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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rascal who wrote (39947)	8/26/2002 11:21:04 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Us Imperialism & War On Iraq 1 08/25 21:47:19 forums.craigslist.org NO CREDIBLE evidence has emerged to link Iraq with the terrorist attacks on the U.S., yet speculation on this subject has been a recurrent theme, prominently featured throughout the media’s 'crisis coverage' since September 11. Within hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the warmongers began lining up to seize the opportunity provided by the attacks to drag their hawkish agendas from the margins to the mainstream of political discussion. Media outlets have been only too happy to comply. The media have contributed directly to the anti-Iraq hysteria. The Weekly Standard featured a 'WANTED' sign, above sinister-looking photos of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. On October 22, the New York Post carried the screaming headline, 'Heads up, Hussein, you’re next,' and an op-ed piece declaring, 'Saddam is a Hitler, a Stalin, a Pol Pot…. It’s now time to go full speed ahead and see that Saddam departs–from Iraq if not from this earth.'1 On October 18, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen was equally vitriolic, writing, 'Saddam and his bloody bugs have to go.'2 Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was among the first of the hawks to take to the airwaves to call for a war against multiple targets, including Iraq, in retaliation for September 11. For the most part, the mainstream media neglected to mention Wolfowitz’s public statements before September 11 calling for the U.S. to strike Baghdad as soon as 'we find the right way to do it.'3 The Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board–a group of hard-line conservatives whose careers peaked long ago, from Henry Kissinger and James Schlesinger to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich–shuttled former CIA director James Woolsey off to Britain to gather evidence of a link between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Ostensibly on a mission to construct a 'legal case against Iraq,' Woolsey came up short on evidence–and what little he had was exceedingly thin. Woolsey’s claim that Mohammed Atta, one of the alleged September 11 hijackers, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague last year was later denied by the Czech officials who were Woolsey’s main witnesses to the meeting.4 'Czech officials say they do not believe that Mohammed Atta…met with any Iraqi officials during a brief stop he made in Prague last year,' wrote reporter John Tagliabue in the October 20 New York Times.5 A week later, Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross reversed that statement, saying that the meeting had in fact taken place between Atta and an Iraqi agent in April 2000. Furthermore, security experts in Germany were following up on a claim by Israeli intelligence sources that Iraqi agents gave Atta anthrax spores at the meeting, which he then carried in his luggage to the United States As Mushahid Hussain has argued, 'This gap between what America says at home–liberties, rule of law, democracy–is rarely practiced in American foreign policy.'66 This is true of imperialist ventures historically. As Frank Furedi wrote in The New Ideology of Imperialism, 'The moral claims of imperialism were seldom questioned in the West. Imperialism and the global expansion of the Western powers were represented in unambiguously positive terms as a major contributor to human civilization.'67 Should the U.S. military once again go to war against Iraq, expanding the 'war against terrorism' will be nothing more than a convenient excuse to justify it. Defense Policy board member Newt Gingrich candidly stated in Newsweek’s September 26 issue the real reasons why the U.S. would attack Iraq–a week before the anthrax scare surfaced. Gingrich said the U.S. should strike against Iraq simply because bombing Afghanistan is not an adequate U.S. response to September 11:'There’s a feeling we’ve got to do something that counts–and bombing caves is not something that counts.'68 And once again, the Iraqi population will pay the price. FROM: ISReview.org

To: Rascal who wrote (39947)	8/26/2002 11:29:56 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Help me with the vision thing, Hawk. I'll do my best Rascal.... To sum it up, it about demographics. The Muslim world is enjoying the equivalent of its own "baby boom", with some 40% of all muslims currently under the age of 18 (around 400 million youths all told). As we're seeing currently taking place in Iran, the youth don't hold a lot of faith in the older, more conservative theocrats and are looking for something better for their lives. However, in other parts of the muslim world we're seeing intensive efforts to brainwash and co-opt muslim youth into waging Jihad against the west. Muslim youth, especially in the middle east, are looking for change and aligning themselves with various factions promising such change. The extremist movement is one element of this and growing stronger through their Madrassa and grass roots efforts. So the bottom line is that the political environment is going to change in the Muslim world, either towards modernity and political and social freedom, or towards extremism. Creating regime change in Iraq would deny the extremists an important base of operations, and a test model for creating greater pluralism and economic opportunity. The fall of regimes in both Iran and Iraq would wage a serious setback to extremist groups vying for the "hearts and minds" of this growing demographic group. Thus, the US and other western nations MUST destabilize the status quo, but hopefully for the better through advancing democratic and capitalistic ideals. If we do nothing, and continue the policy of "containment" we actually would foster greater resentment since it will be seen that we're preserving the corruption inherent in the current regimes. This will provide "evidence" for the extremist to claim that the US doesn't really care about them, but merely wishes to keep Muslim youth "under their thumbs" and perpetuating corruption. That's the vision I see... Hawk

To: Rascal who wrote (39947)	8/26/2002 11:43:20 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If we overturn every regime we decide needs overturning, ignore or control Congress, the UN, Nato and any treaty or tariff we don't like and and continue to incarcerate citizens and non-citizens without charges or access to a lawyer....... What have we become? A country at war. We did the same things during WW1 and WW2. Wartime is a difficult period for liberals - deal with it. Wilson and Roosevelt did :-) Are we doing all the right things - no. Is the Government exceeding its authority - in some cases yes. Will we 'regret' some of our actions in some prosperous and peaceful future - I hope so. What happens if Saddam gets a large scale WMD and uses it - through a 3rd party or direct - on the US, Israel or some easy to hit ally? What if some of the financing of anarchy that he has helped leads to the same thing? What is your plan? As to the swipe at a lot of our distrust at the UN or the ICC. How do you expect Americans to take these types of international organizations seriously when the UN just elected Gaddafi as Chair of its Human Rights Commission. The UN needs serious restructuring. Gaddafi as head of human rights, Syria on the security council. Its a travesty. John