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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (17991)3/9/2003 6:05:38 AM
From: PartyTime  Respond to of 25898
 
The good oil from the heart of Texas

March 9 2003
By Michael Davie
Former Age Editor
Texas

They sang Deep in the Heart of Texas on the steps of the vast domed Capitol building - reasonably enough, since that's where they were: Austin, the Texas capital.

They also sang the Star-Spangled Banner and took the Pledge of Allegiance . They had assembled to support US President George Bush and the military. They wanted to say that, with the country on the edge of war, this was not the time for anti-war protests. They called themselves the Rally for America and carried signs that said Let's Roll, God Bless the USA, and Adios Saddam.

But it was not much of a rally - only 250 people, according to a Texas Department of Public Safety trooper. And some of those wanted it known that they were not necessarily in support of war against Iraq; they were there to stand behind the President.

Two weeks ago, 10,000 took to the streets in an anti-war protest: a number that surprised the protesters. It also surprised an outsider like myself. I have been in Texas just over two weeks, doing some research at the University of Texas. I had assumed that in coming here I would be right at the centre of Bush support, with not a dissenting voice to be heard.

After all, his ranch is just down the road. Heads of state are transported here when he wants to flatter or threaten them, and where they don inappropriate Texan gear, jeans and cowboy boots, in an attempt to flatter him. Everyone in these parts knows Dubya.

Yet in two weeks we have yet to meet one person who favours the war. Like all great journalistic insights, it began with the cab in from the airport. The Mexican driver was against the war. By the time he eventually found our destination, we had learnt that not only he but the entire population of Mexico, including President Vicente Fox agreed with him: no war.

This was a shock. Only the other day Bush and Fox were buddies: Fox took Bush home to meet his Moma. They agreed about everything. Today they scarcely speak; and the Americans are working flat out to secure Mexico's vote in the Security Council.

After the cab driver, our landlady: a Texan born and bred. Slowly it emerged that she was a protester, and had indeed recently had a letter in the Austin American-Statesman opposing war. Our neighbourhood might be compared to South Yarra, not the grandest, but by no means the cheapest. Two doors down our tree-lined street is a substantial two-storey mansion: a million dollars worth, for sure. Out front is a board reading: "American for Peace: Help Stop the War". Similar signs dot nearby streets.

Unquestionably, anti-war sentiment has grown in the past two weeks.

As the Administration has become more arbitrary and confused, so the protesters have gained confidence, and publicity. The prospective Democratic presidential candidate who has made the biggest impression is the former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, who says loudly that his party has been giving President Bush much too easy a ride on the war issue. This argument has won him space and caused the other candidates to be a shade more critical.

The other night, we were guests at what must be regarded as an Austin establishment dinner party, held at a swish private club overlooking the Capitol. Our hosts and the other guests were not ratbag protesters. We were all on the wrong side of 50. We listened while the others revealed their opposition to their fellow Texan.

The school system in Texas is suffering from a serious shortage of funds. All the states are in financial trouble, but the President, when he met the governors the other day, declined to give them an extra cent. They are talking about cutting medical help and help for old people. Texas is certainly not getting anything for its schools.

This incensed my good-hearted neighbour. Everyone knew that the future of the state - Texans are fierce loyalists - depended on giving a decent education to the young, and now the money was going to be spent on a war for reasons that only the White House understood or accepted. Saddam didn't threaten the US, did he? And how many billions or even trillions (a Yale economist is talking about $1.9 trillion) was the war going to cost?

She shook her head in despair.

One man at the table had been in the White House with President Lyndon Johnson, another Texan. What would Johnson have thought about the Iraq business? Well, he said thoughtfully, Johnson was a great one for considering the consequences of his actions, and he was sure he would not have gone this far along the road to war without having a pretty damn clear idea about how he was going to get out of it. In contrast, it was his impression that President Bush had given the matter only superficial thought. He seemed confident that things would turn out well, when they might easily turn sour; and what then? We are told that Austin is not Texas. The population of greater Austin is about a million, of whom about 50,000 are students. We should not set too much store on the fact that the Austin City Council has passed an anti-war resolution.

But national newspapers and TV reflect the way the wind is blowing. A girl turned her back on the flag; a youth appeared at classes wearing a T-shirt describing the President as a terrorist. The point is not that these little events occurred, but that they were given so much attention, with pictures and interviews of all concerned. The current issues of Time and Newsweek both have "anxious America" covers: "Do You Want This War?" asks Time. (The answer is: not everybody, by any means. Americans particularly do not want the US to go it alone. Asked who should make the final decisions, 57 per cent said the Security Council and only 37 per cent said the US President and Congress, with 6 per cent unsure.)

