apologies
At 2003-03-22 13:27 -0500, you wrote: My passions will be my undoing. I can explain nothing on the basis of hegemony because that sector of the working class I interact with is driven differently. I should stay out of the continuing debate between you and Lou - both men of deep respect, that have been waged over the years. Sorry, Melvin P. I do not want to appear churlish by spurning apologies, but this does not feel quite right. Not just because you praise Louis Proyect and me in the same breath, which is even more embarrassing than being criticised together in the same breath. It is partly because the exchange of ideas and argument, so long as it is not abusive, is what gives an email list richness. It is also that I do not really agree with your explanation. At times you seem to teach, at times, you seem to have been influenced by valuable teachers. I am not trying to insult you by characterising you, but to put my finger on a dilemma. I think it is related to something wrong in the way you approach the relationship between theory and practice. Yes it is true that in a sense, as Lenin argued in What is to be done? ideas have to come to the working masses/class from outside. But fundamentally ideas are not purely abstract divorced from real material interests and class struggle. The working people you talk with may be will not recognise the word hegemon but they will recognise an agitational equivalent of it. What is the US doing going round playing biggest kid on the block? What is it like for the supplies troops who have just been ambushed and interviewed on Iraqi television? What is it like for the black sergeant who threw grenades into tents in Camp Pensylvania two nights ago? Why does CNN this morning still report his motivation as a mystery? What are the feelings of black, or other, members of the US military about what they are doing policing the world? Why does someone like Akbar turn to a reactive ideology (I say reactive to avoid the dismissive connotations of reactionary, although it means the same literally) like being a black muslim. If you assume a mainly theoretical, pedagogical approach to politics, while this is not always wrong, you will not see that agitational work can provide a bridge between theory and practice, testing theory but also enriching it. Now I may be teaching my grandfather to suck eggs, because email can create a strange sense of intimacy, when one only sees aspects of the other person, and sometimes they are our own aspects projected onto the other person at that. In another post your referred to your excess passion apologetically again and commented on the decisive thing in the fall of the Nazi army in front of Stalingrad: What was decisive about the battle for Stalingrad was that it was the turning point in preserving public property relations in the socially necessary means of production. Here my reaction is that I do not understand how you relate the abstract and the concrete. This feels to me like an abstract assertion without any obvious intervening concrete links with the complexity of what actually happened. I suspect that passion is not your undoing but that like all of us it is the contradiction between passion and intellect, which are dialectically related to one another in unity, as well as opposition. Most of us on these lists could be accused of just thinking and writing and doing little, so I do not want to ask an unfair question, but how do your personal passions relate to this present war, and then in turn with your theories. They may be valuable, and not something for which you should apologise. Also technically, as someone who writes excessively long contributions like yourself, they are not best designed to engage in dialogue. They have the merit of presenting a reasonably coherent case, which people cannot take cheap potshots at, and which as it were establish some intellectual territory. However they may often be skimmed over even by people who would otherwise be sympathetic. As we are at the end of the weekend I regret I will not be able to respond to your replies at any length. But if I have misunderstood our differences please accept my apologies in turn. Chris Burford London
caricature
http://www.alquds.co.uk/index.asp?fname=2003\03\03-24\a49.htmstorytitle=ffÇáÇÑÏä%20æØÑÏ%20ÇáÏÈáæãÇÓííä%20ÇáÚÑÇÞííäfffDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 535 members of Congress and ...
Okay, so change it to At the beginning of WWII and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, there was a draft... A fortiori, reinstituting a draft would not keep Congress from declaring war if it were suitably motivated or bamboozled. At 09:24 21/03/03 -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: Robert Scott Gassler wrote: At the beginning of boht the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, there was a draft, and members of Congress may have had draft-age sons. At the beginning of WWII This is wrong. The draft began in 1940. Then the upper age limit was reduced, and some who had been drafted were discharged, then the war broke out, and those in their '30s who had been discharged were redrafted. Hank Greenberg, the Detroit baseball player, was among those in-out-ins. Carrol
Baghdad Calling -- Where Is Raed?
Where Is Raed? http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/ * Baghdad calling There are dozens of journalists and TV cameras in the Iraqi capital. But the most vivid account of the build-up to war and the start of the bombing has appeared on the internet - on the weblog of an unknown Iraqi writing under the name Salam Pax. But who is he? Leo Hickman investigates Monday March 24, 2003 The Guardian A 29-year-old, middle-class man somewhere in the suburbs of the Iraqi capital has become one of the most intriguing stories on the internet. Known simply as Salam Pax, his online diary has fascinated the web's myriad users with its sharp observations of a tumultuous six months for the beleaguered Iraqi nation that has included a presidential election, yet another UN resolution, its resulting weapons inspectors and, of course, the approach of war. As the build-up to conflict intensified, more and more people became drawn - through forwarded emails, weblogs, or message boards - to the compelling musings of what appeared to be an educated, if cynical, young man in Baghdad waiting for war. His diary, mysteriously titled Where is Raed?, has recorded, with humour and in eloquent detail, the anxieties of the Iraqi capital's besieged citizens as they awaited attack - their rush to tape up windows, the stockpiling of groceries, the increased presence of menacing Ba'ath party officials on the streets. By last Friday, as American B52s finally homed in on Baghdad, the website had become the most linked-to web diary on the internet as visitors, in fear of his safety, eagerly awaited his next posting. At the time of going to press, Salam hadn't posted again since Friday [The full text is available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,920542,00.html.] * 24.03.2003: Salam's Diary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,920506,00.html -- 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/
financial stability
[from E Philip Davis and his crew..] Those interested in financial stability will certainly find the following of interest. Moderator Andrew Crockett: Central banking, financial stability and Basel II http://www.bis.org/speeches/sp030213.htm (notably responses to common criticisms of Basel II) Andrew Crockett: International standard setting in financial supervision http://www.bis.org/speeches/sp030205.htm (also assessing the nature of financial stability and why instability has increased in recent years) William White: International financial crises: prevention, management and resolution http://www.bis.org/speeches/sp030320.htm
RE: Baghdad Calling -- Where Is Raed?
Salam is back today, tho all he has posted is a note that he's got an internet connection again. mbs Where Is Raed? http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
UN tries to halt staff protest against attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk UN tries to halt staff protest against attack Chris McGreal in Jerusalem Wednesday March 19 2003 The Guardian Kofi Annan's office has barred UN staff from open opposition to the war in Iraq. Mr Annan's chief of staff, Syed Iqbal Riza, has written to the heads of all UN agencies to halt attempts to organise protests against the attack by publicly expressing support for the authority of the security council and the secretary general's efforts to avoid conflict. "United Nations staff are, of course, entitled to personal views and political convictions and their desire to be of assistance to the secretary general is appreciated," he wrote in the letter, headed "possible initiatives by UN staff for peacefully resolving the Iraq crisis". But it goes on to add that "international civil servants ... do not have the freedom of pri vate persons to take sides or to express their convictions publicly on controversial matters, either individually or as members of a group". A senior UN official said there was considerable unhappiness within the organisation at criticisms levelled by George Bush to justify bypassing the security council. "There is a feeling among many personnel that the US used the UN until it didn't suit them and then they trash it," one senior UN official said. "We cannot openly campaign against the war but we wanted to make a public gesture - probably a petition - in support of Kofi Annan's efforts to ensure the security council as a whole had the last word. But he does not want a confrontation with the Americans on this." Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Re: An Empire in denial
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chronicle of Higher Education, March 28, 2003 America: an Empire in Denial By NIALL FERGUSON ... Was the British empire a good or bad thing? It is nowadays quite conventional to think that, on balance, it was a bad thing. ... [Score one for conventional wisdom. Here are a few points for deeply-in-denial Ferguson to reflect on:] Heart of smugness: Unlike Belgium, Britain is still complacently ignoring the gory cruelties of its empire Maria Misra Tuesday July 23, 2002 The Guardian So the Belgians are to return to the Heart of Darkness in an attempt finally to exorcise their imperial demons. Stung by another book cataloguing the violence and misery inflicted by King Leopold's empire on the Congo in the late 19th and early 20th century, the state-funded Royal Museum for Central Africa in Brussels has commissioned a group of historians to pass authoritative judgment on accusations of genocide: forced labour, systematic rape, torture and murder of the Congolese, around 10 million of whom are thought to have died as a consequence. This is not the first time that the Belgian empire has been singled out for censure. Back in the Edwardian era, British humanitarians spilled much ink over its excesses and Conrad's novella was corralled into service to show Leopold's Congo as a sort of horrific other to Britain's more uplifting colonialism. Complacency about Britain's imperial record lingers on. In the post-September 11 orgy of self-congratulation about the west's superiority, Blair's former foreign policy guru, Robert Cooper, and a host of journalistic flag-wavers were urging us not to be ashamed of empire. Cooper insisted empire was as necessary now as it had been in the 19th century. The British empire was, we were assured, a generally well-intentioned attempt to inculcate notions of good government, civilised behaviour and market rationality into less well-favoured societies. Is such a rosy view of British imperialism justified? Many argue that it is. After all, surely the British have less blood on their hands than the French and the Belgians? Wasn't the British addiction to the free market a prophylactic against the horrors of forced labour? And didn't those peculiar class obsessions make them less racist than the rest - silly snobs, but not vicious yobs? And isn't India not only a democracy, but, thanks to the British, one with great railways? Perhaps there is a kernel of truth in some of this, but there's also much wilful smugness. While the complex consequences of colonial economic policy require extended analysis, it is possible to dispel more swiftly the myth that the British Empire, unlike King Leopold's, was innocent of atrocities. It has become a modern orthodoxy that Europe's 20th century was the bloodiest in history and that atrocities must be recorded and remembered by society as a whole. But while a Black Book of Communism has been compiled and everybody is aware of the horrors of nazism, popular historians have been surprisingly uninterested in the dark side of the British Empire. There are exceptions, such as Mike Davis's powerful Late Victorian Holocausts, but much else still lies buried in the academic literature. Davis and others have estimated that there were between 12 and 33 million avoidable deaths by famine in India between 1876 and 1908, produced by a deadly combination of official callousness and free-market ideology. But these were far from being a purely Victorian phenomenon. As late as 1943 around 4 million died in the Bengal famine, largely because of official policy. No one has even attempted to quantify the casualties caused by state-backed forced labour on British-owned mines and plantations in India, Africa and Malaya. But we do know that tens of thousands of often conscripted Africans, Indians and Malays - men, women and children - were either killed or maimed constructing Britain's imperial railways. Also unquantified are the numbers of civilian deaths caused by British aerial bombing and gassing of villages in Sudan, Iraq and Palestine in the 1920 and 1930s. Nor was the supposedly peaceful decolonisation of the British Empire without its gory cruelties. The hurried partition of the Indian subcontinent brought about a million deaths in the ensuing uncontrolled panic and violence. The brutal suppression of the Mau Mau and the detention of thousands of Kenyan peasants in concentration camps are still dimly remembered, as are the Aden killings of the 1960s. But the massacre of communist insurgents by the Scots Guard in Malaya in the 1950s, the decapitation of so-called bandits by the Royal Marine Commandos in Perak and the secret bombing of Malayan villages during the Emergency remain uninvestigated. One might argue that these were simply the unfortunate consequences of the arrival of economic and political modernity. But does change have to come so brutally? There are plenty
UN tries to halt staff protest against attack
http://www.guardian.co.uk UN tries to halt staff protest against attack Chris McGreal in Jerusalem Wednesday March 19 2003 The Guardian Kofi Annan's office has barred UN staff from open opposition to the war in Iraq. Mr Annan's chief of staff, Syed Iqbal Riza, has written to the heads of all UN agencies to halt attempts to organise protests against the attack by publicly expressing support for the authority of the security council and the secretary general's efforts to avoid conflict. "United Nations staff are, of course, entitled to personal views and political convictions and their desire to be of assistance to the secretary general is appreciated," he wrote in the letter, headed "possible initiatives by UN staff for peacefully resolving the Iraq crisis". But it goes on to add that "international civil servants ... do not have the freedom of pri vate persons to take sides or to express their convictions publicly on controversial matters, either individually or as members of a group". A senior UN official said there was considerable unhappiness within the organisation at criticisms levelled by George Bush to justify bypassing the security council. "There is a feeling among many personnel that the US used the UN until it didn't suit them and then they trash it," one senior UN official said. "We cannot openly campaign against the war but we wanted to make a public gesture - probably a petition - in support of Kofi Annan's efforts to ensure the security council as a whole had the last word. But he does not want a confrontation with the Americans on this." Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Re: odds turn further against US
