Cops Soldiers Re: patriotism
At 12:13 PM -0800 4/3/03, joanna bujes wrote: The populist sentiment behind support for the troops seems to take root in the observation that they are just doing their jobs. (For those of you who have partaken of Hollywood's war films lately, that seems to be a common theme. There's no idealism...there are no political or other goalsone does one's job to protect one's fellow fighters. Beginning, middle, and end.) In the same way, it strikes me that the fervor behind supporting the troops has less to do with political goals than it has to do with the working class actually being able to defend the only positive image of itself that the government is willing to back. It's as if criticizing our troops is the equivalent of attacking the working man for doing his job. It's as if the working class having been identified as losers for the last twenty years (cause anyone who doesn't make it is a loser) has at last found a space within which it can win, and it doesn't want that domain or that credit taken away from it. It wants a kill and it wants a victory and it doesn't want to be criticized for just doing their job. The government goes out of its way to support the positive image of police officers -- law enforcement is another job that working-class individuals may take. Many -- perhaps the majority of -- Americans also uphold the positive image of cops: e.g., they are reluctant to condemn and convict cops. And yet, US leftists do not take the same deferential attitudes to cops as they do to soldiers and veterans. Why is that? At 12:13 PM -0800 4/3/03, joanna bujes wrote: But now the leftists are to blame because they can't cut through this mindless crap? I don't think so, but more thinking on the subject is warranted. At 12:13 PM -0800 4/3/03, joanna bujes wrote: It was not judicious of De Genova to call for a thousand Mogadishus, but sometimes I wonder what it will take to wake up this country from its deadly and dangerous sleep. US leftists have yet to experience a complete collapse of the US empire in a way that Japanese leftists have. Once liberated from the burdens of the empire, I think US leftists will also begin to regard nationalist symbols that signify imperialism as Japanese leftists do. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
Carlyle Group etc.
http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=US%20arms%20group%20heads%20for%2 0Lisbonedition=697 FRONT PAGE STORY - 05/04/2003 US arms group heads for Lisbon Directors of one of the world's largest armament companies are planning on meeting in Lisbon in three weeks time. The American based Carlyle Group is heavily involved in supplying arms to the Coalition forces fighting in the Iraqi war. It also holds a majority of shares in the Seven Up company and Federal Data Corporation, supplier of air traffic control surveillance systems to the US Federal Aviation Authority. The 12 billion dollar company has recently signed contracts with United Defence Industries to equip the Turkish and Saudi Arabian armies with aviation defence systems. Top of the meeting's agenda is expected to be the company's involvement in the rebuilding of Baghdad's infrastructure after the cessation of current hostilities. Along with several other US companies, the Carlyle Group is expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract by the US Government to help in the redevelopment of airfields and urban areas destroyed by Coalition aerial bombardments. The Group is managed by a team of former US Government personnel including its president Frank Carlucci, former deputy director of the CIA before becoming Defence Secretary. His deputy is James Baker II, who was Secretary of State under George Bush senior. Several high profile former politicians are employed to represent the company overseas, among them John Major, former British Prime Minister, along with George Bush senior, one time CIA director before becoming US President. The financial assets of the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC) are also managed by the Carlyle Group. The SBC is headed up by members of Osama bin Laden's family, who played a principle role in helping George W. Bush win petroleum concessions from Bahrain when he was head of the Texan oil company, Harken Energy Corporation - a deal that was to make the Bush family millions of dollars. Salem, Osama bin Laden's brother, was represented on Harken's board of directors by his American agent, James R. Bath. The connection between the Bush and bin Laden families can also be traced to the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the 1990s. Members of the Anglo Pakistani bank's board of directors included Richard Helmes and William Casey, business partners of George Bush senior and former CIA agents. During their time at BCCI both Helmes and Casey worked alongside fellow director, Adnan Khasshoggi, who also represented the bin Laden family's interests in the US. The Portugal News has been told by a reliable source that the Carlyle Group meeting in Lisbon will discuss the relationship between the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC) and Osama bin Laden. Many US officials claim that the SBC continues to finance his political activities, and has done so for many years. If true, this would place George Bush senior and his colleagues at the Carlyle Group in an embarrassing position. As managers of SBC's financial investments they might well be accused of indirectly aiding and abetting the United States' number one enemy. Also today: Front page (North) Korea Herald http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2003/04/05/200304050040.asp Senior Bush due April 14 Former U.S. President George Bush will be visiting South Korea April 14 through April 16 at the invitation of the Federation of Korean Industries, the federation said in a statement yesterday. While in Seoul, Bush will meet with local business leaders, including FKI Chairman Son Kil-seung, to discuss pending bilateral economic and trade issues, the FKI explained. The FKI said it will try to communicate South Korea's support for the U.S.-led efforts in Iraq and emphasize that the country is not heading for another economic crisis. The former U.S. president will participate in a luncheon briefing with business leaders and key government officials April 15, said an FKI official. Bush's visit, following the latest decision by Seoul to dispatch troops to Iraq, will clarify the ever-closer U.S.-Korean ties, helping to dissipate foreign concerns about lingering security threats in Korea, he argued. ___
Re: Cops Soldiers Re: patriotism
On Saturday, April 5, 2003 at 08:49:41 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: ... The government goes out of its way to support the positive image of police officers -- law enforcement is another job that working-class individuals may take. Many -- perhaps the majority of -- Americans also uphold the positive image of cops: e.g., they are reluctant to condemn and convict cops. And yet, US leftists do not take the same deferential attitudes to cops as they do to soldiers and veterans. Why is that? ... Cops beat leftists regularly, soldiers don't? I don't know about leftists, but this assumes that the attitude toward soldiers is deference. That's not what I feel, and what I feel toward them is what I feel toward police officers. The stance toward them should be the same: they are both pawns, usually non-wealthy, fed intensive propaganda, left largely ignorant of the big picture, and placed in often dangerous situations where it is nearly impossible to do the morally correct thing. They should be held responsible for their actions, but those who direct them, set the scope of their activities, etc., deserve far, far more condemnation. Bill
Re: patriotism and car saga (II)
Devine, James wrote: Of course, the reason why I'm so auto-centric is that here in Los Angeles, the way people express their individuality is through their vehicles (so that those without cars don't have individuality). (BTW, my car is a 2001 Toyota Prius.) your futile attempt to escape the liberal bourgeoisie lable has been noted and found seriously lacking. you shall be assimilated, comrade! ;-) --ravi
The Internal War
Im not clear how this decision process works. The article speaks of the Pentagon vetoing a State Dept. list. Are there formal rules or is it a backroom brawl without even regulation gloves? Didn't Blair get to enforce Marquis of Queensbury Rules? Cheers, Ken Hanly http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=394156 Turf war rages in Washington over who will rule Iraq By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 05 April 2003 The Bush administration was scrambling to finalise an interim government for post-war Iraq yesterday, amid a turf war pitting the Pentagon and the Vice-President's office against the State Department and Congress in Washington. The battle concerns not only the American officials who will supervise the new ministries, but the role of exiled Iraqi leaders and the extent of United Nations involvement. Above all, it is a struggle between Colin Powell's State Department and the Pentagon of Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, supported by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President. With victory in Iraq in sight, the names of the Americans who will supervise new ministries to replace the existing 23in the crumbling regime of Saddam Hussein are still far from certain. Last week the Pentagon vetoed a State Department list of eight nominees, but whether the rejection is final is not clear. In Kuwait, a group of potential US ministers is waiting to learn if it will be working under Jay Garner, a retired American general designated head of non-military operations in immediate post-war Iraq. These officials include former US ambassadors to Arab countries such as Barbara Bodine, a former envoy to Yemen, and Timothy Carney, who served in Sudan and Robert Reilly, a former director of the Voice of America radio station. A number of British officials are said to be working with them Mr Reilly is said to be working with Iraqi exiles on broadcasting arrangements in the future Iraq. But other possible ministers-in-waiting have been marooned in Washington by the disputes between the Pentagon and the State Department. A candidate to run the Information Ministry - at least in the eyes of the Pentagon faction - is James Woolsey, a former CIA director in the Clinton administration and among the earliest and most vocal advocates of force to topple President Saddam. Mr Woolsey is also a strong supporter of Ahmed Chalabi, the most high profile of the Iraqi opposition leaders in exile, for an important role in post-war Iraq. But in recent days a new front in the Washington bureaucratic war has opened up over Mr Chalabi. Mr Rumsfeld, in an attempt to outmanoeuvre the State Department, which is deeply suspicious of Mr Chalabi, sent memos to President George Bush urging that an interim government led by exile leaders be set up in coalition- controlled southern Iraq, irrespective of what happened in Baghdad. Mr Rumsfeld's move is likely to meet powerful objections from the State Department, which doubts Mr Chalabi has much support inside a country he left as a child of 11 in 1956. But the move spotlights the deep uncertainty over which Iraqis should be involved in the ministries, and the balance between exiles and civil servants who held senior positions under the Saddam regime. The quarrelling in Washington is also an increasing concern to neutral Iraqi figures, who see it not only as a distraction from the task of rebuilding, but as a sign that, for all the assurances to the contrary, Washington does indeed have neo-colonialist designs. On Thursday, Congress entered the fray on General Powell's side, when the Senate and House of Representatives insisted the State Department should have full control of the $2.5bn (£1.6bn) reconstruction money contained in the $80bn emergency war spending bill due to be sent to Mr Bush for signature next week. A Senate bill explicitly forbids the $2.5bn being used for any Department of Defence activity. General Powell said this week that coalition members - primarily the US - would perforce take early charge in Iraq. But he has sounded much more open than the Pentagon to greater UN involvement later on. Ultimately the wrangling will probably have to be resolved by Mr Bush. His decisions will shape foreign perceptions of US intentions in Iraq. They will also determine whether foreign policy is conducted by the State Department or its traditional rival department across the Potomac river. The contenders fighting for control Paul Wolfowitz The deputy secretary of defence, and leading neo-conservative in the Bush administration, who for a decade has advocated forcible regime changein Iraq. Barbara Bodine A former US ambassador to Yemen when the USS Cole was attacked in October 2000. She refused to allow the controversial top FBI anti-terrorist investigator John O'Neil into the country. Timothy Carney US ambassador to Sudan from August 1995 to November 1997, and closely involved in unsuccessful American efforts to apprehend Osama bin Laden,
