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


To: elpolvo who wrote (11735)1/13/2003 6:36:59 PM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
An American invitation to deter America

William Pfaff IHT
Thursday, October 24, 2002

Nuclear proliferation

VIENNA When the U.S. government sets forth a national strategy statement declaring its aim to be permanent military domination of the world, so that no rival should "even think about" challenging it, the inevitable result is to make people think the hitherto unthinkable. They don't think about challenging the United States. They think about deterring it.

The policy statement issued last month risks doing more for nuclear proliferation than anything that has happened since 1945. A government might reasonably consider - as North Korea now says it has done - how to construct a minimal nuclear deterrent that raises enough uncertainties to keep any hostile foreign power at bay, even the United States.

Consider Washington's different reactions to North Korea's newly announced nuclear program and Iraq's supposed one. Washington is eager to go to war against Iraq, but not against North Korea. There are some 40,000 American troops in South Korea, and a single North Korean nuclear missile could kill a very large number of them. That is not to mention South Korean victims and the North Koreans who would die in retaliation.

Such a scenario is highly improbable and implausible. It is not a fully rational one. But it is enough to make even the flock of hawks currently in residence at the Pentagon and White House think again. That has undoubtedly made Saddam Hussein and others think, as well.

Nuclear nonproliferation currently is only for those who do not already have nuclear weapons. That is the weakness of the policy. When the United States announces that it has no intention of giving up its nuclear advantage, but rather intends to enlarge it, as George W. Bush has said, then any prudent government has cause to consider purchasing for itself a small but secure nuclear deterrent. No one envisions a military challenge to America, which would be hopelessly expensive and provoke wholly unpredictable reactions in the American political class. It would also be a waste of money for quite another reason: This kind of military power is only marginally relevant in today's world. People are being forced to think about the nature of power, and to wonder if the United States is really as powerful as it claims to be. They note that since Bush was elected and began to assert military "hard" power, America's "soft" power has shrunk.

Soft power encompasses diplomatic influence and political persuasion, cultural influence and prestige, and additional factors that cause others to respect a country and wish to become associated with it and to accept its values and views. Joseph Nye of Harvard University has recently written about this in terms of the importance of soft power to the United States itself. But soft power can also be used against America, particularly when America is in its Bush administration hard-power operational mode. France has been using its soft power to block the American demand for a single UN Security Council resolution that would authorize the United States to attack Iraq whenever Washington judged this appropriate. The French maintain that international law requires that the Security Council authorize whatever retaliation follows Iraqi obstruction of inspections.

The American position was never popular with other governments, and in a low-key but persistent and unyielding way, the French mobilized that international opposition. France has UN veto power but does not threaten to use it, understanding that veto power, like nuclear power, is much more important unused than used. The United States now has provisionally agreed to return to the United Nations before any attack on Iraq, although at this writing negotiations (notably with Russia) continue on the wording of a resolution acceptable to the five permanent Security Council members. As for hard power, no other country imagines trying to construct as huge and versatile a military force as the United States possesses. What purpose would it serve? No government today imagines fighting a full-spectrum war against America. No other government except the American has the least interest in deploying its forces worldwide, with bases in scores of countries.

The U.S. reaction to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks included establishing new military bases and deployments in Central Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia, while naming as new enemies a variety of Islamic extremist movements or factions in these regions, as well as bandit and kidnapping gangs and separatist groups, all described as part of a vast axis of terrorism.

This served chiefly to multiply the number and geographical distribution of identified enemies, not previously perceived as important forces even in their own countries.

This certainly has not improved matters for the United States, which risks becoming identified as at war not only with the Muslim world but with the non-Western world as a whole. International Herald Tribune Tribune Media Services International



To: elpolvo who wrote (11735)1/13/2003 7:02:35 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A Crime, Not a War

By Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Opinion
Sunday 12 January 2003

War is borne of irreconcilable differences between nations. Brazen military aggression is a crime against humanity.

Every crime relies on three primary elements; Means, Motive and Opportunity.

Motive:

Oil, money, power beyond comprehension. Plans for an Iraqi "Regime Change" are not at all -- as the administration would have us believe -- a result of the attacks of September 11th. In fact, plans for an Iraqi regime change, at the behest of Mr. Bush were scripted into the GOP's published platform statement for 2000.

Why? There are heavy connections between the Bush Administration and US oil corporations. The interests of those oil giants are the cornerstone of this Administration's policy. Control of Iraqi oil fields would be worth incalculable profits the very corporations whose former executives permeate the ranks of the Bush Administration. Oil is the Bush family business -- politics is the shield that protects it.

In addition to the oil, the business of militarism itself promises a mountain of gold for those who promote this act of military aggression. At the center of all spending for the administration's "war on terrorism" is the Carlyle Group. Contracts for the construction of military aircraft, artillery, vaccines for small pox, transportation infrastructure - everything a war on terrorism needs - are awarded to companies connected to the Carlyle Group.

Who is the Carlyle group? Essentially they are defense industry investment brokers. The management team includes none other than former US President George Bush Sr., James Baker and Frank Carlucci to name a few. If you want to invest your millions in the defense industry, the smart money goes to the Carlyle Group.

In fact, that is precisely what the family of Osama bin Laden did. They were Carlyle clients in good standing at the time of the attacks, having invested two million dollars through Carlyle in the US defense industry. After the attacks, Carlyle severed relations with the bin Ladens, but not before the family of the worlds most notorious killer pocketed a tidy profit from their dealings. It should be noted that the bin Laden family investment was well timed to capitalize on the wave of US defense spending that would be generated by Oasma's attacks. Carlyle stood ready to assist them. I wonder how FOX News missed that.