I really dont think that there is a snowball's chance in hell that the US will be defeated on the battlefield or that they will stop short of imposing their own chosen administration. While there has been more resistance than expected the US is pushing quickly to Baghdad and will no doubt soon occupy the oil fields in the north. There is no support coming from Arab neighbours in the form of any military intervention. Unless things get much much worse resistance will just be a PR problem. In fact the main forces are deliberately bypassing places such as Basra to start an assault on Baghdad. One can expect the bombing to continue and with huge increases of civilian casualties as happened in places such as Basra where cluster bombs seem to have been used in urban areas. No doubt thousands of untrained conscripts are being massacred. More of this will happen as a fewsurrenders have been ruses that have resulted in ambushes. Where any Iraqi forces make a concerted stand they are blown to bits. Forces back off and call in air supportor subject them to artillery barrages beyond their range The most that one could expect is low level guerrilla warfare before and after the US and UK have destroyed the regime. However, there are likely to be continuing and serious problems in international relations and within the country when the US attempts to impose its will on Iraq. The costs of the war and occupation may become great enough that those who want further adventures full spectrum dominance and a new american century will lose power in the administration particularly if there are a significant number of personnel pouches and the economy continues to be in trouble.. Where is Al Qaeda and all the terror attacks? I wonder if the new policy is not a sort of military-industrial capitalism that favors all those industries that will be involved in the project of full spectrum dominance. Won't it be seen by many capitalists as too risky a way of making the world safe for capital and wont it skew investment in ways that may demand some sacrifice of the relatively affluent lifestyle of the middle classes in advanced capitalist countries? And how long can the US and its allies sustain any sort of deprivation and relative economic hardships. If more Al Qaeda attacks do not happen soon the US and company had better invent them. Cheers, Ken Hanly Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Chris Burford To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:54 AM Subject: [PEN-L:36018] odds turn further against US This morning London time, I would raise the odds against a US victory further to 25%.The Turks have turned from allies of the US, to neutrals, and now into implicit supporters of Saddam, pinning Kurdish troops down to prevent them opening up a second front in the north. It is in their interests Saddam is not overthrown.The propaganda war has turned totally against the hegemons. The BBC News 24 caption "Battle for Control" shows how with incident after incident the allies have lost control of the agenda.The strategy depends on what increasingly looks like a total miscalculation of Iraqi society.Senior defence analysts in the UK like Sir Tim Garden note with detachment that the chemical factory will have to be investigated. Worse they confirm the rumblings from the US military of opposition to Rumsfeld and the "civilians" around him, that Rumsfeld has totally underestimated the numbers required because his model depends on mobility and use of high tech. They need double the numbers, (essentially because of the high morale of the enemy, and the extended communication lines, where they cannot defend their support troops with only 130,000 combat troops). They need time.And the longer the media go on reporting a war with inevitable accidents, blunders, moral dilemmas, and humiliations, the weaker the hegemons will look. Rumsfeld is in deep trouble, and Bush cannot afford to sack him. He gives a target to the timid Democrats. Meanwhile the anti-war movement in the US is rising and every one of their actions which gets televised back in Iraq, strengthens the Iraqi resistance.Perhaps 25% is too low a figure. But let us be cautious.Chris BurfordLondon
Re: Re: odds turn further against US
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, k hanly wrote: I really dont think that there is a snowball's chance in hell that the US will be defeated on the battlefield or that they will stop short of imposing their own chosen administration. When measuring sheer power against a smaller force it is obvious, in spite of the cost, who will ultimately be victorious - but what is missing from the equation is the unpredictability of what others will do. My view is there may be a diplomatic move in the UN although the General Assembly carries minor to no real authority - a Unite for Peace resolution can cause the U.S. enough difficulty that they would have to respond diplomatically. Continued support from China and Russia to Iraq with the kind of countermeasures which will lead to a loss of American lives will be enough for George Bush (who I think believes he has a devine mission - perhaps to hasten the end of times) to go beyond threats with Russia and China - not to forget North Korea (and Iran and Syria). Speaking of Iran and Syria they may be pressured by their people to support Iraq (even Iran might do so because they may be next anyway). There are just too many unknowns here to assure with absolute predictability that the U.S. will win in the traditional sense. And while they may win militarily, they will most assuredly lose politically. I am convinced that the radicalization of moderate Muslims will lead to a response that is unimagined. Maybe not now but certainly in increments and beginning now. I believe the U.S. lost when it attacked Iraq. --- http://pnews.org/MEP/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Sectionsop=viewarticleartid=50 Hank Roth http://pnews.org/
Re: Re: odds turn further against US
'that there is a snowball's chance in hell ' snowball is the keyword, iran syria and jordan, the precarious others, and urban warfare, delays is what iran and syria want, and they will work to get it, how effective, do not know, but urban warfare and delays, a deadly combination for uncle sam, i guess we will have to watch and see. historians recall how after 1948, regime change shook this region. but military guessing aside, the US will win or lose depending on the unity of the iraqi peple, with about seven million rifles, this is not chechenia or afghanistan. but it is my humble opinion, that when united in a war of national liberation, people win.but if that is a short and swift war, because of the iraqi people's internal division, then it is goodbye columbia, cuba, etc... this may be the war of all the developing world against the hegemon. and worst yet the US will not even need the formality of going back to the security council or may say counsel. the record up to this moment is that splitting the iraqi people and army failed. the US was under the impression that once they bomb people will rise against saddam, that must have the logic of selective bombing in the first few days. this veiw was adopted by the US as a result of its contact with iraqi oppositon abroad, but these it seems have no credebility at home, so again until now, there has been a great miscalculation.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
the world market
Anxiety Over Trade Rift Grows U.S.-European Strife Could Threaten International Economy By Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 23, 2003; Page A12 First there was the bluster about slapping duties on imports from countries opposing war with Iraq. Then came the imbroglio about freedom fries, and calls for boycotts against French and German goods -- the latest being a series of articles in the New York Post urging readers to shun products made by the beret-wearing escargot eaters. Discord over the Iraq war is putting uncomfortable strains on economic links between the United States and Europe, a relationship that many view as a cornerstone of global prosperity. Guardians of transatlantic harmony are scrambling to keep the diplomatic rift from poisoning economic ties. Last week, for example, Guenter Burghardt, the ambassador of the European Union to the United States, came armed with data illustrating Europe's economic importance when he paid a visit to Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), the new chairman of a Senate subcommittee on European affairs. The ambassador's figures suggested that the senator's constituents might pay a stiff price if the dispute over Iraq were to spill into the economic sphere. I showed him my chart about the European Union and Virginia, Burghardt recalled. He saw for the first time that 34 percent of Virginia's exports go to the European Union, and 74 percent of foreign direct investment in Virginia comes from the European Union. The upshot, according to the ambassador: I think this senator will become part of the constituency we need to keep economic tensions in check. Economic relations between the United States and Europe run deep, making the cost of a serious rupture almost too high to contemplate. Of the more than $5 trillion in assets held by American companies overseas, nearly three-fifths is in Europe. European firms hold about $3.3 trillion in U.S. assets, or slightly more than two-thirds of the foreign holdings in the United States. European firms employ an estimated 4.4 million Americans, and the number of Europeans employed by U.S. companies is only slightly less. But the animosity that has flared of late appears almost certain to seep into transatlantic trade and investment issues, especially those involving the United States and France, where the mutual antagonism is the most intense. One obvious bone of contention concerns the awarding of reconstruction contracts in postwar Iraq; French officials from President Jacques Chirac on down are vehemently objecting to indications from Washington that the rebuilding will be an American-run undertaking, with U.S. corporations in line for preferred treatment. The French embassy has received a half-dozen or so reports in recent days of sizable U.S. corporations cutting off business with French banks, according to Jean-Francois Boittin, the embassy's minister-counselor for economic and commercial affairs. He declined to name the parties involved but said of the anti-French campaign underway in the United States: I for one think it's not so much a spontaneous mobilization, but all very well politically organized. Large corporations doing business across the Atlantic and their governments say they are monitoring developments closely and finding only scattered signs of the war's impact on purchasing and investment choices -- for example, a Web site selling French cheese over the Internet that has reported a 20 percent drop-off in business. Pernod Ricard, the French liquor group that owns Martell cognac and Ricard pastis, said last week that it had seen scant evidence of a boycott, though it postponed its 2003 financial forecast because of uncertainties about whether its products will be targeted. In one prominent case, a major transatlantic business deal went ahead in the face of war tensions -- Procter Gamble Co.'s announcement of plans to acquire control of Wella AG, the German hair-products maker, for $5.75 billion. Beyond the question of how consumers and businesses are acting lie longer-term concerns -- that lingering acrimony among top policymakers will spark tit-for-tat trade wars, and wreck the U.S.-European cooperation needed to strike a worldwide trade accord that could help spur global growth. U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick sought to allay such concerns. The analogy I would urge you to consider is that after September 11th, there were a spate of stories about how this would lead to closure of international economic relations and trade, Zoellick said in an interview. And we actually employed it, along with other things, to push the launch of the Doha negotiations, a reference to the city in Qatar where agreement was reached at a World Trade Organization meeting in November 2001 to initiate a new round of global trade talks. Zoellick also noted that rhetoric about being joined at the hip filled the air during a visit to Washington a couple of weeks ago by Pascal Lamy, the EU's trade
Re: Re: An Empire in denial
What hopelessly wordy propogandists the old Belgians were. Such waste of air time and displacement of ads is hopelessly inefficient. Why not Operation Congo Freedom? Direct mass appeal. But as e e cummings put it when freedom is a breakfast food being pays the rent of seem. Well maybe that is not what cummings mean but I have poetic licence too! And the US reality is paying the rent of a populace in which over 80% buy the seeming that Iraqis were among the terrorists of 9/11. And we will have humane targetting and bring peace with bombs. as freedom is a breakfastfood or truth can live with right and wrong or molehills are from mountains made --long enough and just so long will being pay the rent of seem and genius please the talentgang and water most encourage flame Cheers, Ken Hanly : Carl Remick [EMAIL PROTECTED] well intentioned. Let's not forget that Leopold's central African empire was originally called the International Association for Philanthropy in the Congo. · _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
metaphysics of value theory
Title: metaphysics of value theory was: RE: [PEN-L:36008] Re: RE: Re: Clash of Currencies and the Iraq War I said: even better is being unbiased ... like me. ;-) Ian: Are you not biased in your commitment to being unbiased, oh Grasshopper? :-) all I know is that my unbiasedness is the truth. I know not whether this be good or bad. Kung Pow (the chosen one).
Re: metaphysics of value theory
- Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] was: RE: [PEN-L:36008] Re: RE: Re: Clash of Currencies and the Iraq War I said: even better is being unbiased ... like me. ;-) Ian: Are you not biased in your commitment to being unbiased, oh Grasshopper? :-) all I know is that my unbiasedness is the truth. I know not whether this be good or bad. Kung Pow (the chosen one). == I've got to get better fortune cookies..
The chemical weapons factory update
This discovery seems to be going off the media radar screen without any backtrapping. No doubt 80 per cent of the US people will think that chemical weapons have now been found in great quantities. Is premature bushspeak for false? or the euphemistic inoperative? Cheers, Ken Hanly Reports of Iraq chemical cache 'premature': Pentagon Last Updated Mon, 24 Mar 2003 2:39:46 WASHINGTON - Stories by some media outlets that U.S. forces have uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory in Iraq may be wrong, the Pentagon cautioned late Sunday. Various news agencies carried reports that a factory had been found near the city of Najaf, about 160 kilometres from Baghdad. Troops are examining sites of interests, U.S. Central Command confirmed in a statement. But it offered no details, and warned that claims the factory produced chemical weapons are premature. Officials did say that troops are checking documents found in western Iraq that might lead to stockpiles of chemical or biological arms. The information was discovered along with a cache of about a million rounds of ammunition Saturday, according to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The discovery might save thousands of lives if we can find out exactly where and what they have, Myers said Sunday. I just know that they have some papers that they want to exploit as quickly as possible, and we're going to do that, of course. U.S. President George W. Bush ordered the attack against Iraq because he said Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction - including chemical and biological arms - that could be used against the United States. Baghdad denies the allegation. Written by CBC News Online staff
RE: Re: odds turn further against US
Ken writes:
The costs of the war and occupation
may become great enough that those who want further adventures full spectrum
dominance and a new american century will lose power in the administration
particularly if there are a significant number of personnel pouches and the
economy continues to be in trouble..
Where is Al
Qaeda and all the terror attacks?
al Qaeda has always been episodic, taking a yearor
two between attacks. Now it'sunder siege from the US and its allies,
though the "splendid little war" in Iraq may distract the Bushists from the
siege.
I wonder if the new policy is
not a sort of military-industrial capitalism that favors all those industries
that will be involved in the project of full spectrum dominance. Won't it be
seen by many capitalists as too risky a way of making the world safe for capital
and wont it skew investment in ways that may demand some sacrifice of the
relatively affluent lifestyle of the middle classes in advanced capitalist
countries? And how long can the US and its allies sustain any sort of
deprivation and relative economic hardships.
My
impression is that capitalist politics always involves forming coalitions of a
bunch of "special interests" (Halliburton, etc., etc., but also pro-Israel
zealots and fundamentalist Christians, among others) united behind high-sounding
principles ("making the world safe for democracy" = capitalism) and leaders
(Reagan, Bush-baby). The members of the coalitionhope that their
ownrelatively affluent life-styles can be protected and the costs shifted
to the poor and working classes. So far, since 1980 or so,their experience
fits their hopes.
If more Al
Qaeda attacks do not happen soon the US and company had better invent them.
Why would the US have to invent them? why do they need
them? If Saddam is overthrown and AQ doesn't surface, won't Bush claim victory
over terrorism and say "I told you so: Saddam and Osama were
one."
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
end the war,
now!
