-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
********************************************************************** ** Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume6/v6n15.html to view an HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response. ********************************************************************** ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- The Progressive Response 23 May 2002 Vol. 6, No. 15 Editor: Tom Barry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)--a "Think Tank Without Walls." A joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF is an international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen movements and agendas." We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/, or email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to share your thoughts with us. Tom Barry, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) (online at www.irc-online.org) and codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be contacted at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. **** We Count on Your Support **** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- I. Updates and Out-Takes *** OUTSOURCING MILITARY TRAINING *** By Lora Lumpe *** WHY THE U.S. SUPPORTS ISRAEL *** By Stephen Zunes *** IMF AND WORLD BANK BLAMED FOR WORST HEALTH CRISIS IN HISTORY *** *** BUSH'S MILITARY SPENDING SPREE *** By Michelle Ciarrocca *** COLOMBIA TURNS TO THE RIGHT *** II. Outside the U.S. *** CORPORATE AMERICA AND ISRAELI OCCUPATION *** By Sam Bahour III. Letters and Comments *** DIGNITY OF VENZUELA *** *** SAD DAY *** *** A LAUGHING MATTER *** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- I. Updates and Out-Takes *** OUTSOURCING MILITARY TRAINING *** By Lora Lumpe (Editor's Note: Excerpted from "U.S. Foreign Military Training: Global Reach, Global Power, and Oversight Issues," a new FPIF Special Report available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/papers/miltrain/box4.html .) One of the ways the U.S. government has been able to carry out its rapid growth in military and police training around the globe over the past decade has been to outsource many training operations to private contractors. This practice reduces pressures on the deployment schedule of U.S. forces. It also permits U.S. involvement in certain situations without risking the deaths of U.S. soldiers--a high political cost since the deaths of U.S. Rangers in Somalia in 1993. Post-cold war reductions in the size of U.S. military forces led to a glut of out-of-work military personnel. Many of them were absorbed into long-established private military companies (PMCs) that expanded their operations in the 1990s; others created their own start-up firms. Among the American companies providing training to foreign forces in the 1990s were Cubic, DynCorp, Logicon, Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI), Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), and Vinnell Corp.a In some cases contractors conduct training programs directly for the U.S. government. For example, the State Department has hired MPRI and Logicon to run the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI). In other cases, foreign governments contract directly with private companies to train their security forces. To do so, firms must apply for and be granted an export license by the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls--as would any other industry directly selling weapons or military services.b Numerous foreign militaries have hired private U.S. firms in the 1990s and early 2000s, among them Bosnia, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, and Uganda.c The accidental downing of a civilian plane in Peru in early 2001, killing an American missionary and her infant daughter, served to reveal the deep, multifaceted, and controversial involvement of private military companies in U.S. antinarcotics operations. In this incident, a CIA surveillance plane, flown by American pilots from an Alabama company called Aviation Development Corporation (ADC), had mistakenly identified the missionary plane as belonging to drug traffickers, and a Peruvian military plane responded by shooting it down. In the wake of this incident, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced a bill in April 2001, the Andean Region Contractor Accountability Act (H.R. 1591), which would prohibit funding of private contractors for military or police work in the Andean region. By early 2002, it had only 14 cosponsors and was stalled in committee. Private military contractors are currently conducting major portions of the U.S. military operations in the Andes, including crop fumigation and military training. Two Virginia-based companies, DynCorp and MPRI, have had contracts to provide logistical support and training to Colombian police and counterinsurgency forces. In 2001, MPRI completed a $6 million contract with the Pentagon under which a 14-man team advised the Colombian military and police on logistics, planning, and organization. Under Plan Colombia, the number of private military contractors was capped at 300; in December 2001, Congress increased this number to 400 (while lowering the number of U.S. military personnel authorized to be in country from 500 to 400). However, private military companies get around this cap by employing non-U.S. citizens. In Colombia, for instance, private companies have hired Peruvians, Guatemalans, and other Latin American nationals. Some of the harshest critics of these companies are members of the U.S. military. In a 1998 essay for the Army War College, Col. Bruce Grant wrote: "Privatization is a way of going around Congress and not telling the public. Foreign policy is made by default by private military consultants motivated by bottom-line profits."d Rep. Schakowsky agrees, explaining: "There is little or no accountability in this process of outsourcing. This is a way of funding secret wars with taxpayers' money that could get us into a Vietnam-like conflict." Information on private transactions is scarce and oversight is nonexistent. There is no requirement that the State Department publish a specific annual list of whom it has authorized to provide private military or security training, where, with which security unit, or for what purpose. Nor does Congress know who is training whom at any given moment. The State Department is only required to notify lawmakers of contracts valued at $50 million or more--a threshold so high