SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lurqer who wrote (13677)2/28/2003 1:40:27 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
<<...Secret, Scary Plans
Understatement!...>>

Just wanted to keep ya updated.

IMO, the sooner we have 'regime change' in Washington, the safer we'll be...;-)

regards,

-s2



To: lurqer who wrote (13677)2/28/2003 2:18:41 AM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
<font color=red> A WAY TO SHOW THE TROOPS WE APPRECIATE THEM!
Message 18638997

And a way to show our allies we appreciate them:
Write them a letter or send email:
Message 18627212

Former eastern European Communist states are backing the US on Iraq.

They are:
Latvia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Others:
Western Europe:
Italy, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, and of course the UK.

And Australia.

...



To: lurqer who wrote (13677)2/28/2003 2:33:42 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
THE CASE FOR THE FRENCH

By Ted Rall
Op/Ed
Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:08 PM ET

story.news.yahoo.com

America As Its Own Worst Enemy

LOS ANGELES--Who are we to be bashing the French?

The trouble began when President Jacques Chirac openly expressed the private beliefs of virtually every other world leader--that George W. Bush's desire to start an unprovoked war with Iraq is both crazy and immoral. It has quickly disintegrated into a ferocious display of American nativism that would be hilarious if its gleeful idiocy wasn't so frightening.

"Axis of Weasel," howls the New York Post in reaction to France and Germany's U.N. stance. A North Carolina restaurateur replaces French fries with "freedom fries." In West Palm Beach, a bar owner dumps his stock of French wine in the street, vowing to replace it with vintages from nations that support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. (Well, there's always Bulgaria.) Also in Palm Beach, a county official is working to boycott French businesses from government contracts: "France's attitude toward the United States is deplorable," says commissioner Burt Aaronson. "It's quite possible that if we didn't send our troops there, the French people would all be speaking German."

Allied troops liberated the French in 1944. The least France could do, the French bashers argue, is show a little gratitude. They think that France should stand by--or better yet help out--when U.S. troops go to invade/liberate/whatever other countries. Sovereignty and self-determination are fine as mere words. But it just ain't right for a country we rescued from Nazi occupation to disagree with our policy 50 years later and threaten us with a U.N. veto.

To be sure, France owed America a nice thank-you card for D-Day. But we owe them a more. Without France, the United States wouldn't even exist--it would still be a British colony.

Every American schoolchild learns that a French naval blockade trapped Cornwallis' forces at Yorktown, bringing the American revolution to its victorious conclusion. But fewer people are aware that King Louis XVI spent so much money on arms shipments to American rebels that he bankrupted the royal treasury, plunged his nation into depression and unleashed a political upheaval that ultimately resulted in the end of the monarchy. Franklin Roosevelt wrote some fat checks to save France; Louis gave up his and his wife's heads.

No two countries were closer during the 19th century. Americans named streets after the Marquis de la Fayette, Louis' liaison with the founding fathers. During the Civil War, France bankrolled the Union to neutralize British financing for the Confederacy. How many Americans remember that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from French schoolchildren?

Despite that long friendship, the French--along with Asians and overweight folks--remain one of the few groups Americans still feel free to openly insult. A recent Gallup poll shows that 20 percent fewer Americans view France favorably because of its unwillingness to go along with Bush's war on Iraq. Support for Germany, perpetrators of Nazism and the Holocaust (and which also opposes war), holds steady at 71 percent.

Some of the contempt dates to France's quick defeat in the blitzkrieg of May-June 1940. "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris?" joked Roy Blunt, a Republican who evidently represents the unfortunate voters of Missouri. "It's not known; it's never been tried."

Perhaps Congressman Blunt should visit the graves of the Frenchmen who lost their lives for their country during World War I (the first two-thirds of which, by the way, the U.S. sat out). One of them, my great-grandfather Jean-Marie Le Corre, died in the muddy trenches of eastern France in 1915. His death plunged his family, never comfortable to begin with, into abject poverty. His name is engraved on a memorial near a small church in Brittany. They say that he was a handsome guy, popular with the ladies and always good for a joke. Because of him and 1.4 million other young men who sacrificed their lives for their country, Paris didn't fall.

France lost a staggering four percent of its population during the Great War. (Imagine a war that killed 11 million Americans today.) Twenty years later, in 1939, the French army still suffered from a massive manpower shortage. Demographics, lousy planning and equipment shortages--the Great Depression had also hit France--cost 100,000 French soldiers their lives during six awful weeks in 1940.

They failed to save Paris, but they died defending it.

The Bush Doctrine advocates invading weak states, imposing "regime change" and building an American empire composed of colonies whose dark-skinned races can be exploited for cheap labor. Napoleon Bonaparte, who terrorized Europe, had similar ideas. He easily outclasses our AWOL-from-the-Texas-Air-National-Guard Resident in the pure bellicosity department, but would we really choose Bonaparte over Chirac?

