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

To: Mannie who wrote (14478)	3/12/2003 9:04:22 PM
From: abuelita	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

ROTFLMAO!!!

To: Mannie who wrote (14478)	3/13/2003 12:19:28 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

***What do hundreds of retired veterans have to say...? The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 March 10, 2003 Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned veterans who have served our country in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the 1991 Gulf War and other military conflicts, respectfully request an opportunity to meet with you about the threat of war between the United States and Iraq. Mr. President, we are patriotic citizens and veterans who respect the office of the President and the ethics and values binding us together as Americans. As such, we feel duty-bound to share with you our serious concerns regarding issues of national security, the appropriate use of our military strength, and the health and welfare of our active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Those of us who are veterans of the 1991 Gulf War can offer particular insight into the ongoing troubles in the Middle East, and the likely consequences of another war in that volatile region. A dozen years ago, we helped liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, and in the course of combat operations came face to face with brutality and the consequences of modern warfare. We learned how unpredictable the nature of war can be. And we learned that war-related losses are not simply experienced on the battlefield. Following the 1991 Gulf War, we collectively failed to prevent Saddam Hussein’s violent repression of a popular uprising and the unprecedented refugee flight that ensued. As a result, tens of thousands of innocent civilians died. In addition to those deaths, the war and immediate post-war conditions resulted in the excess deaths of 46,900 children under the age of five, according to the New England Journal of Medicine (September 24, 1992). Over the long term, the 1991 Gulf War has had a lasting, detrimental impact on the health of countless people in the region, and on the health of American men and women who served there. Twelve years after the conflict, over 164,000 American Gulf War veterans are now considered disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. That number increases daily. The possibility of large-scale war between the U.S. and Iraq looms before us once again. For this urgent reason we would like to meet with you to discuss steps the United States and its allies can take to protect U.S. soldiers, allied forces, and Iraqi civilians from known and suspected hazards that would result from military operations. We understand the risks that come with war and that there are times when such risks are necessary. However, we strongly question the need for a war at this time. Despite Secretary of State Colin Powell’s report to the Security Council and the testimony of others in the administration, we are not convinced that coercive containment has failed, or that war has become necessary. Our own intelligence agencies have consistently noted both the absence of an imminent threat from Iraq and reliable evidence of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Again, we question whether this is the right time and the right war. Further, we believe the risks involved in going to war, under the unclear and shifting circumstances that confront us today, are far greater than those faced in 1991. Instead of a desert war to liberate Kuwait, combat would likely involve protracted siege warfare, chaotic street-to-street fighting in Baghdad, and Iraqi civil conflict. If that occurs, we fear our own nation and Iraq would both suffer casualties not witnessed since Vietnam. We fear the resulting carnage and humanitarian consequences would further devastate Iraqi society and inflame an already volatile Middle East, and increase terrorism against U.S. citizens. Our concerns about the potential human and material costs of a military conflict in Iraq are well substantiated. In the event of a war, the UN warns that 1.26 million children under the age of 5 in Iraq will be at risk of death. Within the initial weeks of conflict, the World Health Organization estimates 500,000 Iraqis would need immediate medical attention. Ten million Iraqis would need immediate humanitarian assistance and over 2 million Iraqis would be made homeless. The scale of the crisis would be so large that the international community would be unable to prevent widespread suffering. For these reasons and more, it remains in our nation’s best interest to avoid another war. The risk of excessive civilian casualties like those predicted by the UN pose a grave risk to our national security, making the U.S. more of a target of retaliatory attacks by terrorists. Mr. President, as our Commander-in-Chief, we recognize the immense responsibility you have to protect our homeland and keep our nation secure. As veterans who honorably served our nation in its wars, we believe that our perspectives, knowledge and expertise can aid you at this