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 (74747)	2/17/2003 1:27:59 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Robert Kagen, the author of "Of Paradise and Power," is on booknotes at the moment. It reruns at 6AM Eastern Time Monday. Almost a "Must Watch," IMO. The book is an 103 page expansion of an article in "Policy Review" from last June, titled, "Power and Weakness." We discussed it at the time it came out, and it is posted in the Header. I will add the URL here. Kagan is very articulate, reminds me of a conservative version of Tek, although I would not call him a "Neocon." The article is the best thing I have read on this subject, bar none. The book came about because the article, in a obscure magazine, was considered so brilliant by the "Establishment" that it got "Interneted" (new verb!) to all the major FP players in America and Europe. Knopf came to him to expand it into book form. Here are some comments from the show, that are not in his article, that I thought significant. Kagan was unhappy with Bush's approach to FP before 911, basically agrees with it since Bush went to the UN last September. Kyoto was a really big deal with Europe, and, although he agreed with Bush's decision, the way Bush rejected it hurt as much as the rejection. After 911, NATO invoked article five and was willing to help us in Afghanistan. He feels we should have held their hand more. The biggest division between Europe and America is Israel. The polls reflect it. Truman's recognition of Israel "made" the state, we have always supported it, and 911 made us feel we face a common enemy. Europe has never felt this way. They have large Muslim populations, and a "Nuanced" view of the ME. Kagan said he was told by an Important Spanish FP guy, during a conference in Spain last year, that "If we wanted to go after a Fascist State that has WMDs, we should invade Israel." Kagan said he would never hear that in America, but that it was a common view in Europe. He says that Europe sees the fight between Saddam, the Terrorists, and us, (In my words) the way a Saloon Keeper views a fight between a Sheriff and Cowboys. He is living in the same town, He is going to watch the fight with interest while wiping his shot glasses, and maybe duck behind the bar, but really does not want to get involved. Europe does not feel that Saddam or Al Queda will come after them. He says that Germany's problem is a terrible economy brought about by the merger with East Germany and the labor and social system problems. If you fire someone there it will cost you a minimum of 3 years wages when you do, and that is why they have 11% unemployment and all the other economic problems. The Politicians know what is wrong, but will not or cannot fix them. They are just riding the Anti-American pulse to keep in office. He thinks France is in good shape compared to Germany, "Vibrant Economy." Chirac is a "Gaulist" and will oppose us on principle. Just the French thing to do. They have no power to control us except by manipulating our FP with persuasion. Here is the post from our thread. It is also in the Header. Message 18408686 Or read it at: policyreview.org

To: JohnM who wrote (74747)	2/17/2003 3:07:54 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Strategic Advice From the Public By BOB HERBERT Columnist The New York Times February 17, 2003 Maude LeFrem, a woman in her 60's, put on a brave face as she waited for a train at the Broadway-Nassau subway stop in Lower Manhattan. She, too, had heard the rumors. The terrorists were coming. They had their eyes on the subways. Chemical weapons. Any day now. Any moment. "I know what they're saying," she said. "Everyone's praying. We don't really know what will happen, but prayer can change things and I believe that. What am I doing different? I'm praying more, that's all." It seemed toward the end of last week, with rumors circulating the city like a virus and cops with machine guns patrolling Grand Central Terminal, that the only available response to the hideous issues of the day for people like Ms. LeFrem — people outside the power elite — was resignation. You could pray. You could sink into the slough of denial. You could do whatever to try to fend off the paralyzing anxiety. What you couldn't do was change anything. The duct tape fiasco underscored the helplessness of the citizenry — in New York and across the nation — against the phantom-like forces of terror. And few people believed, despite the ambivalence (or outright opposition) of ordinary Americans to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, that anything could be done to divert the Bush administration from its rush to war, and its potentially catastrophic aftermath. And then, on Saturday, democracy got a desperately needed boost. With temperatures in the 20's and icy winds skimming off the rivers that frame Manhattan, a frosty assemblage of demonstrators for peace and sanity materialized. The protesters kept arriving until their numbers reached 100,000, 200,000, and still they came, chanting, singing, and linking arms symbolically with a huge and remarkable wave of fellow demonstrators across the U.S. and around the globe. It seemed to me that the most important aspect of the U.S. protests was the demand that on this crucial issue of war the Bush administration pay at least some heed to the views, wishes and feelings of the American people. And I think the essential view of the protesters (and probably the majority of Americans) is that the U.S. and its allies should take all possible steps short of war to squeeze Saddam's regime so tight that survival is all but impossible; and that, above all, the United States should be leading a real, all-out war against the forces of Al Qaeda, wherever they may be. Walt Rostow, one of the ultimate hawks on Vietnam, died last week. He, along with many others, suffered from an optimism about the use of U.S. military force in that conflict that bordered on delusion. In an obituary Saturday, The Times's Todd Purdum quoted Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, an under secretary of state and attorney general in the Johnson administration, who had argued with Mr. Rostow over the efficacy of U.S. bombing. "I finally understand the difference between Walt and me," said Mr. Katzenbach. "I was the navigator who was shot down and spent two years in a German prison camp, and Walt was the guy picking my targets." President Bush and his hawkish advisers speak blithely about a U.S.