds. this doesn't mean I am supporting zionism, just saying America has a long and deep affinity with Jewish culture at this point. The intellectual contributions of Jewish Americans are profound. you seem to miss my point.

That is why they suggested Uganda as a new homeland for the Jews at the turn of the century and fought the Israelis when they tried to flee to Palestine after WWII. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the Palmach and the Haganah fight the British as well as fighting the Palestinians. And wasn't there a sordid British prison in Haifa for errant Jews? In fact, the Brits so disliked the idea of the Israelis returning to Israel that they went to great lengths to arm and train the Jordanian Army before leaving Palestine. Even after Israel was formed, was it not Brits in Spitfires who were shot down by Israelis in their Spitfires

I must confess that I was unaware of this part of the history, Capitão. Your memory is not all that bad as you claim. Will research about it later. I don't remember about the Spitfires being shot down, because I was probably not even born at that time. However, I do remember having read about the USS Liberty "incident" in 1967 during which 34 U.S. servicemen were "collaterally damaged" by Israeli "friendly fire".

I believe there is a world-wide effort to confuse Crumpets with English muffins.

I wouldn't call it a world-wide "effort", but...but a "conspiracy" and I am sure Dr.Cata is working overtime to discover who are the main "scoundrels" responsible for it. BTW, thank you so much for clarifying the difference and I shall always remember your lesson.

Cheers

Joao. Yes, the Jews and Brits were never close. Indeed, the Israelis were involved in several armed struggles against the English occupying force in Palestine, who they felt always sided with the Arabs against them.
I believe it was on Jan 7, 1949, after Israel declared its independence, that the British were flying protective patrols for the Egyptian army when they strayed into Israeli airspace. The Israelis had been sold about 20 Spitfires under the table by Czechs. In the ensuing dogfight, the hot-headed Israelis shot down four Spitfires and a Tempest of the RAF.
The whole incident is remarkable because a few years later, the Brits teamed with the Israelis and French to attack Egypt and the Suez Canal! To study the Middle-East, a person almost needs a score sheet or something to keep track of today's allies and tomorrow's enemies. Indeed, the whole situation goes along well with Dr. Cata's argument that the Middle-East situation involves profit as much as ideology. And once again, note the presence of France as a key player. The 1956 was may explain why France aided Israel as much as it did, for I believe they hated Egypt's victory in the Suez struggle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the episode, Egypt's greatest ally was, believe it or not, the Americans.

Joao. Yes, the Jews and Brits were never close.

Shakespeare wasn't a big help in bettering their relationship.

The whole incident is remarkable because a few years later, the Brits teamed with the Israelis and French to attack Egypt and the Suez Canal

I remember having read this. It was the time of "Pan-Arab Nationalism" lead by Nasser. The Brits were still seething with rage for having surrendered their ex-colonies to their original owners. The good old Americans couldn't understand what the hell was going on in that part of the world. As our distinguished friends Dr.Cata and Mr.Ricardo Amaral would say, "the Americans got suckered into another big mess" by the French and their "rivals" across the channel.

To study the Middle-East, a person almost needs a score sheet or something to keep track of today's allies and tomorrow's enemies. Indeed, the whole situation goes along well with Dr. Cata's argument that the Middle-East situation involves profit as much as ideology.

Both you and Dr.Cata are correct. The Brasilian career diplomats know this better than the most would give them credit for.

Despite their dreams of pomp and posh, about as close as they were going to get to England would be the Big Ben Farmacia in Belem. And despite erudite posturing, most were 3rd rate intellectuals who probably bought the college degree certificate that hung in their office at Casa da Bahia.

s**t, dude. You are sooo hilarious displaying your ignorance. Continue whining!!

Yet, I do find it objectionable that someone was likening the criticism of the media to treasonous acts, and hence they were able to understand why Castro or Chavez would want to squelch the press. This I could never find acceptable.

That was "criticism 'by' the media". Yet, my criticism wasn't directed at O Estado's slander of President Lula, it was the use of media to 'cloak' that criticism in the furtherance of Zionist doctrine. It was clear, as I pointed out that O Estado was using Lula's initiative to promote the Israeli settlement policy. I thought I made that quite clear.
Why should a media outlet be allowed to propagandize for a foreign government? No problem, but when they malign the state and it leaders in the process, they are subverting the government and institutions duly elected by the people to carry out foreign policy in a manner beneficial to all Brazilians. That is treasonous!

Argue the point of Lula interfering in Middle-East affairs. Argue his desire to bring Iran into a dialogue for peace(which is exactly what some are afraid of). Argue all you want about whoever is the biggest hypocrite. Just don't try to argue that the leader of the state is somehow deficient because he does not agree with Zionist expansionist agenda.

Maybe the editors at O Estado did not realize that their readership, in this case, would pick up the propaganda, but it was flagrant, intentional, and slanderous. It may as well have been written in the Israeli embassy. That is the type of media 'everyone' could do without. It's just that Mr. Chavez and Castro do not allow such obvious propaganda and the media is 'limited' in their criticism of the state. Therefore, US State Dept. memos do not become the 'news' of Cuba and Venezuela. Neither should the Zionist agenda of Israel become the 'opinion' of O Estado. It is 'never' in the interests of society or the government to allow 'commercial media' to subvert the people.

