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: tekboy who wrote (75133)	2/18/2003 9:18:47 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael Kelly's source (on Fischer) gives him a stern talking-to Fischer's beating up a cop and "hanging" with the Baader-Meinhof Gang were just childish escapades. And he wasn't a hard line Communist, just anti-Nazi. Yeah. Sure. "It is not really responsible behavior," Chirac said. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." How did you like that remark by Chirac yesterday about the Eastern Europe Countries that signed the Letter opposing him last week? It was sure "Nuanced" and "Diplomatic," wasn't it? Not the kind of "Cowboy" statements we hear from Bush and Rummy. :>)

To: tekboy who wrote (75133)	2/18/2003 9:31:33 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Great Minds," Tek. David Frum just posted the same argument on Chirac that I did. Only he is more mouthy about it. L'Unilateralisme Just try to imagine President Bush talking to America's dissenting allies the way Jacques Chirac spoke about the pro-American European states at a press conference yesterday: "They missed a good chance to keep quiet." And imagine, imagine!, if President Bush threatened France and Germany the way President Chirac threatened the candidate-members of the European Union: "Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to [sign the letter] when their position is really delicate. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way." As I read that, France, a nominal American ally, is threatening to wage economic warfare against other American allies as punishment for attempting to aid the United States. Read the news yourself and check whether I am right. If I am, France's conduct raises the question: What should the United States do to protect Bulgaria and Romania against France's economic aggression? I do not mean this as a facetious question ? and the right answer is not "boycott Brie." France"s behavior, often unhelpful in the past, is now rapidly moving toward the actively hostile, or, as diplomats say, "unfriendly." On the same day as the press conference, Chirac informed Tony Blair at the EU summit that France would veto a second Security Council resolution against Iraq if Britain introduced one. Unfriendly again. The French claim that they are just as determined to stop Saddam Hussein as anybody, but that they prefer the nonviolent alternative of sanctions and inspections. It is, as they say in France, to laugh. For all practical purposes, France is Saddam Hussein?s most important and most loyal ally. Had it been up to France, Saddam Hussein would have acquired nuclear weapons back in 1981. France helped Iraq subvert UN-imposed sanctions in the 1990s ? and the illegal revenues from sanctions-busting have paid for the rearming of Iraq. France talks now of ?giving the inspectors more time? ? but it was French support that emboldened Iraq to thwart inspectors through the 1990s, and it was French opposition at the Security Council that finally destroyed the inspection regime in 1998. The good news is that the American public has noticed France?s support for America?s enemies. One-third of Americans now have an ?unfavorable? impression of France, according to the Gallup poll , which notes that France?s image has deteriorated more rapidly over the past year than that of any country in the annual survey. (The country with the highest favorable rating is Britain, followed by Canada; the country with the largest increase in its favorability rating is Israel.) The bad news is that the U.S. government is unlikely to impose any consequences on France for its unfriendliness. So ? a quiz for readers: Should there be consequences? If so, what? I?ll post the most interesting suggestions tomorrow. The ?Peace? Marches The pro-Saddam movement in England has succeeded in corroding Prime Minister Tony Blair?s popularity. Subtract his unfavorables from his favorables, and he is now polling at negative 20 points. There?s no serious doubt that it is Blair?s support for the war that is hurting him. Some British opposition to the war seems purely opportunistic ? if the polls are right, Conservative voters are now more antiwar than Labor voters. Damaging as the antiwar movement has been in Britain, it has had virtually zero impact in the United States. In fact, Gallup finds that President Bush has at last won over large majorities of Americans to almost all of his positions. 94% of Americans believe it is certainly true or likely true that Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons. 90% believe Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. 86% believes that Iraq has ties to al Qaeda. 59% believe the President has a clear, well-thought out policy toward Iraq. *63% support war against Saddam Hussein. The trouble the marchers face is that while anti-American rhetoric may wow them in the streets of Europe, it does not work nearly so well in ... America. A Leftist?s Question The Guardian of all places has a very moving letter from a veteran British leftist, David Aaronovitch. It consists of a series of haunting questions directed at the London antiwar marchers. Among them: ?I wanted to ask whether, among your hundreds of thousands, the absences bothered you? The Kurds, the Iraqis - of whom there are many thousands in this country - where were they? Why were they not there? When Tony Benn was confronted by a young pro-war Iraqi woman on Channel 4 news on Saturday night, why did he describe the organisations of the Iraqi and Kurdish opposition as ?CIA stooges?? ?Did some of the slogans bother you? Do you really believe that this parroted ?war about oil? stuff is true? If so, what were the interventions in oil-less Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan about? What did you feel about the marchers wearing stickers bearing the Israeli flag and the words ?the fascist state?? Did you say to yourself, ?Actually, there's only one fascist state in this equation, and it's the one we're effectively marching to save??? Reading Aaronovitch?s questions reminded me of the question that the philosopher Michael Walzer asked as he observed the opposition among his fellow-leftists to the war in Afghanistan: ?Can there be a decent left?? On the evidence of this past weekend, one has to conclude that decency on the left is growing scarcer by the minute. Freudian Slip Speaking of decency, I notice that in his latest column in Al-Ahram, the Egyptian government newspaper, Columbia Professor and Palestinian-American activist Edward Said alleges that White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer is an Israeli citizen. What a very odd error for this famous scholar to make. I wonder what he could possibly have been thinking of? Whoops, He Did It Again As of 11:50 pm Monday, Drudge was developing an item that claimed that Jimmy Carter has backed the "Not In Our Name" antiwar campaign sponsored by Britain's left-wing Daily Mirror tabloid. If this is true, I think we can declare a definitive end to the two-year-old contest between Carter and Bill Clinton for the title of "Most Disgraceful Former President in American History." If true, the old champ will have proven that he has more disgrace in him than the young challenger even at his very yeastiest. nationalreview.com