crucial time, as you continue to deliberate on whether or not to commit our nation to war. We therefore request a meeting at your earliest possible convenience. We look forward to any opportunity to come together with you to discuss the matters we have raised. Sincerely, Vice Admiral Ralph Weymouth, USN, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN, Retired Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA, Retired Colonel David H. Hackworth, USA, Retired Colonel Larry Williams, USMC, Retired Colonel James E Unterseher, USA, Retired Colonel James B. Burkholder, USA, Retired Colonel Roger F. Strand, USAF, Retired Colonel Virginia A. Metcalf, USA, Retired Colonel Mary H. Yeakel, USA, Retired Colonel Henrik O. Lunde, USA, Retired Colonel Bruce S. Jarstfer, USA, Retired Colonel Thomas Patrick Chisholm, USA, Retired Colonel James Steven Chandler, USA Colonel James J. Kent, USA, Retired Colonel Grace E. Squires, USA, Retired Colonel Carol Anne O’Donnell, USA, Retired Captain Kris Kristofferson, USA, Retired Captain Thomas C. Tindall Jr., USNR, Retired Captain Herbert A. Blough, USN, Retired Captain M. David Preston, USCG Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth K. McGillicuddy, USMC, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Ron T. Coley, USMC, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Walter M. Langford, USAF, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Ben T. Granade, Jr., USAF, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank L. Houde, USAF, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Richard M. Renfro, USA, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Gretchen T. Vanek, USA, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Richard L. Schmitt, USAF, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Vernon E. Whitney, USA, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Graydon Causey, USAF, Retired Lieutenant Colonel William R. Smith, USAF, Retired Lieutenant Colonel David C. Dellinger, USCG, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Anne N. Philiben, USA, Retired Lieutenant Colonel James A. Adams, Jr., USAF, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Eldridge Pate, USA, Retired Lieutenant Colonel William J. Jacobs, USA, Retired Commander Robert A. Wood, USNR, Retired Commander John J. Kaso, USN, Retired Commander Eugene M. Maresca, USNR, Retired Commander William H. Busse, USNR, Retired Commander David Bailey, USCG, Retired Commander Philip Butler, Ph.D., USN, Retired Commander Michael A. Kennedy, USN, Retired Commander Theodore I. Bahn, USN, Retired Commander Theodore Curtin, USN, Retired hundreds of others signed this letter...see the names at the bottom of this link... veteransforcommonsense.org

To: Mannie who wrote (14478)	3/14/2003 3:17:24 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making By ROGER MORRIS Editorial The New York Times March 14, 2003 SEATTLE — On the brink of war, both supporters and critics of United States policy on Iraq agree on the origins, at least, of the haunted relations that have brought us to this pass: America's dealings with Saddam Hussein, justifiable or not, began some two decades ago with its shadowy, expedient support of his regime in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's. Both sides are mistaken. Washington's policy traces an even longer, more shrouded and fateful history. Forty years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency, under President John F. Kennedy, conducted its own regime change in Baghdad, carried out in collaboration with Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963 was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. Washington's role in the coup went unreported at the time and has been little noted since. America's anti-Kassem intrigue has been widely substantiated, however, in disclosures by the Senate Committee on Intelligence and in the work of journalists and historians like David Wise, an authority on the C.I.A. From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh repression, the Eisenhower administration abided him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt — much as Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would aid Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against the common foe of Iran. By 1961, the Kassem regime had grown more assertive. Seeking new arms rivaling Israel's arsenal, threatening Western oil interests, resuming his country's old quarrel with Kuwait, talking openly of challenging the dominance of America in the Middle East — all steps Saddam Hussein was to repeat in some form — Kassem was regarded by Washington as a dangerous leader who must be removed. In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies — chiefly France and Germany — resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s "Health Alteration Committee," as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim. Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover. As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958. According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite — killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures. The United States also sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the United States had backed against Kassem and then abandoned. Soon, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were doing business with Baghdad — for American firms, their first major involvement in Iraq. But it wasn't long before there was infighting among Iraq's new rulers. In 1968, after yet another coup, the Baathist general Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr seized control, bringing to the threshold of power his kinsman, Saddam Hussein. Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers — including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time — speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists. This history is known to many in the Middle East and Europe, though few Americans are acquainted with it, much less understand it. Yet these interventions help explain why United States policy is viewed with some cynicism abroad. George W. Bush is not the first American president to seek regime change in Iraq. Mr. Bush and his advisers are following a familiar pattern. The Kassem episode raises questions about the war at hand. In the last half century, regime change in Iraq has been accompanied by bloody reprisals. How fierce, then, may be the resistance of hundreds of officers, scientists and others identified with Saddam Hussein's long rule? Why should they believe America and its latest Iraqi clients will act more wisely, or less vengefully, now than in the past? If a new war in Iraq seems fraught with danger and uncertainty, just wait for the peace. _____________________________________________ Roger Morris, author of "Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician," is completing a book about United States covert policy in Central and South Asia. nytimes.com

To: Mannie who wrote (14478)	3/15/2003 7:22:05 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Antiwar Protesters Plan to Escalate 'Direct Action' Seen as Next Step If War Begins by Evelyn Nieves Published on Saturday, March 15, 2003 by the Washington Post SAN FRANCISCO -- Warren Langley knew where to go to get arrested. As the former president of the Pacific Stock Exchange, he knew that the pillared entrance to the exchange was the busiest, and that at 7 a.m., brokers would be spilling from the doors for their first morning coffee break. Former President of the Pacific Stock Exchange, Warren Langley, is arrested by police outside the Stock Exchange in San Francisco, after he blocked a street as part of a protest against a possible war in Iraq, March 14, 2003. Protesters against a war with Iraq blocked major intersections near the Pacific Stock Exchange in San Francisco's financial district on Friday, snarling traffic, idling city buses and sparking at least 70 arrests, according to organizers. REUTERS/Tim Wimborne So, shortly after 6:30 a.m., Langley, a silver-haired man in a navy blue suit and red striped power tie, marched through the financial district with about 200 other antiwar protesters -- Buddhist monks, Catholic priests, nuns, war veterans, students, families of 9/11 victims and average citizens -- and planted himself at the stock exchange's doors. Then he and dozens of others sat down at the busiest intersections of the financial district, tying up traffic for hours. For Langley, 60, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, as well as many of the other 70 protesters who were put in plastic handcuffs and arrested this morning, this was the first act of civil disobedience in a lifetime of abiding by the rules. Today was a prelude of civil disobedience to come. If bombs start dropping, thousands of people across the country opposed to a unilateral attack on Iraq plan to commit acts of "direct action," as civil disobedience is commonly called. The day -- or days -- after war begins could see the largest coordinated displays of civil disobedience in the United States since the civil rights era. Protesters around the country plan on blockading avenues, stopping traffic and generally disrupting business as usual. "It's my history and my lifetime," said Langley, who presided over the Pacific Stock Exchange from 1996 to 1999. "This war seems very wrong for the entire world. I decided I was willing to do whatever it takes to show a strong stand against it." But civil disobedience does not mean that rallies and other forms of legal public protest are going away. This weekend, large rallies are planned in Washington, San Francisco and other cities. In Sacramento, a rally is planned Saturday at the state Democratic Convention to demand that the presidential candidates in attendance speak out against war. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, as well as other religious leaders, have called for worldwide candlelight peace vigils on Sunday. (As of today, 3,300 vigils were planned in 102 countries.) Even so, antiwar organizers advocating direct action say global rallies with millions of people, not to mention hundreds of thousands of letters to the White House and Congress, have failed to make an impact on President Bush's determination to wage war. For them it is time for the peace movement to become more aggressive. "People want to do more, and those of us who have been activists for a long time have become demoralized by protesting that has not resulted in any recognition," said Zein El-Amine, a Washington, D.C.