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: JohnM who wrote (55474)	10/29/2002 12:37:49 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Those were the Days" comes back to me with the new Issue of "Playboy." A dance partner that I taught to "Lindy" 6 years ago made the cover. I knew her as Heather, but she is now a well known "fetish" model and goes by "Dita Von Teese." now.http://www.playboy.com/magazine/current/dita.html lindybill@eatyourheartout.com

To: JohnM who wrote (55474)	10/29/2002 12:42:50 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY OPPOSING A U.S. INVASION OF IRAQ... noiraqattack.org [This Open Letter was originally written by faculty members at the University of Minnesota. It subsequently spread to other universities, and was placed on the web by faculty at MIT.] We the undersigned members of the academic community are opposed to an invasion of Iraq by the United States. The decision to start a war is perhaps the most significant decision the leaders of a democracy can make. It requires ordering fellow citizens to kill and be killed in the name of the entire nation, in our names and in yours. For this decision to be just and legitimate, the reasons offered for war must be principled and arrived at through public debate. To date, the justifications offered by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Rice, their subordinates, or an array of commentators in the media do not justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq. We oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq for these reasons: Invasion to replace the Hussein regime is not in the best interests of the United States, the region, or the world. An invasion of Iraq and destruction of the Hussein regime may lead to prolonged instability in Iraq; destabilization of the wider Middle East including the possibility of a prolonged and heightened conflict between Israel and the Palestinians; increased popular appeal of radical Islamic movements and increased anti-Americanism worldwide; and increased terrorism in the U.S. and abroad. Invading Iraq therefore will probably make both the region and the world less secure, not more secure. Key U.S. allies do not support an invasion of Iraq. Many governments allied with the U.S. are urging restraint, demanding more evidence of an Iraqi threat, or opposing a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Governmental and popular support in Great Britain, the most stalwart U.S. ally, is weak at best. Any military action against Iraq should have the moral force of international consensus behind it. The U.S. Government is not unified in support of invasion. Some senior elected officials, including members of President Bush's own Republican Party such as Rep. Dick Armey (TX) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), do not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four star General with 35 years of military service who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, is known to oppose a U.S. invasion without broad international support. Major media outlets have been reporting for several months on widespread opposition to an invasion of Iraq among senior officers in the Pentagon, including several or all of the Chiefs of Staff. The decision to go to war should have the clear support of the U.S. Congress, the Secretary of State, and the commanding officers of the armed forces. The Iraqi threat is not credible. The opposition to an invasion among senior U.S. government and military leaders as well as most U.S. allies in the Middle East suggests that the Iraqi threat is not credible. The Bush Administration has presented no credible evidence of Iraqi progress toward making nuclear weapons. If they have such evidence, they should have presented it by now in the face of mounting international and domestic opposition to an invasion of Iraq. An invasion of Iraq would be illegal under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the U.S. is a signatory. According to the Charter, only the Security Council has legal authority to start wars, with the single exception of national self-defense against armed attack. If the U.S. is indeed a land of laws, then our government should adhere to the basic principles of the Charter, which are intended to govern the relationships between nations for the collective security of all people. For these reasons, we oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq and urge others to do so also. Although we recognize the Hussein regime is reprehensible, the war being planned will not decrease and MAY increase the suffering of the Iraqi people for many years to come. The likelihood of a high cost in lives of both combatants and non-combatants is too great given the weak justifications that have been offered for an invasion and the limited considerations for post-war Iraq. If pursued, war should be the last resort, undertaken collectively by a U.N. sponsored international coalition only after renewal of weapons inspections and diplomacy have utterly failed to bring Iraq into compliance with all Security Council Resolutions. As educators and scholars we hope our message sparks informed discussion on and off campus that reaches to Washington D.C. Furthermore, we intend this statement to provide support for those who are also opposed to an imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq on moral, ethical, and humanitarian grounds originating from any political or religious view point. Sign the Open Letter. Since Sept 24 2002, 28792 (13381 faculty) people have signed this Open Letter. _________________________________________ Campus Events MIT Events BU Events Harvard Events MIT Teach In, Oct 24 MIT Events THE CIS STARR FORUM M I T C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N A T I O N A L S T U D I E S Please join us for two lunchtime events on Iraq, on consecutive Mondays: "WAR WITH IRAQ: PROS AND CONS" Monday, October 21, 2002 noon -1:30 Kenneth M. Pollack Senior Fellow and Research Director, Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and author of the new book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. Professor Stephen W. Van Evera Associate Director, MIT Center for International Studies and Professor, MIT Political Science Department. Owen Cote, Jr. Associate Director, Security Studies Program, MIT Center for International Studies, and Co-Editor, International Security. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A U.S. INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ: CONCERNS AND SCENARIOS" Monday, October 28, 2002 noon-1:30 Daniel Byman Member, Joint 9/11 Inquiry Staff of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee; former RAND analyst on Iraq and the Middle East; and co-author of Confronting Iraq: US Policy and the Use of Force Since the Gulf War (RAND). Herman Eilts Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston University. James Fallows National Correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly; former editor, US News & World Report; winner of the American Book Award for his 1981 book National Defense; and former chief speechwriter for President Carter. Both events will be held in MIT's Wong Auditorium Tang Center, MIT Building E51 Near the Kendall Square T Stop and Memorial Drive on-line map: whereis.mit.