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: Win Smith who wrote (50224)	10/8/2002 12:58:07 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The country "wakes up" and calls for Peace!!!! Tens of Thousands Rally in New York and Other Cities to Say No to War With Iraq A Peace Movement Emerges by Sarah Ferguson October 7th, 2002 5:30 PM villagevoice.com In the first major sign of popular opposition to a unilateral war with Iraq, an estimated 20,000 people filled the East Meadow of Central Park on Sunday to pledge their resistance to President George Bush's military plans. The diverse crowd ranged from seasoned activists—many of them veterans of Vietnam War protests—to college and high school students, business professionals, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and concerned parents, some of whom traveled from the Midwest to voice their dissent. "I've been waiting for this since 9/12," said Bruce Olin, 52, who flew in from Springfield, Illinois. "The reason the terrorists did what they did was to provoke the exact response that America has had. They were relying on the fact that we have an idiot for a president," said Olin, who owns a pharmaceutical testing verification firm. Beverly Walker, a 50-year-old customer service rep from Crown Heights, had never attended an antiwar rally. But she felt compelled to come out on behalf of her sons who are of draft age. "I think there should be long and patient negotiations in the U.N. to decide how to best deal with Iraq. We need to give peace a chance," said Walker, adding, "People are suffering already in Iraq. This is going to make it 10 times worse." The rally, which was organized by a diverse coalition of groups operating as the Not In Our Name project, coincided with smaller peace rallies in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and other communities. In New York, organizers were joined by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and several celebrity activists, including Martin Sheen, who plays the U.S. president on NBC's The West Wing. Sheen read an excerpt of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech and invoked the diplomacy used by President Kennedy to avert war during the Cuban missile crisis. "This is the first public debate that I've really seen," Sheen commented backstage, "so I'm grateful to New Yorkers for being here today. I can't remember a time in my country, in my life, when there has been such an overall stifling of public debate on such a critical issue." Taking on Bush's effort to impose a new U.S. doctrine of preemptive strikes, actress Susan Sarandon demanded, "Do we the people really want to be a new Rome that imposes its rule by the use of overwhelming force whenever its interests are threatened? Even perceived potential threats? We do not want endless warfare." Calling the proposed military action in Iraq a "war for oil," Sarandon gave out the phone numbers for local Congress members and urged people to "make trouble!" But Sarandon's companion, Tim Robbins, also cautioned the antiwar crowd to be careful in the way it frames its dissent. "This is not the chickens coming home to roost," Robbins said. "Al Qaeda's actions have hurt this burgeoning peace movement more than any other. "Our resistance to this war should be our resistance to profit at the cost of human life," Robbins argued. "Because that is what these drums beating over Iraq are all about . . . . In the name of fear and fighting terror, we are giving the reins to oil men looking for a distraction from their disastrous economic performance." There were also heartrending testimonials from relatives of victims of the World Trade Center attacks who oppose military action, and Afghan women who had lost family members during the bombing campaigns against Al Qeada. Shokriea Yaghi, an Afghan immigrant, spoke out on behalf of her Jordanian husband, a pizza parlor owner in New York for the last 15 years who was deported in July after being detained for nine months without charges. "I have not seen my husband for 15 months," said Yaghi, a mother of three. "Now we are being told that he cannot return to this country for 10 years. I am here to fight for my husband's rights," she cried in tears. "I am here to fight for my children's rights. My father and brother died in Afghanistan trying to run away from the civil war there. I was orphaned at 10. I do not want that to happen to my children or to the children in Iraq. I want my husband home." At a time when polls show the majority of Americans do not support a unilateral invasion of Iraq, many in the crowd voiced their frustration with Congress for not representing their views. "We were promised a real debate and a statement from the president about why Iraq is such a threat now, and we're not getting it," said Rick Jones of Highlands, New Jersey, who sported a homemade sandwich board that read: "Hey Congress! Killing Iraqis for Votes Is Pathetic!" Jones said he had been calling his New Jersey representatives every day for the last three weeks to ask their position on a war with Iraq, but has so far received no responses. "Getting re-elected seems to be their only concern. They're all sitting on the fence, hoping to wait it out." There was also widespread anger at the mainstream media for failing to represent antiwar views. "The establishment—AOL, Disney, GE, Viacom, Murdoch media—they're not going to bring us pictures of the Iraqi dead and dying any more than they did in 1991 [during the Gulf War]," said Laura Flanders of New Yorkers Say No to War. "They aren't going to show us Iraq any more than we've seen the bombings of Kandahar or Tora Bora or Mazar-e Sharif," she told the cheering crowd. Many said they were skeptical about the real motives behind President Bush's stepped-up campaign against Saddam Hussein. "If he had the proof of all of what he's been saying about Saddam, why would the rest of the U.N. be against him? It doesn't make sense," said Mark Shafer, an 86-year-old veteran of World War II. There were some off-key moments on stage, like the anti-cop rhetoric of some Boston rappers, or the throwback stridency of one young woman from the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade. Her curse-filled tirade was overshadowed by the simple speech given by a nine-year-old girl: "We have more than enough money to buy oil," she told the crowd. "So why do we choose to steal it?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This story is part of the Voice's ongoing coverage of the war on terror.