RE: Re: patriotism and car saga (II)
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36621] Re: patriotism and car saga (II) Ravi writes to me: your futile attempt to escape the liberal bourgeoisie lable has been noted and found seriously lacking. you shall be assimilated, comrade! ;-) - resistance is futile? Jim
US/Iraq vs. Iraq/Kuwait
Title: US/Iraq vs. Iraq/Kuwait in all of the anti-war slogans, posters, literature, etc., I've never noticed anyone saying that the legal and moral status of the US invasion of Iraq is exactly on the same level as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait 13 years or so ago: it's an illegal grab for oil and power. Of course, this shouldn't be surprising: after all, until his government invaded Kuwait, Saddam had been a U.S. ally for about 10 years. Jim
Re: The Internal War
k hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im not clear how this decision process works. The article speaks of thePentagon vetoing a State Dept. list. Are there formal rules or is it abackroom brawl without even regulation gloves? Didn't Blair get to enforceMarquis of Queensbury Rules?Cheers, Ken Hanlyhttp://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=394156Turf war rages in Washington over who will rule IraqBy Rupert Cornwell in Washington05 April 2003 * * * It's a brawl. If there are rules, they're being ignored. Look, in the Mousasuoi trial, the govt says that if the defense makes the judge make the prosecution abide the rules (public trial, disclosure of potentially exculpaory evidence), they'll cancel the fed ct trial and have the defendant framed, er, tried in a kangaroo military tribunal where they don't need to use those rules. Can they do that? See if you can stop them. jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
rally 'round the flag
Title: rally 'round the flag [from SLATE's on-line news summary] A new LA [TIMES] poll shows healthy if not universal support for Bush and the war. His approval rating is up to 68 percent, while two-thirds of liberals and 70 percent of Democrats now support the decision to fight. What's more, about half favor picking off some more Middle Eastern countries (Syria and Iran) if they help Iraq or develop nuclear weapons (respectively). Two-thirds, however, are opposed to the Bush tax cut, even the scaled back, Senate-approved version. Jim
RE: RE: Re: patriotism and car saga (II)
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36623] RE: Re: patriotism and car saga (II) Ravi writes to me: your futile attempt to escape the liberal bourgeoisie lable has been noted and found seriously lacking. you shall be assimilated, comrade! ;-) - I wrote: resistance is futile? - since Ravi brought up the topic of the Borg, I should mention that my family's identity was for a long time defined by the Borgward my parents drove. (Borgward is a now-defunct German car company.) Jim
academic angst
Title: academic angst from MS SLATE's on-line summary of major US newspapers Finally, the NY [TIMES] fronts the growing divide on college campuses between peace-loving professors, many of them veterans of the Vietnam era, and their hawkish, right-leaning students. The piece focuses largely on Amherst, where 40 professors appeared in a dining hall holding antiwar signs. Students objected vociferously and some shoving ensued. In Madison, teach-ins were as common as bratwurst, opines an Amherst prof. There was a certain nobility in being gassed. Now you don't get gassed. You walk into a dining hall and hand out an informational pamphlet. And get shoved by a 19-year-old, which is, presumably, in no way ennobling. JD
Re: academic angst
Devine, James wrote: from MS SLATE's on-line summary of major US newspapers Finally, the NY [TIMES] fronts the growing divide on college campuses between peace-loving professors, many of them veterans of the Vietnam era, and their hawkish, right-leaning students. The piece focuses largely on Amherst, where 40 professors appeared in a dining hall holding antiwar signs. Students objected vociferously and some shoving ensued. In Madison, teach-ins were as common as bratwurst, opines an Amherst prof. There was a certain nobility in being gassed. Now you don't get gassed. You walk into a dining hall and hand out an informational pamphlet. And get shoved by a 19-year-old, which is, presumably, in no way ennobling. You'd never know from reading this article that there's been an explosion of activism on U.S. campuses over the last 5 years. What planet does the newspaper of record live on? Doug
Re: Re: academic angst
I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Chico we have some wonderful activist students, but at the same time, I guess that about 30-40% of my students in my introductory classes accept the Saddam-World Trade Center connection on some level or another. There is a sort of why would they lie to us about weapons of mass destruction attitude. I have not seen any evidence of right wing, confrontational actions yet. On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 11:47:12AM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Devine, James wrote: from MS SLATE's on-line summary of major US newspapers Finally, the NY [TIMES] fronts the growing divide on college campuses between peace-loving professors, many of them veterans of the Vietnam era, and their hawkish, right-leaning students. The piece focuses largely on Amherst, where 40 professors appeared in a dining hall holding antiwar signs. Students objected vociferously and some shoving ensued. In Madison, teach-ins were as common as bratwurst, opines an Amherst prof. There was a certain nobility in being gassed. Now you don't get gassed. You walk into a dining hall and hand out an informational pamphlet. And get shoved by a 19-year-old, which is, presumably, in no way ennobling. You'd never know from reading this article that there's been an explosion of activism on U.S. campuses over the last 5 years. What planet does the newspaper of record live on? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: academic angst
In my case, 375 student elite liberal arts college, the ratio is around 20%. Until I suggested/provoked the students to cancel the classess and organize a teach-in there was no visible activity on campus --they seemed a bit paralyzed. There has been always a small group of militant ones (20 or so) , going to every demonstrations (even being arrested, etc.). On the other hand, the situation is radically different on Bard campus. Very visible and active presence of anti-war students is felt everywhere, including their very well organized teach-in, 25-30% of the student body's militant participation in demos. Michael Perelman wrote: I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Chico we have some wonderful activist students, but at the same time, I guess that about 30-40% of my students in my introductory classes accept the Saddam-World Trade Center connection on some level or another. There is a sort of why would they lie to us about weapons of mass destruction attitude. I have not seen any evidence of right wing, confrontational actions yet. On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 11:47:12AM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: Devine, James wrote: from MS SLATE's on-line summary of major US newspapers Finally, the NY [TIMES] fronts the growing divide on college campuses between peace-loving professors, many of them veterans of the Vietnam era, and their hawkish, right-leaning students. The piece focuses largely on Amherst, where 40 professors appeared in a dining hall holding antiwar signs. Students objected vociferously and some shoving ensued. In Madison, teach-ins were as common as bratwurst, opines an Amherst prof. There was a certain nobility in being gassed. Now you don't get gassed. You walk into a dining hall and hand out an informational pamphlet. And get shoved by a 19-year-old, which is, presumably, in no way ennobling. You'd never know from reading this article that there's been an explosion of activism on U.S. campuses over the last 5 years. What planet does the newspaper of record live on? Doug -- E. Ahmet Tonak Professor of Economics Simon's Rock College of Bard 84 Alford Road Great Barrington, MA 01230 Tel: 413 528 7488 Fax: 413 528 7365 www.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak
Re: Re: academic angst
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Devine, James wrote: from MS SLATE's on-line summary of major US newspapers Finally, the NY [TIMES] fronts the growing divide on college campuses between peace-loving professors, many of them veterans of the Vietnam era, and their hawkish, right-leaning students. The piece focuses largely on Amherst, where 40 professors appeared in a dining hall holding antiwar signs. Students objected vociferously and some shoving ensued. In Madison, teach-ins were as common as bratwurst, opines an Amherst prof. There was a certain nobility in being gassed. Now you don't get gassed. You walk into a dining hall and hand out an informational pamphlet. And get shoved by a 19-year-old, which is, presumably, in no way ennobling. You'd never know from reading this article that there's been an explosion of activism on U.S. campuses over the last 5 years. What planet does the newspaper of record live on? Doug Doug, I don't know how you can quarrel with the central point of the NY Times article -- namely, that campus antiwar fervor is nowhere near what it was during the Vietnam war. Are the leftist profs quoted in this article simply hallucinating when they talk about today's students as conservative sludge? Why, the article even sports your favorite stuff -- ;-) -- survey data: A nationwide survey of freshmen by the University of California at Los Angeles over the last 37 years reflected other shifts from Sept. 11. This year, more students called themselves conservative than in other recent surveys, and 45 percent supported an increase in military spending, more than double the percentage in 1993. Carl _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Re: Cops Soldiers Re: patriotism
