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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Just_Observing who wrote (1563)	3/23/2003 4:21:30 AM
From: Asymmetric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Chilling Historical Comparison That commentary by Thomas Hartman is one of the most chilling historical parallels to the present situation I have ever read. One of the things it really made clear to me was the probable explanation for the dividend tax cuts. The tax cuts never made sense economically and carry the added burden of incurring huge fiscal budgetary deficits as far as the eye can see. This article makes clear, through the parallels it draws, that Bush is pushing tax cuts so hard in order to shower money on corporations in order to cement their ties and allegiance to his right wing government and the neocons ambitions of US global domination.

To: Just_Observing who wrote (1563)	3/23/2003 6:18:57 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY veteransforcommonsense.org The author, Ray McGovern is a former CIA analyst who has written a terrific letter to the President. He's also featured on C-SPAN's coverage of the Anti-war teach-in Saturday at American University. c-span.org

To: Just_Observing who wrote (1563)	3/23/2003 9:30:06 AM
From: Doug R	Respond to of 21614

the Bush administration has called for the development of more “usable” nuclear weapons – mini-nukes that could be used in the “bunker-busting” role. Bush has also reserved the US’s right to mount a “pre-emptive” first nuclear strike against non-nuclear countries or threats. PNAC says – “In addition, there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries.” The Bush administration cancelled development of the next-generation Crusader artillery system, which PNAC called for (describing the system as “an unwise investment”), in order to free funds for other areas. There certainly appears to be much correlation between the report “Rebuilding America’s Defences – Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century” and Bush’s actions and policies. But if Bush is using this document as a basis for longer-term strategic policy then what else might the future bring? We need only look to this same document to find out. PNAC wants the global ‘Pax America’ maintained and strengthened long into the 21st century. To realize this PNAC recommends various practical steps to do this. Re-vamping, increasing and updating the US military are one of these steps. So to is the need for new, major bases in the South East Asia region (where the US lacks sufficient cover) and a major redeployment of forces to reflect 21st century needs. There are three regions that PNAC has highlighted. Europe would still be important but forces would be deployed further south, in the Balkan region, to avert any possible future instability in the area. Forces would also be reduced since Europe is free and peaceful, though they would have to remain to dispel European fears (especially German) over the US’s commitment to the continent. You get the impression that this is more to keep the Europeans dependent on US protection (and thus pre-empt any increased European defence role) rather than for Europe’s defence. Interestingly, PNAC said about this – “This is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense “identity” and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs.” Of course, the US was dead against the 60,000 strong European Rapid Reaction Force from day one, demanding (but not getting) that the force would be under Nato. The Europeans went ahead anyway, preferring to give Nato “first refusal” to any future regional crisis. The real function of the EU lead Rapid Reaction Force is to shut the US out of any future Kosovo or Bosnia-like crisis. Why? Because even Europe’s closest US ally, Britain, was appalled by the US breaking the UN weapons embargo on Yugoslavia, and its’ smuggling of arms – wholesale - to two of the factions. That, and elements of the Kosovo crisis, lead even the British to re-evaluate US interests in Europe, and caused them to push for the RRF alongside France. In return, Bush managed to get European Nato members to agree to a 20,000 strong Nato rapid reaction force. One diplomat called this an attempt to “divide and rule”. The Middle East policy is unfolding as we speak. ‘Regime change’ in Iraq is the justification, but not the end goal. A post-Saddam Iraq would not only give the US a huge permanent area of operation but would also allow for the deployment of a large US force in the region (on the same scale as the US deployment in Europe). Though Iraq and North Korea have been mentioned by PNAC for ‘regime change’, Iran has not. This raises the question on US intentions in Iran. Since the ‘threat’ posed by Iran, as stated by Bush and PNAC, are nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, the US might just sit back and bomb the relevant sites at will. Controlling Iraq might make invading Iran unnecessary. South East Asia is identified as the next “focus of strategic competition” and is key to “precluding the rise of a great power rival” (read China). PNAC stresses the need for new US bases (including a permanent base for aircraft carriers) in the region and a redeployment of US forces from North East Asia (Japan and South Korea) to South East Asia. The obvious regional target is China and its’ territorial claims in the region (Taiwan and the resource-rich South China Sea which is claimed by half a dozen countries). geocities.com