La Batalla de los Tres Emperadores
Bush: The last emperor ?
One thing was made crystal clear yesterday: there is no other authority than America, no law but US law
Friday September 13, 2002
There he stood, this unlikely emperor of the world, telling the UN's 190 nations how it is going to be. The assembled nations may not be quite the toothless Roman senate of imperial times, but at the UN the hyperpower and its commander-in-chief are in control as never before: how could it be otherwise when the US army is the UN's only enforcer? This is, President Bush said, "a difficult and defining moment" for the UN, a challenge that will show whether it has become "irrelevant". He pointed his silver-tongued gun with some delicacy and a certain noblesse oblige, but there was no doubt he was holding it to the UN's head: pass a resolution or be bypassed.
It was a fine and gracious speech that might have been borrowed from better presidents in better times. He spoke of a just and lasting peace for Palestine. He promised a surprise return by the US to Unesco. He spoke of the tragedy of world poverty, disease and suffering, of offering US aid, trade and healthcare. Earnest and uplifting, it was very like the speech he made soon after the twin towers attack last year. But how long ago that suddenly seemed. Back then the world tried hard to believe him, full of sympathy and hope that this earth-quake had indeed turned him internationalist. But this time belief was stretched beyond breaking. The skills of the best speech writer could not blot out the gulf between last year's rhetoric and the reality that followed.
Maybe it was the cut-away to Hamid Karzai in his green striped coat of many colours sitting in the chamber. It came as a sharp reminder of America's failure to invest in serious nation-building in Afghanistan, failure to send in enough troops to stop the old warlords seizing power again, the paucity of aid and the brazen carelessness once war was won. So Bush's conjured images of a postwar Iraq, peaceful and democratic, sounded like empty phantasms. War in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban was necessary - but so was investing in long-lasting security and prosperity if he wanted to prove how democracy wins over fundamentalist fury. From Kyoto and Johannesburg, to the ICC, steel tariffs, NMD and nuclear testing, too much has happened (or not happened) since last year's speech to take this one at face value.
Even so, good words are still preferable to bad ones. It was, after all, remarkable that the president was there in that chamber at all. A month ago the strident voices coming out of the White House would have none of it. The Rumsfeld/Cheney axis of war was in the ascendant, the UN was for wimps. The hawks would never have let their emperor stand there soliciting UN support in dulcet tones. It would be nice to believe that Tony Blair played some part in strengthening the arm of the Colin Powell internationalists who won the argument on the need for UN legitimacy. Sadly, he features hardly at all in US commentators' accounts of the internal Republican rows that finally brought Bush to the UN. For a very little influence, Blair has paid a frighteningly high price: the split with the rest of Europe, weakening his own influence by becoming Bush's tool, never again an independent honest broker. At home there is angry puzzlement among many more in his own party than the usual suspects. Was it worth so much damage? Only if in the end this war is successfully averted.
Even now, the drafters are working at a UN resolution to square (or fudge) the needs of the US war party with French and Russian hesitation. Deals are brokered, poor countries' arms are twisted with aid and trade while Russia may be allowed to kill a few more Chechens. But a deal there must be. The only ones who hope the UN fumbles are the Rumsfeld/Cheney warriors who want no straitjacket, no option for Saddam to avoid the war now sharpening its knives on his borders. Moving command headquarters from Florida to Qatar could hardly send a louder message: America wants war, America means war.
The only hope of avoiding it is that Saddam takes fright at a security council resolution with a firm time limit for the weapons inspectors to return - any time, any place or else, no run-around or obstruction. The message that the US means war has been conveyed to him forcefully by everyone who has his ear, including former weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The US sabre is out of its scabbard: just let him look Cheney and Rumsfeld in the eye. The world will hold its breath and hope he blinks or, better still, that he is overthrown by others who see what's coming.
For those who supported the wars in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Sierra Leone, the enslaved peoples of Iraq are no less just a cause. Once legitimised by the UN and international law, there is no moral difference in the need to liberate Iraqis and relieve the potential threat Saddam poses to his neighbours. None would mourn his passing from power. The difference is pragmatic, not moral. There were very good reasons why Bush senior did not march on Baghdad in 1991, reasons that remain unchanged. Saddam's elite troops around Baghdad would inflict very heavy casualties. In his death throes, he would certainly use anthrax and nerve gases. Iraq might fall apart, with Shi'ite lands defecting to Iran, strengthening another vile regime, destabilising others. If Afghanistan cannot hold US attention for one short year, how would far more complex Iraq be nurtured long term? Fermenting terror, recruiting generations of terrorists to come, the cure looks worse than the disease.