Bill Lear wrote: On Saturday, April 5, 2003 at 08:49:41 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: ... The government goes out of its way to support the positive image of police officers -- law enforcement is another job that working-class individuals may take. Many -- perhaps the majority of -- Americans also uphold the positive image of cops: e.g., they are reluctant to condemn and convict cops. And yet, US leftists do not take the same deferential attitudes to cops as they do to soldiers and veterans. Why is that? ... Cops beat leftists regularly, soldiers don't? I don't know about leftists, but this assumes that the attitude toward soldiers is deference. That's not what I feel, and what I feel toward them is what I feel toward police officers. The stance toward them should be the same: they are both pawns, usually non-wealthy, fed intensive propaganda, left largely ignorant of the big picture, and placed in often dangerous situations where it is nearly impossible to do the morally correct thing. They should be held responsible for their actions, but those who direct them, set the scope of their activities, etc., deserve far, far more condemnation. I think it worthwhile to make a distinction. I forget the name of the military unit involved, but it was the main army unit held in reserve in the United States during the Vietnam War -- stationed, I believe, in Oklahoma. In the summer of 1968 before the DP convention apparently there was some consideration of using a battalion from that unit for riot control in Chicago. But it had a high proportion of black soldiers. The decision not to use them was based on fear that they could not be depended on to obey orders! Similarly, State Police forces were first created in the late 19th century because in many states it was felt that the National Guard, who individually lived when not on duty in working-class neighborhoods, could not be trusted for strike breaking. Also, in a late essay Engels, speaking of street fighting in case of insurrection, argues that the insurrectionary forces need not be able to win; they must only be able to hold out long enough for the troops to change sides. (That happened in both the Russian and Iranian revolutions.) So your first suggestion -- Cops beat leftists regularly, soldiers don't? -- could be modified to say (less succinctly):Cops can be trusted to beat leftists regularly, soldiers can't always be? I don't know how the switch to an all-volunteer (mercenary) army has changed this??? Carrol Bill
To Bill Lear: re soldiers cops
Bill writes: The stance toward them should be the same: they are both pawns, usually non-wealthy, fed intensive propaganda, left largely ignorant of the big picture, and placed in often dangerous situations where it is nearly impossible to do the morally correct thing. They should be held responsible for their actions, but those who direct them, set the scope of their activities, etc., deserve far, far more condemnation. Comment: Agree they are 'both pawns'. That sort of terminology brings up the further point: Without 'turning' both of them, the left will be gunned down. It was a key part of the military tactics of prior revolutionaries to incorporate that thinking. H
Re: Re: Re: academic angst
Michael Perelman wrote: I guess that about 30-40% of my students in my introductory classes accept the Saddam-World Trade Center connection on some level or another. Hey, look on the bright side - that's well below the general population! Doug
Re: Re: Re: academic angst
Michael Perelman wrote: I guess that about 30-40% of my students in my introductory classes accept the Saddam-World Trade Center connection on some level or another. Ask them how many Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers. Only 17% of the U.S. pop correctly answers 0. Doug
Models of Bring 'em down
re-posted from ISML list ___ THE STRATFOR WEEKLY 03 April 2003 by Dr. George Friedman Baghdad Summary From the beginning of the war-planning process, Baghdad posed the greatest challenge. The United States does not want to fight an urban battle, but the conquest of Iraq cannot be complete without the fall of Baghdad. The initial U.S. action -- trying to kill Saddam Hussein -- was designed to trigger a political capitulation that would make a battle for Baghdad unnecessary; it didn't. Iraqi resistance may collapse simply out from attacks and internal weakness. But if this doesn't happen, three war-fighting models will be available. One is the fall of Paris in 1944 -- the favored U.S. strategy. The second is the siege of Budapest in 1944-45 -- six weeks of encirclement and bombardment, with civilian casualties. The third is the fall of Berlin in 1945, with the attackers losing almost 80,000 men in three days. Berlin is out of the question. Paris is the model the United States wants, but the danger is that it will slip into a Budapest mode. Analysis Any discussion of the war in Iraq has always turned on the conquest of Baghdad. The capital city is the heart of Iraq. It is the country's political, administrative and structural center. The fall of Baghdad does not necessarily mean that all resistance will immediately end in the rest of Iraq. However, without the fall of Baghdad, this war cannot end. The fall of Baghdad has always been the central challenge facing U.S. war planners. Baghdad is a world-class city in terms of size and population, with more than 5 million people. The U.S. Army has never taken a city of this size in the face of significant opposition. Few armies have done so. In direct assault, capturing a large city against resistance tends to cause large casualties among the attacking forces. In 1945, the Red Army had Berlin completely surrounded; it had complete air superiority and massed artillery. The city was held by the defeated remnants of the German army, including large contingents of young boys and old men poorly armed and ill-trained. The Soviets were battle-hardened veterans. Moreover, the Soviets had no compunctions about nor political liabilities attached to causing massive casualties among the civilian population. They controlled the pattern and tempo of the offensive. Nevertheless, in the direct assault on Berlin, the experienced Soviet forces suffered nearly 80,000 dead and close to a quarter-million wounded in about three days of fighting. There are other strategies for subduing large cities. In 1944-45, the Red Army surrounded Budapest for six weeks, pounding it with artillery fire and aerial bombardment, before entering the city. By the time Soviet forces entered the heart of the city, resistance had collapsed. The siege took weeks and cost countless civilian lives, but Soviet losses were relatively light, compared to other battles fought. Other battles for cities ended poorly for the attacker: The Germans failed to take either Leningrad or Stalingrad after investing heavily in both battles. The point is that urban warfare is one of the most difficult exercises in warfare, and most armies avoid direct assaults on cities, since these are risky operations and almost invariably carry high casualty rates. This is particularly true in large cities. Moreover, in a war in which civilian casualties represent a significant political consideration, an assault on a city is generally to be avoided. The United States did take one world-class city in its history: Paris in 1944. It took the city with very light casualties to either its forces or to the civilian population, despite the fact that German troops had garrisoned the city. The key was political, not military. The German high command had ordered that troops resist and that they carry out a scorched-earth policy, in which defeat would mean the catastrophic destruction of the city. The local German commanders neither resisted nor carried out the order. Rather, they capitulated. The United States was able to occupy the city without assaulting it. Indeed, if an assault had been necessary, Eisenhower would have insisted on bypassing Paris. He was not about to engage in high-intensity conflict in a city the size of Paris. Paris was as much about politics as about warfare. The German commanders in Paris command were disaffected with the German political leadership. They were certain that the war was lost. Neither the commanders nor the troops were eager to die for a hopeless cause, and the commanders were aware that not only would the Allies hold them accountable for the destruction of Paris, but that a peaceful capitulation of Paris would put them in an excellent position in a postwar world dominated by the United States and its allies. The negotiations that occurred took place not between the Allied high
Re: Re: Re: Re: academic angst
e. ahmet tonak wrote: In my case, 375 student elite liberal arts college, the ratio is around 20%. That's one hell of a lot larger a percentage than was ever achieved in the '60s. Clearly today's students are far more activist than were the students of the '60s. Carrol
Red Cross views many civilian casualties
Red Cross Horrified by Number of Dead Civilians Canadian Press Friday 4 April 2003 OTTAWA - Red Cross doctors who visited southern Iraq this week saw incredible levels of civilian casualties including a truckload of dismembered women and children, a spokesman said Thursday from Baghdad. Roland Huguenin, one of six International Red Cross workers in the Iraqi capital, said doctors were horrified by the casualties they found in the hospital in Hilla, about 160 kilometres south of Baghdad. There has been an incredible number of casualties with very, very serious wounds in the region of Hilla, Huguenin said in a interview by satellite telephone. We saw that a truck was delivering dozens of totally dismembered dead bodies of women and children. It was an awful sight. It was really very difficult to believe this was happening. Huguenin said the dead and injured in Hilla came from the village of Nasiriyah, where there has been heavy fighting between American troops and Iraqi soldiers, and appeared to be the result of bombs, projectiles. At this stage we cannot comment on the nature of what happened exactly at that place . . . but it was definitely a different pattern from what we had seen in Basra or Baghdad. There will be investigations I am sure. Baghdad and Basra are coping relatively well with the flow of wounded, said Huguenin, estimating that Baghdad hospitals have been getting about 100 wounded a day. Most of the wounded in the two large cities have suffered superficial shrapnel wounds, with only about 15 per cent requiring internal surgery, he said. But the pattern in Hilla was completely different. In the case of Hilla, everybody had very serious wounds and many, many of them small kids and women. We had small toddlers of two or three years of age who had lost their legs, their arms. We have called this a horror. At least 400 people were taken to the Hilla hospital over a period of two days, he said -- far beyond its capacity. Doctors worked around the clock to do as much as they could. They just had to manage, that was all. The city is no longer accessible, he added. Red Cross staff are also concerned about what may be happening in other smaller centres south of Baghdad. We do not know what is going on in Najaf and Kabala. It has become physically impossible for us to reach out to those cities because the major road has become a zone of combat. The Red Cross was able to claim one significant success this week: it played a key role in re-establishing water supplies at Basra. Power for a water-pumping station had been accidentally knocked out in the attack on the city, leaving about a million people without water. Iraqi technicians couldn't reach the station to repair it because it was under coalition control. The Red Cross was able to negotiate safe passage for a group of Iraqi engineers who crossed the fire line and made repairs. Basra now has 90 per cent of its normal water supply, said Huguenin. Huguenin, a Swiss, is one of six international Red Cross workers still in Baghdad. The team includes two Canadians, Vatche Arslanian of Oromocto, N.B., and Kassandra Vartell of Calgary. The Red Cross expects the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to grow and is calling for donations to help cope. The Red Cross Web site is: http://www.redcross.ca/ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) Print This Story E-mail This Story © : t r u t h o u t 2003
