An Old Path To A New World.

Posted on June 22, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“No one is fool enough to choose war instead of peace. For in peace sons bury fathers, but war violates the order of nature, and fathers bury sons.”

HERODOTUS (485-425 B.C.) Greek historian

aaa-12Exactly what is occurring in Iraq is difficult to ascertain as there are so many opinions that it seems every commentator and journalist’ article sees the situation somewhat differently. One very important factor, which only one out of many articles and talks alluded to, is the status of Iraq’s oil as the national treasure of Iraq versus privatization of that oil. With the United States calling for Nouri al-Maliki to step down, Vladimir Putin’s recent endorsement and pledge of support for al-Maliki, and all the other variables, whatever the truth is in Iraq one thing seems certain.

The people who are behind unwarranted, illegal violence must be stopped.

There is no difference between a proxy war of aggression and a war of aggression; they are exactly the same: war crimes. Whoever is financing and supplying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – whether it be the USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, some combination of those governments or any others – have attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq. It is important to repeat that a war of aggression is, very clearly written in international law, a war crime.

Let us get directly to it. Why is nobody being held accountable?

If Nouri al-Maliki is doing a poor job as Iraq’s president, shouldn’t the parliament of Iraq have legal means to impeach him? For God’s sake the Iraqi people just elected him president; how does he become the bad guy in the eyes of Americans only weeks after he gained the voting booth approval of the people of Iraq? Perhaps it’s propaganda the Shia-Sunni ages-old hatred element has led to the current violence, but ISIL is a group of paid mercenary killers attempting to overthrow the Maliki government for control of Iraq’s oil?

Citizens who hire an assassin to kill another person are in really big trouble, and there is no difference when billionaires hire large numbers of assassins; no matter how “powerful” or wealthy the person(s) are who paid for killings, they need to face punishment behind bars or worse. Allowing people to kill – or arrange for the killing of – others with impunity is unacceptable, baffling, and quite frankly madness.

Maddening and tragic for the regular people of Iraq and the Middle East who get caught in the crossfire between the wealthy élite who are looking for control of, and profit from, natural resources in Iraq and those who wish to go the route of Nasserite pan-Arabism and nationalize their country’s oil. Retired American General, and former presidential candidate, Wesley Clarke has been viewed millions of times sitting on stage talking about US military planning to “take out” seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, and Iran were three of those seven nations.

If anyone has heard of ex-Generals like Wesley Clarke from the Iraqi, Syrian, or Iranian militaries making any similar statement about “taking out” Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, or the United States, readers would be interested in hearing about it in the comments. The Middle East, and particularly Iraq, is the world’s most potent example of the record wealth inequality existent now. Starting centuries ago wars of aggression have transferred natural resource wealth from the many to the few, in a trend that has continued to move through the decades and years to June 2014.

How about letting the people of Iraq decide through democratic means – arriving at national consensus – how best to manage the resource wealth inside their borders, stop sending hired mercenaries to kill for profit, and simply pay a fair price for those resources. Abdicate your crowns, thrones, and astronomical riches once and for all, give up the addiction to wars of aggression and organized murder, share the Earth’s abundance with all fairly, and join the rest of us down here in “average people land.”

An old way of peacefully settling differences to create a new world?

For solving differences peaceably in Iraq, Ukraine, Syria and every other war-torn nation and region on Earth, perhaps an old form of governing would be well-advised. Many years ago, before there was electricity, people would sit around the community fire to discuss any issues or problems that had arisen since their previous meeting. The structure of those meetings was reasoned and agreed upon: that no person’s voice would be censored or suppressed, all men and women were present and given the opportunity to speak, and the meeting would not end until there was 100% agreement on ideas/solutions for the community going forward.

Meetings of this type, with the same spirit of coöperation, practical goals and basic structure, could be held today and relatively easily organized. Obviously, when dealing with problems affecting millions of men, women, and children in a number of nations, every member of the community won’t be present. There is a very easy way around this.

American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to speak to the people of America every weekend in what became known as a “Fireside Chat.” Most people around the world own a television or computer. Right now in the Middle East, if this concept was in use already, the leaders – political, religious, business, military, academic – of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, etc. could be talking about the worrisome situation in the region, while that important discussion is simultaneously broadcast live to every television, and every computer through the internet, in the Middle East.

No man or woman speaking at the meeting shall bring prepared notes. All speech will be extemporaneous, impromptu, truth from the heart.

The meeting would continue until everyone had come to full agreement. After each hour of discussion, men and women across the Middle East could call in their questions for fifteen minutes, another hour would be devoted to discussion, fifteen minutes for Q+A, and so on, until the issue becomes resolved. The meeting does not end until there is a resolution.

A similar meeting could be easily arranged to resolve the situation in Ukraine. In any nation or region on Earth.

