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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David in Ontario who wrote (22020)	3/19/2003 12:02:03 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27666

Vive La France "Going to war without France is like going duck hunting without your accordion." -- Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, President of France "As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh "They've taken their own precautions against al-Qa'ida. To prepare for an attack, each Frenchman is urged to keep duct tape, a white flag, and a three-day supply of mistresses in the house." -- Argus Hamilton "Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle that was being advertised on eBay the other day -- the description was, 'Never shot. Dropped once.'" -- Rep. Roy Blunt (MO) "The French will only agree to go to war when we've proven we've found truffles in Iraq." -- Dennis Miller "What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against DisneyWorld and Big Macs than the Nazis?" -- Dennis Miller Raise your right hand if you like the French ... raise both hands if you are French. "I don't know why people are surprised the French don't want to help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France." -- Jay Leno Q. What did the mayor of Paris say to the German Army as they entered the city in WWII? A. Table for 100,000 m'sieur? "The last time the French ask for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." -- David Letterman "Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried." -- Rep. R. Blount (MO)

To: David in Ontario who wrote (22020)	3/19/2003 4:53:31 AM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

How US lost the diplomatic war Delay in consulting the UN over war plans Constantly changing justification for war Failing to explain the invasion's urgency Its propaganda campaign contained big errors and did not address its image problems in the Middle East By Jonathan Eyal LONDON - US President George Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair are determined: If Iraqi President Saddam Hussein does not accept immediate disarmament, war will follow swiftly. Yet, behind all the bluster and official display of steely resolve, both the US and British governments realise that their propaganda campaign on Iraq has been a failure. Seldom before have these two governments - among the slickest of media handlers - stumbled so badly. Persuading the world that military action against Iraq is necessary should have been easy. Mr Saddam is, after all, hardly a popular international figure. All of Iraq's neighbours consider him a menace. The elimination of weapons of mass destruction is also a popular cause, world-wide. But the result? Almost without exception, overwhelming majorities in nations around the world are against the war. And in some countries, Mr Bush is viewed as just as big a problem as Mr Saddam. Some of the major errors that Washington and London made in explaining their case are relatively easy to pinpoint. In dealing with Middle Eastern issues, the US is saddled with a huge disadvantage. Most Arabs regard US policies as duplicitous and hostile to their interests. America's unstinting support for Israel - and seeming indifference to the plight of the Palestinians - is also overwhelmingly resented throughout the wider Muslim world. As the sole superpower, the US is generally viewed with a mixture of admiration and apprehension, and a tinge of instinctive anti-Americanism therefore lingers around the world. Its penchant for justifying its actions in often subjective but invariably sanctimonious terms such as 'democracy' or the 'common good' does not help either. But this does not mean that such obstacles cannot be overcome. Suspicions about US policies in the Middle East could have been addressed by combining military pressure against Iraq with political pressure on Israel to return to the negotiating table. This, after all, is what many of America's allies have long suggested. However, Mr Bush ignored this advice; for much of the current Iraqi crisis, he remained silent on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. The US has now revealed its future peace plan for the Middle East - a classic example of doing too little, too late. Latent anti-Americanism and the superpower's bully image could have also been addressed by patiently building a coalition of countries against Iraq. It is now a well-known secret that plans for the war against Iraq started more than a year ago in Washington. But for many months, the administration stubbornly refused to discuss the subject in the United Nations. The delay was fatal, for it deprived the US of the moral high ground and virtually precluded the creation of a solid pro-American coalition. Many countries - particularly in Europe - could have been privately persuaded on the merits of the American case, if this was made gently and persistently. Few were able to accept Washington's line when it was declared with little international consultation. The biggest public relations mistake that Washington and London made was to constantly change their official justification for the war. It is now usually forgotten that America's first position was to accuse Iraq of harbouring Al-Qaeda terrorists. Precious little evidence was ever produced, and this argument faded away with little explanation. Washington then quickly shifted to a demand for 'regime change' in Iraq. When some of its allies - particularly the British - privately pointed out that this was hardly a justification under international law, the argument shifted to weapons of mass destruction. And as international opposition grew, all three arguments were blended together: Mr Saddam had to be removed because if he remained in power he would develop terrible weapons as well as nurture future terrorists. And, yes, in between there were various claims that the war would bring democracy to Iraq. The cardinal rule in any successful propaganda campaign is to decide on one simple message and to stick with it all the way. This is what Washington did not do. There were two other important mistakes. The US failed to realise that it was engaged in the most difficult exercise of all: changing public opinion on the need for war against a supposed danger which has existed for decades but which has not materialised. At no point did the Americans manage to explain the urgency of their task. As the French repeatedly asked in the Security Council, if Mr Saddam was allowed to exist for years, why the urgency of tackling him today? And even if tackle him we must, why does it have to happen immediately? Washington could have provided answers to these questions from the start, but did not. The second error was to ignore the fact that the international electronic media has now slipped away from the control of the US and Britain. Even as late as a few years ago, two satellite news television stations - CNN and BBC World - had a pre-eminent role in putting forward the viewpoint of their nations to the world. Today, many more international satellite stations fight for this market in local languages, particularly in the Arab world. This required a different media strategy - the old technique of holding daily press conferences at the Pentagon or the White House and expecting them to be beamed around the world in their entirety does not work. US and British politicians duly tried to appear on other media networks. But their language handicaps and their inability to tailor their message to much smaller yet more specific audiences were palpable. None of these considerations will prevent the war from starting. But they will make the management of the war much more difficult for Washington and London.