RE: Re: metaphysics of value theory
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36037] Re: metaphysics of value theory BTW, I'm surprised that the Oscars have overlooked the movie Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. It represents the pinnacle of western civilization. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! -Original Message- From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 8:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:36037] Re: metaphysics of value theory - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] was: RE: [PEN-L:36008] Re: RE: Re: Clash of Currencies and the Iraq War I said: even better is being unbiased ... like me. ;-) Ian: Are you not biased in your commitment to being unbiased, oh Grasshopper? :-) all I know is that my unbiasedness is the truth. I know not whether this be good or bad. Kung Pow (the chosen one). == I've got to get better fortune cookies..
Re: RE: Re: odds turn further against US
The problem is that these special interests as they are being served now will be primarily within the coalition of the willing. Conflict will be created with capital not in these sectors and also capital that is situated in areas that do not support the new american century project. The problem is that since there are more costs to the Iraq war than was thought there will be an unwillingness to carry on to letting one two many invasions bloom and that is the aim of the US policy. Fear would unite the US populace and lead them to support further invasions if there were further attacks in the US.. The war on terror cannot be declared as won. That would be disastrous. As the authors of the New American Century stuff have pointed out what is needed is something like Pearl Harbour. 9/11 diid that but if the war is won there will be no justification for further incursions that the populace could accept. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Devine, James To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' My impression is that capitalist politics always involves forming coalitions of a bunch of special interests (Halliburton, etc., etc., but also pro-Israel zealots and fundamentalist Christians, among others) united behind high-sounding principles (making the world safe for democracy = capitalism) and leaders (Reagan, Bush-baby). The members of the coalition hope that their own relatively affluent life-styles can be protected and the costs shifted to the poor and working classes. So far, since 1980 or so, their experience fits their hopes. If more Al Qaeda attacks do not happen soon the US and company had better invent them. Why would the US have to invent them? why do they need them? If Saddam is overthrown and AQ doesn't surface, won't Bush claim victory over terrorism and say I told you so: Saddam and Osama were one. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine end the war, now!
FW: Today's Papers
Title: FW: Today's Papers from SLATE's on-line survey of major US newspapers: The Los Angeles Times has two reporters who show the benefit of being a unilateral (that is, not embedded): They say that order has begun to break down in the border town Safwan, which just a few days ago gained a bit of fame when villagers were filmed hanging with GIs and tearing down Saddam posters. We need the Americans to come and bring food, said one resident. We need the electricity fixed, we need someone to police us. The Journal says that in sharply contrast to expectations, many Iraqis in largely anti-Saddam southern Iraq aren't excited about the arrival of GIs. We hate you. You are all criminals, said one tailor, as he cradled a kid on his lap. The Pentagon is hoping that an imminent influx of humanitarian aid will cool those feelings. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now!
remember the economy?
Title: remember the economy? While our splendid little war is going swimmingly in central Asia, it's easy to forget the US economy: March 24, 2003/New York TIMES Skeptical Economic View Takes in More Than Iraq By DAVID LEONHARDT With the battles having begun in Iraq, the United States economy once again looks as if it might be on the cusp of emerging from its torpor. The Standard Poor's 500-stock index rose more last week than it did during any week since September 2001, and Wall Street forecasters predict that a quick military victory will reduce economic uncertainty, causing a surge of corporate and consumer spending. But this has become a familiar refrain. A year and a half ago, many economists said that the country would prosper as soon as it recovered from the Sept. 11 attacks. Early last year, the scandals at Enron http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp=ENRNQ, Worldcom and elsewhere were supposed to be all that was preventing a new boom. With each new month of layoffs and other corporate cost-cutting, however, the exceptions begin to look more like a rule. Increasingly, corporate executives and some economists worry that the slow-growth economy of the last three years might in fact be the new reality, one that will bedevil workers and investors for a few more years. When it all comes out, we're going to have a significantly less sanguine outlook than we did in the late 90's, said Dale W. Jorgenson, an economist at Harvard University and an expert in productivity, widely seen as the most important factor for future growth. That's something we're just going to have to get used to. Economic turning points rarely announce themselves clearly, and rapid growth might truly be just around the corner this time, thanks to the Federal Reserve's reduction of short-term interest rates, say, or a technology breakthrough yet to be understood. At the least, a victory in Iraq seems likely to cause a spurt of optimism and economic activity. But there are tangible reasons to doubt that the United States will soon return to the heady times of the late 1990's. The federal budget deficit is rising, and the aging of the population will slow the growth of the labor force. Consumers will probably not increase their spending as rapidly as they did in recent years, and businesses - having invested so much in the boom years - still have a lot of idle factories and machinery. The effects of the bursting of the stock market bubble have proven to be far more long term and pervasive than expected, William J. McDonough, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said in a speech on Thursday. He specifically mentioned continuing doubts about corporate accounting and governance as a drag on growth. for more, see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/business/24ECON.html?tntemail1 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
The Empire Strikes Back
* The Empire Strikes Back Ian Urbina Village Voice (February 4-11, 2003) This Saturday, more than a thousand of America's top military and government leaders and their guests are scheduled to gather at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, for a secretive tribal rite called the 103rd Annual Wallow of the Military Order of the Carabao. And they won't be singing Kumbaya. In fact, on what these days feels like the eve of war, nothing says imperialism better than the annual Wallow, which celebrates the bloody conquest of the nascent Philippine Republic a century ago in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. The exclusive Military Order of the Carabao (named after the mud-loving water buffalo) was founded in 1900 by American officers fighting in the Philippines, so naturally there will be a lot of singing and cigar smoking by the 99.9 percent male crowd. Recent guests have included Colin Powell and General Richard B. Myers, current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many of the country's top military leaders are listed as members. (You have to be an officer to even be considered for membership.) Acting like a cluster of Klingons, the guys will toss around revered imperial slogans, such as Civilize 'em with a Krag! referring to the rifles used by Americans to kill thousands of Filipinos, who had fought Spain for their freedom and didn't want to be handed over to another colonial power One thing that fires up the bulls never changes: the bellowing of the Carabao anthem, The Soldier's Song. At the 2002 Wallow, the room was already thick with smoke --every place setting had been adorned with (forget that embargo) an authentic Cuban cigar -- when a voice said, Gentlemen, please turn to your songbooks, and the US Marine Band, seated to the side, struck up a tune. The Carabaos, most of whom seemed to know the words by heart, lustily sang the first stanza's story of the dreaded bolo (the Filipino revolutionaries' machete -- they had few guns) and deceitful ladrones (thieves): In the days of dopey dreams -- happy, peaceful Philippines, When the bolomen were busy all night long, When ladrones would steal and lie, and Americanos die, Then you heard the soldiers sing this evening song: And then the bulls and their guests rhythmically banged their fists on the tables during each rendition of the chorus: Damn, damn, damn the insurrectos! Cross-eyed kakiac ladrones! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, And return us to our own beloved homes. The chorus originally began: Damn, damn, damn the Filipinos! The US soldiers chanted the second line's surviving racial slur about Filipinos as khaki-colored thieves while marching through the jungle. Some accounts say that, as the Americans marched and sang, some of them carried ears they had lopped off the Filipinos' heads and kept as souvenirs. ... (Ian Urbina is a journalist based at the Middle East Research and Information Project in Washington, DC.) [The full text is available at http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/insurrecto/empire_strikes_back.html.] * Cf. Ian Urbina and Chris Toensing, In the Good Old Wallow Time, _The Baffler_ (January 2003), http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/insurrecto/good_wallow_time.html. Ian Urbina, http://www.merip.org/newspaper_opeds/insurrecto/frolicking.html. -- 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/
Editor, ecomist found dead
Title: Editor, ecomist found dead VHeadline.com Venezuela -- BREAKING NEWS Daily Journal editor-publisher Janet Kelly found dead, murdered? Leading economist and editor-publisher of the Caracas Daily Journal, Janet Kelly (56) has been found dead close to the Cota Mil highway above Caracas ... herToyota Yaris automobilewas parked at a tourist vantage point overlooking the upper Altamira suburb of Caracas close to a major exit from the highway and her body foundover the edge, 150 metersbelow. At this moment there are no indications as to how Janet's death occurred, but police detectives are at the scene which has been cordoned off while investigations proceed. Our highly-regarded colleague Janet Kelly had only just taken over the Daily Journal (March 10) and had great ambitions for the publication under her leadership. She was also part of an international negotiating committee between the Chavez Frias government and the opposition. Philadelphia-born Janet had graduated in international studies at the John Hopkins University (USA) and hadbecome a much-respected economics professor at the Institute for Higher Economic Studies (IESA) in Caracas and had gathered a group of investors to buy-out the DJ from the Neumann family in a deal that closed earlier this month. She was an associate professor at the Simon Bolivar University (USB) in Caracas and a leading light in the expat American comunity as well as a director at the Venezuelan American Chamber of Commerce (VenAmCham). Chacao Mayor Leopoldo Lopez is at the scene and says that it is up to the experts to determine what happened ... suicide has apparently been ruled out and it is thought that she may otherwise have been the target of political assassination. -- -- Drop Bush, Not Bombs! -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell - END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT) http://www.kvmr.org I uke, therefore I am. -- Cool Hand Uke I log on, therefore I seem to be. -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan
HJ Resolution 20
Title: HJ Resolution 20 Against all odds, there were enough signatures, e-mails, telegrams and phone calls within the last 24 hours to Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio to persuade him to introduce before the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. a little known resolution that deprives the President of his authority to wage war by returning war powers to Congress. Note: Kucinich, who has declared as a peace candidate for the Presidency, is the Congressman who who introduced the bill to establish a Department of Peace in July '01 and who has been working consistently against the weaponization of Space. ) However, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert must be convinced that there is a growing consensus if not a plurality to mandate the resolution for a House ballot. It is important to e-mail Speaker Hastert by simply saying, I am in favor of introducing HJ Resolution 20 for a vote. And then follow up to other congresspeople and senators. Speaker Hastert's e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do this NOW and please forward to other concerned citizens. Dan Scanlan
Re: censorship
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/22/03 11:08AM a lot of radio stations are refusing to play any songs by the Dixie Chicks, because their leader criticized Bush, saying that she was ashamed that her state, Texas, had produced him. Despite her apologies, many still refuse to air their songs Jim smash dixie chicks cds events were rather talibanish... dallas maverick guards nick van exel and steve nash have been getting shit for their anti-war positions... van exel (whose round ball game i've never cared for) has so far refused to back off from statements he made that not everyone agrees with war... nash (who has worn anti-war t-shirt prior to games) has back pedaled a bit in his comments about u.s., he's from canada and apparently some - including san antonio spur david robinson who went to naval academy - think that a 'furner' should not be criticizing u.s. policy when they are making so many u.s. dollars playing hoops... michael hoover
Re: HJ Resolution 20
Here's the text of HJ 20: *** To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. (Introduced in House) HJ 20 IH 108th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 20 To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 5, 2003 Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. LEE, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. OWENS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. OBERSTAR, Ms. WATERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FARR, Mr. OLVER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. WATSON, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. RUSH, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. STARK, and Mr. CAPUANO) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations -- JOINT RESOLUTION To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116 Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed.