Re: Query Re: Anti-War Activist Demographics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/03 00:06 AM Taking stock of anti-war activists in Columbus, OH informally, I've concluded that the overwhelming majority of formal and informal leaders/organizers of the Columbus anti-war activist scene are either employed in the public sector, employed in the quango sector, or self-employed. Is this anti-war activist demographic profile unique to Columbus, OH? Or is it also true of your local activist demographics? Does any sociological research exist on this topic? -- Yoshie self employed, teachers, social workers, psychologists in orlando where about 50 people (not always same folks) regularly attend protests at major intersection... seems like most who honk are doing so in support, more minorities appear to flash peace signs... somewhat older group of about 2 dozen in my temporary adopted home of ocala (where lots of military retirees have settled)... michael hoover mostly quakers...
the political business cycle and capacity utilization
For Bush, Time to Mend Economy Is Running Out By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, April 5, 2003; Page A01 The Labor Department's report yesterday that the U.S. economy shed 108,000 jobs in March underscored an emerging threat to President Bush's reelection prospects: He is running out of time to restore jobs and economic growth. The job losses in March, more than double the number analysts had expected, mean nearly 2.1 million jobs have been lost since Bush took office. Though the unemployment rate held steady at 5.8 percent in March, the private sector has lost more than 2.6 million jobs during Bush's term -- a drop that has been offset only by increased government hiring. For Bush, this is not a short-term problem. He enjoys broad popularity as a war leader, and victory in Iraq would likely give him another boost. But, as happened to President George H.W. Bush in 1992, such support can diminish fast in a sluggish economy. Although the election is 19 months away, it can take a long time to restore growth and jobs. Administration economists, and many outside of government, had hoped that a quick victory in Iraq would give a boost to the stock market and to consumer confidence, reigniting the economy. Some still expect this scenario. But increasingly, they are describing the economic problems as broader and more difficult to solve, regardless of how soon the war ends. The problem is not with the concern about the Iraq war. The problem is the underlying weakness with the economy, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said in Orlando on Thursday. Asked about the possibility of a return to recession, he said that we need to guard against it because of a clear weakness. As a general rule, administration officials and private economists say, the economy needs to be growing by more than 3 percent -- and possibly well above -- for jobs to be added. Economists and political strategists also assume that such growth must be firmly in place by the second quarter of an election year for voters to feel the effects by Election Day. And, Bush aides say, because it takes nine months for the full benefit of a new economic stimulus plan to be felt, policymakers have little time to spare. The rule of thumb is second-quarter GDP [gross domestic product] growth in the presidential election year has to be above 3 percent, said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who was a chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan. That's why everything this year is driven toward next year's second-quarter GDP. If Bush's $726 billion tax cut is enacted in June, it will come just in time for the all-important 2004 second quarter. Given where the economy is and where it looks like the economy is going to be in the near future, our instructions are to get this growing as soon as possible, a senior administration official said yesterday. Some believe the time has passed to influence the 2004 economy. If you're talking about boosting the economy in a year, it's too late for that, said the Urban Institute's Rudolph G. Penner, director of the Congressional Budget Office during the Reagan administration. By historical measures, it takes two quarters of growth of about 3 percent to produce a large increase in jobs. That means Bush would need the economy to be humming by the fourth quarter of this year. There is still a chance that could happen. The firm Macroeconomic Advisers wrote in a report last week that it expects 4.4 percent growth in the second half of this year because a favorable outcome in Iraq . . . will be followed by improvements in business, investor and consumer confidence. But that notion is much disputed. I have no evidence that the start or finish of the war with Iraq has anything to do with the economy, said John H. Makin, a conservative economist with the American Enterprise Institute. As a result, Makin said, there really is some urgency for this White House. The cost of the war in Iraq has led to an effort to halve Bush's $726 billion tax cut, but even if he gets all of it, Makin said, it will inject only about $70 billion into the economy. Deduct from that cutbacks in state and local government spending, and the stimulus to the economy will be well below half one percent of the gross domestic product. That's not a magical elixir, and people aren't in a mood to spend it, anyway, he said. Some say Bush should restructure his tax cut to drop the dividend tax elimination, which accounts for half of the package but provides a negligible economic boost in the short term. Rather than shoehorning the dividend plan in, they should be trying to shoehorn in the most amount of economic stimulus, said Bill Dudley, chief U.S. economist for Goldman Sachs. Still, Dudley said, I don't see any sign that they're changing their approach. The policies don't change even when circumstances change, and the economy is a good bit weaker than many people thought three or six months ago. Although the White House has not made any adjustment to
the political economy of branding
http://www.freep.com/money/business/food4_20030404.htm Europeans find fraud in what U.S. calls food Regions claim rights to Pilsener, bologna April 4, 2003 BY TOSIN SULAIMAN FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF WASHINGTON -- There's a global food fight coming. European food producers want the rest of the world to stop selling cheese labeled Parmesan unless it comes from Parma, Italy. They insist that only Pilsener beer brewed in the Czech Republic carry that description. They say bologna must hail from the Italian city of Bologna to be worthy of the name. For U.S. food makers, who for years have traded on the fame of the world's most celebrated regional fare when naming their products, it's a real problem. The United States already protects some products with roots in specific European regions -- for example, cognac must come from France -- but the Europeans now want this protection extended to hundreds of food products ranging from Greek feta cheese to traditionally produced balsamic vinegar from Italy's Modena and Reggio Emilia provinces. Under one proposal, food inspectors from Italy might inspect America's 50,000 Italian restaurants to ensure they use authentic ingredients and methods. The World Trade Organization, which sets rules for international commerce, plans formal talks on the issue at its ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in September. Some observers believe that the Europeans will end up trading their determination to protect regional food specialties for, say, U.S. tolerance of their subsidies to domestic moviemakers. Others say the Europeans are in no mood to compromise with Americans. Europeans have yet to issue a list of U.S. products to which they object, but the prospect has U.S. companies nervously contemplating the cost of renaming products that Americans have adopted as their own -- and rebuilding those products' reputations from scratch. European legislation provides protection for up to 600 food products that are historically linked to a particular location, known as Geographical Indications. The new effort seeks to end what the European Community contends is the fraud caused when foreign companies seize indigenous names and their well-earned reputations. U.S. companies counter that terms such as Black Forest ham and linguica sausage have become widely used and generic since they were brought over by German and Portuguese immigrants, respectively. These are things we started producing when we first got here, said Sarah Thorn, director of international trade at the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Francesco Forte of the commercial office at the Italian Embassy said U.S. companies using Italian names are trying to exploit the reputation of the Italian product to sell theirs. As well as confusing consumers, Forte claims that this food forgery harms Italian exports by reducing the market share of Italian products and threatening their good names. If people aren't satisfied with them, they'll think they're from Italy. The experience of the Danes is the U.S. producers' nightmare. Last year, the European Union prohibited non-Greek cheese producers from using the term feta, a decision that Denmark, the world's leading producer of feta, is challenging. According to Eleanor Meltzer of the U.S. Commerce Department's Patent and Trademark Office, if American-made products such as Parmesan were to suffer a similar fate, consumers as well as manufacturers would lose. Companies would lose their market share. You or I wouldn't know what they were selling. They would have to re-label their products and educate us. Italian-made Parmesan, Thorn said, would cost three times as much as what you're used to. That wouldn't help consumers. She and Meltzer point out that the U.S. trademark system protects some imported foods. Roquefort cheese, Parma ham and Darjeeling tea from India all enjoy protection under this system. Thorn said the United States is willing to discuss trademark improvements yet maintains that for developing countries such as India and Thailand, who want protection for basmati rice and jasmine rice, the best route is to apply for a trademark. Under the system, makers or dealers gain legal protection for the symbols, words and designs that distinguish their products from competitors. Forte says this is not sufficient for the Europeans. If I'm the first one to register a trademark with the name of Prosciutto di Parma, according to trademark laws I have protection. The only one allowed to use it is the one who registered first. For that reason, private negotiations were taking place to persuade the trademark owners here to give up their rights, he said. U.S. food companies say the European Union does little to protect U.S. food terms. A state agency representing Idaho Potatoes failed in its attempt to challenge a trademark registration given to a French company bearing the Idaho name, they said. The reason: Idaho is not part of the EU and has no standing with its agencies.
