Why it's over for America

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&tag=informati06f8-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&path=external-search%3Fsearch-type=ss%26index=blended%26keyword=Failed%20States

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621899.ece
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13426.htm

Why it's over for America An inability to protect its citizens. The belief that it is above the law. A lack of democracy. Three defining characteristics of the 'failed state'. And that, says Noam Chomsky, is exactly what the US is becoming. In an exclusive extract from his devastating new book, America's leading thinker explains how his country lost its way By Noam Chomsky05/30/06 "The Independent" -- -- The selection of issues that should rank high on the agenda of concern for human welfare and rights is, naturally, a subjective matter. But there are a few choices that seem unavoidable, because they bear so directly on the prospects for decent survival. Among them are at least these three: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world's leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. It is important to stress the government, because the population, not surprisingly, does not agree. That brings up a fourth issue that should deeply concern Americans, and the world: the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy, one of the reasons for the fear, which cannot casually be put aside, that, as Gar Alperowitz puts it in America Beyond Capitalism, "the American 'system' as a whole is in real trouble - that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values [of] equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy".The "system" is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the population from severe internal threats (like Haiti). Though the concept is recognised to be, according to the journal Foreign Affairs, "frustratingly imprecise", some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious "democratic deficit" that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of "failed states" right at home. No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing democratic deficit in the United States is accompanied by declaration of messianic missions to bring democracy to a suffering world. Declarations of noble intent by systems of power are rarely complete fabrication, and the same is true in this case. Under some conditions, forms of democracy are indeed acceptable. Abroad, as the leading scholar-advocate of "democracy promotion" concludes, we find a "strong line of continuity": democracy is acceptable if and only if it is consistent with strategic and economic interests (Thomas Carothers). In modified form, the doctrine holds at home as well.The basic dilemma facing policymakers is sometimes candidly recognised at the dovish liberal extreme of the spectrum, for example, by Robert Pastor, President Carter's national security adviser for Latin America. He explained why the administration had to support the murderous and corrupt Somoza regime in Nicaragua, and, when that proved impossible, to try at least to maintain the US-trained National Guard even as it was massacring the population "with a brutality a nation usually reserves for its enemy", killing some 40,000 people. The reason was the familiar one: "The United States did not want to control Nicaragua or the other nations of the region, but it also did not want developments to get out of control. It wanted Nicaraguans to act independently, except when doing so would affect US interests adversely."Similar dilemmas faced Bush administration planners after their invasion of Iraq. They want Iraqis "to act independently, except when doing so would affect US interests adversely". Iraq must therefore be sovereign and democratic, but within limits. It must somehow be constructed as an obedient client state, much in the manner of the traditional order in Central America. At a general level, the pattern is familiar, reaching to the opposite extreme of institutional structures. The Kremlin was able to maintain satellites that were run by domestic political and military forces, with the iron fist poised. Germany was able to do much the same in occupied Europe even while it was at war, as did fascist Japan in Man-churia (its Manchukuo). Fascist Italy achieved similar results in North Africa while carrying out virtual genocide that in no way harmed its favourable image in the West and possibly inspired Hitler. Traditional imperial and neocolonial systems illustrate many variations on similar themes.To achieve the traditional goals in Iraq has proven to be surprisingly difficult, despite unusually favourable circumstances. The dilemma of combining a measure of independence with firm control arose in a stark form not long after the invasion, as mass non-violent resistance compelled the invaders to accept far more Iraqi initiative than they had anticipated. The outcome even evoked the nightmarish prospect of a more or less democratic and sovereign Iraq taking its place in a loose Shiite alliance comprising Iran, Shiite Iraq, and possibly the nearby Shiite-dominated regions of Saudi Arabia, controlling most of the world's oil and independent of Washington.The situation could get worse. Iran might give up on hopes that Europe could become independent of the United States, and turn eastward. Highly relevant background is discussed by Selig Harrison, a leading specialist on these topics. "The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union were based on a bargain that the EU, held back by the US, has failed to honour," Harrison observes."The bargain was that Iran would suspend uranium enrichment, and the EU would undertake security guarantees. The language of the joint declaration was "unambiguous. 