Some may hear this proposal and come to view it as impractical or impossible to carry out. But, as mentioned earlier, this is how people successfully resolved differences and problems centuries ago. Such a structure and defined-goals choice is extremely practical and totally possible with today’s technology, and offers tremendous, positive advantages for humanity’s efforts to solve problems peacefully.

Adoption of such a problem-solving process increases the chances that a cooperative spirit becomes developed between people. Not only will those who speak at the meetings gain understanding and wisdom, but the tremendous numbers of people watching and listening on their televisions and computer screens will as well. Such a form of human interaction, when one thinks deeply about it, represents the highest possible democratic creation in history.

Another advantage is a highly concentrated, focused, prompt resolution of problems.

Perhaps the most important advantage when choosing this form of conflict resolution, and some will certainly object to this choice vehemently because of this advantage, is that everyone will become aware of the truth.

Those who would object have a vested interest in not revealing truth, and are those who wish to maintain the so-called status-quo on this Earth.

In the year 2014, after centuries of war, inequality, and unnecessary human suffering and deprivation, perhaps the time has arrived for a worldwide truth evolution. The example provided in this writing, where the full truth about what factors and causes are responsible for the serious situation in Iraq is not totally known, points to a serious misperception problem about the main problem – ISIL itself. The articles and interviews etc. that people have read and heard vary in regard to what has actually occurred and there remains uncertainty to some extent.

Such uncertainty about the reality on the ground in Iraq, whether to a small extent or large, is unproductive in that opinions shared with others based on any amount of uncertainty fail to focus on the problem from full awareness of the circumstances and truth. Absence of factual certainty robs not only writers, activists, and concerned citizens – political, religious, business, military, and academic leaders – of the full set of tools to effectively and successfully analyze, but allows for inaccurate perceptions to stay in the minds of people in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the Earth. Mis-perceptions lead to misjudgment and errors in decision-making. Life and death decisions.

Adopting this form of problem-solving on a global level will help greatly decrease the times when people experience situations where they are “not on the same page”, an obvious roadblock when trying to work through differences. Perhaps an imagined scenario where 99% of humanity is “on the same page” will illustrate the profound potential of this “old” new way of solving problems.

This is where conflict resolution meetings just described display their immense power with regard to positive, superior, and most honorable ways to settle differences. Once begun, such a form will dramatically increase mutual understanding, insight, awareness, peaceful coöperation, and excellent communication between men and women around the world. Perhaps to the point where only 1% of the human race is on a different page.


A note on Dan Buhrdorf:

By now everyone is aware of the election shocker where Eric Cantor suffered defeat in his Congressional race despite outspending his opponent by something like 20-1. This huge political event shows that something has changed in America. Dan Buhrdorf is running for the United States Senate in Nebraska with the “Tax Wall Street Party” against the Republican favorite Ben Sasse. If you live in Nebraska, if you have relatives or friends in Nebraska, if you want real change in America, please consider helping Dan Buhrdorf. Bloggers can write a few posts to endorse him for Senator, share his ideas for America, encourage Nebraskans to help collect required signatures, and other creative suggestions to further his chances of winning. Given the mainstream candidate Cantor’s defeat, as well as the close numbers in the U.S. Senate for passing crucial legislation, Dan Buhrdorf becoming Nebraska’s next Senator would be an even more profound and important American political event. 

Find out more, then please consider helping Dan’s efforts, at:  


(Thanks to Webster Tarpley Fan Channel at YouTube)


2 thoughts on “An Old Path To A New World.

  1. The problem, as I understand it, is that al-Maliki’s party didn’t win a majority of votes. They only won a plurality – 100 seats in the 328 seat parliament:

    It’s my understanding that negotiations are on-going for establishing a coalition government, given that no party received an absolute majority:

    There’s also some evidence of vote-rigging, as the above article mentions.


    1. Stuart,
      It seems that certain parties who are being opposed on their agendas for energy in the region are behind ISIL. There is an issue between the Kurds sale of oil in the north to Turkey and Israel and the central government in Baghdad. Evidently the Kurds’ oil sales are not in accord with the Iraqi constitution, those sales must be large as Kurdistan is developing/building skyscrapers, shopping centers, etc. so that is a factor seeing the Kurds now control Kirkuk, a major oil producing area. Evidently Iraq’s oil is still nationalized, but Maliki’s efforts to privatize are opposed by the government. Perhaps he’s decided to keep the oil nationalized and this led to the attacks, plus calls for him to step down so privatization has better odds of happening. It seems the entire situation boils down to pan-Arabism/nationalization versus oligarchy/privatization with, unfortunately, the common people caught in the crossfire again. The monarchies and oligarchs need to chop pan-Arabism off at the knees to prevent the political philosophy from overpowering them in the form of overthrow, an existential battle which includes war.


Comments are closed.