Curiously, the louder Bush and Blair call for an end to this villain, the less convincing it sounds. Why now? That remains the perplexing question. Containment works well: few observers think Saddam can launch anything under present no-fly, daily bombing pressure. What is Bush's obsession? It remains a mystery. It is not a vote-winner in the US where the danger looks not clear and present, but cloudy and distant. The risks are frightening and the costs staggering. Petrol prices rise while stock exchanges fall at the prospect. Oil say some, but if US companies want Saddam's oil, an oil-driven cynical administration could make peace not war and help themselves to fat contracts.
No, it appears to spring from a new ideology, a neo-conservative dream which Charles Krauthammer, guru of the right, calls the US's "uniquely benign imperium". Hyperpower is not enough unless it is exerted so forcefully that no state ever again challenges benign US authority. One thing was made crystal clear yesterday - there is no other source of authority but America, and that means there is no other law but US law. What the US wants, the UN had better solemnise with a suitable resolution - very like the Roman senate and one of its lesser god-emperors. But this is not the real America. A small cultish sect is battling for the "imperium" within this bizarre administration, resisted by mainstream Republicans - so what is Tony Blair doing in there with them?
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
Bush And Prince William Are Blood-Related - Icke Was Right
The Bush Family Tree
By Mark Oliver
The Guardian - London
1. Oh, my God, you are never going to believe this but Prince William, not content at being second in line to the throne and sending the hearts of all those posh teenage girls aflutter, is related to George Dubya Bush.
2. So if you've always had a vague sense that all those ruling classes types, whether they be royals or from political/aristocratic dynasties, stick together and are all interbred, you would be right. They are, as George might put it, all similar folk. Kind of.
3. According to genealogists at the internet firm Myfamily.com , Bush and William are 17th cousins. The link, which is pretty flimsy or fairly remarkable depending on your opinion, relates to shared ancestry traced back to the 15th century Northamptonshire squire Henry Spencer.
4. His younger son William founded the line that eventually produced the great wartime leader and cigar chomper Sir Winston Churchill and Diana, Princess of Wales.
5. And descendants of Henry Spencer's eldest son, John, eventually settled in the New World in the 17th century, where they went on to develop appetites for political power and a distrust of oil-rich Middle East dictatorships.
6. John Spencer's offspring included an Anne Marbury, who moved from Lincolnshire to Massachusetts during the 1600s. She was later banished for religious reasons and killed by native Americans but a direct descendent of hers, Harriet Fay, married James Bush, the great-great grandfather of the president.
7. So now you know. It should have been obvious all along as Mr Bush is a well known admirer of Churchill and keeps a bust of him on his desk at the White House. Some commentators claim he borrowed some of Sir Winston's rhetorical flourishes when addressing Congress following the September 11 attacks but others are less sure of Bush's choice of role model.
8. Anyway, there is a great growth in people interested in tracing their family's roots, with many logging onto the vast numbers of genealogy websites to do so. Earlier this year, the public records office put the 1901 Census online and quickly took it off again after more than a million people logged on, crashing it.
9. For those of you who can't be bothered staring at charts of dead people, you could always try playing six degrees of separation, the game where you try and link yourself via people you have met to try and get to famous people. There is an infamous website which works out how many degrees of separation actors are away from Kevin Bacon, who somehow seems to sit in the middle of the movie world web like a big spider.
10. There was also a play-turned movie called Six Degrees of Separation in the 1990s where a young chancer tries to pass himself off as the son of Sidney Poitier. But all of this seems silly to this writer - clearly the best way to boast proximity to greatness is past life regression under hypnosis where you can just make it all up. I was amazed to discover I was William Shakespeare, Zorro and Luke Skywalker in my previous lives.
Tsar Vladimir Putin?