-led invasion leading to a garden of democracy blooming in the desert soil of Iraq. I wouldn't reach for my gardening tools too quickly. What the administration has been unwilling to tell the public is the truth about some of the implications of war with Iraq — first and foremost, the bloody horror of men, women and children being blown to smithereens in the interest of peace, and then the myriad costs and dangers associated with a long-term U.S. military occupation. As late as last week the administration tried to give the impression that the U.S. could be in and out of Iraq in as little as two years. That's a case of optimism as dangerous as Walt Rostow's. As former Senator Gary Hart said in a conversation last week, "Most thoughtful people who don't have a bias here think there is no short-term exit strategy." More realistic, he said, is a U.S. occupation of 5 to 10 years, or longer. Mr. Hart, who was co-chairman of a special commission on national security that issued early warnings about the nation's vulnerability to terror attacks, then mentioned the concern expressed again and again by ordinary Americans worried about war with Iraq. "Are we prepared," he asked, "for what I believe are inevitable retaliatory attacks? The answer, I think, is no." nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (74747)	2/17/2003 3:48:51 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

30 million people demonstrate worldwide Millions worldwide rally for peace Huge turnout at 600 marches from Berlin to Baghdad Angelique Chrisafis, David Fickling, Jon Henley, John Hooper, Giles Tremlett, Sophie Arie and Chris McGreal Monday February 17, 2003 The Guardian Huge waves of demonstrations not seen since the Vietnam war jammed more than 600 towns and cities around the world over the weekend as protesters from Tasmania to Iceland marched against war in Iraq. Up to 30 million people demonstrated worldwide, including around 6 million in Europe, according to figures from organisers and police, although most conceded there were too many people in too many places to count. Action began on Friday when 150,000 protesters filed into Melbourne, with thousands more gathering across the rest of Australia and in New Zealand. Protests were still swelling yesterday in Sydney, San Francisco and in Oman - where 200 women filled the streets in the sultanate's first all-female demonstration. Smaller demonstrations choked streets from Cape Town, Dhaka and Havana to Bangkok. Tens of thousands filled the streets of Iraq. In Baghdad, students, housewives and volunteer militia, many waving Kalashnikovs and giant pictures of Saddam Hussein, were presided over by leaders of the ruling Ba'ath party and watched over by heavily armed police. US Last night's protest in San Francisco was the last in a weekend of American mass demonstrations. In New York on Saturday organisers counted 400,000 demonstrators who, forbidden by a court order from marching, rallied within sight of the United Nations amid heavy security. They were joined by the South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, and actors Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover. In Chicago 3,000 gathered and in Philadelphia 5,000 more carried anti-Bush banners. Other marchers massed in more than 100 towns and cities, including Seattle, Miami and Los Angeles. Australia Yesterday's anti-war protest in Sydney was the biggest demonstration in Australia's history, surpassing even the record set by Friday's demonstration in Melbourne. Around 250,000 marchers were addressed by American singer Jackson Browne, journalist John Pilger and Green party senator Bob Brown. There was a typically Australian strand of irreverence about parts of the protest, with organisers giving out prime minister John Howard's office phone number. The prime minister was unimpressed by the protests. "I don't know that you can measure public opinion just by the number of people that turn up at demonstrations," he said. Spain Two marches in Spain - in Madrid and Barcelona - each brought out around a million people on Saturday evening, with dozens more gatherings countrywide, taking the total number of protesters towards the 3 million mark. It was the biggest outpouring of popular political sentiment - with the possible exception of some anti-Eta marches - since Spaniards took to the streets to protect their fragile young democracy after a coup attempt in 1981. The protest was not directed so much at George Bush as at his faithful ally, the conservative Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar. "The Pope says no to war, the People's party says yes", "Aznar, Bush's doormat" and "USA global coup" were among the slogans on display. "We don't understand the concept of a preventive war. The only preventive war is called peace," film-maker Pedro Almodovar told the Madrid