To: David in Ontario who wrote (22020)	3/19/2003 9:47:47 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 27666

SEATTLE — Large anti-war protests come with a hefty price tag. Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Money is needed to rent or buy stages, sound systems, permits and portable toilets, and tabs often run as high as $200,000 per demonstration — much more than the average grassroots peace group will ever have in its coffers. So who is picking up the tab? "The major anti-U.S. government demonstrations are organized by people who have been around for a long time, particularly the Workers World Party, which has existed for more than 30 years now and has always supported the enemies of the United States," said Herbert Romerstein, a retired agent of the U.S. Information Agency. The Workers World Party describes itself as Marxist in nature. Officially, protest organizers are groups such as Not in Our Name and International A.N.S.W.E.R., but the demonstration's sponsors have long histories of backing anti-government causes. Not in Our Name is financed by the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization. I.F.C.O. is a million-dollar-a-year non-profit that supports Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and once sponsored a group headed by Sami Al-Arian — the University of South Florida professor being charged with fundraising for terrorist organizations Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A.N.S.W.E.R. is an offshoot of the International Action Center, which intelligence officials say is a front for the Worker's World Party. A.N.S.W.E.R. canceled a scheduled interview with Fox News but a worker in the Seattle field office acknowledged there are ties. "There are some Workers World Party members in A.N.S.W.E.R.," said A.N.S.W.E.R. coordinator Jim McMahan. The International Action Center was founded by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who is a longtime public face of the anti-war movement. The Workers World Party supports North Korea's brutal regime and I.F.C.O. defied U.N. sanctions when it made a trip to Iraq in the mid-1990s. Now, both are sugar daddies to the anti-war movement. "The American people have the right to know whether stooges of [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il or Castro or Saddam Hussein are involved in these demonstrations," Romerstein said. The groups bankrolling these protests say they're spending their money the way donors would want, and protest organizers say it doesn't matter where the money comes from — the message is their own. Others wonder if knowing the fringe politics of the people paying the bills might keep some demonstrators off the streets. But anti-war organizers — regardless of their financial backing — are plugging ahead and are actually planning more aggressive action that they say will be hard to ignore, despite the fact that the United States is on the brink of war with Iraq. "People will step up their actions, there will be active civil disobedience," said Simona Sharoni of United for Peace in Thurston County, Wash. Direct Action, a San Francisco Bay-area group of anti-war veterans, has been drawing up their own battle plan should there be a war. They say they will shut down 70 targets in San Francisco alone, including power plants, water systems, the Federal Reserve, oil companies, the Pacific Exchange and the Transamerica Building. And their hit list goes beyond economic targets. Some protesters are promising to chain themselves to fences at schools and day care centers so working parents will have to stay home from their jobs. Organizers say this will give others a chance to contemplate how war affects the children of Iraq. "The civilians in Iraq are losing their lives and one day of work is worth a thousand lives," said Leone Reinbold, an anti-war activist in San Francisco. Reinbold helped organize the World Trade Organization protest in Seattle three years ago. She blames the violence and damage on anarchists from the radical fringe, not the mainstream demonstrators. All the same, police departments from coast to coast know that keeping things peaceful won't be easy. "We know based on the last one that each preceding demonstration has been a little bit more volatile than the one before," said Deputy Chief Greg Suhr of the San Francisco Police Department. Some protestors are vowing to bring traffic to a standstill, as they recently did on a Seattle bridge. But many wonder if paralyzing the morning commute and engaging in similar disruptions will win converts or make enemies of people losing patience with their tactics. foxnews.com

To: David in Ontario who wrote (22020)	3/19/2003 12:16:48 PM
From: Investor Clouseau	Respond to of 27666

How do these weapons constitute a threat? Saddam used chemical and biological weapons in the war against Iran and against the Kurdish civilians of his country. He could use them to facilitate his longstanding ambition to conquer Kuwait and the Saudi oilfields. Me personal motivation is the liberation of 20 million of my Muslims brothers and sisters from the embodiment of Satan on Earth, Saddam Hussein. They have been trapped by an overpowering evil for far too long. IC