Consider that term "commercial media" as distinguishable from a "free press". Consider it carefully as it pertains to responsibility, objectivity, and accountability. Restrictions upon commercial media are no different than other commercial entities that must conform to government regulation. Your car companies are not allowed to produce unsafe cars and neither should 'commercial media' be allowed to produce a product that is unsafe, irresponsible, and unaccountable.

( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...69335.html )

Just don't try to argue that the leader of the state is somehow deficient because he does not agree with Zionist expansionist agenda.

Waste of time giving lecture to a retard who claims that Brazilians buy their degrees at Casas Bahia in 100 monthly installments.

I think after you reach the age of 65 and if a rectal thermometer still registers life, you should receive a college degree free, just for making it that far. A four year degree at 65, a masters at 68, and a doctorate at 70. I think the thrill of being known as Doctor Baen Brodie would be worth the forced feeding of healthy fruits and veggies that it would take to reach such a distinguished age. In addition, I think we should all receive college credit for participating on this blog, especially if your contributions are as wothwhile as our mine.

I think the thrill of being known as Doctor Baen Brodie would be worth the forced feeding of healthy fruits and veggies that it would take to reach such a distinguished age.

But..but...but.. don't be so modest and downplay your importance. Every well informed blogger in this site knows that you already hold a doctoral degree in "Space Sciences". The ill informed ones don't count.

You keeping away from the Chocolates during this Easter and sticking to just veggies, Doc?

Have a great Easter Sunday.

P.S: You have flown into St.Maarten Island ?

No, Joao, but I'm familiar with it. Believe me, there are more interesting airports, but for pure excitement, it looks hard to beat, especially with all of the bikinis running about.
How is your flying? Can you fly into it with your simulator? I should think you could. Remember, when you can fly your simulator with skill, you are almost there.

How is your flying? Can you fly into it with your simulator? I should think you could.

It is pretty good Capitão. I am exploring the Caribbean Islands, chartering my own course. I can handle the Beech Baron, Bombardier and to certain extent Lear Jet. If you know a bit about "Flight Theory", it is not all that difficult.

Remember, when you can fly your simulator with skill, you are almost there.

You sound like my late dad. But..but.. I am a keen student and shall remember your latest advice along with the earlier one on the difference between "Crumpets" and "English Muffins".

BTW, do you think that Dr.Cata has gone to the ME in "hot pursuit" of truth?

Joao, I don't know if one can find the truth in the Middle East; I believe the answer may only exist in points of view or perspectives. Everyone has such a valid point of view that I find it difficult to find fault with any of them. Even the Israelis have a point when they say that there is no where else for them to go and that if they have to die, might as well die in Israel.
How can you argue with that kind of mentality! I read once that in all of Israel's wars, they have yet to loose more than the what the Nazis could kill in their best day at one of the concentration camps. I believe it was about 5,000. So if you look at it in that manner, well, okay; maybe as a last resort it makes sense for the Israelis to fight for Israel and die there. I just don't know.
But everyone else condemns the Jews for such a philosophy and their belief that God gave them Israel well over 4,000 years ago. It is interesting that the Iranians speak of a religious vision in which Israel will soon be destroyed and that this religious vision is valid and that the Jewish religious vision is not. Wow, Joao, I can't even begin to figure this out.
I doubt if Dr. Cata can either; best of luck to him, however.
When I was very young, I had the opportunity to sit on the concrete about 50 feet from a group of Israeli fighters scrambling for a practice mission. [Try that today!] Something went wrong with one of the fighters, and it aborted the mission. What I saw a few moments later was incredible as a group of mechanics attacked the fighter and ripped the guts out of it, carefully spreading its innards on clean cloths spread out on the concrete. In the shortest time, they had repaired the broken part and reinstalled them, and the fighter took off, hurrying after its companions. It was an inspiring moment, Joao. From that moment on, I've always taken the Israelis seriously, even though others think me pro-Arab. Their training and dedication seemed unnatural. I also never forget that there are less than four million Jews actually living in Israel out of a population of over five million. How in the world can they exist against 1.3 billion Muslims, many of who absolutely hate them from whatever perspective?
If Dr. Cata is in the Middle East, I'll be looking forward to his perspective!

Joao. I have to apologize for my poor English and spelling. I have just returned from a long evening walk with my German shepherd, and we are both tired. sorry.

Excellent comments, Cap'n.

But everyone else condemns the Jews for such a philosophy and their belief that God gave them Israel well over 4,000 years ago. It is interesting that the Iranians speak of a religious vision in which Israel will soon be destroyed and that this religious vision is valid and that the Jewish religious vision is not. Wow, Joao, I can't even begin to figure this out.

I tried to figure it out, but gave up.

I have to apologize for my poor English and spelling. I have just returned from a long evening walk with my German shepherd, and we are both tired. sorry.