march. France Between 300,000 and 500,000 anti-war protesters marched through some 60 towns across France on Saturday, many carrying banners declaring "Proud to be French" and waving US flags scrawled with the words: "Leave us in peace". Police said 200,000 people attended a Paris march, the largest such gathering since the anti-National Front protests of last spring. Some 15,000 gathered in Lyon, 7,000 in Toulouse, and 5,000 in Strasbourg, Rennes and Marseille. President Jacques Chirac said yesterday that "no option was excluded" if the UN weapons inspectors failed or were unable to complete their task, but a new survey found that 81% of the French wanted him to use the country's UN security council veto against any US-led military attack on Iraq. Among those marching in the capital to support Mr Chirac's stance were some of his most bitter political opponents, including the Communist leader Marie-George Buffet and the anti-globalisation activist José Bové. Germany Berlin's peace march turned out to be five times bigger than expected by police and organisers - and twice as large as the biggest previous demonstration in post-war Germany. By the time Saturday's protest reached its peak, an estimated 500,000 people were packed into the Tiergarten, Berlin's central park. Three members of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's centre-left cabinet defied his express wishes and joined the march. Italy Rome's ancient monuments were draped with peace flags on Saturday and the city swarmed with anti-war campaigners, producing what organisers said was the biggest turnout in Italy's long history of mass popular protest. The music of Bruce Springsteen blasted over a crowd of leftwing opposition politicians, film stars, Catholic church representatives, human rights groups and Iraqi exiles. March campaigners claimed three million pacifists "invaded" Rome. Police said the true figure was around 650,000, though it was "difficult to count". The centre-right prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who has pledged Italy's support for a US-led war, made no official comment on the march. His deputy and leader of the far-right National Alliance, Gianfranco Fini, said the protests had brought the world no closer to peace because "ideological anti-Americanism" and "totalitarian pacifism" would not convince Saddam Hussein to disarm. State television, RAI, did not broadcast the protest live, saying it would put "undue pressure on politicians". Saddam Hussein's deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, on a controversial trip to rally support for Iraq, was in Assisi to see the tomb of St Francis, the patron saint of peace. "May God the almighty grant peace to the people of Iraq and of the whole world," Mr Aziz, a Chaldean Catholic, wrote in the visitor's book. Israel The small turnout for Saturday's peace march through Tel Aviv confirmed that nowhere is there more support for an American attack on Iraq than in Israel. About 1,500 people rallied at the Tel Aviv museum of art. Some were Arabs whose chants were anything but peaceful, with calls for retaliation against America and denunciations of George Bush and Ariel Sharon as terrorists more dangerous than Saddam Hussein. Other protesters included Jews who focused their anger on the policies of their own government. guardian.co.uk

To: JohnM who wrote (74747)	2/17/2003 5:09:37 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Many moderate churches take up anti-war cause Ministers identify perils in conflict By Dahleen Glanton and V. Dion Haynes Chicago Tribune national correspondents Published February 16, 2003 Borrowing a theme from the old black spiritual, "Ain't Gonna Study War No More," Rev. Cecil Murray stood in the pulpit at First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Los Angeles and warned the 17,000-member congregation recently of the evils of going to war against Iraq. Using his platform to protest war was an unusual move for Murray, pastor of one of the nation's largest black churches. But he and many other ministers who oppose going to war with Iraq think that America is experiencing difficult times that call for extraordinary action. "We are the seeds of conscience," Murray said in an interview. "The church must be prophetic or it will be pathetic. There is a movement, we are taking a stand, and I think it will grow as we get closer to possible confrontation." Across the country, religious leaders from many prominent denominations are using their pulpits to spread a message to millions of churchgoers that the war President Bush is threatening is not only unwarranted but is a violation of God's law. The reaction in other churches, synagogues, mosques and houses of worship has been diverse. In the past, many Catholic, Episcopalian and United Methodist leaders have been less vocal in espousing their views before a war begins. This time, they have taken a commanding lead, stepping to the forefront in a unified effort to bring attention to what they say are religious perils of conflict with a Muslim nation. In recent months, churches have organized petition drives and ministers have voiced anti-war sentiment in televised sermons and taken out newspaper ads. They have also used Bible classes to explain the church's position on Bush's push for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. In January, the National Council of Churches, along with a coalition of anti-war civic and religious groups, began running a television ad with Bishop Melvin Talbert, the United Methodists' top ecumenical official, aimed at raising the profile of its anti-war movement. No longer silent "The middle church is becoming