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 (14203)3/8/2003 11:27:46 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bush should listen to Ex-President Jimmy Carter...

Just War — or a Just War?
By JIMMY CARTER
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The New York Times
Sunday, March 9, 2003

nytimes.com

ATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

______________________________________________

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.



To: lurqer who wrote (14203)3/8/2003 11:36:19 PM
From: techguerrilla  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Every passing day .....

..... its gets more difficult for Dubya "to go in" to Iraq. Stooge Dubya is a dope. But he's getting wind now of the incredible exposure he's going to inflict on the U.S. if he orders this insane attack. He's unconcerned about human life; so he may just BOMB!! But a land invasion? He'd have to be on crack. Troops occupying Iraq for five years? Iraqi snipers EVERY DAY. The U.S. public would go nuts. The cost? The economy's in the toilet already. The stock market is going to go down again this year for the FOURTH STRAIGHT YEAR.

I'm thinking Tony Blair is going to sandbag Dubya's warmongering. British public opinion is getting louder on this one. As I said, time passing is going to cause more rational minds to surface. All we need is a Colin Powell resignation to get the news media to quit being Dubya's mouthpiece. The U.S. public is capable of being educated. It's difficult. But it can be done.

I'm rambling. But I'm pissed.

/john



To: lurqer who wrote (14203)3/8/2003 11:37:05 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
<<...Watch the program. In his view, without a large international effort, and a commitment on the part of the US public for a long duration stay, we shouldn't go in, because there is no chance for success. Sure we'll win the battle of ousting Saddam, but we'll lose the war of transforming Iraq...>>

lurqer: Friedman makes some good points...I wish Bush and Rove would really pay attention to them...I don't think this country has the stomach for a long, expensive and complicated occupation of Iraq.

regards,

-s2

btw, I'll try to catch the Russert interview with Friedman.



To: lurqer who wrote (14203)3/8/2003 11:59:36 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Latest Column from Tom Friedman...

Fire, Ready, Aim
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
Sunday March 9, 2003

nytimes.com

I went to President Bush's White House news conference on Thursday to see how he was wrestling with the momentous issue of Iraq. One line he uttered captured all the things that are troubling me about his approach. It was when he said: "When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."

The first thing that bothered me was the phrase, "When it comes to our security . . ." Fact: The invasion of Iraq today is not vital to American security. Saddam Hussein has neither the intention nor the capability to threaten America, and is easily deterrable if he did.

This is not a war of necessity. That was Afghanistan. Iraq is a war of choice — a legitimate choice to preserve the credibility of the U.N., which Saddam has defied for 12 years, and to destroy his tyranny and replace it with a decent regime that could drive reform in the Arab/Muslim world. That's the real case.

The problem that Mr. Bush is having with the legitimate critics of this war stems from his consistent exaggeration on this point. When Mr. Bush takes a war of choice and turns it into a war of necessity, people naturally ask, "Hey, what's going on here? We're being hustled. The real reason must be his father, or oil, or some right-wing ideology."

And that brings us to the second phrase: "We really don't need anybody's permission." Again, for a war of no choice against the 9/11 terrorists in Kabul, we didn't need anyone's permission. But for a war of choice in Iraq, we need the world's permission — because of what it would take to rebuild Iraq.

Mr. Bush talks only about why it's right to dismantle the bad Iraq, not what it will take to rebuild a decent Iraq — a distant land, the size of California, divided like Yugoslavia. I believe we can help build a decent Iraq, but not alone. If we're alone, it will turn into a U.S. occupation and make us the target for everyone's frustration. And alone, Americans will not have the patience, manpower and energy for nation-building, which is not a sprint but a marathon.

Mr. Bush growls that the world is demanding that America play "Captain, May I" when it comes to Iraq — and he's not going to ask anybody's permission. But with Iraq, the relevant question is not "Captain, May I?" It's "Captain, Can I?" — can I do it right without allies? No.

So here's where we are. Regime change in Iraq is the right choice for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world. Mr. Bush is right about that. But for now, this choice may be just too hard to sell. If the president can't make his war of choice the world's war of choice right now, we need to reconsider our options and our tactics. Because if Mr. Bush acts unilaterally, I fear America will not only lose the chance of building a decent Iraq, but something more important — America's efficacy as the strategic and moral leader of the free world.

A story. In 1945 King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia met President Franklin D. Roosevelt on a ship in the Suez Canal. Before agreeing to meet with Roosevelt, King Abdul Aziz, a Bedouin at heart, asked his advisers two questions about the U.S. president: "Tell me, does he believe in God and do they [the Americans] have any colonies?"