To: Win Smith who wrote (50224)	10/8/2002 12:59:58 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

'The Bush Doctrine' Leaps Into History Wage first-strike war to achieve peace: The consequences could be enormous. By JAMES P. PINKERTON Editorial The Los Angeles Times October 8, 2002 Most television networks chose not to cover President Bush's speech Monday. There would be no real news, they were told. Indeed, the White House wanted to low-key the talk--perhaps to avoid accusations that it was wagging the dog in regard to the midterm elections. And so the networks were eager to carry on with their commercial programming. But long after "King of Queens" and "Fear Factor" are forgotten, people will remember 2002 as the year that Bush propounded a new doctrine for the world, one likely to define the next century. To be sure, much of Bush's speech was devoted to the question of "why now?" for Saddam Hussein. As the president said, "By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique." But he also said, "For the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him ... we cannot wait for the final proof." First-strike war to achieve peace--that's a new doctrine for America. That's the Bush Doctrine. It's likely to be remembered right up there with other doctrines that received relatively little notice when first propounded but that proved to be vastly consequential in the fullness of time. For example, the Monroe Doctrine wasn't even enunciated in a speech, and the word "doctrine" wasn't used at all. It was first expressed in a written message to Congress on Dec. 2, 1823. President James Monroe, noting the anti-Spanish revolutions throughout South America and worrying about future interventions, declared that it was "impossible" for European powers to "extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness." At the time, the world cared little about what the U.S. had to say. But over the next century, as American power burgeoned, the Monroe Doctrine became Uncle Sam's rationale for dozens of military interventions in Latin America. Similarly, the Truman Doctrine had modest beginnings. It was simply a speech that President Harry Truman gave to Congress on March 12, 1947, in which he said the U.S. must help Greece and Turkey resist communist encroachment. At the end he added: "I believe it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Truman hadn't reached this conclusion right away. For nearly two years after World War II, his administration had seesawed on the role of the U.S. in the world. But the Truman Doctrine of aiding anti-communist regimes was followed up, three months later, by the Marshall Plan for aiding in the reconstruction of Europe. Those initiatives were the beginnings of the Cold War, punctuated by hot wars in Korea and Vietnam--in addition to bidding wars for the loyalties of so-called nonaligned countries. And so it is with Bush. It is only gradually becoming obvious that he has a grand plan for the world. After the Sept. 11 attacks, he mostly focused on Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar. And in military operations that commenced a year and a day ago, the U.S. routed the Taliban from Afghanistan. But beginning with his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush escalated. He unleashed the phrase "axis of evil," referring not to Al Qaeda or the Taliban but to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Then came his speech at West Point in June in which he called for "preemptive action" against potential enemies. The world is paying attention. The stock market goes down when Bush talks about war, even as oil prices rise. The Russians have been making noises that they wish to apply the doctrine to neighboring Georgia. And speculation abounds that others--China, India, Israel--will use the Bush precedent to settle their own scores. And that's the point: Any action generates a reaction, not always foreseen. Indeed, one of the cornerstones of world security--limits on the number of nuclear weapons--could soon fall victim to the feeling among Third World nationalists that only weapons of mass destruction offer safety from the Pentagon. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, almost certainly the next president of Brazil, suggested to a Rio de Janeiro audience on Sept. 13 that countries such as Brazil had been foolish to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Lula, of course, is a leftist critic of the U.S. and its economic system. But if the U.S. has its nonnegotiable doctrines, other countries will have theirs as well. It may be that the Bush administration has foreseen the danger of a world in which other countries feel emboldened to attack enemies and build up their arsenals. It also may be that Bush is intoxicated with the thought of a doctrine in his name. Either way, future historians will be studying his words closely, recognizing that something huge began in 2002. ___________________________________________ James P. Pinkerton writes a column for Newsday in New York. latimes.com

To: Win Smith who wrote (50224)	10/8/2002 1:32:06 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You are, of course, forever the authority on "objectivity", Nadine Ever the reasoned argument, eh, Win? Funny thing about objectivity, is when people say they are not being objective -- and to their credit the Palestinian Journalist Association never claimed to be so -- I tend to believe them. The last directive I heard from this association was the order to stop taking pictures of Palestinian kids dressed up as suicide bombers, since it was proving harmful to the cause. Now Reuters does make some claim to objectivity but since they mainly report via the selfsame Palestinian journalists, results make me doubt it. BTW, did you ever catch the Reuters caption on a picture of Ground Zero: Recovery and debris removal work continues at the site of the World Trade Center known as "ground zero" in New York, March 25, 2002. Human rights around the world have been a casualty of the U.S. "war on terror" since September 11. REUTERS/Peter Morgan littlegreenfootballs.com