'A mutually acceptable agreement,' it said, would not only provide 'objective guarantees' that Iran's nuclear programme is 'exclusively for peaceful purposes' but would 'equally provide firm commitments on security issues.'"The phrase "security issues" is a thinly veiled reference to the threats by the United States and Israel to bomb Iran, and preparations to do so. The model regularly adduced is Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, which appears to have initiated Saddam's nuclear weapons programs, another demonstration that violence tends to elicit violence. Any attempt to execute similar plans against Iran could lead to immediate violence, as is surely understood in Washington. During a visit to Tehran, the influential Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr warned that his militia would defend Iran in the case of any attack, "one of the strongest signs yet", the Washington Post reported, "that Iraq could become a battleground in any Western conflict with Iran, raising the spectre of Iraqi Shiite militias - or perhaps even the US-trained Shiite-dominated military - taking on American troops here in sympathy with Iran." The Sadrist bloc, which registered substantial gains in the December 2005 elections, may soon become the most powerful single political force in Iraq. It is consciously pursuing the model of other successful Islamist groups, such as Hamas in Palestine, combining strong resistance to military occupation with grassroots social organising and service to the poor.Washington's unwillingness to allow regional security issues to be considered is nothing new. It has also arisen repeatedly in the confrontation with Iraq. In the background is the matter of Israeli nuclear weapons, a topic that Washington bars from international consideration. Beyond that lurks what Harrison rightly describes as "the central problem facing the global non-proliferation regime": the failure of the nuclear states to live up to their nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligation "to phase out their own nuclear weapons" - and, in Washington's case, formal rejection of the obligation.Unlike Europe, China refuses to be intimidated by Washington, a primary reason for the growing fear of China on the part of US planners. Much of Iran's oil already goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons, presumably considered a deterrent to US threats. Still more uncomfortable for Washington is the fact that, according to the Financial Times, "the Sino-Saudi relationship has developed dramatically", including Chinese military aid to Saudi Arabia and gas exploration rights for China. By 2005, Saudi Arabia provided about 17 per cent of China's oil imports. Chinese and Saudi oil companies have signed deals for drilling and construction of a huge refinery (with Exxon Mobil as a partner). A January 2006 visit by Saudi king Abdullah to Beijing was expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas, and minerals".Indian analyst Aijaz Ahmad observes that Iran could "emerge as the virtual linchpin in the making, over the next decade or so, of what China and Russia have come to regard as an absolutely indispensable Asian Energy Security Grid, for breaking Western control of the world's energy supplies and securing the great industrial revolution of Asia". South Korea and southeast Asian countries are likely to join, possibly Japan as well. A crucial question is how India will react. It rejected US pressures to withdraw from an oil pipeline deal with Iran. On the other hand, India joined the United States and the EU in voting for an anti-Iranian resolution at the IAEA, joining also in their hypocrisy, since India rejects the NPT regime to which Iran, so far, appears to be largely conforming. Ahmad reports that India may have secretly reversed its stand under Iranian threats to terminate a $20bn gas deal. Washington later warned India that its "nuclear deal with the US could be ditched" if India did not go along with US demands, eliciting a sharp rejoinder from the Indian foreign ministry and an evasive tempering of the warning by the US embassy.The prospect that Europe and Asia might move toward greater independence has seriously troubled US planners since World War II, and concerns have significantly increased as the tripolar order has continued to evolve, along with new south-south interactions and rapidly growing EU engagement with China.US intelligence has projected that the United States, while controlling Middle East oil for the traditional reasons, will itself rely mainly on more stable Atlantic Basin resources (West Africa, western hemisphere). Control of Middle East oil is now far from a sure thing, and these expectations are also threatened by developments in the western hemisphere, accelerated by Bush administration policies that have left the United States remarkably isolated in the global arena. The Bush administration has even succeeded in alienating Canada, an impressive feat.Canada's minister of natural resources said that within a few years one quarter of the oil that Canada now sends to the United States may go to China instead. In a further blow to Washington's energy policies, the leading oil exporter in the hemisphere, Venezuela, has forged probably the closest relations with China of any Latin American country, and is planning to sell increasing amounts of oil to China as part of its effort to reduce dependence on the openly hostile US government. Latin America as a whole is increasing trade and other relations with China, with some setbacks, but likely expansion, in particular for raw materials exporters like Brazil and Chile.Meanwhile, Cuba-Venezuela relations are becoming very close, each relying on its comparative advantage. Venezuela is providing low-cost oil while in return Cuba organises literacy and health programs, sending thousands of highly skilled professionals, teachers, and doctors, who work in the poorest and most neglected areas, as they do elsewhere in the Third World. Cuba-Venezuela projects are extending to the Caribbean countries, where Cuban doctors are providing healthcare to thousands of people with Venezuelan funding. Operation Miracle, as it is called, is described by Jamaica's ambassador to Cuba as "an example of integration and south-south cooperation", and is generating great enthusiasm among the poor majority. Cuban medical assistance is also being welcomed elsewhere. One of the most horrendous tragedies of recent years was the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. In addition to the huge toll, unknown numbers of survivors have to face brutal winter weather with little shelter, food, or medical assistance. One has to turn to the South Asian press to read that "Cuba has provided the largest contingent of doctors and paramedics to Pakistan", paying all the costs (perhaps with Venezuelan funding), and that President Musharraf expressed his "deep gratitude" for the "spirit and compassion" of the Cuban medical teams.Some analysts have suggested that Cuba and Venezuela