The real question the Saudi king was asking was: how do these Americans use their vast power? Like the Europeans, in pursuit of colonies, self-interest and imperium, or on behalf of higher values?

That's still the most important question for U.S. national security. The world does not want to be led by transparent cynics like the French foreign minister and his boss. But it also does not want to be led by an America whose Congress is so traumatized by 9/11 that it can't think straight and by a president ideologically committed to war in Iraq no matter what the costs, the support, or the prospects for a decent aftermath. But, France aside, the world is still ready to be led by an America that's a little more humble, a little better listener and a little more ready to say to its allies: how can we work this out? How much time do we need to give you to see if inspections can work for you to endorse the use of force if they don't?

Think about F.D.R. He had just won World War II. America was at the apex of its power. It didn't need anyone's permission for anything. Yet, on his way home from Yalta, confined to a wheelchair, F.D.R. traveled to the Mideast to meet and show respect for the leaders of Ethiopia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Why? Because he knew he needed them not to win the war, but to win the peace.



To: lurqer who wrote (14203)3/9/2003 12:20:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Attack violates international law

guardian.co.uk

No case for military action, lawyers tell Blair

Duncan Campbell, Michael White and Patrick Wintour
Friday March 7, 2003
The Guardian

President George Bush last night indicated that war was very close in an address to the American people on prime time television. In response to questions after a brief address he said that "we are days away from resolving this issue at the security council".

On the eve of the UN inspector Hans Blix's weapons report to the UN, Mr Bush said that Mr Blix had only one question to answer: "Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required by resolution 1441 or has it not?"

In what appeared to be a prelude to a declaration of war, he sombrely warned journalists in Iraq to leave. "We will give people a chance to leave," he said, in response to a question about US inspectors and journalists.

His speech came after Tony Blair last night faced fresh pressure to abandon the threat of war against Iraq when 16 eminent academic lawyers warned him that the White House doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" has no justification under international law.

In a letter sent to Downing Street and published in today's Guardian, the leading lawyers declare that the UN security council's existing resolutions on Iraq - including 1441, passed unanimously in November to enforce disarmament on Saddam Hussein - fail to provide authority for war. Nor were there currently any grounds for passing a new resolution to give the "clearly expressed assent" to a war that Mr Blair still seeks.

The signatories - specialists who include James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, and Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor at Oxford - also take a sideswipe at the prime minister for saying that he and George Bush would ignore an "unreasonable veto" in the security council.

Mr Bush's news conference was only the eighth such for mal address he has given since taking office. He was said to have had a question and answer session with staff in advance of the address to prepare himself.

The fact that he chose to speak at prime time was an indication of the significance attached to his appearance. It was only his second ever prime time address. The address was also aimed at the 250,000 US troops in the Gulf.

While White House officials briefed beforehand that the president planned no declaration of war, it was flagged as a way of preparing the American public for an imminent war.

Mr Bush said his first duty was to protect the American people and he believed that they were under threat as long as Saddam Hussein had not been disarmed. "Since I believe the threat is real and since my job is to protect the America people. That is precisely what we will do."

The president claimed that Iraq was engaged in a "wilful charade". He added: "If the Iraqi regime was disarming, we would know it." He claimed that the Iraqi leader was hiding weapons. "Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel _ token gestures are not acceptable."

He went on: "The risk of doing nothing, the risk that somehow inaction will some how make the world a safer place is something I am not willing to do."

He also referred to the capture of al-Qaida leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. "Thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials, we captured the master mind of the September 11 attacks on our nation: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed _ we believe his capture will further disrupt the terror network."

The speech was also seen to be addressed at the international community in a bid to persuade waverers amongst the countries in the Security Council. Intense diplomatic efforts have been made in the last few days to persuade those who think the UN inspectors should have more time that a deadline should be set.

Mr Blair, when cross-examined by young European voters in an MTV TV debate yesterday, suggested he was prepared to ignore multiple vetoes. "If there was a veto applied by one of the countries with a veto, or by countries that I thought were applying the veto unreasonably, in those circumstances we would (go ahead)," he said

The lawyers, noting that Britain itself has exercised the veto 32 times since the UN was founded in 1945, say "the prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes 'unreasonable' and may be disregarded has no basis in international law.

Not content with telling Mr Blair that a second resolution is legally necessary as well as politically vital if No 10 is to stem growing dissent among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, the lawyers, mostly British-based but of many nationalities, add a further sting.

The letter's signatories include six leading lawyers from Oxford, three from Cambridge and three from the London School of Economics. Also among them are Professor Phillipe Sands, a member of Cherie Blair QC's Matrix chambers, and Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy of the Sorbonne.



