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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mannie who wrote (4899)	8/20/2002 1:05:10 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Islamic gold Dinar should not be dismissed this is a dollar alternative in a part of the world where over one billion people reside so what if they wear funny clothes the key point is they might eschew dollars for both commerce and hoarding I expect several Islamic responses: one is crude oil paid in euros (later maybe gold) two is usage of a gold coin (with religious inscriptions) three is diverting petro-dollars from American assets four is a general favoring of Europe, where most of their commerce takes place five is simply war waged on our institutions (incl financial) nice piece, thanks, Jim

To: Mannie who wrote (4899)	8/20/2002 5:05:59 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Washington Elite Divided On Iraq tompaine.com

To: Mannie who wrote (4899)	8/20/2002 5:10:20 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

In The Global Arms Race, Civilians Always Lose A History Lesson For American And Iraqi Leaders Published: Aug 16 2002 tompaine.com By Ahmad Faruqui - an economist and a fellow at the American Institute of International Studies in California. He is author of Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan, to be published later this year by Ashgate Publishing in the UK. _________________________________________________ It's more than just a little ironic that the Bush administration's recent statements about attacking Iraq to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction came on the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. In 1945, the world's largest democracy became the world's first country to use weapons of mass destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An estimated 200,000 non-combatants were either killed immediately or afterwards. The atomic bombs left a lasting genetic imprint on those exposed to residual radiation. Some argue that the bomb helped to prevent further loss of life. However, others have questioned whether the United States had any moral authority for killing civilians. Recently, Roy Clouser of the College of New Jersey has argued that the United States should have tried a lot harder to avoid using the bomb. "The rationale for developing the bomb was to defeat Hitler," he said, "but by August, 1945, Hitler was dead and Germany had surrendered." Albert Einstein, whose theoretical research enabled the development of the bomb, was forever remorseful that his name was associated with the Manhattan Project. In 1955, along with Bertrand Russell, he issued a manifesto that cautioned world governments to abolish nuclear weapons, since they would almost certainly be used during a future world war. This Manifesto fell on deaf years. In November 1957, China's Chairman Mao declared his intention to fight a nuclear war, with little regard for the civilian toll. In the worst case, perhaps one half of the world's 2.7 billion people would die. "But there would still be one-half left," Mao said. "Imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist." Increasingly distrustful of the Soviet Union, China carried out its first nuclear explosion in 1964, leading India to carry out its first explosion ten years later. Meanwhile, the United States and the Soviet Union became engaged in the world's most expensive -- and most dangerous -- arms race. Henry Kissinger compared this arms race to a conflict between two heavily armed blind men feeling their way around a room, "each believing himself in mortal peril from the other whom he assumes to have perfect vision. Each tends to ascribe to the other side a consistency, foresight and coherence that its own experience belies." Each superpower produced more than enough warheads to blow up the world's population several times over. Hoping to secure itself against a Soviet attack that never came, the United States spent five-and-a-half trillion dollars on its nuclear program. According to one study, had the United States spent even half of that amount on health, education and welfare programs, it would have permanently eliminated poverty and deprivation from American society. In May 1998, as he witnessed India's five nuclear tests, Dr. Abdul Kalam, now that nation's president-elect, was elated: "I heard the earth thundering below our feet and rising ahead of us in terror. It was a beautiful sight." The world's first nuclear attack in 1945 elicited a much more appropriate comment from the architect of the Manhattan Project. Robert Oppenheimer was moved to quote from the Bhagavad Gita, "Brighter than a thousand suns, I am become Death, the destroyer of the worlds." India and Pakistan almost went to war this May. When war did not happen, hard liners on both sides credited its not happening to the presence of nuclear weapons, despite much nuclear saber-rattling. That may indeed have been the case, but no one can guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used in a future war. Since 1998, both nations have increased their spending on conventional weapons, and are simultaneously engaged in a nuclear arms race, belying the assertion that nuclear weapons restrain conventional military spending. On August 6, the mayor of Hiroshima invited President Bush to visit Hiroshima "to confirm with his own eyes what nuclear weapons can do to human beings." He lashed out at Washington's go-it-alone stance. "America has not been given the right to impose a 'Pax Americana' and to decide the fate of the world. Rather, we, the people of the world, have the right to insist that we have not given you the authority to destroy the world." In a recent report, the Council on Foreign Relations concludes that ''America's image problem is global,'' and that ''it is essential for the administration to listen to the world, even as it defines American interests and defends and asserts them abroad.'' The Bush administration needs to encourage open debate among Americans, and to welcome dissenters who question whether the current 'big stick' foreign policy is serving America's national interests. That is the only way to do justice to the democratic ideals that are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and to ensure that our desire to pre-empt Saddam from carrying out acts of military aggression is tempered by our need to respect the life and property of innocent Iraqi civilians.

