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 (66427)	1/16/2003 4:06:36 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Listen to the Veterans By Charles Sheehan-Miles AlterNet January 16, 2003 Twelve years ago, at roughly 2:00 a.m. local time on January 17, I was ready to go off guard duty when the call came down from the command post to wake up the platoon leaders ASAP. Not long after, we got the official word: U.S. forces were in contact. Lieutenant Dorr, my platoon leader, came back and briefed us: A hundred tomahawk missiles had been launched, and Special Forces were engaged behind the lines. We didn't need the briefings; all we had to do was look up at the sky to see hundreds of planes heading north for their bombing runs. Imagine if Ronald Reagan had announced in 1985 that we were going back to Vietnam, and this time we were going to take out those commies. That's how surreal the whole discussion of invading Iraq is, because we have just about as much justification today. At least in 1991, we had the very real fact that Iraq had invaded and occupied its neighbor as justification for the war (forget that the U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam the go-ahead), and the just-war theorists had a lively debate. It was a fight in Congress and a very close vote, a vote that was swung by lies of babies thrown out of incubators concocted in a DC public relations firm. The result of all this is clear: friends injured on the front lines in Iraq, 12 men in my division killed in action and many more wounded, tens of thousands more who came home sick. Only this week new research was published proving that the chemicals we were exposed to not only caused brain damage but also damaged fertility. This research vindicated thousands of veterans who reported their illnesses 10 years ago only to be told their ailment was in their heads. Now, 12 years later, it is time for the country to sit up and listen to its veterans – starting with figures including Generals Anthony Zinni and Norman Schwarzkopf who have consistently urged caution, certified war heroes such as Col. David Hackworth, and the hundreds of veterans who have signed petitions for Veterans for Common Sense and www.vaiw.org">Veterans against the Iraq War. As veterans who have served in wartime, it is our moral responsibility to ensure that those who serve in uniform today are not sent into battle without just cause. It is our moral responsibility to ensure that they don't needlessly die in a faraway desert for motivations that are unclear. Hold no illusions: Hundreds, possible thousands of Americans will die in the coming war. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die in the coming war. All across America, hundreds of thousands of citizens are marching this week, calling out to their government to listen to the people, and in many cases they are joined or led by veterans. No one knows the horrors of war better than someone who has had a friend die in his arms. No one knows the horrors of war better than someone who lives with the memory of having killed another human being. The tide is turning. Today, the majority of Americans see war against Iraq as unwarranted and unnecessary. But we must keep at it, keep talking, keep putting up signs, until Bush's war on America and Iraq is brought to a halt. Twelve years ago, among the lights that flew so high over us in the desert night, Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher was shot down over Iraq and never came home. Before the war ground to a halt in March untold thousands more died, at least some of them at my hand. Before the decade was over, another million innocent Iraqi civilians died. That must forever lie on the conscience of Americans, and the world, for letting it happen. When I was in the Army, they taught me to respect and protect civilians, not to kill them. This war does nothing to protect American lives, but it will do everything to destroy the lives of many thousands of Iraqis and Americans. This war will not protect us from weapons of mass destruction, but it will make it more likely Iraq will try to use them. This war will not liberate the Iraqi people, but it will do everything to ensure they receive a new master, one ruled by corporate profits and oil to fuel more American consumption. This war isn't worth the life of one American soldier. This week, thousands of American soldiers from my old post, Fort Stewart, are loading up on planes and deploying to Kuwait, to fight a war on our behalf. They go because it is their job, and because it is their mission to protect us. It is now our mission to protect them. ____________________________________________ Charles Sheehan-Miles, a Gulf War veteran and a co-founder of Veterans for Common Sense, is a former president of the National Gulf War Resource Center and author of the novel, "Prayer at Rumayla". alternet.org

To: JohnM who wrote (66427)	1/16/2003 4:11:44 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

John, There were folks who felt that way before all of our wars--me included in vietnam. I am not nearly as optimistic as i sound. These are tough times and one can only hope we are doing the right thing. And for me i have to give the benefit of doubt to my leaders who probably know more than i do. Call me naive and during vietnam i was proved naive. I dont believe this is vietnam now. Gotta run. mike