Reports from GRU (Russian Intelligence)
Reports from GRU, graphic photos, and other material not shown on regular outlets are available at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2375.htm#how Cheers, Ken Hanly March 23, 2003, 1200hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - The situation in southern Iraq can be characterized as unstable and controversial. Heavy fighting is taking place in the Umm-Qasr-An-Nasiriya-Basra triangle. Satellite and signals intelligence show that both sides actively employ armored vehicles in highly mobile attacks and counterattacks. Additionally, fighting is continuing near the town of An-Najaf. As of this morning the Iraqi defenses along the Basra - An-Nasiriya - An-Najaf line are holding. Following the yesterday's Iraqi counter strike near An-Nasiriya the US command was forced to halt the advance of its troops toward An-Najaf and to redirect a portion of available tank forces to cover the flanks of the 3rd Motorized Infantry Division attacked by the Iraqis. By late evening yesterday constant air strikes and increasing strength of American tank attacks forced the Iraqis to withdraw their troops back to eastern parts of Nasiriya, across the Euphrates river, were they assumed defensive positions along the river bank. During the last day of fighting the Iraqis lost up to 20 tanks, up to 2 artillery batteries, and around 100 troops. Yesterday's US losses are estimated at 10 destroyed or disabled tanks, several armored personnel carriers and up to 15 troops killed in action. By 0700hrs MSK today the fighting at Nasiriya stopped. Currently both sides are rushing to regroup their forces and to get them ready for more fighting in this area. Near Basra the advance of the coalition forces came to a complete halt at the near approaches to the western and southwestern outskirts of the city. The US and British forces are rushing to settle into defensive positions after failing to surround Basra. Eastern and northern approaches to Basra remain open and under control of the Iraqi forces. More controversial reports are coming in from the town of Umm-Qasr. As early as three days ago the US command has declared that the coalition forces have captured this small port town and the adjacent oil terminal. However, throughout these three days heavy fighting continued in the town and in the suburbs. The US forces are still unable to break the defense put up by the Iraqi 45th brigade defending the town. Moreover, several counterattacks by the Iraqi forces at Umm Qasr have pushed the US forces out of some part of the town. During last night the Iraqi 45th brigade was reinforced by a special tank battalion of the 51st Infantry Division. The reinforcement included up to 600 troops and 10 tanks. However, the coalition forces were also strengthened overnight with two tank battalions and self-propelled artillery. As of 1000hrs MSK this morning heavy fighting continues at Umm Qasr. According to intercepted radio communications, the British marine infantry units in defensive positions on the Fao peninsula have requested emergency air and artillery support after being attacked by superior Iraqi forces. So far it is not clear whether this was an actual counterattack by the Iraqis or just a nuisance attack. The British commanders report that their positions are being attacked by up to a regiment of infantry supported by tanks. Other intercepted radio traffic suggests that, as the British and US forces bend the Basra - An-Najaf line of defense, the Iraqi command will pull back its main forces to the Al-Ammara - Ad-Divaniya line. Already most of the Iraqi forces in this region have moved to the Al-Ammara - Ad-Divaniya positions and within the next 48 hours defense of Basra and Fao peninsula will be reduced to just the local units and garrisons. The goal of the remaining forces will be to tie up superior coalition forces in these areas. According to radio intercepts during today's night the coalition begun airdropping troops in northern Iraq from airfields in Turkey and Jordan. These forces are being used to form mobile strike groups in northern Kurdistan and near the western-Iraqi town of Er-Rutbah. Already up to 5,000 coalition troops have been delivered to northern Kurdistan and up to 1000 paratroopers have landed near Er-Rutbah. Russian military intelligence has uncovered a range of facts pointing to a separate arrangement between the top leadership of Jordan and the US military command. Officially Jordan has declared its neutrality in the war against Iraq and refused to provide its airspace to the coalition aviation. However, at the same time Jordan has allowed the anti-Iraq coalition to place surveillance radars and radio reconnaissance stations on its territory. Jordan has also allowed the coalition to use its military airbases. Available information indicates that coalition special ops units, including up to 400 troops and their command headquarters, have been deployed to the Jordanian Zarka military base and to the home base of the
pass the guns and hold the butter
Pass the Guns, Hold the Butter By Cynthia L. Webb washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Monday, March 24, 2003; 9:37 AM As the U.S.-led campaign to disarm Iraq continues, the Pentagon's hungry war machine is gobbling up supplies from defense contractors and other firms across the country. Alliant Techsystems, an Edina, Minn.-based company that manufactures the U.S. Army's small firearm ammunition, is one company whose bottom line will likely benefit sharply from the ramp-up in war. They are very well positioned to benefit from military activity in the short term, Loren B. Thompson, military analyst at the Lexington Institute told The New York Times in an article yesterday. However, the Times noted that Alliant CEO Paul David Miller plays down the possible effects of the war in Iraq on his company, noting that the military, for now, is drawing from its munitions stockpiles. Mr. Thompson, the military analyst, said that Admiral Miller was being discreet because it is considered bad taste in the industry to highlight the returns generated by war. . The New York Times: Quiet, But Central, Role For Ammunition Maker (Registration required) Military orders for supplies related to the war effort have already helped spark new business for many companies. Tennessee companies are supplying U.S. forces with equipment ranging from soldiers' backpacks to explosives used in missiles, The Associated Press reported today. SSM Industries of Spring City, Tenn., makes special fabric, including bulletproof and fire retardant varieties, for the military. A Specialty Defense Systems plant in Tennessee manufacturers MOLLE, or Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment systems for soldiers. It's designed to allow the soldier to really carry all his requirements into the field of battle, said Lee Ferguson, chief operating officer of the plant, according to the newswire. The Holston Army Ammunition Plant in the Tri-Cities [in northeastern Tennessee] produces explosives used in missiles, including the Sidewinder, Hellfire, Tomahawk and Javelin missiles, said Nancy Gray, the Army's public affairs officer for the plant. ... Other area firms are making Humvee parts, so-called 'dirty bomb' detectors and smallpox kits. Kevin Frankel, a senior nylon-research engineer at the Chattanooga DuPont Textiles and Interiors plant, recently said military contractors are buying every pound of parachute yarn the plant can produce. . The Associated Press via KnoxNews.com: Products From Tennessee Go To War Alabama defense contractors also have seen business ramp up in light of war. American Apparel Inc., which makes combat uniforms at five Alabama plants, has increased production and shipments of desert-camouflage battle dress uniforms, said Jim Hodo, the company's vice president and chief operating officer, another Associated Press article reported. The wearers of those uniforms will use spare parts made by GKN Aerospace Alabama. Company spokesman Stacey Clapp said the company has had a slight increase in parts for military helicopters, including the Army's UH-60 Black Hawk and the Navy version, the Seahawk. ... The Army also has increased orders from Miltope Corp., a Montgomery-based computer manufacturer. Miltope specializes in rugged laptops that can survive being dropped or submerged in water and is in the second year of a five-year contract to build 11,000 of the laptops for the Army. . The Associated Press via The Tuscaloosa News: Alabama Businesses Contribute All Sorts of Goods To Military The nation's tech capital, Silicon Valley, is playing a major role in supplying technology services and products for the war effort. Satellites tracking Iraqi troops in the desert were designed by engineers on the Peninsula. Data networks linking America's front-line soldiers to the Pentagon, half a world away, rely on Silicon Valley's trademark gadgetry. American fighter pilots aim their weapons using a high-tech helmet developed in San Jose, The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday. The military pumps more than $4 billion each year into local businesses, cash spent on everything from ice cream and underwear to chemical-weapons detectors. A Chronicle review of Defense Department spending in 2002 found more than 900 companies from Healdsburg to San Jose selling to the military. . The San Francisco Chronicle: War on Iraq: Bay to Baghdad; Contracts: Score of Area Businesses Feed Military Machine's Need For Gear Will the war help offset the tech slump? The Wall Street Journal tried to answer that question, reporting: The war has proved to be a break -- though probably a short-term one -- for some tech companies in Silicon Valley, and they have been throwing out their traditional corporate playbooks. Many have refocused on military projects at the expense of bread-and-butter consumer or business products. Some are increasing factory shifts and speeding up production cycles, while others are hiring more staff -- all actions that run counter to recent
Australian pilots refuse mission
Anyone seen this on the US media? Cheers,. Ken Hanly New Zealand Herald Australian pilot gives thumbs down to US bombing order 24.03.2003 CANBERRA - An Australian FA/18 Hornet pilot has refused an American command to bomb a target in Iraq in the first conflict between the different rules governing the way the two allies make war. Although Prime Minister John Howard said the incident during the coalition's drive towards Baghdad was not evidence of tension between the two commands, the prospect of a clash of rules was clear from the start. Australia operates under a tougher set of rules of engagement than the US because Canberra has ratified more international agreements than Washington. The refusal of the RAAF pilot to release his precision-guided bombs came as: Australian Navy boarding parties captured three Iraqi dhows loaded with 86 mines and a wide array of military weapons as their crews tried to slip through the coalition blockade to seed the top of the Gulf with sophisticated Manta acoustic and other floating mines. SAS soldiers, after a number of firefights over the weekend, called down an air strike on an Iraqi command and control base suspected of being involved in the launching of ballistic missiles. At home, tens of thousands of demonstrators rallied against the war, despite a poll showing opposition to Australian involvement had significantly weakened since the conflict started, with opinion now almost evenly divided. The decision of the RAAF pilot not to attack an Iraqi target was taken when his Hornet, armed with a range of strike weapons, was ordered away from the round-the-clock escort missions the Australians have been flying since war started. However, the crew chose not to complete the mission because they could not positively identify the target, Defence Force spokesman Brigadier Mike Hannan said. The crew's decision reflects the ADF's strong commitment to the laws of armed conflict and its support of the Government's targeting policy, right down to the lowest levels. The rules under which Australians are fighting in Iraq are governed by Australian and international law, the 1949 Geneva Convention, and additional 1977 protocols that the US has not signed. A range of weapons in the American arsenal - such as landmines and cluster bombs - are banned by Australia, and Canberra has emphasised that its forces will refuse to attack civilian targets, including key bridges, dams and other vital infrastructure of the kind bombed by the US in the 1991 Gulf War. Australia has also emphasised that its troops remain strictly under national command, but Brigadier Hannan said the final choice of whether or not to attack was a decision made by ordinary young Australians, often in a split second, that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. The rules are all well and good, and they are important and necessary, but they are not of themselves sufficient to ensure that the laws of armed conflict are upheld and targeting policy is implemented. He said such decisions were made by young pilots flying at very high speed, often at night. In this case the pilot ... decided that the information didn't support the justification for the use of the weapon and aborted the mission. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3251554thesection=newst hesubsection=world
economics question
Can anyone point me to a good book, article or other source for data illustrating the extent/increase in economic globalization. I'm not looking for trade data (which is easy enough to find) but things like FDI, percent of MNC sales/revenues/profits earned abroad, etc. I figure someone has put together some figures like this! Thanks for any help. Ellen Frank
Arms sales to Iraq
Does anyone have reliable data showing the amount of arms sales per country to Iraq over the past 20-25 years? I'm looking for something that would account for under-the-table transfers, transfers via third parties (e.g., US transferring arms to Iraq via Austria), and whatever else could be legitimately counted. Trying to figure out the true extent of the military aid US gave to Iraq during 80s and to compare it with that given by other states. According to some information I was sent by my nephew, which came from SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), the US component looks minuscule. SIPRI info can be seen here: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf Also, I'm interested not only in actual weapons, but also training, other kinds of military aid... Bill
Re: economics question
Try UNCTAD's World Investment Reports (annual)--with various themes each year. xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xxx On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Ellen Frank wrote: Can anyone point me to a good book, article or other source for data illustrating the extent/increase in economic globalization. I'm not looking for trade data (which is easy enough to find) but things like FDI, percent of MNC sales/revenues/profits earned abroad, etc. I figure someone has put together some figures like this! Thanks for any help. Ellen Frank
Post-war Iraq: Economy and Politics
If the US denies Iraq democracy and independence, its freedom will be bought with blood Neal Ascherson Monday March 24, 2003 The Guardian The landscape after the battle, in a conquered country, does not smile in a warm morning of freedom. Instead, there begins a rat-infested twilight, and many of the rats are human. The prisoners will emerge and the exiles will return. But as they shoulder their rucksacks and try to find their homes in ruined streets, they will often see those who imprisoned and exiled them riding past in the conquerors' jeeps, wearing new armbands of authority. Politicians in new offices will sell options on good jobs and stolen aid shipments. Decent families will scrabble like white mice for food and favours. Iraq, at first, will be no different. But the world cannot afford to leave it like that. For this potentially wealthy country of 23 million people, with a large and sophisticated middle class, there has to be a new invention of nationhood. The sad limbo status of yet another UN protectorate, partitioned and mafia-ridden, is not an option for Iraq. With neighbours like Iran and Turkey, the appearance of an enormous grey area of indefinite sovereignty in one of the most contested regions on earth would invite catastrophe. Incredibly, with American tanks half way to Baghdad, there is still no agreement on how to run a military occupation regime, let alone on a programme to reconstruct an Iraqi state. (The best suggestion so far is for a UN blue police force drawn from Muslim countries to restore order and justice at local level.) But last week's quarrel at Brussels is not as serious as it looks: Tony Blair is evasive about free elections in Iraq, but at least he and Chirac seem to agree that the security council must authorise a post-Saddam civil authority. The real trouble is in Washington. There, the most extreme hawks not only reject American involvement in nation-building but resist any role beyond emergency aid provision for the detested United Nations. They are likely to be overruled. Jay Garner, the retired American general who is supposed to become the temporary civilian head of the occupation authority, knows that the UN will have to take political responsibility of some kind, and last week's Azores meeting committed the reluctant President Bush to seek security council endorsement of a post-conflict administration. But precious time is being wasted. The project of building a strong, just and reasonable Iraq faces awful obstacles, but starts with two huge advantages. The first is the sheer speed of the American-British onslaught. This means that there has been no time for regional warlords to get their armed forces into the act as recognised allies and claim a share of central power. And the speed of the advance may also - with luck - ward off the real doomsday scenario now looming over the conflict. This is a full-scale, Cyprus-style Turkish invasion of northern Iraq, which would crush the Kurds, cripple a future Iraqi state and destabilise the whole Middle East for a generation. If the Americans can get first and in force to Mosul and Kirkuk, they may be able to head off this disaster. The second advantage is the powerful tradition of Iraqi nationalism. All nation-states are constructs, and the fact that Iraq was invented by the British in 1920 out of three Ottoman provinces has not prevented the growth of a patriotism directed largely against foreign interference. The British granted Iraq formal independence in 1932, but returned heavily during the second world war and pushed Iraq around for cold war purposes until their credibility collapsed after Suez. Two rebellions against western neo-colonialism have become mythic. The first was the unsuccessful 1941 revolt against the British by Rashid Ali, misleadingly dismissed by western historians as pro-German. The second was the savage putsch by General Qasim in 1958, which murdered the king and tore Iraq out of the pro-western Baghdad pact. The ensuing struggles, which ended in Saddam's dictatorship an d the one-party rule of the Ba'ath, have not diminished Iraqi pride in an independence perceived as wrested from foreigners by force. And this tradition, although hijacked and betrayed by Saddam, is still solid enough to build a new state on. What sort of state? The example of postwar Germany suggests that the best ideology for the purpose is social democracy. One of the first things the British did in their zone of Germany was to sponsor a new trade union confederation, the sheet anchor of democracy in the years to come. But this approach is now unthinkable. So is any Mesopotamian Marshall plan. Instead, Iraq will probably be abandoned to the joys of an uncontrolled free-market regime, supervised by the World Bank. Iraq owes foreign financiers some $200bn to $400bn in debt. If the experience of Serbia after its own regime change is anything to go by, almost all the financial aid offered by the international community