-based organizer. Civil disobedience, he said, "is just the next logical step." Frustrated dissenters plan sit-ins and blockades at government buildings, financial centers, congressional offices and military bases and installations. The day after war begins, dissenters in at least 50 cities are planning direct actions. In New York's Times Square, protesters are planning to stop traffic. In Detroit, protesters are planning 72 hours of nonviolent disruptions at government installations. In St. Louis, they are planning to block the entrance to a Boeing bomb-making factory. North of Santa Barbara, Calif., activists -- many of them religious leaders experienced in civil disobedience -- are strategizing to shut down Vandenberg Air Force Base. In San Francisco, perhaps the country's most organized city in terms of planned protests, a menu of events is planned -- from stopping traffic with slow-moving car and bike caravans, to shutting the stock exchange to a general strike. Many protesters are not waiting until U.S. missiles strike Iraq to risk arrest. In a last-ditch effort to try to stop a war, United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of more than 120 organizations opposed to a unilateral war, including the NAACP and the National Council of Churches, has designated the week of March 17 as "A Week of Nonviolent Direct Action." The direct action project of the coalition, the "Emergency Campaign to Reclaim Democracy And Stop the War Now," is launching seven days of civil disobedience at the Capitol, including sit-ins in congressional offices, to "demand that Congress represent the will of the people and repeal Bush's war authorization," according to the coalition's Web site, unitedforpeace.org. Civil disobedience is also planned at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York. Scores of groups are heeding the call from the coalition and from Direct Action to Stop the War, a loose-knit network of organizations based in San Francisco that is offering advice and suggestions to groups across the country planning acts of civil disobedience. "We can't really even keep track of them," said Jason Mark, a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice. "Many of the groups are still organizing." Rayan El-Amine, an organizer with the Direct Action to Stop the War Project, said the project, through its Web site, actagainstthewar.org, is noticing that people are following the suggestion to form "affinity groups," small teams of five to 20 people who work together on planning actions. In San Francisco, he said, about 1,500 people organized into affinity groups would lead the planned actions for the day after the bombs drop. These are the people, he said, who will risk arrest. "But the purpose of direct action is not to get arrested," El-Amine reminded demonstrators gathered at the Pacific Stock Exchange this morning. "The purpose is to stop the war machine. The hope is that they'll be so many people participating that they can't arrest us." Many of the antiwar protesters are so new to civil disobedience that they are signing up for training sessions. Joseph Gerson, director of programs for the American Friends Service Committee's New England office, based in Boston, is offering training for civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action. He said that since his office began training sessions three weeks ago, people have clamored to join. Civil disobedience trainers have begun taking collections to pay for teaching others to become trainers because the demand is so high. "There is a sense that we have to do everything humanly possible to prevent this war," Gerson said. "Boston is in overwhelming opposition to this war." Langley, who attended his inaugural protest when he turned 60 on Jan. 18, said he has been deluged with critical e-mails from former classmates at the Air Force Academy, where he graduated in 1965. "Protesting against the war gets confounded with being against the troops," said Langley, who helped fund a 1998 documentary on Vietnam War prisoners of war, "Tom Hanks Presents: Return with Honor." "I tell critics that I support the military," he said. "But this war just feels very wrong." He is still trying, he said, to come up with strategies to change the administration's course in ways that are not disruptive to the point of being destructive, as he believes the Vietnam War protests became. "What I really want is for this whole unilateral, arrogant action that we've been imposing to change," he said. This morning, Langley stood next to Eric Johansson, a 32-year-old former Army paratrooper who served in the Persian Gulf War. Johansson, a leader of a group called Veterans Against the Iraq War, suggested it is easy to respond to the charge that protesters are not supporting the troops. "You don't support the troops by thrusting them into the hell of war," he said. "Support the troops: Bring them home!" Like Langley, Johannson was arrested and looked glad about it. © 2003 The Washington Post Company commondreams.org