as active as the religious right has been for the last 15 to 20 years," said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the Washington-based church council. "We have had a huge change in strategy. Until now, the middle and left had not used computers, there were no full-page ads or phone campaigns against policy. But everybody knows that to break through the maze of modern media, sermons have to be preached in new ways," he added. The council, consisting of 36 Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican denominations, was denied a meeting with Bush, said Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania. But delegations have met with church leaders in France and with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. A meeting is scheduled next month with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "It took organized religion 10 years to oppose the Vietnam War. During that time, people were thought to be un-American if they stood up against the war," Edgar said. "Now it is considered very American for the church to stand up. The idea of a pre-emptive strike that does not have broad multi-national support seems strange to many religious leaders." Top-ranking officials in several denominations have issued written directives laying out their stance on the war and urging churches to get involved. For the most part, religious leaders said, only a few churches are pacifist. Most Protestant and Roman Catholic churches base their position on a just war theory, in which there must be an external act by a belligerent nation and the effect of civilian casualties must be considered. While that was present 12 years ago, when Iraq had occupied Kuwait, it is not present today, the leaders said. "People have been quick to point out the injustice of going to war at this time," said Rev. Michael Baxter, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame who recently spent three weeks in Iraq, where he said there are almost a million Christians. "If there is any aggression this time, many people feel it is on the part of America." Issue creates a rift On the other side of the issue is the Southern Baptist Convention, which has urged its 16 million members of the generally conservative fundamentalist group to write letters supporting Bush's policy. In some cases, the strong anti-war sentiment has created sharp divisions in the church, between those who support the war and those who do not. And the pastors are being caught in the middle. "I have people who support the president's initiative and would be willing for us to go to war today. And on the opposite side, there are people who are very much committed to doing whatever we can to prevent war from happening," said Rev. Michael Vandiver, pastor of Central United Methodist Church in Spartanburg, S.C. "It is a very meaningful time for the congregation, and most of them are willing to exchange dialogue without getting angry." In the Jewish community, though concerned for the loss of Iraqi lives, some rabbis preach that this war would be justified. "Judaism does not have a presumption of pacifism. It recognizes that there are wars that are obligatory, that must be fought, and clearly the Bible understands that human beings have the capacity to fight against evil," said Michael Siegel, senior rabbi at Anshe Emet Synagogue in Chicago. In general, he said, the congregation has been supportive, though some members have either disagreed or expressed displeasure with that stance. "Some of the most vociferous voices have come form people who have seen war firsthand and have spoken very passionately against the war in Iraq," the rabbi said. "Their feeling is that we need to exhaust every possibility to avoid a war, and certainly Jewish law begins with diplomacy in order to find peace. They question whether we have done that." Ghazi Khankan, director of interfaith and communication at the Islamic Center of Long Island, N.Y., said the mosque has tried to keep the spiritual and political activities separate. But the possible war is always on people's mind. "People are apprehensive," Khankan said. "They are worried about friends and family in the Middle East. He also said there is concern "that a war might add fuel to the anti-Muslim bias that is found in some quarters." Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune chicagotribune.com

To: JohnM who wrote (74747)	2/17/2003 8:40:32 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Guess who's getting ready to rumble. Washington Whispers 02/24/03 By Paul Bedard Fox, CNN gear up for the mother of all media wars There's one serious arms race going on in the Persian Gulf, and we're not talking about the military. This expensive buildup could determine the king of cable news: Fox or CNN. Both are flooding reporters outfitted with videophones, helmets, and other gear into five-star hotels near the front. Blank checks are being signed to cover 21st-century gadgets to wow audiences. Slumping CNN appears to be spending more. It's got a fleet of humvees. Fox has one but spruced it up with desert camo. Fox is spending on night-vision goggles and tiny "lipstick cameras" that provide lots of angles on the cheap. Network bigs say the expense is more than simply the cost of doing business. They say the 1991 Gulf War made CNN the top cable dog. CNN wants to repeat, but upstart Fox sees Iraq as its rainmaker. Spending, however, isn't always the trick. Consider: CNN flew a team to Qatar to cover a recent military exercise. It turned out to be a closed-door computer drill in Central Command HQ. For comparison: U.S. News has spent $26,000 on stuff like flak jackets and chem-bio suits. usnews.com