Vladimir Putin could have royal blood
Russian president Vladimir Putin has been a mystery almost for everyone since moment of his election. He seemed to be a man with no past, inspired by the symbol of the new epoch, but deprived of historic roots. Research conducted by journalists from the Russian city of Tver has become a sensation. It was discovered that the parents of the Russian president came from the Kalininsky area of the Tver region.
The president’s family tree is not traced before Putin’s grandfather Spiridon Putin, who left Tver for St. Petersburg at the age of 15. Vladimir Putin’s grandfather was a serious, reserved man of immaculate honesty. Spiridon Putin became a good cook. He worked in fancy restaurants in St.Petersburg before the revolution of 1917. Later, he was invited to cook for Lenin himself. When Lenin passed away, Spiridon Putin started working at one of Stalin’s dachas. Putin’s grandfather managed to survive this horrid period of the Soviet history. When he retired, he lived and cooked at a holiday camp of the Communist Party. Vladimir Putin describes his grandfather as a man who liked remaining silent most of the time.
The researchers did not manage to trace the origin of this last name – Putin. The world-wide web knows only one Putin – Vladimir Vladimirovich, the Russian president. Therefore, using online search engines is completely worthless in this quest. No other scientists of history and no dictionary mention anything about the name Putin among tens of thousands of other names.
On the other hand, there has recently been a surprising fact discovered. Vladimir Putin looks like Prince Mikhail Tverskoy. They both are not tall, with little hair, and similar noses. Is Putin a descendant of the Tver prince? This hypothesis is gaining more and more support. The name Putin is not mentioned among the Russian names. This means that the name is of foreign origin.
The name Putin appeared recently, sometime in the middle of the 19th century. All Putins originally came from the Putin clan of the Tver region. Illegitimate offspring of noble families were often given shortened names. For example, Russian writer Pnin was an illegitimate son of Field Marshal Repnin. There have been many other such occasions: Betskoy instead of Trubetskoy and Gribov instead of Griboyedov. The new names of unofficial clan branches were formed by means of deduction: a syllable was simply taken out of the origional name.
A book on the Tver region mentions the name of Putyanin, a clan of Russian princes. This clan gave Russian many outstanding military leaders, as well as artists, politicians, and priests. This is one of the oldest clans in Russian history. If President Putin is a descendant of the Putyatin clan, this means that Vladimir Putin is related to nearly all the royal families of Europe.
Based on the materials from the Tver newspaper Karavan
Translated by Dmitry Sudakov
PRAVDA.Ru Putin speaks of new world order
PRAVDA.Ru Putin , photos, and pornography
PRAVDA.Ru Bush to Putin : Join us!
PRAVDA.Ru Vladimir Putin ’s girl became Miss Universe 2002
USA Today : Putins popularity in Russia solid after rescue
Boston Globe : Questions for Putin
Pravda.RU:Top Stories:More in detail
Putin Denounces Plans for Radical Islamic worldwide Caliphate
Vladimir Putin declared in Brussels on Monday that radical Islamic groups are planning to systematically annihilate non-Moslems and to create a worldwide Caliphate.
He added that western civilisation was at risk of being attacked by terrorists, these attacks being more than sporadic one-off attacks. Rather, they are, in the opinion of Vladimir Putin a “concerted effort and programme” by an organisation which has a global structure and which has the intention to commit murderous atrocities in the name of Islam.
Vladimir Putin also declared that there was a possibility that this organisation (Al-Qaeda) already has nuclear weapons. He did not hesitate to point out that the terrorists operating in Chechnya are part of this worldwide league of extremists and indeed are in constant contact with Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda. Western sources repeatedly refer to the Chechens as “separatists” who want to fight for their independence, whereas the reality is quite different.
The Chechen terrorists are a small part of the 850,000 Chechen population, most of whom despise the bandits for what they are: common criminals with connections to international crime, posing in the name of Islam and separatism to gain sympathy for their cause from the ignorant or from those who periodically like to attack Russia.
President Putin declared that if the West does not deal effectively with the Chechen question, acts such as those perpetrated in Moscow and Bali will become commonplace all over the world.
Articles on the same subject on News.Google.Com:
"The capitulation of the world to the irresistible will of the last emperor was total and was only slightly masked by the requirement to go through the UN tollbooth before launching the attack,"
Shaij Abdalqadir As-Sufi