Re: To Bill Lear: re soldiers cops
Bill writes: The stance toward them should be the same: they are both pawns, usually non-wealthy, fed intensive propaganda, left largely ignorant of the big picture, and placed in often dangerous situations where it is nearly impossible to do the morally correct thing. They should be held responsible for their actions, but those who direct them, set the scope of their activities, etc., deserve far, far more condemnation. Comment: Agree they are 'both pawns'. That sort of terminology brings up the further point: Without 'turning' both of them, the left will be gunned down. It was a key part of the military tactics of prior revolutionaries to incorporate that thinking. H Comment I seriously doubt that the "left will be gunned down" as such. Social revolution is not ideological but involves ideology. Ideology is not politics. An enormous section of the antiwar movement is not "Left wing." We cannot travel more than a step ahead of what is shaping up to be a social movement, unlike anything the world has seen before. People pick sides and sides change as the nature of the social process. Carl Stokes was elected the first African American mayor of Cleveland Ohio in 1967. Whites with baseball bats were attacking black kids walking through their changing neighborhood and one of the whites was stabbed to death. The stabber was eventually acquitted on the basis of self-defense. A white mob prepared to storm the mayor's mansion. When white police officers said they could not stop the mob, the black police officers who had organized themselves to protect the Mayor warned the white officers they would open up on the crowd with automatic weapons if the mob crossed the last street between them and the mansion. Black police were defending the black representative of the black community and slogans like Black Power expressed this political reality. He mob did not cross the last barrier. In Detroit, the Black Police officers became organized during this period and on many occasions had to draw their weapons and threaten to shot white officers trying to run us down in automobiles or beat us. During this time frame and a little later the old League of Revolutionary Black Workers had many contacts in the Police Department who would alert us of foul plans by any section of the department. Then there were the armed demonstrations in downtown Detroit on behalf of the white officers complaining about the policy of Mayor Coleman Young. I also remember the police riots in New Orleans during the early 1980s. All the "old heads" remember the South, and the process of the state power fighting itself to realign the social infrastructure and itself on the basis of the changes in the productive forces. One also recall's Kent State and soldiers following their "orders." The police force and soldiers are subject to and respond to the social processes in society, and more often than not are compelled to pick sides. This process of picking sides contains its own dynamics conditioned by the character of the social struggle as it unfolds and the state power begins to fight itself. The social revolution is a process that must evolved within the context of the quantitative stages of development of the productive forces. We are at the beginning of the beginning stage of social transformation and a process where the people start turning away from the police and the military because they are compelled to protect property and the rule of property at the expense of the people. Those who have lived and experienced this process must recall what is involved. The Russian revolution is instructive. Russia had a fairly well developed, although small working class. An industrial bourgeoisie was developing rapidly and was very rich, especially on the basis of the war. The contradiction between the feudal ruling class and all the new classes being generated on the basis of the development of industry was there; the contradiction between backwards Russia and the most advanced European states was in the soup; the contradiction between Czarist expansionism and the southern layer of countries we call the Moslem areas were all leading to and arising from the destruction of the agrarian political economy. What you had in Russia was the rebellion of a newly formed working class in the vanguard of about a hundred million semi-serfs and semi-slaves who were in absolute rebellion. All of this was taking place within the context of the unprecedented slaughter of eleven million Russian soldiers at the front. As this process accelerated the soldiers were simply deserting the front, throwing down their guns and walking back home. At this time, the peasants were taking over land; there were more strikes, street fighting and planed insurrections than there was war at the front. Soldiers were changing sides as well as the police as countless political organizations called Soviets changed back and forth over politics, direction and what to do next. The
Re: To Bill Lear: re soldiers cops
On Saturday, April 5, 2003 at 13:42:03 (-0500) Hari Kumar writes: Bill writes: The stance toward them should be the same: they are both pawns, usually non-wealthy, fed intensive propaganda, left largely ignorant of the big picture, and placed in often dangerous situations where it is nearly impossible to do the morally correct thing. They should be held responsible for their actions, but those who direct them, set the scope of their activities, etc., deserve far, far more condemnation. Comment: Agree they are 'both pawns'. That sort of terminology brings up the further point: Without 'turning' both of them, the left will be gunned down. It was a key part of the military tactics of prior revolutionaries to incorporate that thinking. I think security forces must be accommodated within any social movement that pretends to justice, but I don't think necessarily that such a movement would need to employ tactics that result in them being gunned down. Despite the violence during the 1960s here in the U.S., the non-violent tactics worked extremely well and by and large were not met with murderous violence --- violence, yes, but not on the scale of say, Guatemala. Bill
protection rackets, Indonesian style
The BBC US firm pays Indonesian army Friday, 14 March, 2003 The American mining giant Freeport McMoran paid the Indonesian military more than $5m last year for protection in Papua, a troubled Indonesian province. Confirmation of the long-suspected arrangement was contained within a confidential document leaked to the media. Freeport paid the army to protect their employees at Papua's Grasberg mine, one of the world's largest gold and copper mines. The Indonesian military have been accused of widespread corruption and human rights abuses in Papua, where they are trying to contend with a sporadic separatist revolt. The document was written in response to queries from Freeport's shareholders, who were said to be uncomfortable with the security arrangements that the subsidiary Freeport Indonesia had in Papua. The document details the payment of $5.6m to the Indonesian military in 2002, and $4.7m in 2001. The money was paid for the employment of about 2,300 personnel, and covered costs for housing, fuel, travel and vehicle repairs. A local Indonesian soldier admitted to the BBC's Indonesian service that those who were on duty at Freeport got money for food and also got some pocket money. The BBC's Jakarta correspondent Rachel Harvey says the admission, from the biggest company in Indonesia to what is basically a protection racket, is a significant move. Human rights campaigners go even further, saying payments to the military provide an incentive for the maintenance of a high level of insecurity in Papua, which is also known as Irian Jaya. Seven members of Kopassus, Indonesia's special forces, are on trial for murdering pro-independence leader Theus Eluay in November 2001. The military has also been accused of taking part in the ambush and murder of two American teachers and a Freeport employee last year. However the army has denied any role in the murders. Carmel Budiardjo, a human rights activist, told BBC News Online that the relationship between Freeport and the military was a very serious blemish on the whole situation in Papua. Our Jakarta correspondent says that although Freeport is keen for the issue to be forgotten, now that the information is in the public domain it will raise questions that are unlikely to go away. Everybody officially knows what unofficially they thought they knew before - that money was exchanging hands, she said. But... is this an ethical way to conduct business? Freeport has been involved in mining in Papua since 1967, and the firm was one of the first big companies to invest in the province in the Suharto-era.