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teach-in at MIT on the Current Situation in Iraq: Thursday, Oct. 24, 5-10 pm Rm 34-101 5:00 "In Shifting Sands", Scott Ritter's documentary on the inspections and sanctions regime in Iraq. 6:30 "Iraq: A People Under the Gun" A talk by George Capaccio, writer, activist and humanitarian aid worker in Iraq, about the effects of the sanctions and US policy more broadly. 7:30 "Iraq, Nuclear Policy, and Pre-emptive Strikes: Will Bush Jr obliterate 50 years of international law and arms control?" by Randall Forsberg, political scientists, arms control expert, activist. 8:30 Scott Ritter will answer questions and discuss his film. BU Events Speak Out Against the War Wednesday, October 23 6-9 pm Boston University Law School Auditorium Featuring speakers including: * Chuck Turner (Boston City Councilor) * Howard Zinn (Boston University) * Irene Gendzier (Boston University) * Meizhu Lui (United for a Fair Economy) * Joe Gerson (American Friends Service Committee) * Nancy Murray (ACLU) * Sachin Anand (Boston University) * Class Acts * And Others! Wednesday, October 23, 6:00 pm ñ 9:00 pm Boston University Law School Auditorium 765 Commonwealth Avenue Boston University East Stop on the Green Line (B) For more information, contact: Nomorewar02@yahoo.com Sponsored by Health Community Against the War, Students United for Peace, Boston Mobilization, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, United for a Fair Economy, American Friends Service Committee

To: JohnM who wrote (55474)	10/29/2002 2:19:14 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Journalist Cronkite warns against potential war By CHRISTOPHER FERRELL Eagle Staff Writer October 28, 2002 Walter Cronkite, whose career as a journalist spanned six decades, speaks at Rudder Auditorium on Sunday afternoon. Walter Cronkite, the veteran newsman who covered almost every major world event that took place during his six-decade career, on Sunday warned that if the United States takes action against Iraq without support from the United Nations it could set the stage for World War III. “The threat from the White House is to go in anyway,” Cronkite said. “Our only ally would probably be Great Britain. That is not good enough. I see the possibility if we do that of really setting forth World War III.” Cronkite spoke at Texas A&M University’s Rudder Auditorium on Sunday afternoon as part of the Wiley Lecture Series. Donnis Baggett, editor and publisher of The Bryan-College Station Eagle, interviewed Cronkite, asking him about his views on issues including America’s war on terrorism, the U.S. economy and the perception of the media’s liberal bias. Cronkite said he believes the best way to handle the situation with Iraq would be through a two-stage resolution adopted by the United Nations. It should first call for weapons inspections and then an invasion if inspectors are not allowed or they meet interference. Such a strategy could help the United States gain other allies, especially Russia and France, he said. “The legitimacy of our actions would be endorsed through the United Nations,” Cronkite said. If the United States goes in without worldwide support, however, other countries in the region such as Iran and Pakistan could retaliate against the U.S., Cronkite said. He said the threat of nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan could be increased if a conflict arises. Cronkite, who began anchoring the CBS Evening News in 1962, said the country is at a very critical point in its history. The only other decade that compares, he said, is the 1960s, which saw the beginning of the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement come to the forefront and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Evers. “That was a tough 10 years,” he said. “But this period, with the threat of war with Iraq on tap, economic difficulties and terrorism are something we must be terribly concerned about.” Cronkite said he fears Americans are learning less and less about what their government is doing, and worse, they do not seem to care. He cited recent presidential elections that have seen less than half of registered voters go to the polls. The result has been leaders who are chosen by about a quarter of the electorate. “That means we don’t have a democracy,” he said. “We’ve got an oligarchy here, not a democracy. Our democracy is in some danger if we don’t concentrate on educating the populace.” Educating Americans should rest with the media, he said. But more often than not, nightly newscasts and the networks’ magazine-style shows focus more on entertainment than hard news. Cronkite said this approach is the result of directives from the companies that own the networks to make things more “interesting.” He said the ability to get the news, especially during times of war, also is becoming more difficult. Since the Vietnam War, Cronkite said, the media has not been allowed to take its cameras, pencils and notepads into the field with the soldiers to give an accurate account of what is happening. During World War II, reporters were in fox holes, and during the Vietnam War they were on the battlefields. In many cases during WWII, the reports would have to go through intelligence officers all the way up the ladder to London, where top military censors decided if the information could be released. If security reasons prevented its release, the news was held until the threat passed. But information was not kept from the American public. Cronkite said Americans may have thought they got the full story during Operation Desert Storm, but the media was denied much of the type of access it had been granted in the past. “[In past conflicts], you wrote it to be the history,” he said. “We have no history now of the Persian Gulf War. We have only what the military reporters wrote and that’s what their bosses told them. That’s not good enough.” Cronkite admitted that in some cases, such as the recent congressional report that outlined the country’s homeland security weaknesses, he wonders whether or not reporting all the facts is in the country’s best interest. “It seems to me that as citizens, we should get this info so we can shout to Washington, ‘Let’s get this game going,’” he said. “But at the same time, there’s a terrorist cell sitting there saying, ‘That’s how we do it.’” But for a country’s citizens to be truly free and the government to be held accountable, he said people must have a free press that gathers all the facts. He said an example of the alternative would be a situation like what he witnessed after WWII, after the Nazi concentration camps were freed. The people who lived in nearby towns cried at the sights of the persecuted Jews and told reporters they had no idea of what was going on behind the walls of the camps. Many were probably telling the truth, he said, but that did not make them any less responsible. “They applauded as Hitler closed down the independent newspaper and television stations and only gave them his propaganda,” Cronkite said. “When they did not rise up and say, ‘Give us a free press,’ they became just as guilty.” theeagle.com