To: JohnM who wrote (66427)	1/16/2003 5:24:34 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Foes of a war in Iraq spread their message By Robert Schlesinger Boston Globe Staff 1/16/2003 WASHINGTON - The ad starts with a little girl pulling petals off a daisy and ends with a mushroom cloud - a startling image underscoring an appeal for peace. In an updated version of an infamous 1964 political spot, modern-day activists are trying to urge mainstream Americans to join the movement against war with Iraq. The 30-second television spot, which is scheduled to start running today in 13 cities including Boston, is illustrative of a preemptive peace movement that has been organizing against a war that hasn't started. The movement's leaders are using 21st-century tactics to spread their message beyond the traditional ranks of the antiwar movement. ''Our members don't really consider themselves activists,'' said Eli Pariser, international campaigns director for MoveOn.org, the group that funded and produced the ad. ''It's the first time they've been involved in political issues. So getting out in the street for them is a scary thought, but making contributions and helping pay for an ad is something they're only too willing to do.'' To produce and air the ad, MoveOn.org raised more than $400,000 over the Internet from more than 14,000 members between Dec. 5 and Dec. 7, according to the group, which came into existence in 1998 to advocate against impeaching then-president Bill Clinton. The group raised more than $26,000 from 1,000 donors in Massachusetts. The strength of this incipient peace movement remains unclear. Organizers say it is broad, deep, and spreading, but it has shown little political muscle. Congress passed a resolution in October authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq and the US military has been steadliy preparing for war. ''I have no sense from people I talk to at all that anybody is giving the American peace, antiwar movement a second thought,'' said Dan Goure, a military analyst with the conservative Lexington Institute. ''There's a lot of concern about the allies and their peace movements. ... I don't think that necessarily means that it may not be important, or it may not have significant impact when it gets going, but it's just not on the radar screen.'' Organizers acknowledge that the effort to reach the mainstream is in its formative stages. Meanwhile, traditional antiwar activities continue: International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism!), which ran an October rally that drew tens of thousands to Washington, is organizing another for this weekend with protests in, among other places, Washington, San Francisco, Canada, and Spain. ''On Saturday, you will see many, many people in Washington, D.C., and some of them will be our members,'' said Pariser. ''But what's exciting about this is we can get people who are housewives in Arkansas or plumbers in Ohio also involved in the same political push. I don't think it's a change in tactics necessarily, [so much as] adding new tactics that haven't been available in the past to reach more mainstream audiences.'' The television ad is calculated to get this movement noticed by mainstream America. Starting with the girl and the daisy, the images shift to what peace activists say could result from a war in Iraq: burning oil wells, wounded soldiers, angry crowds. ''War with Iraq. Maybe it will end quickly. Maybe not. Maybe extremists will take over countries with nuclear weapons,'' a voice-over says. The image returns to the little girl before flashing to a nuclear explosion. The final message in white letters over a black background is: ''Let the inspections work,'' referring to what the UN weapons inspectors currently assessing Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. The ad mirrors the television spot ''Daisy,'' which then-president Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign ran against Republian challenger Barry Goldwater, suggesting that Goldwater was too dangerous to have control of the US nuclear arsenal. That ad ran only once before being pulled, but it has been rerun countless times as a classic of negative political advertising. The new ad may mirror the old in more than just its theme: MoveOn.org spent the relatively small sum of $185,000 on air time, apparently hoping just a short run would generate media attention. ''The `Daisy' ad was this ad about the danger that we face as a country and about the choices we have to make sure the worst doesn't happen,'' Pariser said. ''We felt like we're in a very similar situation right now. With the prospect of this war in Iraq, we are playing with matches in a tinderbox.'' MoveOn.org is part of the Win Without War coalition, one of several groups trying to organize a peace movement that encompasses people who have in the past been slow to join. David Cortright, the founder and staff coordinator of Win Without War, recalled that the group's genesis came during the October antiwar protest in Washington. The rally, said Cortright, ''was all over the map politically and not very appealing to a mainstream perspective.'' At dinner that night, he and a few others discussed forming a coalition that would be ''more welcoming to mainstream constituencies.'' ''We wanted to project a more mainstream, patriotic message. We feel that the number-one concern about this whole policy is that it's going to harm our country,'' Cortright said. ''We don't go off and start wars, at least that's our tradition.'' The Win Without War group, announced