Iraqi Funds in Swiss Bank confiscated by US treasury
The news release below claims that the US treasury has confiscated funds in a Swiss bank and the bank will tranfer them to the treasury.Just how does one legally arrange things like this? These are funds blocked under UN sanctions. What right has the US to take them and why would the bank agree? Isnt this headline news? The release is from a mainstream info site on Switzerland. Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=161sid=1715459
Re: Iraqi Funds in Swiss Bank confiscated by US treasury
They told Switzerland, "You're next. jks k hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The news release below claims that the US treasury has confiscated funds ina Swiss bank and the bank will tranfer them to the treasury.Just how doesone legally arrange things like this? These are funds blocked under UNsanctions. What right has the US to take them and why would the bank agree?Isnt this headline news? The release is from a mainstream info site onSwitzerland.Cheers, Ken Hanlyhttp://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=161sid=1715459Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Re: Iraqi Funds in Swiss Bank confiscated by US treasury
This reminds me of Machiavelli's observation in The Prince that a man is more likely to forgive you for killing his father than he is to forgive you for stealing his patrimony. Machiavelli was very right on this point. It's going to be very hard to make this thuggery look like any kind of justice. Joanna At 02:33 PM 03/24/2003 -0600, you wrote: The news release below claims that the US treasury has confiscated funds in a Swiss bank and the bank will tranfer them to the treasury.Just how does one legally arrange things like this? These are funds blocked under UN sanctions. What right has the US to take them and why would the bank agree? Isnt this headline news? The release is from a mainstream info site on Switzerland. Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=161sid=1715459
Query Re: Support the Troops -- Bring Them Home
When and where did the slogan Support the Troops -- Bring Them Home originate? In the anti-Gulf War movement? -- 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/
RE: Re: economics question
UNCTAD's report is very good on flows, actors, rules; also, look at the World Bank's annual Global Development Finance; much on FDI there. Both can be had in pdf from their respective websites. For Lat Am, CEPAL in Chile does the same analysis for the region. -- Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 Cochabamba BOLIVIA Tel/Fax: (591-4) 424-8242 eFax: (413) 280-5234 [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony D'Costa Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 4:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:36055] Re: economics question Try UNCTAD's World Investment Reports (annual)--with various themes each year. xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xxx On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Ellen Frank wrote: Can anyone point me to a good book, article or other source for data illustrating the extent/increase in economic globalization. I'm not looking for trade data (which is easy enough to find) but things like FDI, percent of MNC sales/revenues/profits earned abroad, etc. I figure someone has put together some figures like this! Thanks for any help. Ellen Frank
Re: Iraqi extremists and fanatics
Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last night there was a strategy meeting of the British military leadership in Qatar. They were reported to be very worried. They had not anticipated Baath party "fanatics" and "extremists". So, what do we call the PCNAC crowd, if "extremist" and "fanatic" are taken? Flatout batshit crazy fucks? jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Query Re: Support the Troops -- Bring ThemHome
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/24/03 03:55PM When and where did the slogan Support the Troops -- Bring Them Home originate? In the anti-Gulf War movement? Yoshie www.oz.net/~vvawai/pdf/Lessons-gulf-war.pdf michael hoover
military microeconomics
[funny how the use the term market; this would seem to be an example of Braudel's notion of capitalism as the anti-market..] Orbital's Fortunes Launched Again Defense Contract Boosts Struggling Satellite Firm By Renae Merle Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 24, 2003; Page E01 In the late afternoon of Feb. 6, Orbital Sciences Corp. executives and rocket scientists gathered in the auditorium of the company's Dulles headquarters and watched a live video feed of a 50-foot, 50,000-pound rocket shooting 1,000 miles into space and 3,500 miles across the Pacific Ocean. It was an early test of a missile defense launcher and, the executives hoped, proof of Orbital's rising fortunes. For more than four years, Orbital has struggled with high debt, bad investments, troubled accounting, Wall Street skeptics doubting its business acumen, and a telecom bust that sapped its customer base. That was until Orbital was chosen in February 2002 to develop a rocket central to the missile defense program championed by President Bush. Without the more than $400 million contract, the largest in the company's history, Orbital may have been forced into bankruptcy reorganization, industry analysts said. This success has come at a price. As its commercial market continues to languish, the relatively small Orbital finds itself up against industry giants such as Lockheed Martin Corp. in the hotly competitive defense market. The missile defense contract helped Orbital raise $135 million in a bond deal that carries a high interest rate, which worries Wall Street. Nevertheless, the company is considered to be in far better position than it was two years ago. On top of its lucrative missile defense business, it is gearing up to compete for a new space vehicle to fly astronauts to the international space station. And last year marked the completion of Orbital's back to basics strategy, fixing its balance sheet, getting out of ancillary businesses and putting the focus back on satellites and rockets, said David W. Thompson, chairman and chief executive. We were quite pleased with the way things went, he said. Thompson, a childhood space buff turned NASA engineer, founded the company in 1982 with two college friends, realizing a long-held dream to own a space-flight company. While Lockheed and Boeing Co. focused on launching large, expensive satellites for commercial customers, Orbital cast itself as the low-cost alternative, offering its services for sometimes half the price. At a time when many satellites were stationed 22,000 miles above the Earth, Orbital positioned its satellites 300 to 500 miles up, keeping costs down. The strategy worked, analysts said, even if Orbital's cheaper alternative meant customers were restricted to simpler missions using smaller satellites. It's like comparing a Saturn and an Escalade, said Jim Lewis, director for technology and public policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I have to admit the first time I heard about Orbital I thought these people would be out of business in two years. Added Paul Nisbet, a defense industry analyst with JSA Research: They are certainly a force to be dealt with in the smaller-satellite market, as much as there is a market. In fact, the company didn't make an annual profit until 1991, a year after it went public, and suffered several mishaps, including the destruction of two rockets in flight. Then Orbital began searching for fatter profit margins and new ways to grow. In the mid-1990s Orbital established a subsidiary, Orbital Imaging Corp., that used a constellation of satellites to provide spy-grade photographs of the Earth for commercial clients. Another gamble, Orbital Communications Corp., a joint venture with Teleglobe Inc., used satellites for data communications. Both ventures become money-losing casualties of the telecom bust when demand didn't meet expectations. Both also eventually filed for bankruptcy; Orbital sold its interest in Orbital Communications and does not expect to have a relationship with Orbital Imaging much longer. By 1999 Orbital was battling questions about its accounting, including the timing of revenue recognition from contracts. It eventually restated three years of earnings and settled shareholder lawsuits in July 2000 for $22.5 million. The turning point came when Orbital needed to repay $100 million in bonds maturing October 2002. With a higher stock price, the company could have issued more shares to raise the capital necessary to retire the debt. But with the controversy surrounding its accounting and the dim outlook on the telecommunications market, that wasn't possible, industry analysts and company officials said. Existing bondholders wanted to be paid back in full, and the only alternative they offered was gaining control of the company, said Mark Carmen, a managing director at Jefferies Co., which acted as Orbital's investment banker. We didn't think the situation warranted handing the
RE: Re: Iraqi extremists and fanatics
in Chris' defense, he put "extremists" and "fanatics" in quotes, suggesting that he was (temporarily) looking at matters from the perspective of the Brit. military leadership. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message-From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 2:29 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:36062] Re: Iraqi "extremists" and "fanatics" Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last night there was a strategy meeting of the British military leadership in Qatar. They were reported to be very worried. They had not anticipated Baath party "fanatics" and "extremists". So, what do we call the PCNAC crowd, if "extremist" and "fanatic" are taken? Flatout batshit crazy fucks? jks Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Re: RE: RE: Re: Clash of Currencies and the Iraq War
Im just getting back to this thread apologies if Im way behind the flow. Anyway, Krugman is OK as far as he goes. As I mentioned before, the euro-vs-dollar conspiracy crowd is simply wrong on the mechanics of how these things work. Whether oil is denominated in dollars or not is relevant, as K also says. And I doubt that US planners think in terms of the IPE concept of key currencies. If I were sitting in on their planning meetings, I suspect I would hear a lot about leadership, access to [or of] capital, etc. Nevertheless, the US has a persistent current account surplus in excess of half a trillion dollars a year. Robert Blecker, Dean Baker, Jamie Galbraith, Wynn Godley and others have demonstrated, convincingly to me, that this is unsustainable even before the long run comes calling. The relative attractiveness of US asset markets has taken a big hit in the last year or so; hence it is extremely likely that our payments are being balanced by a buildup of external reserves. (Krugman thinks this as well.) That is a dangerous situation. It is also a politically anomalous situation, because it suggests that foreign governments, through their ostensibly autonomous central banks, have increasing leverage over US financial prospects. The advantages of the privileged position of that dollar are not so much the seigniorage that Krugman refers to, as they are the ability to acquire a very large external debt. At some point in the future, this will not look like such a great deal, but right now it means that Americans as a group can enjoy relatively high living standards without have to do the grubby work producing stuff that we or others actually want. To repeat: left economists who specialize in these things should be writing popular pieces discussing the political economic relationship between global finance and war. The best response to faulty analysis is better analysis. Peter Max B. Sawicky wrote: Krugman argues that the issue is a crock: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/oildollar.html His argument looks right to me. max
Revised Version of Free Microeconomics Text
Pen-lers, At my website, http://economics.csusb.edu/faculty/nilsson/nilsson.htm You'll find a slightly improved version of my free on-line microeconomics textbook. Feel free to use as you see fit (as long as credit is given). I use the text in my intro micro texts. Eric Nilsson Economics CSUSB
Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: Clash of Currencies and the Iraq War
I suspect that the vicious war in Iraq would make nations more likely to want to use an alternative to the dollar. I agree that the privilege of issuing a currency that serves as a unit of account offers the profits of seniorage, but I cannot see a war in the face of world public opinion shoring up that privilege. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apologies
I am not trying to insult you by characterizing you, but to put my finger on a dilemma. I think it is related to something wrong in the way you approach the relationship between theory and practice . . . .The working people you talk with may be will not recognize the word "hegemony" but they will recognize an agitational equivalent of it. What is the US doing going round playing biggest kid on the block? What is it like for the supplies troops who have just been ambushed and interviewed on Iraqi television? What is it like for the black sergeant who threw grenades into tents in Camp Pennsylvania two nights ago? Why does CNN this morning still report his motivation as a mystery? What are the feelings of black, or other, members of the US military about what they are doing policing the world? Why does someone like Akbar turn to a reactive ideology (I say reactive to avoid the dismissive connotations of reactionary, although it means the same literally) like being a Black Muslim. Reply You are basically correct in putting your finger on the dilemma. The societal role of the US government, or rather multi-national state of the United States of North America, does not rivet on its bigness or playing the role of the biggest kid on the block. The role of the multi-national state of the United States of North America is fundamentally a question of conduct driven by property relations. The organ of violence in the hands of the historically evolved Anglo-American bourgeoisie is the international hangmen of revolution and the enemy of the peoples of earth. That is the point. Not hegemony or bigness but rather the rule of a class. If you assume a mainly theoretical, pedagogical approach to politics, while this is not always wrong, you will not see that agitational work can provide a bridge between theory and practice, testing theory but also enriching it. Reply I proceed from an assumption that there does not exist a "bridge between theory and practice," - as such, by definition. Practical politics deal with the doctrine of conducting the social struggle, not theory of social development. The doctrine of Marx and Lenin proceed from a different axis than the theory. Both require thinking but one must admit that Lenin's doctrine of the "party of a new type" does not arise from a fundamental analysis of commodity production. The party of a new type - the Leninist party, arose as a doctrine of the class struggle at a certain stage of evolution of the social struggle during the period of transition from agricultural to industrial relations. The question Lenin posed was how to create an organization of revolutionaries unified on the basis of seizing the state power - the civic authority. Theory is said to be the law system of unfolding development or a process. By definition this rivets on abstractions. For instance, there is the materialist conception of history, which is not practically related to the doctrine espousing the party of a new type, or the need at this juncture for a broad class party in America. It is interesting that you would raise the case of the solider involved in fragging and using the term "black Muslim" and "what are the feelings of black, or other, members of the US military about what they (US government) are doing policing the world?" Here the question of theory and doctrine becomes paramount. First of all the world is going to be policed as long as "the state" exists as a historically evolved social phenomenon. Theory informs me on this proposition. The feelings of blacks are almost identical to those sections of the Anglo-American people who occupy similar social positions in the working class. This can only be understood on the basis of history. There are variations but the black masses who are working class, not simply black, did not object to Clinton's bombing of black people in other parts of earth. Nor was there any registered outrage over Clinton's Eastern European policy by "black people" in America. It gets worse. Clinton's administration did more to hurt the mass of African Americans - by way of his welfare reform, than all the "reactionaries" over the past 30 years. Clinton was the African American people, "main man" in terms of the specifics of American Ideology and politics. My point is that your assertion is outside the indigenousness Marxism (Marx theory) that evolved in America, because it is classless. In terms of doctrine, the forms of oppression they have faced historically govern the national character of the African American peoples movement. Why millions of African Americans would reject the doctrine of Christianity is no surprise given the fact that Christians enslaved them as a people in America. I thought everyone on earth understood this. Now the question is not really why Blacks gravitate towards Islam, but the role of religion in social life. There is something to your brand of Marxist that caters to the bourgeoisie. I cannot be accused of this