To: tekboy who wrote (75133)	2/18/2003 11:03:34 AM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<I am sorry that Fischer doesn't seem to look on the present conflict as a new episode in that longer and honorable war. But I don't think he is a knave for failing to do so. If a columnist at the Washington Post is going to sneer, he ought to spread his sneers—or at least his criticisms—a little more widely to include President Bush. Bush has failed to present the current war and its impending new Iraqi front in terms of a democratic struggle against totalitarianism. He has failed to discuss in any serious way the moral aspect of the war, has failed to present the war as an act of solidarity with horribly oppressed Iraqis and other victims of Muslim fascism, has failed to show the humanitarian aspect of the war, has failed to present the war in the light of the long history of anti-totalitarianism. The president has failed, all in all, to present the kind of arguments that might enlist the enthusiasm of people like Fischer, not to mention the enthusiasm of people in the Muslim and Arab world. "Excuse me, I'm not convinced," Fischer said. We should listen carefully. Maybe Fischer is not convinced because the Bush administration has presented a series of side arguments about weapons, U.N. resolutions, and dark terrorist conspiracies and has failed to present the main argument, which is the single huge argument that has always sustained the Western alliance. This argument is the one about totalitarianism. It is the argument that says: The totalitarians are dangerous to themselves and to us, and we had better fight them. Fight wisely, of course, which the New Left notoriously managed not to do long ago, but fight. Why can't Bush make that argument? I won't speculate. But he could change. He gave up drinking long ago. Let him give up his arrogance, small-mindedness, and aversion to large and idealistic ideas today. It might help.>> So well written. rascal@ appreciative.com

To: tekboy who wrote (75133)	2/18/2003 11:12:42 AM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

Ooohh, just a little outside. Why can't Bush make that argument? I won't speculate. But he could change. He gave up drinking long ago. Let him give up his arrogance, small-mindedness, and aversion to large and idealistic ideas today. It might help. The guy almost had me right up to the very end and then ... puff ... credibility suicide - Bush used to drink. Yawn! Paul