None of these signs of opposition is likely to deter the President, to be sure - even though some of them are coming from the heart of Texas, which by rights ought to be solidly behind the local boy. We have had one final surprise. The small grandson of two well-established Austin citizens has been taken on anti-war demos. We expected granny to object. Instead, she said with pride, as if boasting about his precocious ability to speak or crawl: "Just think of it: three months old and he's already been on three protest marches!"

theage.com.au



To: stockman_scott who wrote (17991)3/9/2003 6:10:36 AM
From: PartyTime  Respond to of 25898
 
Friday, Mar. 7, 2003. Page XXIV

Global Eye -- Gangs of D.C.
By Chris Floyd

"And the war came."
-- Abraham Lincoln

The war is always coming, it's always here, either in utero, full fury or chaotic aftermath. The newest war -- the invasion of Iraq -- will come because a gang of like-minded men is willing it into being. They want it -- it's as simple as that. They want what they believe this war will give them: wealth, dominion, and empire.

The ultimate goal is not Iraq -- that bombed, blockaded state partially controlled by a witless thug whom the gang once succored -- but domination of the world's oil supplies in the coming century, when the surging nations of China and India will reach their economic peak. These vast entities could eventually tilt the imbalance of world wealth away from the Anglo-American elites who have for so long held the high and palmy ground of privilege. But the voracious economies of the Asian behemoths will require unstinting draughts of the oil reserves now locked under the sands of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. There is oil elsewhere, yes -- but nowhere else in the world are there reserves deep enough to satisfy the thirsts of China and India as they come into their own.

Therefore it is imperative for the Anglo-American elites to dominate this indispensable resource, if they are to maintain their wonted ease beneath the palms. Or so they believe. Actually, the narrowly-concentrated wealth of the West is so staggeringly great that these elites could quite easily devote abundant resources toward developing new forms of energy, national self-sufficiency, and what used to be known in Abraham Lincoln's day as "internal improvements" -- roads, schools, hospitals, parks, the extension of liberty, leisure and opportunity -- and still keep their corpulent noses planted deep in the trough of their unearned riches.

But alas, they too -- like the thugs they hire and fire so easily (Noriega, Saddam, bin Laden) -- are moral idiots. They don't care about their own nations. They don't care about the hapless people they rule -- except, of course, as cannon fodder or hired help. The "national interest" is what best serves the elites and their retainers.

Throughout history, elite factions have always acted in similar ways to maintain and augment their dominance. At various times, for various reasons, their interests converge and they act loosely in concert; at other times, they tear each other to shreds -- killing millions of people in the process. You can see this pattern of behavior -- the belligerent lust for dominance coupled with crafty temporary alliances -- at work among many primate groups. Our modern "elites" (the Ba'athist clique, al-Qaida, the Bush Regime, the British Establishment, etc.) are simply secretions of the most primitive and ape-like elements still lurking in our brains. They're a kind of heavy scum that forms on the free-flowing, light-dazzled stream of human existence.

So, the attack on Iraq isn't really a war for oil, not in the strictest sense. The United States doesn't need Iraq's oil. In recent years, America has been carefully diversifying its own sources of foreign oil, and is no longer overly dependent on the Arab-held fields. In fact, that's one reason the long-planned attack on Iraq is coming now. Before, America couldn't risk a military takeover of one of the major oil states (minor Kuwait, of course, has been occupied since 1991): Too much could go wrong, irreplaceable supplies could be cut off. Now, however, the game is worth the candle; even in the highly unlikely event of disaster -- an Arab oil embargo, a long, intractable war -- the Bush Regime believes they can ride it out until the situation stabilizes by drawing on other sources: Africa, Venezuela, Russia, plus the oil still lying off America's coasts and under its scarce remaining wilderness.

Iraq is not the end, but the means. What America needs -- or rather, what the thugs in the Bush Regime desire -- is dominance of Middle Eastern oil in order to hold the economies of China and India hostage in the coming decades. The aim is not conquest, in the classic sense; our elites are imperialists, not colonialists. They don't want to settle amongst all those funny-looking foreigners; heaven forefend! It's bad enough there are so many of them in God's country already, where, as one august national leader, Republican Representative Sue Myrick, noted recently, they "run all the convenience stores," thus posing the ever-present danger of gustatory terrorism. ("What's that white powder on my donuts? Aieee!")

No, what is sought -- what is demanded, what will be enforced with human cannon fodder and treasure extorted from ordinary citizens ("You're under attack! Give us your money!") -- is that the emerging powers become pliant "friends" and business partners, along the lines of Western Europe. Naturally, this will require a heavy U.S. military presence in the vicinity for generations, as in Europe (58 years and counting); naturally, as in Europe, obedience to U.S. "interests" will be mandatory -- or else, as warlord Donald Rumsfeld recently threatened Germany, there will be "punishment": the threat of economic ruin. And of course, there will be the overarching "missile shield," the exciting "new generation" of nuclear weapons the Regime is developing, and the "full spectrum dominance" of space-mounted superweapons to provide that hint of violent coercion so essential to any warm friendship.