Means:

The most powerful military the world has ever known, assembled expressly for the purpose of defending the United States of America, has been commandeered by Bush & Co. for personal equity enhancement.

Opportunity:

The attacks of September 11th. have provided the perfect opportunity, indeed the perfect catalyst. Those attacks can only be described as crimes against humanity. There can no doubt today whom those crimes have benefited most.

"The World Has Spoken With One Voice"

Mr. Bush offers as justification for the coming slaughter unified worldwide opinion. It is true, the world has spoken. The problem is, the Bush Administration refuses to hear what is being said. "The world has said Iraq should not be in possession of weapons of mass destruction; they also said; "Don't launch a full scale military assault aimed at gaining control of the lucrative Iraqi oil fields. And most importantly, work in accordance with the UN Security Council." That last part is routinely omitted by Mr. Bush as he plays the role of war salesman.

At every turn the Bush administration has made false and misleading statements in building their case for war. At every turn the Administration has misstated the support and intentions of our historic allies in a blatant attempt to fan the fires of war. At every turn the Administration undermines attempts by the United Nations Security Council to resolve the issues peacefully.

The continued massing of US assault forces on Iraq's border clearly signals Mr. Bush and his associates have no intention of working with the UN or anyone else. They are men with guns in their hands and gold in their eyes.

Mr. Bush and his associates have repeatedly made a point of derailing and obfuscating the International Criminal Prosecution Process. They have berated and bribed nation after nation for assurances of immunity from International War Crimes prosecution.

For these men, immunity from criminal prosecution will be precious indeed.

truthout.org



To: elpolvo who wrote (11735)1/14/2003 12:05:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
JUST GET ON THE BUS, GUS - ANTI-WAR TRAFFIC JAM - JANUARY 18 - WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO

commondreams.org

Mainers Flocking to Rally as Anti-War Mood Builds

Published on Monday, January 13, 2003 by the Portland Press Herald (Maine)

by Joshua Weinstein

The people at Peace Action Maine knew that plenty of people would want to go to Washington, D.C., next weekend for the mammoth peace rally planned for the city on January 18th, so they chartered a couple of buses.

Two wasn't enough. Neither was three. Or four.

On Friday, eight busloads of Mainers will head down, filled with about 400 people. They'll leave Friday night, arrive in the capital for the rally and come right back.

Greg Field, executive director of Peace Action Maine, said Sunday that he is astounded - and thrilled - at the reaction.

"We got such positive response that the first thing that happened was the midcoast people decided to do one on their own, and it turned into two."

Activists in Bangor have two buses, as well. "It's eight at this point, so it's really been snowballing," Field said.

He said support for the rally, and opposition to a war in Iraq, are building.

"People are feeling the need to be active," he said. "People who have not been in the group for years, or have never been in a group at all, are turning out for planning meetings."

Steve Burke, a founder of the new midcoast peace and justice group, sees it the same way.

"We have our two buses full and we have a waiting list of 16 people, so we may be looking at a possibility of a third, 11th-hour bus to accommodate just the people from the midcoast," he said.

"I have to attribute it to current events. People are really opposed to Bush's push for war," Burke said. "I think over time, as the drumbeat continues, that just kind of creates an emergency atmosphere that people feel they have to be on the streets in D.C. - that this is our last chance to derail the mad rush to war, and people want to put their bodies out there."

That does mean coughing up some cash - the midcoast group charges $75 per person for the trip, and the Portland group is charging $65. But Burke and Field said there's been a surprise with the money, as well.

"Some people who can't go have written a check for a seat and said, 'Here's a seat on the bus. Give it to someone who needs it,' " Field said.

The same thing happened to Burke. "People have been really generous," he said.

Burke said the Washington rally and another in San Francisco the same day will show the president, Congress, the nation and the world that many Americans do not want a war.

"We want people in the United States to know that there are a lot of people . . . opposed to war," he said.

The entire Cartwright family, for instance.

All four Cartwrights will leave their home in Nobleboro for their trip, said Steve Cartwright, who will be joined by his wife, Kathy, their 16-year-old daughter, Chelsea, and their 18-year-old son, Joel, who is a freshman at Bowdoin College.

"You can write a letter to the editor, you can call and leave a message for your senator and for your congressman, and I've done these things," Steve Cartwright said. "You can send e-mails and whatever, but is that really enough? And I guess I want to be counted this way, too."



To: elpolvo who wrote (11735)1/14/2003 12:21:11 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
NOT IN OUR NAME -- The Pledge

The Pledge of Resistance

We believe that as people living
in the United States it is our
responsibility to resist the injustices
done by our government,
in our names

Not in our name
will you wage endless war
there can be no more deaths
no more transfusions
of blood for oil

Not in our name
will you invade countries
bomb civilians, kill more children
letting history take its course
over the graves of the nameless

Not in our name
will you erode the very freedoms
you have claimed to fight for

Not by our hands
will we supply weapons and funding
for the annihilation of families
on foreign soil

Not by our mouths
will we let fear silence us

Not by our hearts
will we allow whole peoples
or countries to be deemed evil

Not by our will
and Not in our name

We pledge resistance

We pledge alliance with those
who have come under attack
for voicing opposition to the war
or for their religion or ethnicity

We pledge to make common cause
with the people of the world
to bring about justice,
freedom and peace

Another world is possible
and we pledge to make it real.

notinourname.net