To: tekboy who wrote (75133)	2/18/2003 5:32:07 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Never mind the talking to. The article's worth reading for its final two paragraphs. I think the writer is too hard on Bush in that he almost gets it and far too easy on Fischer who doesn't come close and should. I am sorry that Fischer doesn't seem to look on the present conflict as a new episode in that longer and honorable war. But I don't think he is a knave for failing to do so. If a columnist at the Washington Post is going to sneer, he ought to spread his sneers?or at least his criticisms?a little more widely to include President Bush. Bush has failed to present the current war and its impending new Iraqi front in terms of a democratic struggle against totalitarianism. He has failed to discuss in any serious way the moral aspect of the war, has failed to present the war as an act of solidarity with horribly oppressed Iraqis and other victims of Muslim fascism, has failed to show the humanitarian aspect of the war, has failed to present the war in the light of the long history of anti-totalitarianism. The president has failed, all in all, to present the kind of arguments that might enlist the enthusiasm of people like Fischer, not to mention the enthusiasm of people in the Muslim and Arab world. "Excuse me, I'm not convinced," Fischer said. We should listen carefully. Maybe Fischer is not convinced because the Bush administration has presented a series of side arguments about weapons, U.N. resolutions, and dark terrorist conspiracies and has failed to present the main argument, which is the single huge argument that has always sustained the Western alliance. This argument is the one about totalitarianism. It is the argument that says: The totalitarians are dangerous to themselves and to us, and we had better fight them. Fight wisely, of course, which the New Left notoriously managed not to do long ago, but fight. Why can't Bush make that argument? I won't speculate. But he could change. He gave up drinking long ago. Let him give up his arrogance, small-mindedness, and aversion to large and idealistic ideas today. It might help I've been going on like a broken record for more than a year that it's the nature of the regime which requires its overthrow, and the WMDs are secondary. For this I have been lectured severely for my lack of understanding of the implications of a 350 year old treaty, that I don't hold the UN in suffficient reverence as the arbiter of all international law, that I shouldn't call them fascists because its too political and Orwell wouldn't approve, that even though the Iraq regime is one of the four most repulsive, evil and aggressive still remaining on Earth that that's no good reason to violate Iraq's boundaries, (totalitarian and anti-democratic though it be) and its ruler makes war on its citizens every day and has personally murdered untold numbers of them and caused the deaths of at least a million of them, is likely to cause the deaths of many more inside and outside the country if let off the leash, that none of this is not a good reason to invade the place and string the bastard from a lamp post! Fischer is at least as well educated and informed as I am and this guy wants to give him benefit of doubt. I think he's a f'ing hypocrite - I knew lots of folk like Fischer back in the sixties and seventies - they all had profiles like bin Laden: privileged brats too intellectually lazy to stamp out their own position. Fischer still hasn't. He just went up market from Bader Meinhoff to the Greens. From one pre-packaged ideology to another. He still doesn't give a good goddam how many people live under tyranny and be killed by it if it means it would affront his aestheic judgement, no more than he did back in the sixties. frank@gladigotitoffmychest.com

To: tekboy who wrote (75133)	2/19/2003 2:13:21 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

"Make Iraq the US's Chechnya!" Battle cry of the muezzin By B Raman Asia Times Online February 19, 2003 "Make Iraq the US's Chechnya!" That was the theme of the sermons in many of the jihadi madrassas of Pakistan last Friday. And there are signs that the message has not gone unheard. Taking advantage of the large-scale movement of Muslims to Saudi Arabia for the hajj pilgrimage, from 80 to 120 jihad-hardened cadres of Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (IIF) are reported to have moved to that country under the garb of pilgrims. They intend to infiltrate from there into Iraq. Most of them are said to be Pakistanis, including Yemeni-Balochis (born of mixed Yemeni and Balochi parentage) belonging to the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen Al-Alami (HUM International), the Harkat-ul-Jihad Al-Islami (HUJI) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM). Some of them fought against Russian troops in Chechnya. It is said their mission would not be to fight against the US and British troops when they invade Iraq, but to motivate the Iraqi people and organize them into an Iraqi mujahideen movement against the foreign invaders similar to the Afghan mujahideen movement against the Soviet troops in the 1980s. There is so far no evidence indicating the Saddam Hussein government in Baghdad has had anything to do with this movement of IIF cadres to Iraq via Saudi Arabia. The remnants of the IIF and al-Qaeda taking shelter in Pakistan have been discussing their strategy for what they look upon as the next phase of their jihad against the "crusaders" and the Jewish people, which will be Iraq-focused, though not necessarily exclusively in Iraqi territory. It is reported that among the actions under consideration in this connection are intensification of attacks on US troops in Afghanistan, and air-borne and underwater operations directed against US and British naval ships, particularly aircraft carriers. The underwater operations may involve the use of jihadi frogmen. The HUM-International, the HUJI and the JEM have in their ranks a large number of ex-servicemen from the Pakistani army. A drive has now been undertaken to recruit ex-servicemen from the Pakistani air force and navy for possible use against the invaders in Iraq - either directly or indirectly as trainers of the Arab cadres of al-Qaeda. ________________________________________________________ B Raman is Additional Secretary (ret), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and presently director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai; former member of the National Security Advisory Board of the Government of India. E-Mail: corde@vsnl.com. He was also head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency, from 1988 to August, 1994. ©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. atimes.com