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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (167712)	4/14/2003 2:30:02 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583867

guardian.co.uk The rise of the Washington 'neo-cons' The Editor briefing Monday April 14, 2003 The Guardian A small group of rightwingers, known as neo-conservatives, is shaping US foreign policy. Who are they, and what is their agenda? Name some names. Deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz leads [their] forces at the Pentagon. Undersecretary Doug Feith Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is another well-placed hawk, as is neo-conservative high priest and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle. Chris Matthews in the San Francisco Chronicle, March 24, 2002 How did they get the name? Many of them started off as anti-Stalinist leftists or liberals. They are products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Michael Lind in the New Statesman, April 7 Any links to Likud? In 1996, Mr Perle, Mr Feith and David Wurmser joined in a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for "a clean break" with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace. They said: "Israel can shape its strategic environment by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." They called for "reestablishing the principle of preemption". From the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace website www.ceip.com, March 19 When did they start to influence George Bush? Their intellectual influence was felt in early decisions by President Bush to scrap the Kyoto protocols on the environment and a biological weapons convention. But their views counted even more as the administration shaped its response to the September 11 attacks. Gail Russell Chaddock in the Christian Science Monitor, April 9 Is President Bush a neo-conservative? George Bush has revealed himself to be not only a neo-conservative, but also a neo-isolationist. The nut meat of isolationism, old or neo-, is that the United States should be free of any and all international laws and the workings of any and all international institutions. There should be no lasting commitments thus, the United Nations is Anathema Maranatha. Nicholas Von Hoffman in the New York Observer, April 7 What are their main political ideas? They believe that "American leadership is good for America and good for the world". American defence spending is too low, and that as the only super power America must remain militarily unchallenged. Some neo-cons have updated the doctrine to suggest that the US has the right to pre-emptively deal with any state that has the temerity to come close. They insist America's mission is to bring democracy to the world. Mark Mardell for BBC News Online, April 2 And their Middle East plan? The US establishes a reasonably democratic, pro-western government in Iraq. When Palestinians see Iraqis beginning to enjoy real freedom and economic opportunity [they'll] demand the Palestinian Authority reform politically and negotiate with Israel. A democratic Iraq will also hasten the fall of the fundamentalist Shia mullahs in Iran, whose citizens are gradually adopting anti-fanatic, pro-western sympathies. Jordan's pro-western Hashemite monarchy would likely come into full bloom. Syria would be no more than a pale reminder of the bad old days. (If they made trouble, a US invasion would take care of them, too). The corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt would [look like] holdouts against the democratic tide. We could decide whether to ignore them as harmless throwbacks to the old days or deal with them, too. Joshua Micah Marshall in Washington Monthly, April Are they really for democracy? The [US] has all but acknowledged that it has failed to rebuild Afghanistan, but it insists Iraq will be different. I doubt it. Except in matters of national security, this is the most resolutely anti-government administration since the New Deal. Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post, March 31

To: tejek who wrote (167712)	4/14/2003 12:26:59 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583867

Indian defence minister joins Pakistan pre-emptive strike chorus Fri Apr 11, 5:53 AM ET JODHPUR, India (AFP) - Defence Minister George Fernandes reiterated Indian warnings that Pakistan was a prime case for pre-emptive strikes. "There are enough reasons to launch such strikes against Pakistan, but I cannot make public statements on whatever action that may be taken," Fernandes told a meeting of ex-soldiers in this northern Indian desert city on Friday. The renewed warning came just hours after US Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said Washington would strive to cool tensions between nuclear enemies Pakistan and India, who have fought three wars since 1947. Fernandes said he endorsed Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha's recent comments that India had "a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq (news - web sites)." Sinha also argued that Pakistan was "a fit case" for US military action, because it had weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. Fernandes also rejected Pakistani allegations that India had breached United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council resolutions from 1948 to 1957 which call for a plebiscite among Kashmiris to choose rule by India or Pakistan. "Pakistan has a habit of lying and the issue of cross-border terrorism is a serious issue," Fernandes said. India accuses Pakistan of arming and training Muslim militants in Kashmir (news - web sites). Islamabad denies the charge but says it offers moral and political support to what it describes as Kashmiris' legitimate struggle for self-expression. Around 38,000 people have died in Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, since the launch of the armed insurgency by Islamic guerrillas in 1989 in the Himalayan territory. Pakistan and India both claim the scenic region, which is divided between them by a ceasefire line known as the Line of Control, with Pakistan controlling the northern part and India the south.