might even unite, a step towards further integration of Latin America in a bloc that is more independent from the United States. Venezuela has joined Mercosur, the South American customs union, a move described by Argentine president Nestor Kirchner as "a milestone" in the development of this trading bloc, and welcomed as opening "a new chapter in our integration" by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Independent experts say that "adding Venezuela to the bloc furthers its geopolitical vision of eventually spreading Mercosur to the rest of the region".At a meeting to mark Venezuela's entry into Mercosur, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez said, "We cannot allow this to be purely an economic project, one for the elites and for the transnational companies," a not very oblique reference to the US-sponsored "Free Trade Agreement for the Americas", which has aroused strong public opposition. Venezuela also supplied Argentina with fuel oil to help stave off an energy crisis, and bought almost a third of Argentine debt issued in 2005, one element of a region-wide effort to free the countries from the control of the US-dominated IMF after two decades of disastrous effects of conformity to its rules. The IMF has "acted towards our country as a promoter and a vehicle of policies that caused poverty and pain among the Argentine people", President Kirchner said in announcing his decision to pay almost $1 trillion to rid itself of the IMF forever. Radically violating IMF rules, Argentina enjoyed a substantial recovery from the disaster left by IMF policies.Steps toward independent regional integration advanced further with the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia in December 2005, the first president from the indigenous majority. Morales moved quickly to reach energy accords with Venezuela.Though Central America was largely disciplined by Reaganite violence and terror, the rest of the hemisphere is falling out of control, particularly from Venezuela to Argentina, which was the poster child of the IMF and the Treasury Department until its economy collapsed under the policies they imposed. Much of the region has left-centre governments. The indigenous populations have become much more active and influential, particularly in Bolivia and Ecuador, both major energy producers, where they either want oil and gas to be domestically controlled or, in some cases, oppose production altogether. Many indigenous people apparently do not see any reason why their lives, societies, and cultures should be disrupted or destroyed so that New Yorkers can sit in SUVs in traffic gridlock. Some are even calling for an "Indian nation" in South America. Meanwhile the economic integration that is under way is reversing patterns that trace back to the Spanish conquests, with Latin American elites and economies linked to the imperial powers but not to one another. Along with growing south-south interaction on a broader scale, these developments are strongly influenced by popular organisations that are coming together in the unprecedented international global justice movements, ludicrously called "anti-globalisation" because they favour globalisation that privileges the interests of people, not investors and financial institutions. For many reasons, the system of US global dominance is fragile, even apart from the damage inflicted by Bush planners.One consequence is that the Bush administration's pursuit of the traditional policies of deterring democracy faces new obstacles. It is no longer as easy as before to resort to military coups and international terrorism to overthrow democratically elected governments, as Bush planners learnt ruefully in 2002 in Venezuela. The "strong line of continuity" must be pursued in other ways, for the most part. In Iraq, as we have seen, mass nonviolent resistance compelled Washington and London to permit the elections they had sought to evade. The subsequent effort to subvert the elections by providing substantial advantages to the administration's favourite candidate, and expelling the independent media, also failed. Washington faces further problems. The Iraqi labor movement is making considerable progress despite the opposition of the occupation authorities. The situation is rather like Europe and Japan after World War II, when a primary goal of the United States and United Kingdom was to undermine independent labour movements - as at home, for similar reasons: organised labour contributes in essential ways to functioning democracy with popular engagement. Many of the measures adopted at that time - withholding food, supporting fascist police - are no longer available. Nor is it possible today to rely on the labour bureaucracy of the American Institute for Free Labor Development to help undermine unions. Today, some American unions are supporting Iraqi workers, just as they do in Colombia, where more union activists are murdered than anywhere in the world. At least the unions now receive support from the United Steelworkers of America and others, while Washington continues to provide enormous funding for the government, which bears a large part of the responsibility.The problem of elections arose in Palestine much in the way it did in Iraq. As already discussed, the Bush administration refused to permit elections until the death of Yasser Arafat, aware that the wrong man would win. After his death, the administration agreed to permit elections, expecting the victory of its favoured Palestinian Authority candidates. To promote this outcome, Washington resorted to much the same modes of subversion as in Iraq, and often before. Washington used the US Agency for International Development as an "invisible conduit" in an effort to "increase the popularity of the Palestinian Authority on the eve of crucial elections in which the governing party faces a serious challenge from the radical Islamic group Hamas" (Washington Post), spending almost $2m "on dozens of quick projects before elections this week to bolster the governing Fatah faction's image with voters" (New York Times). In the United States, or any Western country, even a hint of such foreign interference would destroy a candidate, but deeply rooted imperial mentality legitimates such routine measures elsewhere. However, the attempt to subvert the elections again resoundingly failed.The US and Israeli governments now have to adjust to dealing somehow