last month as a group of ''patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction'' but which also opposes a military solution, was the result. The coalition includes groups ranging from the National Organization of Women to the National Council of Churches. ''It's an attempt to recognize that it's not just the liberal left or the theological left or the political left that is organizing,'' said Dr. Bob Edgar, a former House Democrat from Pennsylvania who is now the general secretary for the National Council on Churches. ''It's just average, ordinary, common people who don't normally get excited about issues of war and peace, but on this issue they believe that the administration has not made its case.'' Robert Schlesinger can be reached at schlesinger@globe.com. This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 1/16/2003. boston.com

To: JohnM who wrote (66427)	1/16/2003 8:10:45 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Talk about oil and Iraq is just that: A lot of talk By Trudy Rubin Columnist The Philadelphia Inquirer Posted on Sun, Jan. 12, 2003 Is the United States going to war with Iraq to get its hands on Iraqi oil fields? Nearly everyone in the Middle East thinks so. So do some Americans. The theory is seductive. Iraq has the world's second-largest oil reserves, with rich new fields to explore. It's not just critics of an Iraq war who speculate about a war-oil linkage. Conservative pundits contend that post-Saddam Iraq will turn on the pumps and drive global oil prices down, while pulling out of the OPEC oil cartel and replacing the unpleasant Saudis as our key oil ally. Administration officials predict that oil will pay for all of Iraq's reconstruction - and, some hint, for the costs of war. The only problem with all these oil theories is that they are wrong. There will be no fantastic oil bonanza at hand if Saddam Hussein is ousted. After 20 years of war and sanctions, Iraq's oil infrastructure is in disarray. It will take three or more years and $7 billion to $8 billion just to get back to 1980 production levels of 3.5 million barrels per day, according to experts. Boosting production to 6 million bpd would take $30 billion to $40 billion more in investment - and many more years. (So much for hopes that the Iraqi oil tap will soon make Saudia Arabia's 8 billion bpd irrelevant). Moreover, Baghdad doesn't even have the cash to get started. Iraq's annual oil revenues at present are only around $10 billion a year. Even if we assume that Saddam doesn't torch the oil fields as a parting gesture, that level of income won't begin to meet the country's immediate needs. There will be huge emergency humanitarian bills after a military conflict. There will be an urgent need to rebuild basic infrastructure, like power grids, roads, and hospitals, which will eat up $25 billion to $100 billion more. Do the math, and what you get is a huge shortfall. In the next couple of years, international donors will have to pour money into Iraq. Anyone who imagines that Iraqi oil is going to pay the $100 billion bill for a war there is in fantasyland. Of course, foreign investment could help speed up the oil industry's recovery and augment Iraq's future income. But this brings us to the political impediments to dipping into Iraqi oil. U.S. companies might not be in a hurry to invest in an Iraq whose stability will be shaky in the near term. Even if they are eager, they will confront crucial issues of Iraqi nationalism - and of law. Iraq, like the rest of the Gulf, has a state-owned oil company. No foreign oil company has operated in Iraq since 1960. Multinationals buy Iraqi oil for refining, but they have no equity share in the oil fields, nor do they get any percentage of oil for services performed. In a desperate bid for political support, Saddam promised the Russians and the French that he would offer them a chance to develop new oil fields. But if his dictatorship ends, any new oil arrangement will require the passage of new laws by a new, democratically elected parliament. This process will be time-consuming, but - if the Bush administration really means to support democracy - it must accept the results. And the results may not be to its liking. "If the Baath Party survives, or some general makes a coup, it might be conceivable they would give the U.S. some oil contracts," says oil expert Fereidun Fesharaki of the East-West Center in Honolulu. "But if they have proper elections... you can't predict. You might have a nationalist government which doesn't want equity sharing or to give the U.S. the oil." Prime case in point: After the Gulf War, American companies expected to be invited to develop new Kuwaiti oil fields. Kuwait's government was willing, but the elected parliament refused. For similar Arab nationalist reasons, many experts expect that a new Iraqi government would stay in OPEC. "Iraq was a founding member of OPEC," says Amy Myers Jaffe, senior energy adviser at the James A. Baker III Institute in Houston. "You can't eradicate a country's history because they have a new government." That history - which includes British colonial rule - will require the United States to handle the oil issue with care after an Iraq war. Iraq has many oil experts, inside and outside the country, who can manage the industry. Control should be turned over to them once oil proceeds are weaned from U.N. supervision under the "oil-for-food" program. An elected Iraqi government may give contracts to U.S. companies or not. But any heavy-handed U.S. pressure is likely to boomerang and confirm the beliefs of those who think the war was only about oil. Even though, in reality, Iraq's fields are not up for grabs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact columnist Trudy Rubin at 215-854-5823 or trubin@phillynews.com. philly.com

