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 (66561)	1/17/2003 12:21:45 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

US lawyers slam Bush policy on Iraq and N. Korea “I think the Bush Administration fundamental supremacist ideology is an element that is translating into its actions around the world,” said Cabasso. By Barbara Ferguson, Arab News Correspondent WASHINGTON, 17 January 2003 — As North Korea burgeons on the scale of international concern, many here are questioning the apparent inconsistency of the Bush Administration’s policies of Iraq and North Korea. In response, several groups of lawyers are actively voicing their concern over the government’s nuclear policy. “The inconsistency is not what bothers me so much as the fact that the Bush Administration is taking a unilateralist and military approach, especially in Asia and the Middle East,” said John Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy, and co-editor of the recently published book: “Rule of Power or Rule of Law?” “What stands out to me about North Korea is the bankruptcy of the US policy regarding the non-proliferation treaty. North Korea has just announced it’s going to withdraw from the treaty, and apparently has been violating the treaty with its uranium enrichment process, but the US has also been violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in major ways.” Regarding the US policy towards Iraq and North Korea, he said it “has to do with greater military vulnerability with Iraq, a record of aggression of the Hussein regime, the Bush Administration’s desire to create a political/imperial presence in the Middle East, and the interest in controlling sources of oil.” Asked if he thought controlling oil was on the Bush Administration’s agenda, Burroughs said: “Yes. Not necessarily just for US consumption, but on behalf of the US and its allies. That doesn’t mean that US companies would own the oil, either, but once you’re there in the country, you have a great deal of influence on how the oil is handled.” Burroughs believes the US cannot afford a $400 billion military budget, a war with Iraq, and to install a post-occupation regime. “I don’t think they can do all that, and have health care, functional cities, functional state governments, and all the things that people take for granted in this country.” On the other side of the continent, Jackie Cabasso, executive director of the anti-nuclear Western States Legal Foundation, in Oakland, California, was equally critical of the Bush Administration. “The players in the administration, and the interests that they represent, are a kind of ‘fundamentalist imperialists.’ They really seem to believe that they have an inherent God-given right to determine who controls the world’s resources — and that it’s them.” Cabasso said the administration appears to believe it can initiate a military action against any target anywhere in the world for any reason whatsoever, with or without the concurrence of allies or the international community, and that this ideology has been transplanted into official policy. “I think the Bush Administration fundamental supremacist ideology is an element that is translating into its actions around the world,” said Cabasso. Speaking on the differences of North Korea and Iraq, she said the administration “is calculating how many Americans will die, how much the war will cost, and what the long term benefits will be to US elite interests that are being served — because this policy is certainly not serving the interests of the vast majority of the American population.” www.arabnews.com

To: JohnM who wrote (66561)	1/17/2003 1:02:24 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

LOL! You must be putting a shine on the ol' Birkenstocks and looking around for the love beads in preparation for a trip to DC Monday to attend the anti-war party. I could go on and on about the parallels with the 60s but I won't waste too much of my time. The parallels are quite clear to anyone who bothers to stop and smell the incense. Slogans getting better, finally, though still pretty lame: "One, two, three, four, we don't want Bush's war!" zwire.com The predictable sit-in: pacifica.org Not a party? Why, then, are these protestors going to get naked? ["In a lighter but perhaps equally eye-popping tactic, protesters in the organization Baring Witness said they might take their clothes off and march down San Francisco's Market Street."} cbsnews.com And last, but not least, the old 1964 Daisy ad is revived. ["Also, a national grass-roots anti-war group on Thursday began airing a remake of the 1964 "Daisy" ad. It's a jarring television commercial from the Cold War era which depicts a girl plucking petals from a daisy - along with a missile launch countdown and a nuclear mushroom cloud."] lsj.com Yep. If one didn't live the Sixties or doesn't want to let them go, this is a grand way to re-live their silliest excesses. C2@don'tbogartthatjoint.com