with a radical Islamic party that approaches their traditional rejectionist stance, though not entirely, at least if Hamas really does mean to agree to an indefinite truce on the international border as its leaders state. The US and Israel, in contrast, insist that Israel must take over substantial parts of the West Bank (and the forgotten Golan Heights). Hamas's refusal to accept Israel's "right to exist" mirrors the refusal of Washington and Jerusalem to accept Palestine's "right to exist" - a concept unknown in international affairs; Mexico accepts the existence of the United States but not its abstract "right to exist" on almost half of Mexico, acquired by conquest. Hamas's formal commitment to "destroy Israel" places it on a par with the United States and Israel, which vowed formally that there could be no "additional Palestinian state" (in addition to Jordan) until they relaxed their extreme rejectionist stand partially in the past few years, in the manner already reviewed. Although Hamas has not said so, it would come as no great surprise if Hamas were to agree that Jews may remain in scattered areas in the present Israel, while Palestine constructs huge settlement and infrastructure projects to take over the valuable land and resources, effectively breaking Israel up into unviable cantons, virtually separated from one another and from some small part of Jerusalem where Jews would also be allowed to remain. And they might agree to call the fragments "a state". If such proposals were made, we would - rightly - regard them as virtually a reversion to Nazism, a fact that might elicit some thoughts. If such proposals were made, Hamas's position would be essentially like that of the United States and Israel for the past five years, after they came to tolerate some impoverished form of "statehood". It is fair to describe Hamas as radical, extremist, and violent, and as a serious threat to peace and a just political settlement. But the organisation is hardly alone in this stance.Elsewhere traditional means of undermining democracy have succeeded. In Haiti, the Bush administration's favourite "democracy-building group, the International Republican Institute", worked assiduously to promote the opposition to President Aristide, helped by the withholding of desperately needed aid on grounds that were dubious at best. When it seemed that Aristide would probably win any genuine election, Washington and the opposition chose to withdraw, a standard device to discredit elections that are going to come out the wrong way: Nicaragua in 1984 and Venezuela in December 2005 are examples that should be familiar. Then followed a military coup, expulsion of the president, and a reign of terror and violence vastly exceeding anything under the elected government.The persistence of the strong line of continuity to the present again reveals that the United States is very much like other powerful states. It pursues the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the domestic population, to the accompaniment of rhetorical flourishes about its dedication to the highest values. That is practically a historical universal, and the reason why sensible people pay scant attention to declarations of noble intent by leaders, or accolades by their followers.One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them." In addition to the proposals that should be familiar about dealing with the crises that reach to the level of survival, a few simple suggestions for the United States have already been mentioned: 1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; 2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols; 3) let the UN take the lead in international crises; 4) rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror; 5) keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter; 6) give up the Security Council veto and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centres disagree; 7) cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending. For people who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions: they appear to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases the overwhelming majority. They are in radical opposition to public policy. To be sure, we cannot be very confident about the state of public opinion on such matters because of another feature of the democratic deficit: the topics scarcely enter into public discussion and the basic facts are little known. In a highly atomised society, the public is therefore largely deprived of the opportunity to form considered opinions.Another conservative suggestion is that facts, logic, and elementary moral principles should matter. Those who take the trouble to adhere to that suggestion will soon be led to abandon a good part of familiar doctrine, though it is surely much easier to repeat self-serving mantras. Such simple truths carry us some distance toward developing more specific and detailed answers. More important, they open the way to implement them, opportun- ities that are readily within our grasp if we can free ourselves from the shackles of doctrine and imposed illusion.Though it is natural for doctrinal systems to seek to induce pessimism, hopelessness, and despair, reality is different. There has been substantial progress in the unending quest for justice and freedom in recent years, leaving a legacy that can be carried forward from a higher plane than before. Opportunities for education and organising abound. As in the past, rights are not likely to be granted by benevolent authorities, or won by intermittent actions - attending a few demonstrations or pushing a lever in the personalised quadrennial extravaganzas that are depicted as "democratic politics". As always in the past, the tasks require dedicated day-by-day engagement to create - in part recreate - the basis for a functioning democratic culture in which the public plays some role in determining policies, not only in the political arena, from which it is largely excluded, but also in the crucial economic arena, from which it is excluded in principle. There are many ways to promote democracy at home, carrying it to new dimensions. Opportunities are ample, and failure to grasp them is likely to have ominous repercussions: for the country, for the world, and for future generations.This is an edited extract from Failed States by Noam Chomsky (Hamish Hamilton)© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

