White Civil Rights : The Website for Europeans and Americans Wherever They May Live

by Paul Craig Roberts

Is the surge an orchestrated distraction from the real war plan?

A good case can be made that it is. The US Congress and media are focused on President Bush’s proposal for an increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq, while Israel and its American neoconservative allies prepare an assault on Iran.

Commentators have expressed puzzlement over President Bush’s appointment of a US Navy admiral as commander in charge of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The appointment makes sense only if the administration’s attention has shifted from the insurgencies to an attack on Iran.

The Bush administration has recently doubled its aircraft carrier forces and air power in the Persian Gulf. According to credible news reports, the Israeli air force has been making practice runs in preparation for an attack on Iran. (more…)

by Paul Craig Roberts

The new year began on the hopeful note that Bush’s illegal war in Iraq would soon be ended. The repudiation of Bush and the Republicans in the November congressional election, the Iraq Study Group’s unanimous conclusion that the US needs to remove its troops from the sectarian strife Bush set in motion by invading Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld’s removal as defense secretary and his replacement by Iraqi Study Group member Robert Gates, the thumbs down given by America’s top military commanders to the neoconservatives’ plan to send more US troops to Iraq, and new polls of the US military that reveal that only a minority supports Bush’s Iraq policy, thus giving new meaning to “support the troops,” are all indications that Americans have shed the stupor that has given carte blanche to George W. Bush.

When word leaked that Bush was inclined toward the “surge option” of committing more troops by keeping existing troops deployed in Iraq after their replacements had arrived, NBC News reported that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.” It is a clear sign of exasperation with Bush when an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions. (more…)

by James Buchanan

The Democrats have announced that they will spend their first week in Congress passing several bills which poll well among Americans. One recent news article notes the “Democrats’ ‘first 100 legislative hours’ agenda includes measures to bolster national security, increase the minimum wage, cut the interest rate on student loans, reduce the price of prescription drugs, overturn Bush’s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and end some subsidies to big oil companies.” Surprisingly the Democrats have proposed a “Pay (as you) go” bill which will require Congress to either raise taxes or cut spending after each new bill is passed. Perhaps the Democrats hope to build up some mainstream support for themselves after being out of power for twelve years.

The truly important issues facing the Democrats are the Iraq War and restoring the Bill of Rights. George Bush has started off his relationship with the new Congress much like an old chimp reacting to invading chimpanzees. Bush has decided to “fling his poop” at the newcomers –figuratively in the form of a “Troop Surge” trying to reassert his dominance. The invading chimps however are bigger and stronger. A vast majority of Americans know that the Democrats were elected to bring the troops home from Iraq. The same majority knows that Iraq is a hopeless quagmire. Bush’s situation is hopeless and digging in on the Iraq War –effectively “dissing” the Democrats and the anti-war movement is a great way for Bush to alienate and insult the new Congress, which will be investigating him for the next two years. (more…)

by Rep. Ron Paul

Saddam Hussein is dead. So are three thousand Americans.

The regime in Iraq has been changed. Yet victory will not be declared: not only does the war go on, it’s about to escalate. Obviously the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever, and most Americans no longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic, associated with this war.

We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months of our war in Vietnam. I was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. That war went on for another decade, and by the time we finally got out 60,000 Americans had died. God knows we should have gotten out ten years earlier. “Troop surge” meant serious escalation. (more…)

by Ian Mosley

If the Sunday Times of London, one of the most reputable and painstakingly accurate newspapers in the world, is right about an article which appeared on January seventh, then all of humanity is facing a crisis which no one on earth dares ignore. It is entirely possible that Israel has decided to exercise what the Israeli government once designated as “The Samson Option.” They are going to launch a nuclear first strike against Iran, and possibly destroy human civilization as we know it in the process.

The Times article states that “Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear bunker-busters, according to several Israeli military sources. The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” (more…)

by James Buchanan

Despite an overwhelming defeat of the neocons in the 2006 election, George Bush has apparently decided to ignore the will of the American people and INCREASE the number of troops in Iraq. Will Bush back off this lunatic new idea? Will the Democrats have the backbone to start bringing our troops home?

