Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3980)	6/17/2002 5:19:52 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Bush must be happy that Gephardt serves as his parrot! Bush, Rummey and the others have shrewdly studied Nazi propaganda and Hitler's methods very effectively, haven't they?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3980)	6/17/2002 5:23:16 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15516

Assassination is a dubious game In effectively sanctioning a US attempt to kill Saddam Hussein, George Bush takes America even further towards a dangerous unilateralism, argues Mark Tran Monday June 17, 2002 The Guardian President George Bush has upped the ante against Iraq by authorising US special forces to kill Saddam Hussein if they were acting in "self-defence". The self-defence clause is an exercise in evasion, providing legal cover should the CIA and other covert operatives manage to stumble upon the elusive Iraqi leader. Just imagine for a moment that American forces find Saddam, who is a regular bed-hopper in order to avoid assassination. If his bodyguards offer resistance, which is likely, and the Iraqi president is cut down by gunfire, the CIA can conveniently claim that they acted in self-defence. The reference to self-defence is nothing but a fig leaf, allowing the Bush administration to maintain that there has been no change in the prohibition on assassinating foreign leaders. The ban was introduced in 1976 by President Gerald Ford after he discovered details of a CIA plot to kill the Cuban leader Fidel Castro, through schemes that even Ian Fleming would have considered too outlandish in his fiction, such as using exploding cigars. But US covert activity is no laughing matter. It worked all too well in Chile, when the US backed the coup by General Augusto Pinochet against Salvador Allende, the democratically elected Marxist president. The CIA has also been accused of trying to undermine Patrice Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader, although it was eventually rebel police officers, watched by Belgian officers paid by Brussels, who executed the charismatic African leader in 1961. Although Ford banned the use of assassinations, it has not prevented the US from targeting foreign leaders. During the Reagan administration, US warplanes tried to drop bombs on the Libyan leader, Muammar Gadafy. They missed him but killed one of his daughters instead. Those who supported the move argued that, although the bombs missed Gadafy, the attempt scared him into good behaviour afterwards. Doubtless, there will be those who will argue that a stealth operation that led to the overthrow, or even killing, of Saddam would be infinitely preferable to sending hundreds of thousands of US troops to get rid of the Butcher of Baghdad. But the US has to make a convincing case that Saddam had anything to do with the September 11 attack or is active in a war of terrorism. It also has to make the case that altering the status quo is preferable to the current situation. Tony Blair insists that doing nothing is not an option. But the US and Britain are hardly idle. The no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq are still in force and the policy of containment has kept Saddam in check. Administration hawks argue that the dictator has to go before he becomes even more dangerous through his possession of weapons of mass destruction. But even if he does refine those weapons, it is difficult to see him wanting to "take out" the US. Saddam may be dangerous, but he has no death wish. On the contrary he is doing his best to stay alive. Beyond Iraq, America's willingness to take pre-emptive action to undermine governments deemed to be a threat in its war against terrorism constitutes another dangerous lurch towards an expansive approach to unilateralism, where the US acts as judge and jury. As Joseph Biden, a senior Democratic senator, put it, the president has the constitutional right to act pre-emptively. The hard question is how to judge whether a country with nuclear or biological weapons has the intent to use them. guardian.co.uk

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (3980)	6/17/2002 5:39:35 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

American leaders stake out political positions for various reasons. W might want to take out Saddam because his father didn't. Or, W may want to take out Saddam for economic reasons: he wants to control Middle Eastern oil. But neither W nor past presidents start wars or harm people because they are good people who want to perform virtuous deeds for neglected and poverty stricken people. W and other presidents act always from self-interest. For instance, in the past, the United States often condemned apartheid in South Africa. Yet, US capitalism supported racism, segregation and violence against blacks in South Africa. Last night I heard on the news that American companies will be sued for the role they played in the subjugation of South Africa's blacks during apartheid. Have you you heard about these lawsuits?