Re: Re: To Bill Lear: re soldiers cops
In a message dated 4/5/03 3:04:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think security forces must be accommodated within any social movement that pretends to justice, but I don't think necessarily that such a movement would need to employ tactics that result in them being gunned down. Despite the violence during the 1960s here in the U.S., the non-violent tactics worked extremely well and by and large were not met with murderous violence --- violence, yes, but not on the scale of say, Guatemala. Bill Comment Social revolution is a process of society fighting itself as polarization between and within class is sharpened. Social explosions - rebellion against the state authority, or what in America is called "riots," are spontaneous excretions of part of the public will. Los Angeles 1992 is a case in point, as is Cincinnati April 2000. No one planned the rebellion that broke out in Birmingham Alabama in 1963. No one planned the historic Watts rebellion of 1965 and the catalyst for 1967 Detroit was the raiding of a "blind pig" - a "speak easy" or "after-hours joint" or parlor of gambling and other activity, like prostitution. At a certain stage in the evolution of the Civil Rights movement the "nonviolent" strategy was rejected by the Negro (black) masses. No one planned this rejection. The idea of a social revolution in America without a mass uprising is inconceivable and this is not advocacy of violence. Given the breath and depth of American society, the fact that various regions of the country oscillate differently based on their peculiar economic development, a mass uprising would have to probably involved at least 60-70 million people. This magnitude is inconceivable to most revolutionaries who have not grasped the logic of our own history, which is absolutely revolutionary. The revolutionary aspect of our history has nothing to do with ideology as fundamentality, but the changes in the mode of production. Where else have two different wings of the bourgeoisie gone into Civil War with the object the overthrow of each other to resolve the question of the form of capital rule? Social revolution is not a conspiracy or an ideology movement, although a sector of the bourgeoisie and its ideologist understand social revolution as the acts of individuals. Revolutionaries must discard thinking that views social revolution as the act of the will of individual men and women. Nor does tactics or strategy on the part of leaders guide social revolution as such. The social revolution is purely the result of changes in the mode of production. What is changed or revolutionized is the way people are organized around a given technology to reproduce themselves. If this process was not spontaneous the bourgeoisie would not revolutionized production and create the conditions compelling society to begin the leap to another level of social organization. The struggle for power or political direction is of course conscious but the social process called social revolution is spontaneous and outside the will of individuals and social groups. There are reasons the workers in the imperial centers are not bullied to the same degree that the colonial worker is. The reason is tied up with the evolution of our working class and the imperial position of American society. When an economy is expanding the demands of society can be more than less met. The fundamental demands of blacks as blacks - for emancipation, have been met. The fundamental demands of women as women-for emancipation, have been met. The fundamental demands of various sectors of American society to be emancipated from infrastructure relations that isolate them have been met. What has not been met and what cannot be met are the class demands of women as a class. As a class - yes I am using the term class very different from in the last ideological period, the absolute majority of women in America are proletarian without reservation. The washing machine and modern appliances are not enough for total liberation from a historic designation. This is no pun. If you have to wash clothes manually and cook all the time, 70% of your life cycle evolves around this socially necessary reproductive process. Man can emancipate but only technological development that creates another energy source can displace - liberate, a class. (Hey, I want the copyright. Man can emancipate and development liberates). (Sidebar: "We" - the state of the United States of North America, cannot liberate the people of Iraq. We can only at best emancipate, which means to free one from the vestiges of feudal social relations. This is a breakthrough for me in Marxist propaganda and the American ideology. Right now I am clear and American history is transparent. The slave was emancipated from slavery but not liberated as the worker of the land. The slave became a "sharecropper" and this was governed by politics. That someone had to pick the cotton until a replacement energy
Quiz
Good quiz to pass around to the ignorati from Z Magazine. - Iraq War Quiz by Stephen R. Shalom 1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops? a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years. b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel. c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans. d. All of the above. 2. The anti-war movement believes that patriotism means urging our country to do what is right. How do Bush administration officials define patriotism? a. Patriotism means emulating Dick Cheney, who serves as Vice-President while receiving $100,000-$1,000,000 a year from Halliburton, the multi-billion dollar company which is already lining up for major contracts in post-war Iraq. b. Patriotism means emulating Richard Perle, the warhawk who serves as head of the Defense Intelligence Board while at the same time meeting with Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi on behalf of Trireme, a company of which he is a managing partner, involved in security and military technologies, and while agreeing to work as a paid lobbyist for Global Crossing, a telecommunications giant seeking a major Pentagon contract. c. Patriotism means emulating George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Lewis Libby, and others who enthusiastically supported the Vietnam War while avoiding serving in it and who now are sending others to kill and be killed in Iraq. d. All of the above. 3. The Bush administration has accused Saddam Hussein of lying regarding his weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following might be considered less than truthful? a. Constant claims by the Bush administration that there was documentary evidence linking Iraq to attempted uranium purchases in Niger, despite the fact that the documents were forgeries and CIA analysts doubted their authenticity. b. A British intelligence report on Iraq's security services that was in fact plagiarized, with selected modifications, from a student article. c. The frequent citation of the incriminating testimony of Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel, while suppressing that part of the testimony in which Kamel stated that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed following the 1991 Gulf War. d. All of the above. 4. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher stormed out of a press conference when the assembled reporters broke into laughter after he declared that the U.S. would never try to bribe members of the UN. What should Fleisher have said to defend himself? a. It wasn't just bribery; we also ordered the bugging of the home and office phones and emails of the UN ambassadors of Security Council member states that were undecided on war. b. Oh, come on! We've been doing this for years. In 1990 when Yemen voted against authorizing war with Iraq, the U.S. ambassador declared That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast. c. Why do you think the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act makes one of the conditions for an African country to receive preferential access to U.S. markets that it not engage in activities that undermine United States national security or foreign policy interests? d. All of the above. 5. George Bush has declared that we have no fight with the Iraqi people. What could he have cited as supporting evidence? a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that strengthened Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. b. The fact that coalition forces have indicated that they will use cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups that The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for years to come. c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S. pledged not to forget about when the war was over, and for which the current Bush administration foreign aid budget request included not one cent in aid. d. All of the above. 6. The Bush administration has touted the many nations that are part of the coalition of the willing. Which of the following statements about this coalition is true? a. In most of the coalition countries polls show that a majority, often an overwhelming majority, of the people oppose the war. b. More than ten of the members of the coalition of the willing are actually a coalition of the unwilling - unwilling to reveal their names. c. Coalition members - most of whose contributions to the war are negligible or even zero - constitute less than a quarter of the
Plenty of Allied Wounded
From a Boulder Colorado paper.. Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www2.dailycamera.com/bdc/county_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2423_1866804, 00.html Area surgeon aids troops Boulder man operated on recently rescued POW in Germany By Lisa Marshall, Camera Staff Writer April 5, 2003 Friday morning: 57 dead; 16 missing; 7 captured. The daily White House press briefings and fuzzy real-time TV reports fall far short of conveying the brutality of war, says Boulder neurosurgeon Gene Bolles. Bolles spent Thursday hunched over an operating table at Germany's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, repairing the broken back of Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who was rescued from an Iraqi hospital this week. The 19-year-old soldier will require aggressive rehabilitation, Bolles said, but is expected to recover well - one success story in a war full of tragedy. It really is disgustingly sanitized on television, said Bolles, who has spent the last 16 months as chief of neurosurgery at Landstuhl, the destination for the war's most wounded soldiers. As of Friday, 281 patients had been brought to Landstuhl since Operation Iraqi Freedom started, and plane-loads are arriving regularly. We have had a number of really horrific injuries now from the war. They have lost arms, legs, hands, they have been burned, they have had significant brain injuries and peripheral nerve damage. These are young kids that are going to be, in some regards, changed for life. I don't feel that people realize that. Bolles, 66, had a private practice in Boulder for 32 years before taking the job at Landstuhl. The U.S. military was short on neurosurgeons after Sept. 11, 2001 - having scaled down its medical staff in response to a shrinking troop population in the '90s - and was looking for an experienced civilian doctor willing to work as a contractor for a few years, said Lt. Colonel Bill Monacci, consultant to the Army Surgeon General for neurosurgery. Bolles, a self-described pacifist, found his patriotic juices flowing in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, so he postponed his retirement and took the job to help out with Operation Enduring Freedom, the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. I was looking for any way to help out, said Bolles. Not to fight a war necessarily, but to help out. He is one of only a handful of civilian doctors among the mostly military staff at Landstuhl, the largest military hospital outside the United States. Until this week, he