French-bashing is a nasty symptom of an underlying American predilection for anti-intellectualism: a society whose most popular TV show features smoky chatter between poets and novelists naturally threatens the land of football and Pabst.

The fact is, France is a good friend and ally trying to make us see reason, and it doesn't deserve to be treated this shabbily. The United States, as led by Bush and his goons, is like a belligerent, out-of-control drunk trying to pick a fight and demanding the car keys at the same time. The French want to drive us home before we cause any more trouble, so we lash out at them, calling them rude names and impugning their loyalty. Sure, we'll be ashamed of our behavior in the morning, after the madness wears off. But will we have any friends left?

(Ted Rall is the author of "Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan (news - web sites)," an analysis of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline and the motivations behind the war on terrorism. Ordering information is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.)



To: lurqer who wrote (13677)2/28/2003 5:06:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
some thoughts on this president of ours...

Message 18639475



To: lurqer who wrote (13677)2/28/2003 5:18:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bush Channels Neoconservative Vision

By Jim Lobe,
AlterNet
February 27, 2003
alternet.org

In a major policy address to the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), President George W. Bush Wednesday declared that a U.S. victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." The speech was the latest in an accelerating series of appearances by Bush and other senior members of his administration to drum up public support for war in Iraq with or without the Security Council's authorization.

But the speech was notable as much for its venue as its content.

AEI's foreign policy "scholars" are closely identified with the most unilateralist and pro-Likud elements in the Bush administration. The institute serves as the hub of a tightly knit network of neo-conservative activists and groups, including the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). Since even before the 9/11 attacks, the AEI and its associates have pushed a series of radical foreign policy proposals to: align U.S. policy in the Middle East with the Likud; cut ties with traditional U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; oppose negotiations with North Korea; provide direct security guarantees to Taiwan; and treat China as a strategic threat.

In op-eds in the mainstream press and sympathetic rightwing publications and almost constant television appearances,they have aggressively attacked anyone who disagrees with their hard-line positions, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is a favorite target. Bush's decision to deliver his speech on the Middle East to the AEI, echoing the think tank's vision for the region, made clear the extent to which the most radical hawks in the administration have prevailed in the internal policy debate.''The fact that Bush would choose AEI, of all audiences, to talk about his vision for a democratic Iraq and peaceful Middle East, has to be profoundly demoralizing to Powell,'' noted one Congressional aide whose boss has supported Powell's efforts to keep the hawks in check.

Right after persuading Bush to realign U.S. policy decisively toward Likud and against Arafat last June, AEI associates led by Richard Perle began their drive against Iraq in earnest. Cloaking their language in Wilsonian rhetoric, they argued that the military ouster of Saddam Hussein would be a first step in "reshaping," "transforming" and "democratizing" the entire Middle East – which was, not surprisingly, the main subject of Bush's address. Earlier in 2002, another AEI associate, Joshua Muravchik, called for aggressive pro-democracy policy in the region after the Taliban's ouster. Citing a survey conducted by Freedom House, a New York-based neo-conservative think tank (which found Arab states to be the least "free"), he argued that "far from pointing toward a relaxation of military efforts [in the war against terror, the survey] suggests that the more terror-loving tyrannies the United States can topple, the better."

Bush's speech on Wednesday touched repeatedly on this neo-Wilsonian theme of bringing democracy to the Middle East. "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," he declared. "It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world – or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim – is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life."

In making his case for war, Bush also reiterated a much-favored claim of the neoconservatives – the alleged connection between Iraq and terrorism. The claim was first made by Richard Perle, who presides over AEI's foreign policy program, and his cohorts within 48 hours of the 9/11 attack. Perle helped mobilize support for an open letter to Bush by PNAC, whose offices are located on the fifth floor of the AEI building in downtown Washington. Published nine days after the attacks and signed by 40 prominent right-wingers and neo-conservatives, the letter argued that the war on terror must include ousting Saddam Hussein, "even if evidence does not link him to the [Sep 11] attack."

While the White House has repeatedly linked Hussein to Al Qaeda without evidence, in Wednesday's speech Bush contented himself with connecting Hussein to Palestinian suicide bombers, to whom he has given small amounts of money. Bush declared, "The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated." The "warning" is, in fact, aimed at Syria and Iran – the next on the neoconservative list of targets because of their support of the Hezbollah.

Bush also made clear that his post-war ambitions for the Middle East are just as firmly aligned with AEI's pro-Likudnik line. In his speech, Bush took clear aim at Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, linking the overthrow of Saddam Hussein with the prospects for new leadership in Palestine. He said, "Without this (Iraqi) support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders: true leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people."

Bush's speech and choice of venue – delivered amid an intense diplomatic battle over the fate of Iraq and rising tensions throughout the Arab world – was an ominous sign of his administration's intentions. It was a clear message to Americans and allies alike about just who is framing the nation's foreign policy today.