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 (70420)	1/31/2003 12:16:24 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

hmmm. Ok. 1. The science is still uncertain. The problem may not exist. Further study is needed. 2. The treaty is unfair. It would force the United States and other developed countries to make deep emissions cuts, but, would exempt many developing countries such as India and China. This could result in products that use energy-intensive manufacturing processes, such as steel, paper, automobiles and chemicals to move overseas. 3. It's too costly to America consumers. It would raise gas prices, and electrical rates. Some predictions are pretty dramatic. Because of these reasons, not one United States Senator from either side of the aisle voted to ratify the treaty. On the contrary, they voted 95-0 to oppose the treaty. Therefore, it's not just folks from the "further right" of American politics who oppose the treaty, it's folks from all sides of the political spectrum. As I asked previously, how do you come to terms with a 95-0 vote in the Senate, representing only the further right?

To: JohnM who wrote (70420)	1/31/2003 12:38:44 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

A War Crime or an Act of War? By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE Editorial The New York Times January 31, 2003 MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured." The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein. But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair. This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time. These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran. I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them. In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq. We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region. (Page 2 of 2) Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change. Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies. All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one. Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja. Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports? ____________________________________________________ Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf." nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (70420)	1/31/2003 6:27:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Here is the latest from Sullivan, John. That's OK, I don't expect you to gag your way through it. :>) The Weekly Dish Andrew Sullivan Published January 31, 2003 The new Europe Isn't it a big deal that eight European countries, from Spain to Italy to Britain, just publicly rebuked France and Germany for their obstructionist stance on Iraq? The leaders' op-ed in the Times of London (commissioned by the Wall Street Journal) was the lead story in most British newspapers, created waves of coverage in Europe, was featured prominently in the Wall Street Journal and made AOL's top story for a while yesterday. So, where was the story in the New York Times and The Washington Post? Buried deep in the last paragraph of a news story in The Post; and no mention that I could find in the New York Times, until late in the day yesterday, when the newspaper did all it could to undermine the position of "New Europe." Alan Cowell's piece described Tony Blair's gambit as "unusual," as if European support for the United States in matters of war and peace were somehow exceptional in recent history rather than routine. Mr. Cowell made sure to emphasize that Holland hadn't signed on, and the the entire continent was "ever more divided over the need for war." "Old Europe" and the "Old Gray Lady" ? together once again. Sontag award nominee (for moral equivalence in the war on terror) "Unelected in 2000, the Washington regime of George W. Bush is now totalitarian, captured by a clique whose fanaticism and ambitions of "endless war" and "full spectrum dominance" are a matter of record. All the world knows their names: Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Perle, and Powell, the false liberal. Bush's State of the Union speech last night was reminiscent of that other great moment in 1938 when Hitler called his generals together and told them: "I must have war." He then had it." ? John Pilger, the Daily Mirror, earlier this week. To get some moral perspective on where Mr. Pilger is coming from, it's worth remembering a piece of his written in the British magazine, the New Statesman, back in November 1999. It was in defense of Slobodan Milosevic, another genocidal hero of some in the "anti-war" movement. "The same is true of the Milosevic regime," Mr. Pilger wrote. "No one can doubt its cruelty and atrocities, but comparisons with the Third Reich are ridiculous." So let's get this straight. Mr. Bush, trying to liberate a people from a dictator's grip, is worse than Milosevic, imperialist, genocidal war criminal. Just so you know where some on the left are coming from. Who asked him? Strange quote yesterday from the most pro-Saddam of the U.N. inspectors, Mohamed ElBaradei. "I still hope that war is not inevitable. I will do my damned best to ensure that war is not inevitable, and I will try every possible way to try to see whether we can resolve that issue through peaceful means." These are noble sentiments, but with all due respect to Mr. ElBaradei, his role is not to seek peace or to avert war. His role is merely to confirm Iraq's disarmament. By revealing his broader geo-political aspirations, however noble, Mr. ElBaradei cannot but undermine the neutrality and professionalism of the United Nations on the ground. Their job is to be neutral about the consequences of their findings ? and objective in their assessment of Iraq's cooperation. An American in Pravda Who on earth is John Stanton? His bio in Pravda ? yes, Pravda ? is "a Virginia-based writer specializing in national security matters." His views, however, are straight out of ANSWER's playbook. Here's a quote from a column of his earlier this week in that esteemed newspaper: "Like the German immigrants to America who had the foresight to see that injustice [slavery], the millions who protested around the world on January 18, 2003, will be remembered for raising the consciousness of people everywhere to the great danger that George Bush II and the current U.S. government pose to America and the world. The greatest threat to American society besides Iraq oil wars is an unaccountable White House occupant, Congress, Supreme Court and military, the latter being the now well-established fourth branch of the U.S. government. Americans and the world can only hope that there will be more rallies and marches as occurred on January 18. If not, the U.S. government, as it stands now, will destroy or imprison its people and those of any other nation who dare challenge the Bush and Beveridge God-given right to rule the world. The Monster is, indeed, on the loose and no single individual can fight against him." Great to see pathological anti-Americanism in action, isn't it? And for a foreign audience, natch. Begala award nominee (for grotesque left-wing hyperbole) "With the Supreme Court hearing on the University of Michigan's admissions policies about to begin, the U.S. right once again hopes to eliminate affirmative action from the political landscape. The contentious nature of their efforts can be gauged by the fact that an administration which has maintained public unity on everything from lifting taxes on the rich to dropping bombs on the poor, has been openly split on this issue." ? Gary Younge in (where else?) the Guardian, earlier this week. "Lifting taxes on the rich and dropping bombs on the poor" ? isn't it always nice to see political opponents concede each other's good faith? Tidbits from a broad range of political and cultural topics dynamic.washtimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (70420)	1/31/2003 10:01:36 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

