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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (4047)	1/27/2003 2:00:06 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

It's Not About Oil. Yeh, Right ! While Bush has really been on Saddam's case since he arrived back in D.C. in September, he'd been having a half million barrels of Iraqi oil shipped to the U.S. each day. Then we lost 1.5 million barrels of oil per day due to the oil strike in Venezuela. Bush picked up some of the slack in December by halting deposits into our national strategic reserve of 700 million barrels, with the possibility of drawing some out to cover another portion of the loss. Apart from the long-term plan of gaining political control ("hegemony," in weasel-speak) over the Middle East and protecting Israel, Bush's reason for attacking Iraq is to get its oil, as we have indicated all along. As a Condi biz buddy, Chevron chief exec Ken Deer, said five years ago, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Of course, since oil's not the reason Bush is giving to our citizens or to the U.N. for an Iraq attack, it would not have been a good idea to have much public discussion of a U.S. oil shortage at the time he was threating to invade the second most oil-rich country in the world. That would have been too obvious, right? So Bush made sure he covered the severity of the loss of Venezuelan oil by getting an extra half-million barrels of oil per day from...you're not going to believe this...IRAQ. Read the full story http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,882512,00.html. --Politex, 01.27.03 bushnews.com

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (4047)	1/27/2003 2:45:49 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

ANTIWAR.COM -- Justin Raimundo "Growing Up: The AntiWar Movement grows beyond the usual shibboleths" Part 1 antiwar.com GROWING UP Antiwar movement grows beyond the usual shibboleths While the War Party brays about all the glorious sacrifices archive.salon.com we'll have to make to win the War on Everyone, and opines that privation on the home front builds character 216.239.33.100 as well as empire, it looks like there's some wavering in the ranks. Writing in "The Corner," National Review's group-blog and mutual admiration society, investment banker and weekend NR blogger Andrew Stuttaford balks at a world without wingtips: "WINGTIP TRAVEL TIP [Andrew Stuttaford] "Going through security at a West Coast airport this week my harmless-seeming (if battered) shoes once again triggered off the system. "'Metal shanks,' explained a sympathetic screener as he studied these not so lethal pieces of fine English footwear. 'Try wearing sneakers when you travel and just pack the regular shoes in your hand baggage.' "OK, maybe most people have already worked this out for themselves, but it seemed like good, if aesthetically distressing, advice to pass on to anybody (like me) not smart enough to do so. Just thought I'd mention it." Let's hope and pray the President utilizes his State of the Union speech to proclaim "I can only promise you blood, sweat, tears, and confiscated wingtips." Half of the GOP would defect on the spot, and soon the Young Republicans would be vying with the Workers World Party for prime spots on the speakers' platform at the upcoming antiwar rallies. Speaking of the Workers out-of-this-World Party…. As the antiwar movement gains momentum, it is fast leaving behind the eccentric pro-Stalinist cult that has been the driving force behind the recent mobilizations. The Workers World Party was founded in 1957 by followers of Sam Marcy, a former leader of the Socialist Workers Party: Marcy and his small band of followers were expelled for supporting the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. Up until this point, they have dominated the platform at antiwar rallies organized by their front group, Act Now to End War and Racism (ANSWER), but the long campaign by moderates and libertarians in the antiwar movement to create a single-issue coalition unburdened by far-left shibboleths is finally taking hold, having reached the point where even the New York Times is taking note of it. The pro-war Right has latched on to the WWP-antiwar connection, absurdly charging that to even march in a rally in any way connected with known Communists is to become an accomplice and apologist for all the horrors of Stalin's gulag. According to David Horowitz, the ex-Commie-turned-rightwing self-parody, the hundreds of thousands of antiwar demonstrators who turned out on January 18 were all Communists, who agree with the WWP that Kim Jong Il is a "Great Leader" and North Korea is a workers paradise. But the Times doesn't cite the hyperbolic Horowitz or any of his fellow neocons, only antiwar people who are sick unto death of hearing about Mumia Abu-Jamal: "Behind the scenes, some of the protesters have questioned whether the message of opposing war with Iraq is being tainted or at least diluted by other causes of International Answer, which sponsored both the Washington and San Francisco rallies. … Answer's critics say they simply wish that when it sponsors antiwar rallies, it would confine its message to opposition to war. At the rally in Washington, the group's speakers advocated causes like better treatment of American Indians and release of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the radical activist long imprisoned for killing a Philadelphia police officer." The WWPers have struck back, predictably enough, with cries of "McCarthyism!" Says Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a spokeswoman for Answer, "When you select out the Socialists or Marxists, the point is to demonize and divide and diminish a massive, growing movement." To even raise the question of what sort of leadership the antiwar movement must have to win is to engage in "classic McCarthy-era Red-baiting." The Wacky-Worlders are kidding themselves, but they can't kid me. Dealing with a real honest-to-goodness Communist – that is, a member of the party of Gus Hall and Earl Browder – would be a hell of a lot easier than having to contend with the WWP. The WWP/ANSWER group select themselves out of the crowd of socialists and other Marxists in the antiwar movement with their inveterate sectarianism and the sheer eccentricity of their politics. And it isn't just me, unregenerate right-winger that I am: plenty of leftists agree with me on that score. <Continues............>