Re: Re: Re: US opinion polls
Many thanks, Doug. There is a big difference, but I would have expected more lopsided oppose numbers from those who don't see an Al Qaeda connection. Perhaps a later poll would have revealed this. Peter Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: Doug Henwood posted data on this to his list. Maybe he could resend them here. There was a striking difference according whether or not people held the evil Saddam responsible for 9-11 or not. On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 01:13:07PM -0800, Peter Dorman wrote: The New York Times presented more polling data today. One question that interests me is how opinion is split based on the role of disinformation. Specifically, how do the percentages of those for or against the war differ depending on whether respondents believe that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks (i.e. conditional probabilities)? Does anyone on this list have this information, either for the present or the recent past? Peter Yes I've posted quite a bit on this. Here's the latest. Other polls tell pretty much the same story. Another stunning factoid: only 17% of US respondents could give the correct number of Iraqis among the 9/11 hijackers (0, of course). Doug [this is from the director of polling for ABC] This except from our 1/28/03 ABC News poll analysis may help. AL QAEDA - Bush's assertion in his speech that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda is one that confirms a perception already held by many Americans. Any number of polls since Sept. 11, 2001, have shown that most do think Iraq supports those terrorists; in this survey, 68 percent say so. This perception is an important one in fueling support for military action, in that such support is premised to a large extent on the sense of threat Americans feel from Iraq. Among those who think Iraq directly supports Al Qaeda, 73 percent favor taking military action to oust Saddam. Among those who don't think he supports Al Qaeda, support for military action drops to 45 percent. 9. Do you think Iraq has or has not provided direct support to the Al Qaeda terrorist group? ProvidedNot provided No support support opinion 1/28/0368 17 15 Xtab: Military action vs Iraq Support Oppose Provided support to Al Qaeda (68%) 73% 24 Not provided support (17%) 4551
coalition close to crisis
BBC2's news late night flagship announces that Blair is to fly to meet Bush. No explanation or spin given. An assumption that it will be presented as a routine update. BUT BUT BUT In another exceptionally well informed briefing of the military position, so good that it seems likely the British government is using it to get information out in an informed way after the headlines of the press are printed, followed by another interview with Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence. 1) Basra The Brits responsible for containing Basra admit that they are having to change their tactics because of Iraqi zealots, committed guerillas. An authority on relief work says there are 600,000 people in Basra, of whom 100,000 are children. The water supply is breaking down. There is no sign of the revolt on which the coalition strategy depends, rather fierce resistance. A siege of two major cities, Basra and Baghdad will be very difficult. The pictures of casualties of yesterday's coalition bombing on Basra are very distressing. The Brits will be held responsible for a humanitarian tragedy in Basra. Hoon, asked if we could just wait outside, said, it is not an option.. 2) Nasiriyah: In the last 36 hours the US could have lost 30 dead, as a result of being drawn into difficult street fighting. 3) Baghdad: retired US General McCaffrey congratulated the programme on the military analysis. On the agreed objective of taking Baghdad, he was asked a short little question by Mark Urban - do you think Rumsfeld has committed enough troops. Short pause. Then he laid into Rumsfeld. The rumblings of yesterday evening are open. And even though McCaffrey is retired he is in touch with other generals. Not only was he contemptuous of Rumsfeld's quite inadequate projection of the number of troops needed, but he emphasised Baghdad can be taken. If they use overwhelming force they can break into it. The cost will be 2000 to 3000 casualties on the US side. 2000-3000. And doesnt that look like the going rate, judging from today? And McCaffrey did not even notice let alone address the point, that once inside as an occupation force, the US soldiers will be sitting ducks for snipers at say 6 dead a day, while supervising food queues. -- But just to stick with Basra for the moment. IF waiting outside is not an option what is? Newsnight did not press the point, but the question will come up as fast as tomorrow. The option, shame upon humiliation, will be to have to negotiate with the existing administration of Basra!! And that will be the choice: sieges of the major cities, requiring the hegemons, after everything, to negotiate with the Saddam regime, or risk an enormous level of pain in terms of body bags, and superbly televised real time horrors, in an international climate in which the other big powers of the world are refusing to cooperate in any exit strategy in terms of peace keeping. Blair likes to be proactive about his crises. The coalition is only 48 hours away from one. And even if this is the golden moment to get George to sign up to a comprehensive Middle East peace plan embracing the Palestinians, and brokered with the Saudis and the Arab League, can Rumsfeld and Bush go into reverse that quickly? They have no exit strategy. And with the haemorrhaging of credibility who would bet against a run on the dollar within even days? What is the price of forgiveness by the Security Council? But it may be a matter of hours before dysentery breaks out among the children of Basra. The coalition is losing the battle for control. The breakdown could be dramatic. Chris Burford London
NYT: Turkey's Wrong Turn
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/opinion/24SAFI.html OP-ED COLUMNIST Turkey's Wrong Turn By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON As several American big birds flew in from the West to airfields in the zone we protect in Iraqi Kurdistan, a freedom fighter turned to a Kurdish friend: I have been a pesh merga for 25 years, he said. I always dreaded the sight of aircraft because they brought death to our people. This is the first time I have seen an air force on our side. The transports arriving at the rate of four a day carry U.S. forces as well as loads of weapons to enable Kurds to follow up on our air and missile strikes at Ansar and Qaeda terrorists. Together with the 70,000 Kurdish warriors who call themselves the pesh merga, those who face death, the U.S. troops being inserted daily are early elements of what will become the northern front. The missions of these coalition forces are to prevent Saddam from torching the Kirkuk-Mosul oil fields and to engage Iraqi troops that would otherwise join the defense of Baghdad. Top Baath Party leaders tell my Kurdish friends that Saddam's strategy is to use guerrilla tactics to give France and Russia two weeks to negotiate a truce. Such delaying tactics are helped by Turkey's foot-dragging. The new, Islamic-influenced government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan transformed that formerly staunch U.S. ally into Saddam's best friend. The main reason Turkey now permits U.S. overflights is that we have demonstrated our capability of doing it the long, hard way, from the west through Jordan. For that, we owe King Abdullah plenty; we owe Mr. Erdogan nothing. Before that, Ankara Islamists kept allied supply ships floating off Turkey's shores, while those politicians dickered over the price of a transit toll. Six billion cash plus 10 billion in loan guarantees wasn't good enough in that time-consuming bazaar. We had to send our ships around to Kuwait, lengthening the war and causing more allied and Iraqi casualties. Adding diplomatic insult to this military injury, Turkey massed 40,000 troops on its border with Iraq, hoping to grab the oil fields of Kirkuk if Iraqi Kurds rectified Saddam's ethnic cleansing by daring to return to their homes. The Turks' excuse for seizing today's moment of liberation to bite off a rich chunk of their neighbor is this: they insist that Iraqi Kurds plan to set up an independent state, which would then supposedly cause Turkish Kurds to secede and break up Turkey. That's strictly Erdogan's cover story for an oil grab, undermining the coalition's plans for an Iraq whole and free. Even America's severest critics recognize Turkey's move as venal: pacifist Germany just threatened to remove its crews from the Awacs sent to Turkey by NATO that we arranged to protect the Turks from any wartime backlash. Thus has the novice wheeler-dealer in Ankara succeeded in alienating both the trans-Atlantic coalition of the willing and old Europe's union of the unwilling. The Turks also came up with a humanitarian reason for crossing their border: to block an expected wave of Kurdish refugees again running from Saddam's vengeance. They would be running from an attack by Saddam's troops invited by Turkey's refusal to permit passage by allied troops. Few are willing to denounce the new government of Turkey for this betrayal because wartime is not the best time. Last week, Colin Powell, biting his tongue, observed patiently that Ankara had yet to operationalize overflights. Gen. Tommy Franks also walked on eggs, noting that incursions by Turkish troops were by very light formations. Barham Salih, an Iraqi Kurdish leader who spoke to me yesterday from Sulaimaniya, also was conciliatory: Erdogan had been badly advised, before his election, that America could not topple Saddam without Turkey. We do not forget that Turkey provided the airfields for the no-fly zone that protected Kurds for a decade. However, Salih pointedly noted that Kurdish forces in Iraq are part of the coalition, effectively under U.S. control. And we are not asking for money; we are calling for freedom. Fortunately, President Bush sent a firm message to troublesome Turks: We expect them not to go into northern Iraq. Maybe, after undermining the genuine friendship between Turkey and the U.S. by helping Saddam make the war longer and bloodier, Islamist politicians and secular generals in Ankara will agree to fulfill Bush's expectation.
military fiscalism
washingtonpost.com Federal Contracts States News Service Monday, March 24, 2003; Page E09 J.M. Waller Associates Inc. of Burke won a contract valued at up to $1.1 billion from the Air Force to provide professional architect-engineer services associated with preliminary environmental assessment. Environmental Co. of Charlottesville won a contract valued at up to $1.1 billion from the Air Force to provide professional architect-engineer services associated with preliminary environmental assessment E.A. Engineering, Science Technology Inc. of Hunt Valley won a contract valued at up to $1.1 billion from the Air Force for professional architect-engineer services to perform preliminary environmental assessment. ATT Government Solutions of Vienna has won a contract modification valued at $180 million over a five-year period from the Internal Revenue Service to provide toll-free services to handle the 130 million calls made annually to the IRS. The contract is part of the General Services Administration's Federal Technology Service Long Distance Crossover program. SRA International Inc. of Fairfax won a task order with an estimated value of up to $115 million over five years, including options, from the Transportation Department for a broad range of advanced information technology services and solutions to the National Guard Bureau Chief Information Officer and Reserve Component. Precon Marine Inc. of Chesapeake won a $41.58 million contract from the Navy for fender system repairs to lift slip, wharf and desert cove crane. . George G. Sharp Inc. of Virginia Beach won a $29.11 million contract from the Navy for engineering technical and logistics services, staging facility and support services. S.B. Ballard Construction of Virginia Beach won a $17.9 million contract from the Army for construction of a new operations support center. Envirosystems Inc. of Columbia won a $17.52 million contract from the Environmental Protection Agency for chemical analytical services for multimedia organics. Computer Networks Software of Springfield won a $10 million contract from NASA for research and development services on the airspace systems aviation safety and small aircraft transportation system. CRAssociates Inc. of Newington won an $8.2 million contract from the Health and Human Services Department for medical services for alien detainees. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. of Lexington Park, Md., won a contract option valued at up to $7.99 million from the Navy for technical and engineering services in support of the Naval Air Systems Command Aircraft Division. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. of Baltimore won a $6.97 million task order under a previously issued multiple award construction contract from the Navy for renovation of Navy buildings. Millennium Engineering Integration Co. of Arlington won a $4.19 million contract from the Navy for engineering services. Volunteers of America-Chesapeake Inc. of Lanham won a $3.64 million contract from the Justice Department for comprehensive sanction center services. Amyx Defense Logistics Inc. of Alexandria won a $1.8 million contract from the Defense Logistics Agency for management and technical support services. MAC Consulting Services Inc. of Fairfax won a contract valued at up to $1.25 million from the General Services Administration for management, organizational and business improvement services. Intelligent Automation Inc. of Rockville won a $750,000 contract from the Transportation Department for phase II research and development work on aircraft wiring integrity verification using a pseudo-random binary sequence. Machining Technologies Inc. operating as Matech of Hebron, Md., won a $540,125 contract from the Army for guns through 30mm. Bea Maurer Inc. of Fairfield won a $372,900 contract from the Defense Industrial Supply Center for protective mask carrier assemblies. Davis Boat Works Inc. of Newport News won a $367,517 contract from the Navy for maintenance, repair and rebuilding of equipment. Medispec Ltd. of Germantown won a $308,000 contract from the Department of Veterans Affairs for lithotripsy equipment and services. GB Solutions Inc. of McLean won a contract valued at up to $250,000 from the General Services Administration for management, organizational and business improvement services. Northrop Grumman Systems' Electronic Systems Division of Linthicum Heights won a $195,288 contract from the Defense Supply Center for power transformers. Litton Systems' Poly-Scientific Division of Blacksburg, Va., won a $185,462 contract from the Defense General Supply Center for slip ring stators. Federal Resources Supply of Chester, Md., won a $156,030 contract from the Navy for strainers. ATT Government Solutions of Vienna won a $116,914 contract from the Air Force for exchange services. Machining Technologies Inc. operating as Matech of Hebron won a $113,390 contract from the Army for optical sighting and ranging equipment. Litton Systems'
protection rents sting/bust?
