SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (49334)10/4/2002 11:41:40 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Clinton's most recent comments on Iraq...

labour.org.uk

[from the text of Bill Clinton's October 2nd Speech to the Labor Party in England]

<<...A few words about Iraq. I support the efforts of the Prime Minister and President Bush to get tougher with Saddam Hussein. I strongly support the Prime Minister's determination if at all possible to act through the UN. We need a strong new resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. The restrictions imposed in 1998 are not acceptable and will not do the job. There should be a deadline and no lack of clarity about what Iraq must do. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbours and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear programme. They admitted to vast stores of biological and chemical stocks in 1995. In 1998, as the Prime Minister's speech a few days ago made clear,. even more were documented. But I think it is also important to remember that Britain and the United States made real progress with our international allies through the UN with the inspection programme in the 1990s. The inspectors discovered and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction and constituent parts with the inspection programme than were destroyed in the Gulf War, far more, including 40,000 chemical weapons, 100,000 gallons of chemicals used to make weapons, 48 missiles, 30 armed warheads and a massive biological weapons facility equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons. In other words the inspections were working even when he was trying to thwart them.

In December of 1998 after the inspectors were kicked out along with the support of Prime Minister Blair and the British military we launched Operation Desert Fox for four days. An air assault on those weapons of mass destruction, the air defence and regime protection forces. This campaign had scores of targets and successfully degraded both the conventional and non-conventional arsenal. It diminished Iraq's threat to the region and it demonstrated the price to be paid for violating the Security Council's resolutions. It was the right thing to do, and it is one reason why I still believe we had to stay at this business until we get all those biological and chemical weapons out of there.

What has happened in the last four years? No inspectors, a fresh opportunity to rebuild the biological and chemical weapons programme and to try and develop some sort of nuclear capacity. Because of the sanctions Saddam Hussein is much weaker militarily than he was in 1990, while we are stronger, but that probably has given him even more incentive to try and amass weapons of mass destruction. I agree with many Republicans and Democrats in America and many here in Britain who want to go through the United Nations to bring the weight of world opinion together, to bring us all together, too offer one more chance to the inspections.

President Bush and Secretary Powell say they want a UN resolution too and are willing to give the inspectors another chance. Saddam Hussein, as usual, is bobbing and weaving. We should call his bluff. The United Nations should scrap the 1998 restrictions and call for a complete and unrestricted set of inspections with a new resolution. If the inspections go forward, and I hope they will, perhaps we can avoid a conflict. In any case the world ought to show up and say we meant it in 1991 when we said this man should not have a biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programme. And we can do that through the UN. The prospect of a resolution actually offers us the chance to integrate the world, to make the United Nations a more meaningful, more powerful, more effective institution. And that's why I appreciate what the Prime Minister is trying to do, in trying to bring America and the rest of the world to a common position. If he was not there to do this I doubt if anyone else could, so I am very very grateful.

If the inspections go forward I believe we should still work for a regime change in Iraq in non-military ways, through support of the Iraqi opposition and in trying to strengthen it. Iraq has not always been a tyrannical dictatorship. Saddam Hussein was once a part of a government which came to power through more legitimate means.

The West has a lot to answer for in Iraq. Before the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and the Iranians there was hardly a peep in the West because he was in Iran. Evidence has now come to light that in the early 1980s the United States may have even supplied him with the materials necessary to start the bio-weapons programme. And in the Gulf War the Shi'ites in the South East of Iraq were urged to rise up and then were cruelly abandoned to their fate as he came in and killed large numbers of them, drained the Marshes and largely destroyed their culture and way of life. We cannot walk away from them or the proved evidence that they are capable of self-government and entitled to a decent life. We do not necessarily have to go to war to give it to them, but we cannot forget that we are not blameless in the misery under which they suffer and we must continue to support them.

This is a difficult issue. Military action should always be a last resort, for three reasons; because today Saddam Hussein has all the incentive in the world not to use or give these weapons away but with certain defeat he would have all the incentive to do just that. Because a pre-emptive action today, however well justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future. And because I have done this, I have ordered these kinds of actions. I do not care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off innocent people will die.

Weighing the risks and making the calls are what we elect leaders to do, and I can tell you that as an American, and a citizen of the world, I am glad that Tony Blair will be central to weighing the risks and making the call. For the moment the rest of us should support his efforts in the United Nations and until they fail we do not have to cross bridges we would prefer not to cross.

Now, let me just say a couple of other things. This is a delicate matter but I think this whole Iraq issue is made more difficult for some of you because of the differences you have with the Conservatives in America over other matters, over the criminal court and the Kyoto Treaty and the comprehensive test ban treaty. I don't agree with that either, plus I disagree with them on nearly everything, on budget policy, tax policy, on education policy. On education policy, on environmental policy, on health care policy. I have a world of disagreements with them. But, we cannot lose sight of the bigger issue. To build the world we want America will have to be involved and the best likelihood comes when America and Britain, when America and Europe are working together. We cannot believe that we cannot reach across party and philosophical lines to find common ground on issues fundamental to our security and the way we organise ourselves as free people. That is what Tony Blair could not walk away from, what he should not have walked away from and what we are all trying to work through in the present day. I ask you to support him as he makes that effort...>>



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (49334)10/4/2002 11:45:27 AM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 281500
 
The specter of war won't go away, so Barbie's (TM) new house is reflects what will happen if we wage war:
TOYS OF THE TIMES

"Something that looks too much like home is more likely to be disturbing than comforting. It's a creepy toy, like an adult showing pornography to a kid."