So the game's afoot; the knives are out; the gangs are on the march. What happens next, no one can tell, but this much is certain -- whatever the cost, in lives and lucre, the elites will not be paying it.

moscowtimes.ru



To: stockman_scott who wrote (17991)3/9/2003 6:16:56 AM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25898
 
Individual protests against Iraq war causing controversy

By Alfons Luna
Agence France-Presse
NEW YORK ? Turning one's back on the American flag and wearing T-shirts opposing US President George W. Bush are among actions being used by war opponents, and are proving to be unwelcome.

Early this week in Albany, New York, security guards at a shopping mall asked a father and son who were having lunch in a cafe to remove their T-shirts or leave.

Stephen Downs, 60, and his son Roger, 31, were wearing shirts with slogans including ?Give peace a chance,? ?No war with Iraq,? and ?Let inspections work.?

The father, a lawyer, refused to remove his shirt and was arrested by police and charged with trespassing, media reported Thursday.

In a statement quoted in The New York Times, the mall's managers said the security guards were responding to clients' complaints.

?Their behaviour, coupled with their clothing, to express to others their personal points of views on world affairs were disruptive of customers,? the managers said.

The newspaper later reported the mall had asked police to drop the charges, after around 100 anti-war protesters arrived and said they would not leave until they did so.

Toni Smith, a women's basketball player for Manhattanville College, just outside New York, has all season turned her back on the US flag at the start of every match when the anthem is played.

Smith began her protest in November, but as war clouds darkened, opposition to her action has grown, with shouts from the stands of ?USA, USA? when she takes control of the ball, or ?Leave our country.?

The crowd got especially noisy on Feb. 11, in a game with the Merchant Marine Academy, after which Smith decided to explain herself.

?For some time now, the inequalities that are embedded in the American system have bothered me,? she said in a statement.

?As they are becoming progressively worse and it is clear that the government's priorities are not on bettering the quality of life for all its people, but rather on expanding its own power, I cannot, in good conscience, salute the flag.

?The flag means different things to everyone,? she added.

Bretton Barber, a 17-year-old high school student at Dearborn Heights, Michigan, was sent home when he refused to change his T-shirt that showed a photo of Bush bordered with the words ?international terrorist.?

Barber said he wanted to express his anti-war sentiment, and defended his stance by pointing to the Tinker vs Des Moines case from 1969, in which students went on to appeal their suspension from school for wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam war.

1960s US athlete John Carlos, whose protest during the Mexico Olympics of 1968 was similar to that of Smith, expressed his solidarity for her posture to the Los Angeles Times.

Sunday, March 9, 2003

jordantimes.com



To: stockman_scott who wrote (17991)3/9/2003 6:29:57 AM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25898
 
00:44 2003-03-07
Iraq: The Truth, The Whole Truth

Dominican Sister Sharine, Iraqi, lives in Baghad. She went to the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where she was heard by Pravda.Ru contacts, among them Joao Pedro Stedille, who sent us this report. We thank Senhor Stedille most sincerely for this chilling report.

Viruses and mice dropped by parachute against Iraqi agriculture
?One of the main causes of the hunger which afflicts the Iraqi people is the policy adopted by the USA, for more than eight years now, of sending viruses against Iraqi crops and the policy of dropping thousands of mice by parachute to destroy what little we have?.

Chemical weaponry deployed by the United States of America

Bombardeamentos com armas qu?micas feitas pelos EUA

?The United States of America used chemical weapons in their systematic bombings. There is hardly any drinking water left in Iraq, specially in Baghdad, a result of these bombing raids with chemical weapons which have contaminated the water?,

Depleted Uranium has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths

?Until today the Iraqi people have suffered the consequences of the Gulf War, due to the use of depleted uranium by the United States of America, which has caused cancerous diseases in those who survived the bombing?. We can add the statistic that at least 500,000 Iraqi children have died as a result of the deployment of this illegal weaponry, which breaches the Geneva Convention and the deployment of which is therefore a war crime.

UN embargo killed thousands of children

?The United nations, with all its power, until today has still not allowed the entry of certain medicines into Iraq, a policy which has caused thousands of deaths due to the lack of basic substances?.

Oil, the Bait for the Devil

?The Iraqi people are depressed, they accept their destiny, resigned, as a people who live sleeping on a mattress of oil and so for this reason they will attract the greed of the US-based energy companies and due to their wealth, they will be condemned to poverty and death?.

It will be a massacre

?The people will not react. The people are not armed. This is a lie of western TV. Worse than this, we all know it will be a massacre, genocide. Since 1990, the population of Baghdad has
increased by eight times and now the city has a population of eight million inhabitants, 70% of them coming from the countryside, devastated, without jobs, receiving a basic food basket from the government so as to not starve to death. Can you imagine how these people will suffer if there is a massive bombing campaign against the capital??

Pravda.Ru

english.pravda.ru