To: lurqer who wrote (14203)3/9/2003 1:24:15 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Sun Tzu makes some good points...fyi...

siliconinvestor.com



To: lurqer who wrote (14203)3/9/2003 2:24:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Who is in Charge?

A Tiny, Unelected Group, Supported by Powerful, Unrepresentative Minorities

by Edward Said
Published on Saturday, March 8, 2003 by the Al-Ahram Weekly

commondreams.org

The Bush administration's relentless unilateral march towards war is profoundly disturbing for many reasons, but so far as American citizens are concerned the whole grotesque show is a tremendous failure in democracy. An immensely wealthy and powerful republic has been hijacked by a small cabal of individuals, all of them unelected and therefore unresponsive to public pressure, and simply turned on its head. It is no exaggeration to say that this war is the most unpopular in modern history. Before the war has begun there have been more people protesting it in this country alone than was the case at the height of the anti- Vietnam war demonstrations during the 60s and 70s. Note also that those rallies took place after the war had been going on for several years: this one has yet to begin, even though a large number of overtly aggressive and belligerent steps have already been taken by the US and its loyal puppy, the UK government of the increasingly ridiculous Tony Blair.

I have been criticized recently for my anti-war position by illiterates who claim that what I say is an implied defense of Saddam Hussein and his appalling regime. To my Kuwaiti critics, do I need to remind them that I publicly opposed Ba'athi Iraq during the only visit I made to Kuwait in 1985, when in an open conversation with the then Minister of Education Hassan Al-Ibrahim I accused him and his regime of aiding and abetting Arab fascism in their financial support of Saddam Hussein? I was told then that Kuwait was proud to have committed billions of dollars to Saddam's war against "the Persians", as they were then contemptuously called, and that it was a more important struggle than someone like me could comprehend. I remember clearly warning those Kuwaiti acolytes of Saddam Hussein about him and his ill will against Kuwait, but to no avail. I have been a public opponent of the Iraqi regime since it came to power in the 70s: I never visited the place, never was fooled by its claims to secularism and modernization (even when many of my contemporaries either worked for or celebrated Iraq as the main gun in the Arab arsenal against Zionism, a stupid idea, I thought), never concealed my contempt for its methods of rule and fascist behavior. And now when I speak my mind about the ridiculous posturing of certain members of the Iraqi opposition as hapless strutting tools of US imperialism, I am told that I know nothing about life without democracy (about which more later), and am therefore unable to appreciate their nobility of soul. Little notice is taken of the fact that barely a week after extolling President Bush's commitment to democracy Professor Makiya is now denouncing the US and its plans for a post-Saddam military-Ba'athi government in Iraq. When individuals get in the habit of switching the gods whom they worship politically there's no end to the number of changes they make before they finally come to rest in utter disgrace and well deserved oblivion.

But to return to the US and its current actions. In all my encounters and travels I have yet to meet a person who is for the war. Even worse, most Americans now feel that this mobilization has already gone too far to stop, and that we are on the verge of a disaster for the country. Consider first of all that the Democratic Party, with few exceptions, has simply gone over to the president's side in a gutless display of false patriotism. Wherever you look in the Congress there are the tell-tale signs either of the Zionist lobby, the right-wing Christians, or the military-industrial complex, three inordinately influential minority groups who share hostility to the Arab world, unbridled support for extremist Zionism, and an insensate conviction that they are on the side of the angels. Every one of the 500 congressional districts in this country has a defense industry in it, so that war has been turned into a matter of jobs, not of security. But, one might well ask, how does running an unbelievably expensive war remedy, for instance, economic recession, the almost certain bankruptcy of the social security system, a mounting national debt, and a massive failure in public education? Demonstrations are looked at simply as a kind of degraded mob action, while the most hypocritical lies pass for absolute truth, without criticism and without objection.

The media has simply become a branch of the war effort. What has entirely disappeared from television is anything remotely resembling a consistently dissenting voice. Every major channel now employs retired generals, former CIA agents, terrorism experts and known neoconservatives as "consultants" who speak a revolting jargon designed to sound authoritative but in effect supporting everything done by the US, from the UN to the sands of Arabia. Only one major daily newspaper (in Baltimore) has published anything about US eavesdropping, telephone tapping and message interception of the six small countries that are members of the Security Council and whose votes are undecided. There are no antiwar voices to read or hear in any of the major medias of this country, no Arabs or Muslims (who have been consigned en masse to the ranks of the fanatics and terrorists of this world), no critics of Israel, not on Public Broadcasting, not in The New York Times, the New Yorker, US News and World Report, CNN and the rest. When these organizations mention Iraq's flouting of 17 UN resolutions as a pretext for war, the 64 resolutions flouted by Israel (with US support) are never mentioned. Nor is the enormous human suffering of the Iraqi people during the past 12 years mentioned. Whatever the dreaded Saddam has done Israel and Sharon have also done with American support, yet no one says anything about the latter while fulminating about the former. This makes a total mockery of taunts by Bush and others that the UN should abide by its own resolutions.