"Clay Ramsey" may be a new superaction counterspy hero, but as the PBS special about John O'Neill of the FBI shows, if he's too good at what he does, mediocre chiefs will censor him.
Manufacturers market current events as U.S. ponders war

Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, October 4, 2002

-The two-story house looks like any on the block, with pale yellow walls, checkerboard floors and charming, wood-framed windows.

But something's wrong -- its glass panes are cracked, and bullet holes decorate the walls. On the balcony stands a helmeted soldier in battle fatigues clutching an assault rifle. At his feet, a rocket launcher lies poised where a pot of geraniums should be, its muzzle aimed at all who approach.

The scene is not the West Bank, or Kuwait during the Gulf War. It's the "Forward Command Post," a new toy for kids as young as 5.

Complete with U.S. flag, the 10-pound "fully outfitted battle zone" sells for $45 at J.C. Penney. Another version, the "Elite Operations Forward Command Post" for children "0-5 years," is by Toys R Us and sells for $30 on Amazon. com.

"This bombed-out version of Barbie's Dream House is sure to excite bloodthirsty passions in even the most passive of preschoolers," writes a customer from Minneapolis who reviewed the toy on Amazon. "Unfortunately, the set does not come with charred infant or mangled toddler action figures."

The Minnesotan may not like the dream house of the 21st century, but toymakers are banking on the idea that Americans will thrill to the weapons- laden action figures available everywhere this season for children of all ages.

As Congress ponders war, toy companies ponder profits from such terrorist- inspired trifles as "Clay Ramsey, US Counter-Terrorism Advisor," "American Freedom Fighters Live From Afghanistan," "Command Headquarters Tent and Tunnel Combo," and the inevitable Osama bin Laden head, offered by Protect and Serve Toys "to allow enthusiasts to enact what it may be like when we finally catch him."

Even Fisher-Price, that bastion of educational aids for babies, offers a weapons-free version for $32 called "Rescue Heroes Command Center." In it, emergency vehicles, warning sounds and hospital helipads let 3-year-olds "map out rescue plans."

COMPARISON TO GI JOE
For those concerned about inflicting war toys on toddlers, some manufacturers have made sure "peace" is in the title. J.C. Penney sells the "World Peace Keepers Battle Station" for $25.

The peacekeeper -- for children ages 3 and up -- just happens to be surrounded by grenades, assault rifles, rocket launchers and, for protection, a set of sandbags.

"I don't think it's anything different from when I was a boy playing with my GI Joe," said Matt Golding, senior marketing manager for Bandai America, which makes the hugely popular Power Ranger fantasy series and Digimon toys.

Although Bandai products tend to be abstract and magical rather than militaristic, Golding said both approaches come down to the same thing: cops and robbers.

"Kids are smart, and they realize we are living in times where there are good and evil. Toys are a good way to let that out in a safe manner," he said.

Neither J.C. Penney nor Toys R Us returned repeated calls for comment. But other experts in toys, marketing and children's habits said plastic guns and fighting figurines offer an outlet for the natural aggression that lurks in the brain and bloodstream of many a child -- usually boys.

And it makes sense, said trend-watchers, that manufacturers tailor such toys to events that concern everyone, even kids.

"There's been a growing interest in war-themed and military-themed games since 9/11," said John Davison, editorial director for the Ziff Davis Game Group, the San Francisco publisher of Electronic Gaming Monthly and other magazines for video game enthusiasts.

ARMY OFFERS VIDEO GAME
Even the Army is capitalizing on the game connection. On Tuesday, it will release its own video game to teach teens how the military works, Davison said.

But unlike most video games, whose costs can wipe out a kid's allowance faster than a heat-seeking missile melts a warm target, the Army's will be free.

Valance -- that's his entire name -- sells the Osama bin Laden toy over the Web from his Indiana company, Protect and Serve Toys.

"Prior to last year, World War II toys -- especially German stuff -- were it," he said. "Customers were going broke just to be able to buy this stuff. But after Sept. 11, everything seemed to turn toward the modern U.S. equipment -- especially the desert gear."

To British citizen Stephen Cole, an American history professor at the University of San Francisco, the trend -- as seen in some of the toys -- is "ghastly."

"How would Americans feel if a young Afghan child or young Yemeni had a burning and collapsing twin towers toy?" he asked. "These games of 'might makes right' for children 3 and up create a sort of unquestioning apprehension of the world. They're the kind of things I'd expect to find on the back pages of Soldier of Fortune," not a toy store.

Others are more forgiving -- of some toys.

Gerard Jones of San Francisco, whose book "Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence" was published in April, says some war toys make sense.

"I'm one of an awful lot of pacifists who grew up playing with guns," he said.

EVEN PACIFIST LIKES SOME TOYS
A former comic book artist who now teaches a free storytelling workshop for children in which they make up their own tales, Jones said he has a good sense of what kids fantasize about. And in every group there are kids, even some girls, who lean toward fight stories, he said.

"Kids love to play with things violent and aggressive -- but they usually like them fairly abstracted and not too threatening," Jones said. "They don't want their fears stirred up. They want to get rid of them through play."

So Clay Ramsey, the $45 counterterrorism guy from VoyagerToys.com, is OK in Jones' eyes, as are $40 action figures Hugh and Dean, the American Freedom Fighters from the "Live from the Afghanistan Frontline" series by EHobbies.

But Jones said a toy like the Forward Command Post is not likely ever to be popular with kids.

"The bombed-out house really feels like some grown-up trying to exploit what he or she imagines is the current mood, and thinking that kids will want to play with something so gruesomely realistic," he said. "Something that looks too much like home is more likely to be disturbing than comforting. It's a creepy toy, like an adult showing pornography to a kid."