A FOOLISH PRESIDENT BRAGS ABOUT ASSASSINATION By Richard Reeves Sundicated Columnist Thu Jan 30, 2003 WASHINGTON -- In one of the capital's many morning-after talkfests, Pietro Nivola, the Brookings Institution's senior fellow in governmental affairs, said he had never seen such a profound change in the mood of presidency and people as he, and the rest of us, have experienced between President Bush (news - web sites)'s first and second State of the Union addresses. He repeated the sober line that impressed him most, quoting Bush: "We have gone from small matters to great causes." A great line. But there are always small matters hidden in the secrecy that attends great matters of national security. This is a dangerous time in American history, and not just because of evil done by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and other haters of the whole idea of America. Making war on Iraq has obviously become the president's first priority, but that is a relatively small and rather straightforward priority compared with the snares of the secret war against terrorism at home and abroad. The hidden war, a bit of it, had come home to Brookings, here on Massachusetts Avenue, only the day before, the day of Bush's address to the nation. A prominent Pakistani editor and scholar, Ejaz Haider, was stopped by two armed men in plainclothes as he walked into the Brookings building for a conference on immigration law and law enforcement. The men identified themselves as agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and took Haider away to jail in Virginia. "We were stunned," said Stephen Cohen, the director of Brookings' South Asia program, which employed Haider. "I never thought I'd see this in my own country: people grabbed on the street and taken away. If he hadn't come into the building to show the agents some notes, it is not clear we would have known where he was." Haider, who may have been in violation of an INS regulation requiring visitors to contact the service if they stay in the United States for more than 30 days, is a very lucky man. Among other things, he happens to be a personal friend of Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, who happened to be meeting with Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) that same day. Kasuri demanded to know where Haider was and why he had been picked up. The scholar was released. Kasuri said later: "If that is the sort of person that can be nabbed, then no one is safe." Yes. Haider could have disappeared in the American prisons and prison camps that are hidden in the small print of the great war against terrorism. Or he could have been executed without trial or mention. Oh, you don't think that happens here? Americans don't do such things? If so, then you were not watching and listening carefully to the president last Tuesday night. I literally leaped out of my seat when Bush said this: "To date we have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaida. ... All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way, they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies." In other words, Americans are out there murdering "suspected" terrorists. And the president smirked and almost wink-winked with pleasure. He was bragging about American assassinations. I wrote a book once about a president who was assassinated, John F. Kennedy. I am often asked if I have a theory about his murder. And I do. In those days, the U.S. government, at the highest level, was in the assassination business. Fidel Castro (news - web sites) was the most obvious target, but there were others. Sudden political murder was in the air. In that environment, Lee Harvey Oswald was among those, including an organization called Fair Play for Cuba, who were frantically talking of American plots. However it began, it ended when our president was the one gunned down. And when you think of it, the president of a free country is at much more risk than dictators in police states. There is also the question of superpower. When you have the weapons and capabilities that the United States has, it is stupid to reduce war and threat to one man with a rifle. Assassination is the weapon of the weak; it is a very dangerous business and ultimately a foolish one for the free and the strong. news.yahoo.com