The War Prayer

The War Prayer
by Mark Twain
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!*
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:
"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think.
"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

Twain apparently dictated it around 1904-05; it was rejected by his publisher, and was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts. It was first published in 1923 in Albert Bigelow Paine's anthology, Europe and Elsewhere.
The story is in response to a particular war, namely the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902, which Twain opposed. See Jim Zwick's page "Mark Twain on the Philippines" for more of Twain's writings on the subject.
Transcribed by Steven Orso (snorso@facstaff.wisc.edu)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2231.htm
http://web.syr.edu/~fjzwick/twain_ph.html

Universal National Service Act of 2006(Introduced in House)

Universal National Service Act of 2006 (Introduced in House):
To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752.IH :

2 CBS team members killed; reporter hurt

NEW YORK - Cameraman Paul Douglas had spent more than a decade covering the world's hot spots for CBS News. Freelance soundman James Brolan was part of a CBS team honored for its dispatches on the earthquake in Pakistan. Correspondent Kimberly Dozier had reported on the deteriorating situation in
Iraq' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Iraq for nearly three years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/journalists_killed

wall street "jews"

http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?userid=UD5ZL0YC6l&btob=Y&ean=9780671792275&displayonly=EXC#EXC


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291/board/thread/27042177?d=29754407#29754407

The best Congress money can buy

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13411.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50402
http://www.wnd.com/redir/r.asp?http://www.peacenow.org/hot.asp?cid=2161
http://www.wnd.com/redir/r.asp?http://www.israelemb.org/
http://www.wnd.com/redir/r.asp?http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr282.html


The best Congress money can buyBy Gordon Prather05/27/06 "WND" -- -- Ehud Olmert – who assumed the office of prime minister of Israel earlier this month – has just addressed a joint session of what some cynics have been referring to lately as The Best Congress Money Can Buy.
That's the same Congress where House members voted overwhelmingly (361-37) the day before Olmert's address for a bill declaring "it shall be U.S. policy that no U.S. government officer or employee shall negotiate or have substantive contacts with members or official representatives of Hamas" – the political party that just won 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament – until it:
recognizes Israel's right to exist;

renounces the use of terrorism;

dismantles the infrastructure necessary to carry out terrorist acts, including disarming militias and elimination of all terror instruments; and

recognizes and accepts all previous Israel-PLO agreements and understandings.
OK. Congresspersons – on behalf of their constituents – intend to prohibit
Well, how about negotiating and/or having substantive contact with the Iranians?
Nothing doing.
After quoting Abraham Lincoln to the effect he had become a "success" because he once had an un-named friend who "believed" in him, Olmert allowed as how Israel is grateful that America "believes in us."
What makes Olmert think we do? Said the prime minister:
Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terror and a notorious violator of fundamental human rights, stands on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. With these weapons, the security of the entire world is put in jeopardy.
We deeply appreciate America's leadership on this issue and the strong bipartisan conviction that a nuclear-armed Iran is an intolerable threat to the peace and security of the world. It cannot be permitted to materialize.
This Congress has proven its conviction by initiating the Iran Freedom Support Act.
We applaud these efforts.
And well they might.
Because the stated purpose of the Iran Freedom Support Act – which also passed overwhelmingly in the House – is "to hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior …"
Threatening to whom?
Well, according to Olmert, the United States and Israel:

The radical Iranian regime has declared the United States its enemy.
Its president believes it is his religious duty and his destiny to lead his country in a violent conflict against the infidels. With pride he denies the Jewish Holocaust and speaks brazenly, calling to wipe Israel off the map.
For us, this is an existential threat. A threat to which we cannot consent.
But it is not Israel's threat alone. It is a threat to all those committed to stability in the Middle East and the well-being of the world at large.
So, the Iran Freedom Support Act declares that:

efforts to bring a halt to the nuclear weapons program of Iran, including steps to end the supply of nuclear components or fuel to Iran, should be intensified, with particular attention focused on the cooperation regarding such program –

(A) between the government of Iran and the government of the Russian Federation; and
(B) between the government of Iran and individuals from China, Malaysia and Pakistan, including the network of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan
Wow! Not only can we not have substantive contact with the Iranians; we're supposed to prevent the Russians, Chinese, Malaysians and Pakistanis from having substantive contact with them, too.
Why do we have to ignore the dozens of resolutions the U.N. General Assembly passes each year to deal with the real crisis in the Middle East?
And, why do we have to subvert the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the U.N. Charter, itself, to deal with a phony crisis?
Well, according to Olmert, we have no choice:

Mr. Speaker, our moment is NOW.
History will judge our generation by the actions we take NOW … by our willingness to stand up for peace and security and freedom, and by our courage to do what is right.
The international community will be measured not by its intentions but by its results. The international community will be judged by its ability to convince nations and peoples to turn their backs on hatred and zealotry.
If we don't take Iran's bellicose rhetoric seriously now, we will be forced to take its nuclear aggression seriously later.
That's scary, since Bush has already said that "the prime minister and I shared our concerns about the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons ambitions." And the world already knows how Bush deals with those he deems to have nuclear weapons ambitions.
Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. He also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Olmert should have stayed Home