was the only neurosurgeon, taking anyone with back, neck, spine or head injuries. While Monacci said he thinks the number of wounded has been relatively low given the scope of the war, Bolles has handled an increasingly heavy workload exceptionally well, he said. It is a tough situation. He probably thought it was going to be a bit of a slow-down from his practice, but I imagine it is a little busier than he planned for, Monacci said Bolles said despite media images that may lead the public to believe otherwise, he and the other doctors at Landstuhl have been busy for months. Before the war began, the hospital already had treated 300 U.S. soldiers from Kuwait and surrounding areas, wounded in car accidents, windstorms and during training exercises. A brutal sandstorm landed five soldiers on Bolles' operating table. The wind blew a tent pole through the skull of one soldier and toppled heavy equipment onto another, fracturing his spine, he said. Still affected by the carnage he saw as a division flight surgeon during the Vietnam War, Bolles said he is particularly troubled by the injuries he has seen coming from Operation Iraqi Freedom, a war he doesn't necessarily support. I am opposed to any war, he said. I am doing what I am doing because I am a doctor, not because I have a political agenda. He spent three hours in the operating room one morning last week removing bullet fragments, blood and brain matter from two young soldiers who each had been shot in the head. One will recover nicely, Bolles said; the other will have permanent neurological damage. Another of his patients, wounded in a grenade battle, died on the operating table. These are young children; 18, 19, 20 with arms and legs blown off. That is the reality, said Bolles. Lt. Col. John Ogle, a Longmont emergency room doctor and flight surgeon for the National Guard, agrees that the public is not always given an accurate count of military injuries. But he says that is because an accurate number is often hard to come by: What exactly constitutes wounded? I would not call the war coverage sanitized, he said. Everybody knows that there are casualties over there, mostly Iraqi. What has not been stressed enough is what it was like in the previous 12 years of Saddam's regime. As things heat up on the battlefield, Bolles' workload is getting heavier. Soldiers arrive daily in C-141 transport planes after the eight-hour flight from Iraq: 46 on Friday, 39 today, 38 on Sunday, 25 on Monday. To brace for the flood of patients, the hospital has
Re: Re: the emporer
As a Canadian I've wondered about this myself. Is this nationalism a means of not alientating the nationalistic majority, or is it rooted in something? The only positive aspect to nationalism I can see is that it can serve as a means of identification that should breed empathy for your neighbours. However, it also often works to sever more internationalist ties that then destroy any empathy that should be felt for non-Americans. Mark Twain said, "Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government, when it deserves it." But, what does "loyalty to the country" mean? Troy Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 6:04 PM -0800 4/2/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:I think the feral alienation from America on the left has regrettably diminished our appeal in this nation. jksAmerican leftists (broadly defined), on the average, sound to me to be decidedly more nationalistic than Japanese leftists (also broadly defined). On the left, the Japanese have nothing to do with the flag, the anthem, Yasukuni, etc.-- Yoshie* Calendar of Events in Columbus: * Student International Forum: * Committee for Justice in Palestine: * Al-Awda-Ohio: * Solidarity: Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: the emporer
That is awesome. I had a discussion with my mother, a sixth grade teacher, about students standing for the national anthem. My mother holds many progressive views, and she is of the opinion, and one should show respect for this country be standing for the anthem. I asked her once, what she would do if one of her students refused to stand. She said that she would ask them why they did not want to stand during the national anthem. If, she said, they gave her a reply that showed they were thinking about issues and not just trying to get a rise out of her or someone else, then she would respect their decision. She still says I should stand, but I'm glad she at least recognizes that many people could have seriousand compelling reasons not to stand. In particular, I think about the native children at the school, who stand at attention for the anthem of a country that has been established on land that was taken from their ancestors. To me, this is much of the legacy of my home country, a legacy of genocide, and I think anyone living in the Americas has to acknowledge this reality when the see the flag, or hear the anthem. Troy "Forstater, Mathew" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I refused to pledge allegiance to the flag in 4th grade. It was the1970-71 school year and I was 9 or 10 years old. The teacher kept me anda friend I had convinced to go along after class and asked us why. Ouranswer: "Because there isn't liberty and justice for all." Nobody hadtold us to do it, it was the spirit of the times to think about thosethings and question them. Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: UN to be relevant again
I agree with the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN, for the UN to be relevant, shouldn't it be pursuing stopping the war crimes currently being perpetrated by the illegitimate leaders of the U.S.? The ability of the U.S. to force the entire world into submission is scary. While France, Russia, Germany, China, refused to back the U.S. they aren't calling for Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. to face the world court for their crimes. What has them so lily-livered about calling these men what they are "War Criminals." Is it the weaponry possessed by the U.S. or the fact that they believe the U.S. could make their economies scream? Troy k hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The UN will be relevant again. It can provide a fig leaf or "chapeau" to theUN UK occupation of Iraq. It can also carry out at least in part the do goodrole i.e. spreading the cost of humanitarian aid over a number of countries.Of course there will be a faction within the US who will wants a solelydo-gooder role or none who think fig leaves are not necessary since the USis out for Freedom, Democracy, and GLOBAL GOODNESS. No mention of oil or howit is to figure in post-war Iraq in this article.But heck it is the NY times.The Europeans will be anxious to patch things up so as to save their owninterests from US UK predation.Cheers, Ken HanlyU.S. and Europe Agree on U.N. Role in Iraq, but Split on ScopeBy STEVEN R. WEISMANRUSSELS, April 3 - The United States and its European allies reached whatofficials on both sides said! was a broad consensus that the United Nationsshould play a significant role in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, butremained divided over many of the details of how extensive that role shouldbe.But after a long day of back-to-back meetings between Secretary of StateColin L. Powell with foreign ministers of 23 European countries, it wasapparent that many of the differences that divided the allies over going towar against Iraq would remain as they faced the issue of Iraq's future.Mr. Powell said that at least initially, the military coalition led by theUnited States and Britain "has to play the leading role in determining theway forward" but that "this is not to say that we have to shut others outand not say that we will not work in partnership with the internationalcommunity and especially with the United Nations."Sounding a somewhat different note, several European leaders said that theUnited Nations ! should play more of an organizing role as quickly aspossible. The European Union has said that only some kind of aninternational imprimateur on the occupation can avoid continuing bitternessagainst the war in the Middle East.The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who led the successfuldrive to thwart United Nations authorization of the war last month, saidthat "when the time is ready, we believe that the United Nations should havea central role to play." He did say, however, that as a practical matter,its role could be phased in.Despite these differences, American and European officials proclaimedthemselves extremely pleased with the relatively harmonious atmosphere theyhad managed to establish, only a few weeks after the United Nationsdiscussions on Iraq had dissolved in acrimonious accusations on the eve ofPresident Bush's decision to go to war.Mr. Powell said he "sensed a coming together of t! he trans-Atlantic communityto work on the rebuilding" of Iraq. And Mr. de Villepin also stressed thatFrance would look past his previous battles with Mr. Powell. "I think weshould be very pragmatic," he said.With news from the battles in Iraq spreading through NATO headquarters,there was an unusual atmosphere of drama and expectation running throughwhat amounted to the first major international meeting to discuss the warsince it beginning two weeks ago.Perhaps because the news of the last day or two suggested that the tide onthe battlefield was turning against Saddam Hussein, there was less talk ofEuropeans warning the United States about the futility of war and more focuson what should happen in the future.The session today had not been scheduled until the weekend. In testimony toSecretary Powell's continuing influence in Europe, virtually the entireleadership of the foreign ministries of Europe, including ! Russia, came toBrussels with only a day or two of notice.Mr. Powell then kept to a nearly frantic pace here, holding more than 20events, including one-on-one meetings and broadcast interviews, all intendedto demonstrate that the United States still cared about European leaders'opinions, even though it was ignoring the overwhelming antipathy toward thewar by Europe's peoples.In news conferences throughout the afternoon, various envoys all sounded thesame themes and even the same words - "pragmatic" was the main one,referring to the arrangements that would have to be made for postwar Iraq.Many officials spoke of a "phased" or "sequenced" transition from anAmerican occupation to an eventual internationally supervised
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the emporer
Those people showed up, and they get my support, as do the half a million Brits, the hundreds of thousands of Canadians, the hundreds of thousands of Europeans, and most importantly the hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners who reject the supposed stability ousting Hussein will bring. What does the turn-out of anti-war protesters in the U.S. have to do with the state itself? How is that a vindification of patriotism? Maybe I'm missing something, and if I am, please help me to see. Troy joanna bujes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait, there have been hundred of thousands in SF, half a million in NYC, and many, many thousands accross the country before a shot was fired. This is not significant?I'm am ashamed and frightened of "being an American" right nowbut still, I have to admit that all those people did shown up.JoannaAt 04:01 PM 04/03/2003 -0500, you wrote:joanna bujes wrote:At 08:29 PM 04/03/2003 +, you wrote:You're mired in nostalgia, Justin. I can't think of a single good thing to say about the contemporary United States.The very, very large anti-war demonstrations?You, me, Michael Perelman, Edward Said, Kim Gordon?Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Regime change