No need to apologize for the "Poor English and spelling" of your "German" shepherd, sir. In spite of the excellent training you are giving him, please do remember English is not his first language. If you are not very happy with his performance, I suggest you replace him with an "English Poodle"

But everyone else condemns the Jews for such a philosophy and their belief that God gave them Israel well over 4,000 years ago. It is interesting that the Iranians speak of a religious vision in which Israel will soon be destroyed and that this religious vision is valid and that the Jewish religious vision is not. Wow, Joao, I can't even begin to figure this out.

My dear fellows, although I do not have the requisite skills to pilot such pleasant aircraft, I find much enjoyment with GoogleEarth

In this subject of religion, anything is possible if it becomes "the mandate of God"...anything! The Communists are not 'all' wrong in proclaiming 'religion' as the opiate of the masses. "God gave man many things, all necessary for harmony with the Earth". Needless to say that if each was granted according to what God had given(when?) the lowest would rise to be the highest. Perhaps the Jewish people should find that they left some property or some sacred shrine in Egypt, should they then be allowed to claim their property? Should Native Americans be allowed to rule the US? It is ridiculous for Catholics, Jews, and Muslims to argue 'anything' in the name of God. Heaven knows that they have each been a failure in proscribing God's Laws. Heaven knows they have been complicit in all manner of genocide and subjugation in God's name. Heaven knows their perversion of truth knows no bounds. There are many holy persons in each of these 'sects', and there are many who follow the path of God, as interpreted by the prophets, but the value of any God-given or moral authority by the present 'religious' leadership has become the propaganda of self-interest. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, and I would hardly accept the example of the church that I might sin no more. Amen

If the adherents of these religions would be Godly persons then surely they should spend many years wearing 'literally' sack-clothe and ashes. Their humility should be their honor to serve the people of God. In this the Dalai Lama has exhibited 'moral' authority, but even the Eastern religions are not immune to the perversions of corruption. Is it no wonder the evangelists call this 'end times'. As my Lord and Saviour has instructed, I will not be found in church when that time comes.

(note: The Cuban government has enlisted the help of the church to combat corruption, petty crime, and help in community services. An interesting development to watch.)

( http://www.brazzilmag.com/comp...ndent.html )

The present Islamic Republic of Iran has become one of the most merciless dictatorial regimes on the planet. The hard line mullahs at Qom have adopted a more Stalinist government rather than an Islamic Republic, which they at one time professed to be. When Sharia Law becomes the means to the murder of innocent people, or even misguided people, it demeans the Islamic faith. That is the nexus of the clerical split and the secular split within Iran today. The fact that the murderous mullahs are determined to remain in power, and are willing to subject the people to communist practices, makes all their arguments suspect as those of liars and thieves. What comes from their mouths is not to be believed.

With that established, the Iranians continually and consistently are pursuing the technology and capability of having nuclear weapons. Without a doubt, their progress in producing highly enriched uranium(HEU/U-23smilies/cool.gif and their increasing missile capability are worrisome to those suspicious of Iranian motives. The Iranian rhetoric, specifically with respect to Israel, only heightens those suspicions and calls into question the mental stability of the Iranian leaders. The very concept that they would allow such technology to fall into the hands of their non-state agents is absolutely unacceptable, and the single largest concern to everyone on the planet.

Neither world opinion nor the pressure of threatened attack have, or will, dissuade the Iranians from their present course. Outside a strategic pinpoint attack on the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, Iran will have nuclear weapons capability, and the means to deliver those weapons. Even under the best scenario for preemptive attack, there is no assurance of the destruction of their capabilities, and definitely would create a poisonous Islamic reaction around the world. No matter the perception of Iran as a rogue nuclear state, Israel's covert/overt nuclear capabilities are no less illegitimate, no less the actions of a state persecuting and occupying the Palestinian people. The 'democratic' label does no more to justify Israel's nuclear capabilities given its own atrocities and military subjugation of Palestinians. That Israel is not subject to 'any' limits, inspection, or even mention, with regard to its nuclear weapons is also unacceptable in the dialogue that some would rather ignore. That double standard is part of the reality that cannot be overlooked in the analysis of Islamic reaction to a preemptive attack on Iran, either by Israel or in conjunction with Western assistance. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the issues necessary for comprehensive dialogue and the prevention of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Coincidentally(?), the War on Terror has placed Iran in a position of being virtually surrounded by US forces, on the east in Afghanistan, on the west in Iraq, and with a massive US naval armada in the Persian Gulf to the south. No matter the justification for such massive Western forces in the region, the realities on the ground are not conducive to peace and the timing of their possible repositioning conflicts with the time-line for Iranian nuclear weapons success.

The die is cast. The positions are clear. There will be no Iranian compromise that satisfies Israel security and there will be no Israeli compromise that alters its genocidal behavior with respect to the Palestinians. Remember, the Iranians promise the genocide of Jews, yet the Jews are presently practicing the genocide of Palestinians. One a possibility, the other a reality. The only relevant question is whether changing the reality will change the possibility. For 2 societies locked in religious extremism, reality and possibility are seen through the prism of inevitable Armageddon and the personal paradise of death.

Into this atmosphere steps Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil. He can change neither the reality nor the possibility, but he will earn all his recent praise if he could simply change the dialogue.