To: JohnM who wrote (66427)	1/17/2003 12:31:34 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Klugman is really pissed that Bush is appeasing North Korea. He is right. You should be happy, John. We are doing the classic liberal thing. Trying to mollify the aggressor. washingtonpost.com Korea Follies By Charles Krauthammer Friday, January 17, 2003; Page A23 The Bush position on North Korea is in total collapse. In less than a month we have gone from "tailored containment" to shoeless appeasement. It usually takes longer. It began when the Bush administration responded to North Korea's brazen nuclear breakout by immediately -- and explicitly -- taking the military option off the table. This was a serious mistake. There was no need to bluff, but there was equally no need to advertise our helplessness. Not even Bill Clinton did that when he tried to buy off Kim Il Sung nine years ago. Clinton at least held out the possibility of destroying the plutonium plant in Yongbyon. Instead, the Bush administration came up with a new policy of "tailored containment." One has the image of a nicely trimmed, neatly hemmed, shoulder-padded straitjacket for the deranged Kim Jong Il. Economic sanctions and political isolation were not bad ideas. Yet when South Korea and China criticized them and North Korea threatened war if sanctions were imposed, the administration took a huge dive. Within days, the vaunted program of nonmilitarily squeezing North Korea into compliance went down the memory hole. You hear not a word about it today. Instead, we went into high appeasement mode. As in the classic kind of the 1930s, every violation, every threat from the enemy was met with yet more conciliation. The logic for taking the military option off the table was not just that our preoccupation with Iraq would make the threat not credible -- in which case we should at least have said nothing about it, rather than explicitly renouncing it (ambiguity, even implausible ambiguity, is preferable to renunciation) -- but also that the North Koreans were motivated by paranoia and fear of American power and thus would be reassured and more pliant if we told them they had nothing to fear. On the contrary. When President Bush went out of his way -- repeatedly, in fact -- to promise that the United States would not invade, North Korea became decidedly, aggressively more bold and threatening. The North Korean leaders may be crazy but they are not stupid. They know we're not going to invade. So our public renunciation of force wasn't reassurance, it was a sign of weakness -- not only to the North Koreans but, even more important, to our allies. When the allies, accordingly, then came out against even "tailored containment," our new line of resistance became: no rewards, no talks until North Korea stops its nuclear program. The Maginot Line held longer than this one. North Korea having expelled nuclear inspectors and declared that it would restart its plutonium reprocessing plant, the administration announced that it was, after all, willing to talk with the North Koreans. In the very midst of these talks, North Korea withdrew from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The next day, it got bolder and threatened to resume testing and exporting missiles, and, just to emphasize who is dictating terms to whom, North Korea threatened "holy war," a true innovation for an officially atheist country. Our response? On Monday, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly announced that if North Korea plays nice it can count on assistance "in the energy area." So much for no rewards. It gets worse. The day after Kelly's cave-in, the president quadrupled the ante, offering a "bold initiative" of not only energy assistance but also economic aid, and eventually even diplomatic agreements and security guarantees. This goes far beyond carrots. This is cake with the cherry on top. Moreover, it is futile. No carrot or confection will stop the North Korean nuclear program. Hitler said he wanted Lebensraum. He did. He was not looking for reassurance. Pyongyang says it wants the bomb. It does. It is not looking for reassurance. Of course North Korea will take blackmail money, too. Why not? But it will not give up its nuclear program in exchange. Some of us said that when the last phony deal was struck in 1994. How many times does Lucy get to pull away the football? What to do? It is obvious that, at least until Iraq is settled, nonbelligerence is warranted. We simply cannot handle two military crises at once. But there is a difference between avoiding war and total collapse. We should be talking about sanctions, not rewards. John McCain, calling (with other senators) for sanctions, warns against "fail[ing] to grasp the danger of rewarding threats with retreat and concession." The abject Korea cave-in is a threat to American credibility everywhere. Giving up ground every three days -- sanctions threatened, then sanctions withdrawn; a pledge not to talk, then talks initiated; a pledge of no rewards, then rewards offered and then quadrupled -- is disastrous. Better to say nothing than to keep moving backward. washingtonpost.com