In case some Americans might wonder why Canada is reluctant to back US imperialism. Paul Phillips Subject:In light of recent remarks by US Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, it is wor Date sent: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 21:59:02 -0600 In light of recent remarks made by US Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, it is worth revisiting what we now know about the US-backed regime change that happened in Canada 40 years ago. 1962-1963, 'Knocking Over' Dief the Chief: How the U.S. Ambassador Helped Engineer Regime Change in Canada by Richard Sanders www.globalresearch.ca 31 March 2003 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SAN303D.html Cellucci's Statements Speech by U.S. ambassador to Canada A. Paul Cellucci to the Economic Club of Toronto MARCH 25, 2003 -- -- George Ball and I knocked over the Diefenbaker government by one incautious press release. (McGeorge Bundy, J.F.Kennedys National security advisor) My brother really hated only two men in all his presidency. One was Sukarno [President of Indonesia] and the other was Diefenbaker.(Robert Kennedy) In 1962, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Livingston Merchant and his Second Secretary Charles Kisselyak, fuelled a plot among the Canadian Air Forces, Canadian journalists and others to dispose of Prime Minister Diefenbaker. Kennedy hated Dief largely for his anti-nuclear stance. Merchant and other U.S. embassy officers with extensive espionage backgrounds, met at Kisselyak's home in Ottawa to feed journalists with spaghetti, beer and anti- Diefenbaker/pronuclear propaganda. Among the many participants in these off-the-record briefings was Charles Lynch of Southam News. Diefenbaker later denounced these reporters as traitors and foreign agents. He lashed out against Lynch on a TV program saying, You were given briefings as to how the Canadian government could be attacked on the subject of nuclear weapons and the failure of the Canadian government to do that which the U.S. dictated. Merchant and Kisselyak worked with RCAF Wing Commander Bill Lee and NORAD's number two man, Canadian Air Marshall Roy Slemon. Air Marshall Hugh Campbell and the chair of Canada's chiefs of staff, Air Marshall Frank Miller also approved Lee's campaign. Diefenbaker's avidly pronuclear Defence Minister, Douglas Harkness, also knew of Lee's effort. As head of RCAF public relations, Lee went to Washington twice a month to confer with U.S. authorities. It was a flat-out campaign, Lee later said. We identified key journalists, business and labour, key Tory hitters, and...Liberals We wanted people with influence on members of cabinet. In the end the pressure paid off. In 1962, new U.S. ambassador, William Butterworth, continued what Lee called the flat-out campaign by holding discrete meetings at the U.S. embassy to exert influence on Canadian journalists. Lester Pearson was the President's choice. Kennedy gave the go- ahead to his friend and America's leading pollster, Lou Harris, to become the Liberal's secret campaign advisor in the 1962 election. Diefenbaker survived with a minority government. The plot to bring down Canada's government came to a head in January, 1963. On Jan.3, top U.S. Air Force General Lauris Norstad held an Ottawa press conference. Prompted by questions from Lynch, and other reporters briefed by U.S. intelligence, Norstad criticized Canada's antinuclear stance. On Jan. 12, Pearson announced his new policy of supporting U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada. In protest, Pierre Trudeau called Pearson the defrocked priest of peace and refused to run for the Liberals. The coup's final blow came when the U.S. State Department issued a press release which called Diefenbaker a liar on nuclear issues (Jan. 30). This tactic was suggested by Willis Armstrong, head of the State Department's Canada Desk in Washington. Butterworth added hissuggestions and sent his senior embassy advisor, Rufus Smith, to Washington to draft it. With Armstrong chairing, half a dozen officials from State, the White House and the Pentagon...shaped...the rebuke. The draft was polished by Under Secretary of State George McGhee and approved by acting Secretary of State, George Ball, and national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy. The Canadian media had a heyday attacking Diefenbaker. Fights broke out in Cabinet. Diefenbaker recalled Canada's ambassador from the U.S. On Feb. 5, Defence Minister Harkness announced his resignation and Pearson called for a non-confidence vote. Dief's minority government fell, or rather, it was 'knocked over.' Kisselyak was the U.S. embassy's contact to Pearson's election campaign. The Liberals had the strong advantages of a friendly media and Harris'
Re: Quiz
I love the English language: I'm assuming you mean "A good quiz from Z Magazine to pass around to the ignorati." Otherwise, some people at Z might be a tad offended. Troy Dan Scanlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good quiz to pass around to the ignorati from Z Magazine.-Iraq War Quizby Stephen R. Shalom1. The anti-war movement supports our troops by urging that they be brought home immediately so they neither kill nor get killed in a unjust war. How has the Bush administration shown its support for our troops?a. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee voted to cut $25 billion in veterans benefits over the next 10 years.b. The Bush administration proposed cutting $172 million from impact aid programs which provide school funding for children of military personnel.c. The administration ordered the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to stop publicizing health benefits available to veterans.d. All of the above.2. The anti-war movement believes that patriotism ! means urging our country to do what is right. How do Bush administration officials define patriotism?a. Patriotism means emulating Dick Cheney, who serves as Vice-President while receiving $100,000-$1,000,000 a year from Halliburton, the multi-billion dollar company which is already lining up for major contracts in post-war Iraq.b. Patriotism means emulating Richard Perle, the warhawk who serves as head of the Defense Intelligence Board while at the same time meeting with Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi on behalf of Trireme, a company of which he is a managing partner, involved in security and military technologies, and while agreeing to work as a paid lobbyist for Global Crossing, a telecommunications giant seeking a major Pentagon contract.c. Patriotism means emulating George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Lewis Libby, and others who en! thusiastically supported the Vietnam War while avoiding serving in it and who now are sending others to kill and be killed in Iraq.d. All of the above.3. The Bush administration has accused Saddam Hussein of lying regarding his weapons of mass destruction. Which of the following might be considered less than truthful?a. Constant claims by the Bush administration that there was documentary evidence linking Iraq to attempted uranium purchases in Niger, despite the fact that the documents were forgeries and CIA analysts doubted their authenticity. b. A British intelligence report on Iraq's security services that was in fact plagiarized, with selected modifications, from a student article. c. The frequent citation of the incriminating testimony of Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel, while suppressing that part of the testimony in which Kamel stated that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed ! following the 1991 Gulf War. d. All of the above. 4. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher stormed out of a press conference when the assembled reporters broke into laughter after he declared that the U.S. would never try to bribe members of the UN. What should Fleisher have said to defend himself?a. It wasn't just bribery; we also ordered the bugging of the home and office phones and emails of the UN ambassadors of Security Council member states that were undecided on war.b. Oh, come on! We've been doing this for years. In 1990 when Yemen voted against authorizing war with Iraq, the U.S. ambassador declared "That will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."c. Why do you think the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act makes one of the conditions for an African country to receive preferential access to U.S. markets that it "not engage in activities that undermine United States national security or fore! ign policy interests"?d. All of the above.5. George Bush has declared that "we have no fight with the Iraqi people." What could he have cited as supporting evidence?a. U.S. maintenance of 12 years of crippling sanctions that strengthened Saddam Hussein while contributing to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.b. The fact that "coalition" forces have indicated that they will use cluster bombs in Iraq, despite warnings from human rights groups that "The use of cluster munitions in Iraq will endanger civilians for years to come."c. By pointing to the analogy of Afghanistan, which the U.S. pledged not to forget about when the war was over, and for which the current Bush administration foreign aid budget request included not one cent in aid.d. All of the above.6. The Bush administration has touted the many nations that are part of the "coalition of the wil! ling." Which of the following statements about this coalition is true?a. In most of the coalition countries polls show that a majority, often an overwhelming majority, of the people oppose the war.b. More than ten of the members of the coalition of the willing are actually a coalition of the unwilling - unwilling to reveal their names.c. Coalition members -
Re: the political economy of branding
This issue bedevilled the EU/S.Africa free trade talks here a few years ago. The most obvious point -- that it doesn't matter at all what's inside the package, profitability depends upon the brainwashing of consumers who associate a brand name with a product -- was never made. Let's hope that with militant Idaho potato farmers and maybe a few others intent on violating branding, that the whole system will break down faster... - Original Message - From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regions claim rights to Pilsener, bologna U.S. food companies say the European Union does little to protect U.S. food terms. A state agency representing Idaho Potatoes failed in its attempt to challenge a trademark registration given to a French company bearing the Idaho name, they said. The reason: Idaho is not part of the EU and has no standing with its agencies. Patrick Kole of the Idaho Potato Commission said that's unfair to anybody who's not a member of the EU. You can't even bring a case. You're shut out.
Re: Re: the political economy of branding
one of the few bright outcomes from this insane war may be the devaluation of United States brands in the rest of the world. On top of a half-billion dollar trade deficit, it could have a substantial effect. On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 07:45:13AM +0200, Patrick Bond wrote: This issue bedevilled the EU/S.Africa free trade talks here a few years ago. The most obvious point -- that it doesn't matter at all what's inside the package, profitability depends upon the brainwashing of consumers who associate a brand name with a product -- was never made. Let's hope that with militant Idaho potato farmers and maybe a few others intent on violating branding, that the whole system will break down faster... - Original Message - From: Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regions claim rights to Pilsener, bologna U.S. food companies say the European Union does little to protect U.S. food terms. A state agency representing Idaho Potatoes failed in its attempt to challenge a trademark registration given to a French company bearing the Idaho name, they said. The reason: Idaho is not part of the EU and has no standing with its agencies. Patrick Kole of the Idaho Potato Commission said that's unfair to anybody who's not a member of the EU. You can't even bring a case. You're shut out. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