Olmert should have stayed Home By Mike Whitney 05/27/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Ehud Olmert never should have been invited to Washington. He shouldn’t have been given a platform to spout his defiance of UN resolutions. The Bush administration does the country a disservice by rewarding leaders who ignore the international community and carry out their own self-serving agenda. This doesn’t mean that Israel should be bombed into the Stone Age like Iraq, or that Olmert should be targeted for regime change. And, it doesn’t mean that the Israeli people should be collectively punished with lethal sanctions like those that are being levied against the Palestinians. It simply means that Israel should be isolated as much as possible until it complies with UN resolutions to return to the 1967 borders. Olmert’s appearance in Washington is a setback for the United States as well as the cause of peace in the Middle East. It undermines our credibility in the Muslim world and makes our foreign policy look hypocritical. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the center of the turmoil that is extending through the entire region. The administration’s favoritism has poisoned the atmosphere, making the battle for “hearts and minds” that much more difficult. Olmert was given a hero’s welcome when he entered the House of Representatives. If anyone in the audience had read the Amnesty International report issued earlier in the day, they certainly didn’t let on. The report stated that, “Israeli soldiers, police and settlers who committed unlawful killings, ill-treatment and other attacks against Palestinians and their property commonly did so with impunity….Investigations are rare, as were prosecutions of the perpetrators, which in most cases did not lead to convictions.” The report suggests that severe human rights abuses are being carried out against Palestinian civilians that go completely unanswered by Israel. These issues are taken seriously nearly everywhere except in the US congress where human rights abusers are revered as the champions of liberty. Olmert’s speech followed the usual formula of demonizing the Palestinians while portraying Israel as the victim of a 60 year struggle against fanatical Arabs. No mention was made of the countless checkpoints that dot the West Bank, or the thousands of Palestinians languishing in Israeli prisons, or the boycott of food and medical aid that is strangling the territories. Instead, Olmert limited himself to tough-talk on terrorism and praise for the US-Israel alliance. At times his speech was absurdly ingratiating: “The United States is a superpower whose influence reaches across oceans and beyond borders…Our two great nations share a profound belief in the importance of freedom and a common pioneering spirit deeply rooted in optimism….It is impossible to think of a world in which America was not there, in the honorable service of humanity.” Behind the smarmy rhetoric, though, Olmert was busy giving the US another black-eye by authorizing more violence in the occupied territories. As he delivered his speech the AP reported another attack in Gaza. This time, three Palestinian civilians in the same family were killed in an air raid on an alleged terror suspect. Nahed Mahani and his family were out driving his new car when the vehicle was hit by shrapnel from a surface-to-air missile fired from an unmanned drone. The explosion killed his grandmother, his mother, and his daughter. Three generations were wiped out in one blast. The next day, another four more Palestinians were gunned down by Israeli troops in a gangland-style hit in Ramallah. 30 innocent passers-bye were injured in the attack. Olmert is obviously so confident in America’s unwavering support for Israel he didn’t even suspend his homicidal attacks while visiting Washington. While he was flattering congress to their faces, the killing-spree was unfolding in the territories. The rest of the world isn’t fooled by Olmert’s pretensions. They see the bodies being carted off in ambulances in Gaza; they can connect the dots. They see congress’ enthusiasm as a clear endorsement for the policy of targeted assassination; a policy that civilized nations universally condemn as barbaric. Only the congress is taken in by this ruse. The substance of Olmert’s speech was known weeks in advance. It’s another reason that Bush should have canceled his trip. Olmert wants American support for his plan to unilaterally draw Israel’s permanent borders. He also wants to persuade congress to launch preemptive military strikes against Iran. His requests are illegal, immoral and run counter to the national interest. Congress should have been outraged, instead they were ecstatic. On the issue of borders, Olmert offered a terse ultimatum:”If the Palestinians fulfill their commitments and obligations they will find us a willing partner in peace. But if they refuse, we will not give them a veto over progress, or allow it to take hope hostage….We cannot wait for the Palestinians forever”. “We cannot wait forever”? Notice that the requirements of UN resolution 242 are completely ignored as is the obligation to decide final status issues with the Palestinian leadership. Instead, Olmert uses intentionally misleading language that was invented in right-wing think tanks (“realignment”, “convergence”, “disengagement”) to conceal the real objectives which are to incorporate occupied land within Israel’s borders. The language was minted to elevate land-theft to a level of respectability. Congress applauded Olmert’s plan. UN resolutions mean nothing to them. Just day’s earlier, they passed The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act; a piece of legislation that was vehemently opposed by centrist Jewish groups in America. The bill cuts off all US aid to the cash-strapped PA ensuring that innocent women and children will continue to suffer from the blockade. The bill “shuts down all Palestinian diplomatic offices in the U.S., denies visas to PA officials, and…declares Palestinian territory to be a ‘terrorist sanctuary’” (Jim Lobe) Apparently, no amount of collective punishment will satisfy our xenophobic congress. Congress was equally receptive to Olmert’s views on Iran. Calling Iran “the world’s leading sponsor of terror” and a “notorious violator of human rights” Olmert said: “For us, this is an existential threat. A threat to which we cannot consent. Mr. Speaker, our moment is NOW. History will judge our generation by the actions we take NOW. If we don’t take Iran’s bellicose rhetoric seriously now, we will be forced to take its nuclear aggression seriously later.” Thunderous applause. Congress’ zeal can only be construed as support for war with Iran; a lunatic idea that would be catastrophic for America and the entire Middle East. Congress is clearly marching in lockstep with powerful Israeli constituents whose influence has clouded their reason and inhibited their ability to act for the common good. Foreign policy should never be the sole purview of special interest groups, but should reflect the nations’ goals and its commitment to basic principles. . Olmert’s speech should have been denounced as a cheap appeal for more hostilities. Instead it was praised as inspirational and statesmanlike. The passionate reaction from congress implies that we have reached another milestone on the winding path to war with Iran. Are we really ready to sacrifice American lives for Ehud Olmert? How many young men like Casey Sheehan will have to be offloaded by a forklift at Dover Air Force Base before Olmert achieves his regional ambitions? If Israel is asking America to support its unlawful settlements and start a war with Iran, then Israel is not our friend. Friends don’t dupe their friends into bloody conflicts for their own gain. If that’s Olmert’s message; he should have stayed at home.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13401.htm
Why did Olmert gets standing ovations in both Houses of Congress?Because ......http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Ma...06/ 0605031.htmlhttp:// www.whatreallyhappened.co...isteningto.htmlhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.co...m/ offtowar.htmlKen 05.27.06 - 4:07 pm
The first comment above gives three links, the first of which is; http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Ma...06/ 0605031.htmlThis link clearly shows how the jewish lobby buys the love, attention, and votes, of the lawmakers that are SUPPOSED to be representing US