washingtonpost.com Connecticut's Rowland Denies Involvement in Bribery Scandal Three-Term Governor's Administration Under Scrutiny as Aide Pleads Guilty and Others are Subpoenaed By Susan Haigh Associated Press Sunday, March 23, 2003; Page A07 HARTFORD, Conn., March 22 -- Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland's administration has been under intense scrutiny from federal investigators since a former aide pleaded guilty this month to accepting bribes. Rowland denies any knowledge of a scheme that steered state business to certain contractors and said he is not a target of the investigation. He has asked state auditors to review all government contracts for possible improprieties, and he allowed reporters to review all the documents his office sent to the U.S. attorney's office. I want to make sure everything is done aboveboard, by the book, said the three-term governor, who is a friend of President Bush, a former chairman of the Republican Governors Association and once the nation's youngest governor. On March 10, Rowland's former deputy chief of staff, Lawrence Alibozek, pleaded guilty in federal court to accepting cash, gold and other things of value in return for helping unnamed people get deals with the state. Alibozek, 58, was deputy chief of staff from October 1997 to July 1999. At least four current administration officials and six state agencies have received federal grand jury subpoenas. More may be forthcoming. The subpoenas seek documents related to Rowland's former co-chief of staff, Peter Ellef. He resigned last year after the state trash authority, which Ellef chaired, lost $220 million in a deal with bankrupt energy trader Enron. Ellef and Alibozek are longtime friends. Authorities have not identified the business allegedly involved in the scheme, but the subpoenas refer to the Tomasso Group, a New Britain construction firm. Rowland acknowledges being a friend of the Tomasso family and has vacationed at Tomasso homes in Vermont and Florida, paying rents that real estate agents said were well below market value. He has asked the state Ethics Commission to investigate and promised to make up the difference between what he paid and the going rate. Members of the Tomasso family contributed to his campaigns, and also contributed to the Republican Governors Association when Rowland was chairman. The Tomasso Group has long been a major player in the state, predating Rowland's tenure. But several recent, multimillion-dollar projects, including a new juvenile training school that was awarded without the typical bidding process, are among the contracts under federal scrutiny. Tomasso denies any wrongdoing. Rowland, 45, was elected to a third term in November and has been popular throughout much of his tenure. However, his polling numbers have recently dropped to new lows. Connecticut faces an estimated $900 million deficit in the new fiscal year that begins July 1. The deficit for the 2004-05 fiscal year is estimated to be approximately $1.4 billion. There are mixed feelings about the scandal's effect on Rowland's ability to govern and to push his two-year, $27.66 billion package through the Democratic-controlled General Assembly. From my standpoint, I don't think so, but I can't speak for others, said Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca (R). George Jepsen, the state Democratic Party chairman and last year's Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, said Rowland needs a plan to restore public faith in the executive branch. This is a tragedy for the state of Connecticut, he said. It would be tougher for Governor Rowland to be lower in the polls than he is.
US replacements for UN administration in Iraq
Jay Garner seems acceptable to Israel I should imagine... Of course the plans may have changed by now as this was over a week ago before the war started. Cheers, Ken Hanly from the daily star (lebanon) Iraq's new rulers wait in the wings As the Bush administration prepares for a new Gulf war, the administrators of post-war Iraq are patiently waiting in the wings. According to Arab press reports this weekend, the American occupation authorities intend to divide Iraq into three zones a northern district that includes Kurdistan, a central one that includes Baghdad, and a predominantly Shiite southern district. Each zone will be run by an administrator reporting to retired army general Jay Garner. He heads the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the occupation's civil authority. The person slated to handle the central district is former US ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine, the Bush administration's response to Gertrude Bell, who helped govern Iraq for Britain after the First World War. Bodine's resume suggests she is an old style State Department regionalist. Though she received a degree in political science and Asian studies, she later shifted her attention to the Arabian Peninsula, twice serving in the Office of Arabian Peninsula Affairs at the Bureau of Near East Affairs. Bodine was stationed in Baghdad as Deputy Principal Officer, and in 1990 she was deputy chief of mission in Kuwait when the Iraqis invaded. For once the State Department put an ambassador in the right place when she was dispatched to Yemen, a natural link between Asia and the Arab world. Bodine was in Yemen during the USS Cole bombing. A dispute with the FBI, which was investigating the attack, hinted at the kind of person she is. Bodine barred an FBI special agent from returning to Yemen because she was angry at the bureau's heavy-handed presence in the country and its desire to arm agents with rifles and heavy weapons. Press reports suggested that she wanted to assuage Yemeni cultural sensibilities, even though she has defended American intervention through counter-terrorism operations. If Bodine's prospective appointment is designed to reassure the Iraqis of the benign nature of a US occupation, her boss, Jay Garner, will prove a harder sell. Garner famously signed onto an Oct. 12, 2000 statement by the archconservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which praised the Israeli Army for having exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of a Palestinian Authority that deliberately pushes civilians and young people to the front lines. The statement noted: We do not claim to be experts in the political affairs of Israel and its neighbors. However, in those travels (to Israel) we brought with us our decades of military experience and came away with the unswerving belief that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to US policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean, as well as around the world. A strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on. One passage was revealing: What makes the US-Israel security relationship one of mutual benefit is the combination of military capabilities and shared political values freedom, democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law. That Garner himself benefited from the security relationship is well known: As president of California-based defense contractor SY Technology, he oversaw the company's work on the US-Israeli Arrow defense system. David Lazarus recently reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that Garner's former company is also working on missile systems the US will use against Iraq. Not only does this appear to be a conflict of interest, it also happens to be peculiar politics. As Ben Hermalin, a professor at UC Berkeley who studies professional ethics, told Lazarus: You have to wonder what the Iraqis will think of this guy and how much trust they'll place in him. To focus solely on Garner's ties with Israel and US defense contractors might be unfair. The general was also involved in Operation Provide Comfort, the humanitarian effort to help the Kurds after their debacle in 1991, when Iraqi forces swept through Kurdistan. However, it is also clear Garner was chosen because of his friendship with US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It is premature to draw too many conclusions from Garner's and Bodine's appointments. Nor is it yet clear what will happen in the northern and southern occupation districts, which are to be administered by two other retired generals perhaps a sign of US uneasiness with Kurdish and Shiite intentions. However, one cannot help but presume that Bodine will be a comforting but powerless civilian facade for an operation run mainly by the military. That's because authority will probably be concentrated less in Garner's civil administration than in the US military command under General
Armament statistics
Bill: You may want to try the following links: http://www.fas.org/asmp/ http://www.state.gov/t/vc/rls/rpt/wmeat/ http://www.pcr.uu.se/ http://web1.whs.osd.mil/peidhome/procstat/procstat.htm http://www.dsca.osd.mil/ Jonathan Nitzan Bill Lear wrote: Does anyone have reliable data showing the amount of arms sales per country to Iraq over the past 20-25 years? I'm looking for something that would account for "under-the-table" transfers, transfers via third parties (e.g., US transferring arms to Iraq via Austria), and whatever else could be legitimately counted. Trying to figure out the true extent of the military aid US gave to Iraq during 80s and to compare it with that given by other states. According to some information I was sent by my nephew, which came from SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), the US component looks minuscule. SIPRI info can be seen here: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf Also, I'm interested not only in actual weapons, but also training, other kinds of military aid... Bill
Whatever happened to that chemcial factory?
Now we can expect an abject apology from FOX news etc. In a pig's ass. What we can expect is that 60 per cent of the US people will believe that the evidence of WMD has been verified already. Search at Najaf yields no sign of chemical weapons By Mark Huband, Security Correspondent, in London Published: March 24 2003 20:18 | Last Updated: March 24 2003 20:18 Department of Defense officials said on Monday that no evidence of chemical weapons production had been found at a facility close to the southern Iraqi town of Najaf occupied by US forces on Sunday. Forces from the US 3rd Infantry Division occupied the 100-acre site. According to military officials, the site is surrounded by an electric fence and the buildings within it are camouflaged, raising suspicion that it was still in use. However, a Pentagon official said on Monday that the site had probably been abandoned some time ago. Two military sites described in a CIA assessment last year as part of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme are now in territory occupied by US and UK forces. Neither site - one at Nasiriya and the other at al-Khamisiya, both in the southern part of the country - has so far provided evidence of WMD production. General Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces, said on Monday: It's a bit early for us to have any expectation of having found them . . . We'll wait for the days ahead. Responding to the first report of the Najaf site's alleged purpose, which appeared in the Jerusalem Post, a senior western intelligence officer said on Monday: It's been in the interests of the Israelis to play up a whole range of issues. A degree of healthy scepticism is very necessary. Iraq is thought by intelligence services to have dispersed its chemical weapons production among 16 sites, seven of which are around Baghdad. Among the 2,000 Iraqi troops the US is now holding, several senior officers - in particular, two army generals - are being interrogated with the specific purpose of trying to establish a clearer picture of Iraq's WMD arsenal. Documents seized by US special forces who captured two airfields in western Iraq at the weekend are also being examined for leads on the WMD arsenal, a US military spokesman said. The Najaf site did not figure in either the US or UK intelligence analyses of suspected WMD sites issued last year to bolster the case against President Saddam Hussein. Nor did United Nations weapons inspectors suspect or visit the site during their mission to unearth Iraq's WMD arsenal. Intelligence officers and military officials believe that Iraq has succesfully hidden a substantial amount of its WMD arsenal and research, much of it buried and sealed. They are working on the basis that only the occupation of substantial parts of the country will give them the opportunity to prove that the WMD arsenal exists. I think we'll find weapons of mass destruction once we have had an opportunity to occupy Baghdad, stabilise Iraq, talk to Iraqis that have participated in the hiding and the development of it, said Lt Gen John Abizaid of US Central Command. Even so, the challenge to coalition forces to find the evidence with which to justify the war to overthrow the regime is stark. Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons insp- ector, said in the early hours of the conflict: The paradox is, if they don't find something then you have sent 250,000 men to wage war in order to find nothing.