After a long delay, opposition to the troop surge is finally building. One news article reports “Days from announcing an overhaul of (his) Iraq strategy, President Bush on Friday encountered a wall of criticism of the U.S. troop escalation that is expected to be the centerpiece of his new war plan… ‘We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq,’ new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote in a letter to Bush a day after their party took the reins on Capitol Hill. Instead, Pelosi and Reid urged Bush to begin pulling troops out in four to six months. The criticism underscored that Bush, preparing his new policy for an increasingly unpopular and costly war, will face a Congress that is not only controlled by Democrats who could challenge him at any turn but also populated with Republicans looking toward the congressional and presidential elections of 2008.” (more…)

by Paul Craig Roberts

On Jan. 2, the BBC reported a leak from a “senior administration source” that President George W. Bush is going to give a speech, whose “central theme will be sacrifice,” announcing an increase in U.S. troops in Iraq for security purposes. Speculation abounds whether the leak is designed to block Bush’s insane policy with protests or to soften its controversial edge when announced. The BBC reports that “already one senior Republican senator has called it Alice in Wonderland.”

Bush’s proposal, if he makes it, is the work of retired army general Jack Keane and Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute. AEI is the second most important Israeli lobby in Washington after AIPAC.

Keane and Kagan profess to believe that 30,000 more U.S. troops can bring security to Iraq. Keane and Kagan argue that more U.S. troops would permit the U.S. military to retain control of an area after they had cleared it of insurgents. They ignore that Iraq has progressed from insurgency into civil war. There can be no Iraqi army independent of the sectarian conflict. The military problem for the Americans is no longer a small insurgency drawn from a minority of the population, but sectarian strife involving all of Iraq. Today the only choice for U.S. forces is to ally with one side or the other in the civil war or to depart Iraq. (more…)

by James Buchanan

Let’s say the police mistakenly break down your front door, set your house on fire with tear gas and arrest you. When you finally have your day in court two years later, you find that the police who arrested you are now the judge and jury, who promptly sentence you to death.

The only difference between the above analogy and what our government just did in Iraq is that our government did it on purpose. Anyone with the tiniest sense of justice should wince at the idea of a national leader being put on trial by either:

1).a hostile foreign power which just conquered that nation in a war of aggression

or

2).a puppet government acting on behalf of a still-occupying hostile foreign power.

If our legal system says that every citizen is entitled to be judged by a jury of twelve peers, why did we deny this Right to Saddam? (more…)

by Jeff Davis

One of the reasons I spend much of my time web browsing foreign newspapers and media sources is that you find stories which are either grossly underreported or never reported at all in the American news media. This fascinating item comes from the Hong Kong Standard, of all places, but appears to have originated in the British Sunday Telegraph.

The news article reports “Would-be illegal immigrants planning to cross the desert and enter the United States on foot are to be given hand-held satellite devices by the Mexican authorities to ensure they arrive safely. Those who get lost or fall sick during the dangerous four-day crossing will be able to activate the device, to alert frontier police on both sides of the border. The satellite tracking service will require would-be illegals to register their intentions before setting off - a paradoxical move, given that secrecy is necessary for success - but Mexican authorities are predicting that about 200,000 devices will be handed out when the project is launched formally in the coming year.” (more…)

by James Buchanan

(continued)

Consider a brief history of how White Christians nations have historically treated defeated enemies and contrast that to how nations under Jewish control have behaved:

After Napoleon conquered much of Europe, the English along with the Prussians were finally able to defeat him. Napoleon was sent into exile by the British not just once, but twice after he attempted a comeback.

After World War One, the Allied nations allowed the Kaiser to go into exile in Holland.

After the Civil War, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were not put on trial for “war crimes” and executed. The Yankees did however steal Robert E. Lee’s property and turn it into a national cemetery. The brutality of the Radical Reconstruction which followed the war exposed the abolitionists as heartless thugs, who cared more about Blacks than their fellow Whites in the South. Most of the abolitionists were early leftist-liberal scum. It would not be surprising if the Jews played a significant role in that Movement (despite their earlier role in bringing the Blacks here as slave traders). (more…)