Must readhttp://72.14.207.104/search?q=ca...us&ct=clnk&cd=1Must watchhttp://video.google.com/videopla...IR- RAID+FOOTAGEIts time to step up to the plate. Strike a home run. Please pass along.Don 05.27.06 - 7:35 pm

They should've listened to Albert Einstein and his prominent Jew friends back in '48http://groups.msn.com/ WorldSocia...ysocialism.msnwBill Johnson Homepage 05.28.06 - 2:01 am
http://www.worldsocialism.org/
Facts which we Americans should know:http://www.wrmea.com/html/ us_aid...d_to_israel.htmhttp://www.palestinemonitor.org/ ...d_to_Israel.htmhttp://www.ifamericansknew.org/s...tats/ usaid.htmlhttp://www.stop-us-military-aid-...-to-israel.net/ Ken 05.28.06 - 3:30 am

Galloway says murder of Blair would be 'justified'

Full Text of the National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners

Galloway says murder of Blair would be 'justified' By Oliver Duff 06/26/06 "The Independent" -- -- The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair. In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a persistent critic of Mr Galloway during previous controversies, told The Sun that the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London was "disgraceful and truly twisted".He said: "These comments take my breath away. Every time you think he can't sink any lower he goes and stuns you again. It's reprehensible to say it would be justified for a suicide bomber to assassinate anyone."The Stop the War Coalition criticised Mr Galloway: "We don't agree with Tony Blair's actions, but neither do we agree with suicide bombers or assassinations."Just hours after four bomb attacks killed 52 people on London's transport system last July, Mr Galloway said the city had "paid the price" for Mr Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Ten thousand Osama bin Ladens have been created at least by the events of the last two years," he told MPs in the Commons that day.Mr Pound said at the time: "I thought George had sunk to the depths of sickness in the past but this exceeds anything he has done before." The Armed Forces minister, Adam Ingram, accused the Respect MP of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood".Mr Galloway yesterday made a surprise appearance on Cuban television with the Caribbean island's Communist dictator, Fidel Castro - whom he defended as a "lion" in a political world populated by "monkeys".Mr Galloway shocked panellists on a live television discussion show in Havana by emerging on set mid-transmission to offer passionate support for Castro. Looking approvingly into each others' eyes, the pair embraced.

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited .

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13197.htm

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article601356.ece

Steering Into a Third Intifada
By Patrick J. Buchanan05/26/06

"Conservative Voice" -- -- When there is no solution, there is no problem, observed James Burnham, the former Trotskyite turned Cold War geostrategist. Burnham's insight came again