The American people have thus been deliberately lied to, their interests cynically misrepresented and misreported, the real aims and intentions of this private war of Bush the son and his junta concealed with complete arrogance. Never mind that Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle, all of them unelected officials who work for unelected Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, have for some time openly advocated Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Gaza and the cessation of the Oslo process, have called for war against Iraq (and later Iran), and the building of more illegal Israeli settlements in their capacity (during Netanyahu's successful campaign for prime minister in 1996) as private consultants to him, and that that has become US policy now.

Never mind that Israel's iniquitous policies against Palestinians, which are reported only at the ends of articles (when they are reported at all) as so many miscellaneous civilian deaths, are never compared with Saddam's crimes, which they match or in some cases exceed, all of them, in the final analysis, paid for by the US taxpayer without consultation or approval. Over 40,000 Palestinians have been wounded seriously in the last two years, and about 2,500 killed wantonly by Israeli soldiers who are instructed to humiliate and punish an entire people during what has become the longest military occupation in modern history.

Never mind that not a single critical Arab or Muslim voice has been seen or heard on the major American media, liberal, moderate, or reactionary, with any regularity at all since the preparations for war have gone into their final phase. Consider also that none of the major planners of this war, certainly not the so-called experts like Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, neither of whom has so much as lived in or come near the Arab world in decades, nor the military and political people like Powell, Rice, Cheney, or the great god Bush himself, know anything about the Muslim or Arab worlds beyond what they see through Israeli or oil company or military lenses, and therefore have no idea what a war of this magnitude against Iraq will produce for the people actually living there.

And consider too the sheer, unadorned hubris of men like Wolfowitz and his assistants. Asked to testify to a largely somnolent Congress about the war's consequences and costs they are allowed to escape without giving any concrete answers, which effectively dismisses the evidence of the army chief of staff who has spoken of a military occupation force of 400,000 troops for 10 years at a cost of almost a trillion dollars.

Democracy traduced and betrayed, democracy celebrated but in fact humiliated and trampled on by a tiny group of men who have simply taken charge of this republic as if it were nothing more than, what, an Arab country? It is right to ask who is in charge since clearly the people of the United States are not properly represented by the war this administration is about to loose on a world already beleaguered by too much misery and poverty to endure more. And Americans have been badly served by a media controlled essentially by a tiny group of men who edit out anything that might cause the government the slightest concern or worry. As for the demagogues and servile intellectuals who talk about war from the privacy of their fantasy worlds, who gave them the right to connive in the immiseration of millions of people whose major crime seems to be that they are Muslims and Arabs? What American, except for this small unrepresentative group, is seriously interested in increasing the world's already ample stores of anti-Americanism? Hardly any I would suppose.

Jonathan Swift, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

____________________________________________________

Edward Said is professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, New York. His books include Orientalism and Covering Islam. His latest work, Parallels and Paradoxes, cowritten with Daniel Barenboim, will be published by Bloomsbury in March.
E-Mail:sf38@columbia.edu

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly



To: lurqer who wrote (14203)3/9/2003 2:58:35 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bush Presses for War

by William Hartung*
Published on Friday, March 7, 2003

commondreams.org

<<...The weakest element of Bush's presentation was his failure to explain what the rush is all about. Saddam Hussein's regime is beginning to cooperate more fully with UN weapons inspectors, no doubt in significant part because of the threat of force posed by U.S. forces gathering in the region. He has no missiles that can reach the United States. The International Atomic Energy Agency (which Bush inadvertently referred to as the "IEAE" instead of the "IAEA" during his press conference) has suggested that not only does Iraq not currently possess nuclear weapons or the facilities to make them, but that with a few more months of inspections, the agency should be in a position to verify whether all remnants of Iraq's nuclear weapons program have been eliminated. What remains of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs is really all that is at issue now, and top UN inspector Hans Blix is clearly of the opinion that the with the increased cooperation created by the threat of force these programs too can be substantially dismantled...>>

*William D. Hartung is the Director of the Arms Trade Resource Center, and a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute. He can be reached at hartung@newschool.edu

______________________________________________________

btw, lurqer thnx again for alerting me to the Thomas Friedman interview on CNBC....it was a great one...I'll make some comments on that tomorrow.