law and enronomics
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Business March 24, 2003, 9:26PM Only prosecutors know next move Top Enron leaders not charged so far By MARY FLOOD and TOM FOWLER The arrest of two relatively unknown Enron executives last week raises hopes that the investigation is moving forward, but also raises questions of whether criminal charges will ever reach the top of the corporate ladder. Of the 12 criminal charges filed in connection with Enron's demise, only seven have been against Enron insiders and only one of those against a big fish -- the 78-count indictment against former chief financial officer Andrew Fastow. Sixteen months after the company revealed accounting problems that lead to its downfall, a year after a special grand jury was seated and indicted Enron's accounting firm, the question that's being asked in office chatter and at dinner tables throughout Houston is whether executives such as former Chairman Ken Lay, former CEO Jeff Skilling or others will be charged. This is like Chinese water torture, said a lawyer familiar with the investigation. There are all these threats and muscle-flexing from the government but then nothing much happens. Only Enron Task Force prosecutors know what will happen, and they can't talk. As criminal prosecutors, we must follow the evidence, said Leslie Caldwell, director of the task force, which works primarily in Washington, D.C., and Houston. If and when there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person engaged in criminal conduct, that person will be prosecuted. But the media and political attention focused on Enron has made the prosecutors' silence awkward, said Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor and Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer in Washington. Now the public is looking for senior officials' heads in nooses, Frenkel said. Public satisfaction may depend on how many people are charged, but prosecutors say they need quality evidence to make charges, he said. There are several reasons top executives like Skilling and Lay may not have been charged, say observers of the case. The most obvious one is that they are not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing and prosecutors have simply not found evidence against them, even though they may still be looking. Or, it could be prosecutors have enough to make a case, but are seeking more evidence for a broad charge against several people and possibly the company itself. The public likely won't know until charges are filed or the task force disbands. Skilling and Lay have consistently said they committed no crimes. And Lay's lawyers have publicly stated they have supplied prosecutors with evidence of his innocence Dan Hedges, a former U.S. attorney in Houston now practicing as a defense lawyer, said he expects the last decision prosecutors will make is whether or not to charge Skilling or Lay. One view, which is not necessarily right, is that the more time that goes by, the chances of them being indicted becomes less. But the cases against these two guys are so important and potentially so complex that they literally could be the last thing that happens, said Hedges, who has no Enron-related clients. The grand jury has heard from many witnesses about Lay's stock sales and use of Enron stock options to repay millions in loans from the company. Lay's children, his personal staff, financial adviser and even members of Enron's board have testified. That could indicate a build-up to an indictment, but it could also indicate prosecutors are thoroughly investigating every possibility before deciding to drop it. A recent New York Times story indicated Lay may have a good defense against an insider-trading charge. But his lawyers would not provide the Chronicle any documentation of Lay's finances and would not comment for this story. Prosecutors have not abandoned looking at Lay, however, and as recently as this month have questioned people about Lay's loans. The government lawyers could also be looking at other fraud-related charges against Lay or Skilling -- relating to anything from presentations to the Enron board to public statements about asset values. Several lawyers involved in the case believe that is what prosecutors are doing but also note that a built-in defense might come if Lay or Skilling had credible legal advice backing up their actions. The investigation into Enron Broadband Services has been seen as a pathway to charges against Skilling. For months a task force prosecutor has threatened, not cajoled, people involved in Enron Broadband, asking about the reliability of the technology behind the business and how executives, including Skilling, represented the business to investors and analysts. But only two charges have been filed, against mid-level former Enron broadband executives Kevin Howard and Michael Krautz over the propriety of a side deal involving Blockbuster Video. Two higher-ups in the broadband
All 32 helicopters sustained some damage
NY Times, Mar. 24, 2003 2 Apaches Are Down and 30 Others Retreat in Central Iraq By JIM DWYER IN CENTRAL IRAQ, March 24 - With a hail of small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, Iraqi forces downed two Apache helicopters today and forced 30 other helicopters in their brigade back to their base. One two-member crew was unaccounted for; the other was rescued. Iraqi state television broadcast images of one downed helicopter, which appeared largely intact, and jubilant men dancing around it. All 32 helicopters sustained some damage, occasionally slight, Army officials said, in what was a significant setback for the allies. The attack surprised American Army leaders and may cause them to rethink their military strategy, which relied on the Apaches to destroy Iraq's armored divisions that ring Baghdad. The commander of the American-led invasion of Iraq confirmed the loss of one Apache helicopter. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/international/worldspecial/24CND-HELI.html -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
A letter from Ramallah
Hi Louis, I was wondering if you could post these comments below to the list? Keep up the good work, you are providing an invaluable service. A. === Dear all, I wanted to make some observations on the war from the vantage point of Ramallah. A few days before the bombardment began my satellite broke so I have been blessed with not having CNN. Instead, I've followed events almost exclusively from the Arab satellite channels Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi which the local Palestinian stations broadcast almost around the clock. I've been struck by the VAST difference in how the US and its media report the progress of the war and what the Arab channels report from inside Iraq (as you know CNN left Baghdad early on - there is some dispute over whether they were expelled or they decided to leave on their own accord). The Arab channels have also had a range of excellent analysis, both military and political, which is reflected in the level of discussion on the street here. I won't go through in detail all of the lies that the US administration has been peddling: they had captured Um Al Qasr (supposedly on the first day but until now they are suffering losses there. This is a city of around 15000 people and only 500 Iraqi soldiers), Al Basra (A classic moment was the Abu Dhabi journalist who was reporting from inside Al Basra the other day and said there was not a single US soldier in the city and the kids were playing football next to him, two days after the US said they had conquered the city. Then the US changed their story to say they had decided not to enter the cities but move straight on to Baghdad), this pattern is repeated all over the country. Then there was the claim that the 51st division had surrendered, yesterday Al Jazeera carried an interview with the commander of this division who the US had made a bid deal about his surrender to US troops. Then the denial that US planes had been shot down over Baghdad, Al Jazeera carried an amazing scene yesterday of thousands of Iraqis gathered around a river where the plane had crashed and handing over the pilot to Iraqi soldiers. The list goes on.. Basically, the difference between the US government's fabrications and reality on the ground indicates how false is the US central assumption - that the Iraqi people would welcome the opportunity to be liberated from Saddam and the rottenness of the regime would see the army and all resistance collapse. Instead, what we are seeing is the exact opposite. The Iraqi people understand only too well what are the motivations behind this war and what the US intends to do to the country, they will resist tooth and nail and the costs to the US will be enormous. It is still an open question whether these costs will eventually force the US to halt their actions. The reality is that Saddam has basically armed the people. The estimation is around 500,000 troops (both regular or irregular) but on top of that is the fact that nearly every Iraqi household has a gun. This is not the action of a regime that is worried about its own population rising up to overthrow it. They have confidence in themselves and their ability to resist. There are other indications of this: the fact that Saddam has divided the country into four regions and given total control to commanders in each region, the remarkable lack of refugees on the Jordanian border (Al Jazeera carried interviews with Jordanian taxi drivers who drive the route who said there was not a single refugee in sight). This is an indication that the Iraqi people are not interested in fleeing their homes, perhaps they understand the experience of other refugees in the area (e.g. 1948) but perhaps this is also an indication that they want to stand and defend their country. The attitude of the Shi'ite population in the south is also instructive, there was an interview carried with one of the Shi'ite leaders yesterday who stated that they were firmly in defence of Iraq. The resistance in one of the southern cities (I forget the name) is illustrative of this, this city was one of the first to move against Saddam in 1991, today they are fighting US soldiers. There is a significant difference between Afghanistan and Iraq in that this time around the US is forced to fight its own war. It cannot send other people to do the killing and then come in behind them. The wild-card here is the northern front, perhaps the US will be able to recruit a Kurdish force in the north which would probably number around 100,000, but I am not convinced this will be possible especially if Iraq continues to inflict significant casualties. The other wild card is the Arab street. There is enormous anger on the streets of the Arab world which is politically quite sharp - the Arab people understand completely that their leaders could easily halt this war. The planes that bomb Iraq fly over Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They see the double-standards and
Bad times here to stay
NY Times, Mar. 24, 2003 OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Battling the Fog of Finance By JAMES GRANT War has enough to answer for without being blamed for problems not of its own making. Last week the Federal Reserve excused itself from venturing any forecast about the United States economy pending the abatement of geopolitical uncertainties. But it isn't the fog of war that has shortened the vision of our monetary policymakers. It's rather the fog of finance, particularly the long legacy of America's greatest stock-market bubble. The truth about the three-year decline in stock prices and the hot-and-cold-running economy is that they have their roots in prosperity, not in war. The paradox is easily explained. High stock prices invite capital investment. Ultrahigh stock prices invite redundant capital investment. Stock prices higher even than those on the eve of the 1929 crash invite titanically redundant capital investment. No wonder, then, that business spending on new plant and equipment has been so weak for so long: The sky-scraping stock market of the late 1990's (which indeed commanded valuations higher than those of 1929) induced enough corporate spending to sate demand and cause a recession. That recession, which began in March 2001, is probably over by now (the official cyclical timekeeper, the National Bureau of Economic Research, continues to weigh the evidence). But the recovery is heavy-footed and faint-hearted. High energy prices and stay-at-home travelers haven't helped. Nor has worry about a new terrorist attack. But the source of America's persistent financial aches and pains is something more basic: the preceding mispricing of capital. In the manic phase of the bull market, capital was essentially free. The frittering away of American savings wasn't intentional. It happened inadvertently, through investing: in telecommunications equipment, semiconductor manufacturing plants, computer servers, power generators, office furniture, Internet initiatives, etc. We invested more than we should have in fact, more than we had. We borrowed to invest, from creditors both domestic and foreign. And because the law of supply and demand is everything it's cracked up to be, the bull market ended. More productive capacity spurred higher output, which led to more intense competition and no surprise to lower profit margins. And those things led to lower stock prices, which, in turn, led to a crash in capital investment. There was no new economy after all. Now almost one-quarter of corporate productive capacity is lying idle. All too many job seekers find themselves in the same predicament full: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/opinion/24GRAN.html === NY Times, Mar. 24, 2003 Skeptical Economic View Takes in More Than Iraq By DAVID LEONHARDT With the battles having begun in Iraq, the United States economy once again looks as if it might be on the cusp of emerging from its torpor. The Standard Poor's 500-stock index rose more last week than it did during any week since September 2001, and Wall Street forecasters predict that a quick military victory will reduce economic uncertainty, causing a surge of corporate and consumer spending. But this has become a familiar refrain. A year and a half ago, many economists said that the country would prosper as soon as it recovered from the Sept. 11 attacks. Early last year, the scandals at Enron, Worldcom and elsewhere were supposed to be all that was preventing a new boom. With each new month of layoffs and other corporate cost-cutting, however, the exceptions begin to look more like a rule. Increasingly, corporate executives and some economists worry that the slow-growth economy of the last three years might in fact be the new reality, one that will bedevil workers and investors for a few more years. When it all comes out, we're going to have a significantly less sanguine outlook than we did in the late 90's, said Dale W. Jorgenson, an economist at Harvard University and an expert in productivity, widely seen as the most important factor for future growth. That's something we're just going to have to get used to. full: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/business/24ECON.html Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
An Empire in denial
Chronicle of Higher Education, March 28, 2003 America: an Empire in Denial By NIALL FERGUSON Once there was an empire that governed roughly a quarter of the world's population, covered about the same proportion of the Earth's land surface, and dominated nearly all its oceans. The British empire was the biggest empire ever, bar none. How an archipelago of rainy islands off the northwest coast of Europe came to rule the world is one of the fundamental questions not just of British but of world history. Why should Americans care about the history of the British empire? There are two reasons. The first is that the United States was a product of that empire -- and not just in the negative sense that it was founded in the first successful revolt against British imperial rule. America today still bears the indelible stamp of the colonial era, when, for the better part of two centuries, the majority of white settlers on the Eastern Seaboard were from the British Isles. Second, and perhaps more important, the British empire is the most commonly cited precedent for the global power currently wielded by the United States. America is the heir to the empire in both senses: offspring in the colonial era, successor today. Perhaps the most burning contemporary question of American politics is, Should the United States seek to shed or to shoulder the imperial load it has inherited? I do not believe that question can be answered without an understanding of how the British empire rose and fell; and of what it did, not just for Britain but for the world as a whole. Was the British empire a good or bad thing? It is nowadays quite conventional to think that, on balance, it was a bad thing. One obvious reason for the empire's fall into disrepute was its involvement in the Atlantic slave trade and slavery itself. This is no longer a question for historical judgment alone; it has become a political, and potentially a legal, issue. The questions recently posed by an eminent historian on BBC television may be said to encapsulate the current conventional wisdom. How, he asked, did a people who thought themselves free end up subjugating so much of the world? ... How did an empire of the free become an empire of slaves?'' How, despite their good intentions, did the British sacrifice common humanity to the fetish of the market? Despite a certain patronizing fondness for postcolonial England, most Americans need little persuading that the British empire was a bad thing. The Declaration of Independence itemizes a long train of abuses and usurpations by the British imperial government, pursuing invariably the same Object, namely a design to reduce [the American colonists] under absolute Despotism and to establish an absolute Tyranny over these States. A few clear-sighted Americans -- notably Alexander Hamilton -- saw from an early stage that the United States would necessarily become an empire in its own right; the challenge, in his eyes, was to ensure that it was a republican empire, one that did not sacrifice liberty at home for the sake of power abroad. Even Hamilton's critics were covert imperialists: Jefferson's expanding frontier implied colonization at the expense of Native Americans. Yet the anti-imperialist strain in American political rhetoric proved -- and continues to prove -- very resistant to treatment. full: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i29/29b00701.htm -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Seymour Hersh on phoney uranium sales
(While the New Yorker magazine has turned into a prowar outlet, it does retain one outstanding reporter, namely Seymour Hersh who broke the story on the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. He has now been threatened with a lawsuit and called a terrorist by Richard Perle for a story he did in the New Yorker documenting this sleazebag's profiteering from his White House connections.) New Yorker Magazine, Mar. 31, 2003 WHO LIED TO WHOM? by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraqs nuclear program? Last September 24th, as Congress prepared to vote on the resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to wage war in Iraq, a group of senior intelligence officials, including George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraqs weapons capability. It was an important presentation for the Bush Administration. Some Democrats were publicly questioning the Presidents claim that Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an immediate threat to the United States. Just the day before, former Vice-President Al Gore had sharply criticized the Administrations advocacy of premptive war, calling it a doctrine that would replace a world in which states consider themselves subject to law with the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States. A few Democrats were also considering putting an alternative resolution before Congress. According to two of those present at the briefing, which was highly classified and took place in the committees secure hearing room, Tenet declared, as he had done before, that a shipment of high-strength aluminum tubes that was intercepted on its way to Iraq had been meant for the construction of centrifuges that could be used to produce enriched uranium. The suitability of the tubes for that purpose had been disputed, but this time the argument that Iraq had a nuclear program under way was buttressed by a new and striking fact: the C.I.A. had recently received intelligence showing that, between 1999 and 2001, Iraq had attempted to buy five hundred tons of uranium oxide from Niger, one of the worlds largest producers. The uranium, known as yellow cake, can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors; if processed differently, it can also be enriched to make weapons. Five tons can produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a bomb. (When the C.I.A. spokesman William Harlow was asked for comment, he denied that Tenet had briefed the senators on Niger.) On the same day, in London, Tony Blairs government made public a dossier containing much of the information that the Senate committee was being given in secretthat Iraq had sought to buy significant quantities of uranium from an unnamed African country, despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it. The allegation attracted immediate attention; a headline in the London Guardian declared, african gangs offer route to uranium. Two days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before a closed hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited Iraqs attempt to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of its persistent nuclear ambitions. The testimony from Tenet and Powell helped to mollify the Democrats, and two weeks later the resolution passed overwhelmingly, giving the President a congressional mandate for a military assault on Iraq. On December 19th, Washington, for the first time, publicly identified Niger as the alleged seller of the nuclear materials, in a State Department position paper that rhetorically asked, Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement? (The charge was denied by both Iraq and Niger.) A former high-level intelligence official told me that the information on Niger was judged serious enough to include in the Presidents Daily Brief, known as the P.D.B., one of the most sensitive intelligence documents in the American system. Its information is supposed to be carefully analyzed, or scrubbed. Distribution of the two- or three-page early-morning report, which is prepared by the C.I.A., is limited to the President and a few other senior officials. The P.D.B. is not made available, for example, to any members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees. I dont think anybody here sees that thing, a State Department analyst told me. You only know whats in the P.D.B. because it echoespeople talk about it. President Bush cited the uranium deal, along with the aluminum tubes, in his State of the Union Message, on January 28th, while crediting Britain as the source of the information: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. He commented, Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of