to mind as President Bush ended his meeting with Ehud Olmert by announcing that the Israeli prime minister had brought with him some "bold ideas" for peace. And what bold ideas might that be? Olmert wants Bush to remain steadfast in refusing to talk to the Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority. He wants U.S. support for Israel's wall that is fencing in large slices of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem, forever denying the Palestinians a viable state. He wants U.S. recognition of Israeli-drawn lines as the final borders of Israel. And he wants America to remove the "existential threat" of Iran. In the six months before he proceeds unilaterally with this Sharon-Olmert plan, he will be happy to talk with Mahmoud Abbas, the isolated Palestinian president he has called "powerless." What is the Bush plan to advance our interests in the Middle East? There is none. For five years, the Bush policy has been to sign off on whatever Sharon put in front of him. And now that Bush is weak, he is not going to pick a fight he cannot win and, in candor, he does not want.For Bush has signed on to the Sharon agenda. And if he had a policy that clashed with the Sharon-Olmert Plan, political realities would prevent his pursuing it. Consider: Suppose Bush declared that Ehud Olmert's proposed withdrawals from the West Bank were insufficient, that an official Palestinian presence in East Jerusalem was imperative, and that the United States needed to aid the Palestinians whom Israel is starving out and to talk in back channels to Hamas, even as we talked to Libya's Col. Khadafi to convince him to give up terrorism and his weapons of mass destruction. Bush's and America's stock might rise worldwide. But here in the United States, it would be another story altogether. We would hear the cry of "Munich!" from neoconservatives, echoed by Evangelical Christians and the religious right. "Bibi" Netanyahu would be a fixture on Fox News, which would be asking hourly if Bush had taken leave of his senses. Republican congressmen would be force-bused to the next AIPAC convention to repudiate the Bush policy. Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, seeing an opening to win back Jewish votes lost to Bush, would introduce a resolution putting Congress behind Olmert, against Bush. Then, as his father did on the loan guarantees for Israel that he briefly held up in 1991, Bush would capitulate. Thus Israel will pursue the Sharon-Olmert Plan to completion. There will be withdrawals from isolated settlements and outposts, but no negotiations with a Palestinian Authority to agree on permanent borders and two states. The West Bank wall will soon encompass all of the suburbs of Jerusalem for miles around. Palestine will be divided into three parts: Gaza and two enclaves on the West Bank. There will be no Palestinian official presence in Jerusalem. No viable nation. Meanwhile, America will be called upon for new sums of money to subsidize the Sharon-Olmert Plan, even as we are prodded to do our duty and emasculate Iran.As Olmert is the pilot setting the course, and Bush has signed on as crew to his "bold ideas," our destination is easy to foresee. The United States alone will recognize Israel's new borders, and her annexations of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem as Israel's exclusive capital. Israel will ask for and the United States will accede to Israel's request that we commit ourselves militarily to defend Israel's new frontiers. No Arab government will recognize the new borders. America's Arab friends will be further estranged. Every demagogue bidding for power in the Islamic world will, like Iran's Ahmadinejad, play the Palestinian card. The suffering of the Palestinian people under the U.S.-Israeli sanctions regime will further radicalize them into hating us as they do Israel. The struggle between Hamas and Fatah over diminishing aid and resources will intensify, degenerating into civil war. Iran will move into the vacuum. Eventually, with aid cut off and no hope of negotiations, Hamas will revert to terror and the third intifada will begin. Western Europe, its Muslim populations growing in numbers and militancy, will neither recognize Israel's borders nor endorse U.S. policy. Europe is not going to side with 5 million Israelis, whom they believe to be in the wrong, against 300 million Arabs, who will be 500 million at mid-century. Rightly, Americans say we will not let Israel be destroyed. But why must we acquiesce in Israel's annexations of Arab land? Why must we remain silent to her deprivations of the Palestinians? These questions will puzzle the historians who investigate the astonishing and swift end to U.S. hegemony in the 21st century. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC. © 2005-2006 The Conservative Voice

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14873.html#
www.creators.com
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NYA7zXMjafYJ:www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Olmerts_Convergence_Plan.pdf+ehud+convergence+plan&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
http://iclrevusa.com/
http://israelreporter.com/2006/05/26/remarkable-declassified-video-footage-from-the-iaf-1981-raid-on-iraqi-nuke-facility/
http://www.erichufschmid.net/BenjaminFreedmansSpeech16.mp3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4873892015381249857&q=IRAQI+AIR-RAID+FOOTAGE
http://iclrevusa.com/
http://politicsofet.com/


Dear Anonymous,thanks for your response which inviteswelcome dialogue.I do not think historical realityvalidates your impression Palestiniansand Jews were "living together peace-fully for centuries.It is true Arabs and some Jews livedwithout conflict for the 300 + yearsof Ottoman Empire control under theTurks in this area. But it was no morea nation-state than the region of Iraqduring that time.It was the British Empire, at the end of World War I that created these fictional zones of Palestine, and fake nation-states of Jordan and Iraqamong others. Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" is a reliable accountof this mess.It is nonsense to claim wicked Jewstook away Arab land in this area.Rich Arabs had been selling their lands at great profit to many Jewsfrom 1875 to 1945.That is why there were enough Jews tofight to create their own nation afterWorld War II. The Arab religiousleaders encouraged most Arabs to leavefor Jordan, expecting that nation'sArab Legion to wipe out the Jews andenable the Arabs living West of the Jordan River to return to their ownlands and claim the property of themurdered Jews as well.This evil Arab scheme, coming so soonafter the Nazi holocaust in Europe was more than Western victors couldtolerate. Thus the U.N. support forcreating the new nation of Israel.Ironically, later Arab retaliationfrom Morocco to Iraq, expelling their Jewish populations with confiscation of all their property and wealthhelped Israel grow from a few 100,000 to 5 million today. Poetic justiceindeed! Many other Jews also camefrom the anti-semitic Soviet Unionand other European nations.Given these despicable Arab behaviors over the last 60 years with their endless streams of propaganda lies, cheating on agreements, corruption, murder of Jews whenever possible,and a cunning hidden determinationto exterminate Israel, given the opportunity, I find their words completely untrustworthy.I believe the political judgement of the secular majority as well as the very small Zionist faction has almost always found their Arab enemies can never be trusted. At least thisreflects their choices of leadersover the last 60 years in a genuinedemocratic process none of thesedegenerate Moslem nations have ever managed to create.Given their barbarous behavior, I do not expect this conflict to be solved for another 100 years at least.Therefore U.S. support of Israel nowand in the future is the only pathof honor for American foreign policy which has such a shabby moral record over the last 54 years.Ion C. Laskaris, Burlington,Vermont+ iclrevusa.com