To: Mannie who wrote (4899)	8/21/2002 3:07:23 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Has Bush Been Mouse-Trapped Into War? By Patrick J. Buchanan August 21 2002 theamericancause.org With the Democratic Party still hiding in the tall grass, the GOP establishment is beginning to split over the issue of war on Iraq. Majority Leader Dick Armey was the first to speak out against it, followed by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Bush I. An attack on Iraq now, says Scowcroft, would "jeopardize, if not destroy [our] global counter-terrorist campaign." It could cause Saddam to launch weapons of mass destruction at Israel, provoking Israeli nuclear retaliation, igniting Armageddon. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf concurs. In the Gulf War, Saddam's first Scuds were aimed not at U.S. forces, but at Israel, to provoke Israel to respond and shatter our Arab coalition. This time, Israel will be hit by Scuds with weapons of mass destruction, says the general, and this time, Israel will not hold its fire. Far from fearing this scenario, Israel seems to welcome it, as Ariel Sharon is now urging us to attack Iraq sooner, rather than later, or not at all. Isolated and friendless in the Arab world, Sharon would like to have America join Israel in the isolation booth. But what is in Sharon's interest is not in America's interest. With the U.S. establishment and military divided, and our Arab and European allies opposed, President Bush may be having second thoughts about a pre-emptive war. But can he back away from a war he has loudly and repeatedly threatened? Richard Perle thinks not. He thinks Bush's belligerency has locked him in and he cannot now evade war without the ruination of America's credibility. "[F]ailure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." If Bush does not make good on all his bellicosity about the "axis of evil" and "regime change," Perle is saying, he risks a defeat in the war on terror and possible regime change in Washington, D.C., in 2004. Some of us have long argued that the president blundered terribly with all this war talk, fed him by his neoconservative speechwriters. It bought him nothing, but locked him into war before America or her allies were united and prepared for it, and before he had fully considered all of the consequences. But Perle has a point. The president and America will suffer a major loss of credibility in the Islamic world if he backs away from war, and it is the president's own fault – and that of his War Cabinet – that he, and we, are now far out on this limb. They did not consider – or do not understand – the power of words spoken by the leader of a superpower. Saddam can bluster about "the mother of all battles" and American soldiers bringing their coffins with them to Iraq. But when the president speaks, the world listens, and when he threatens war in the aftermath of 9-11, the world concludes that war is coming. Now it will take great courage for the president to concede he was rash in committing us to war, and more courage to back away from war, for the rage and frustration he will engender in the War Party and its unforgiving ally, the Israeli lobby, will be immense. However, the War Party is losing momentum. Condoleeza Rice's "moral case" for attacking Iraq fell flat. Whatever his sins, Saddam is not in the same league with Stalin, whose regime FDR recognized in 1933, as that monster was starving 9 million Ukrainians, or Mao, who welcomed Nixon to Beijing, even as his Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was entering its bloody climax. When Bush returns from Crawford, Texas, in September, he is going to face a hellish situation. With Armey, Scowcroft and now ex-Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger, Sen. Chuck Hagel and Jack Kemp deserting the War Party, Democrats have all the political cover needed to oppose the president's pre-emptive war. They will be speaking up and speaking out, demanding that he make his case to Congress and country, before going to war. The War Party's moment may have come and gone. The op-ed pages used to be monolithic for war. No more. The talk shows now host Republicans against war. Polls are turning. Tony Blair is no longer so hawkish. He faces a rebellion in his party and cabinet. The U.N. is opposed, NATO is opposed, the Arabs are opposed. Sharon is now openly pressing for war, and neoconservatives are branding opponents "appeasers." Not a sign of strength. If the president and War Cabinet are still committed to pre-emptive war, they will have to make a far more compelling case to the country and Congress. For they are losing the argument, even if they retain the option of ending the argument – by simply launching the war. Such is our situation, brought on by all this bellicose rhetoric.