that very few, if any, training operations are likely to be reported. The annual consolidated report on military assistance and sales, which the State and Defense departments are required to produce (see Appendix 1, pages 37-40), should include information on private military training, but it does not currently disaggregate this information. As with covert operations, there are no legal or regulatory requirements for the inclusion of any human rights or humanitarian law content in military, security, or police force training contracted privately. In addition, the Leahy Law requirement that trainees be vetted for prior human rights abuses does not apply to training purchased with the buyer's own money. It does apply to U.S. taxpayer-funded programs employing private military companies, such as the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI). Notes: a Deborah Avant, private communication, February 25, 2002. The list is compiled from news articles, journal articles, personal interviews, and web searches. Avant cautions that there are undoubtedly missing companies, and some included companies may have since gone out of business. b Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act. c Deborah Avant, personal communication, February 25, 2002. d Juan O. Tamayo, "Private Firms Take on U.S. Military Role in Drug War," Miami Herald, May 22, 2001. (Lora Lumpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is a researcher and writer based in Washington, DC. She is a senior associate with the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, working on the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers, and she consults with and for several human rights and peace groups.) This new FPIF Special Report is available at: http://www.fpif.org/papers/miltrain/index.html (Also see our printer-friendly version at: http://www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/SRmiltrain.pdf .) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *** WHY THE U.S. SUPPORTS ISRAEL *** By Stephen Zunes (Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/papers/usisrael.html .) The close relationship between the U.S. and Israel has been one of the most salient features in U.S. foreign policy for nearly three and a half decades. The well over $3 billion in military and economic aid sent annually to Israel by Washington is rarely questioned in Congress, even by liberals who normally challenge U.S. aid to governments that engage in widespread violations of human rights--or by conservatives who usually oppose foreign aid in general. Virtually all Western countries share the United States' strong support for Israel's legitimate right to exist in peace and security, yet these same nations have refused to provide arms and aid while the occupation of lands seized in the 1967 war continues. None come close to offering the level of diplomatic support provided by Washington--with the United States often standing alone with Israel at the United Nations and other international forums when objections are raised over ongoing Israeli violations of international law and related concerns. Although U.S. backing of successive Israeli governments, like most foreign policy decisions, is often rationalized on moral grounds, there is little evidence that moral imperatives play more of a determining role in guiding U.S. policy in the Middle East than in any other part of the world. Most Americans do share a moral commitment to Israel's survival as a Jewish state, but this would not account for the level of financial, military, and diplomatic support provided. American aid to Israel goes well beyond protecting Israel's security needs within its internationally recognized borders. U.S. assistance includes support for policies in militarily occupied territories that often violate well-established legal and ethical standards of international behavior. Were Israel's security interests paramount in the eyes of American policymakers, U.S. aid to Israel would have been highest in the early years of the existence of the Jewish state, when its democratic institutions were strongest and its strategic situation most vulnerable, and would have declined as its military power grew dramatically and its repression against Palestinians in the occupied territories increased. Instead, the trend has been in just the opposite direction: major U.S. military and economic aid did not begin until after the 1967 war. Indeed, 99% of U.S. military assistance to Israel since its establishment came only after Israel proved itself to be far stronger than any combination of Arab armies and after Israeli occupation forces became the rulers of a large Palestinian population. Similarly, U.S. aid to Israel is higher now than twenty-five years ago. This was at a time when Egypt's massive and well-equipped armed forces threatened war; today, Israel has a longstanding peace treaty with Egypt and a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer zone keeping its army at a distance. At that time, Syria's military was expanding rapidly with advanced Soviet weaponry; today, Syria has made clear its willingness to live in peace with Israel in return for the occupied Golan Heights--and Syria's military capabilities have been declining, weakened by the collapse of its Soviet patron. Also in the mid-1970s, Jordan still claimed the West Bank and stationed large numbers of troops along its lengthy border and the demarcation line with Israel; today, Jordan has signed a peace treaty and has established fully normalized relations. At that time, Iraq was embarking upon its vast program of militarization. Iraq's armed forces have since been devastated as a result of the Gulf War and subsequent international sanctions and monitoring. This raises serious questions as to why U.S. aid has either remained steady or actually increased each year since. In the hypothetical event that all U.S. aid to Israel were immediately cut off, it would be many years before Israel would be under significantly greater military threat than it is today. Israel has both a major domestic arms industry and an existing military force far more capable and powerful than any conceivable combination of opposing forces. There would be no question of Israel's survival being at risk militarily in the foreseeable future. When Israel was less dominant militarily, there was no such consensus for U.S. backing of Israel. Though the recent escalation of terrorist attacks inside Israel has raised widespread concerns about the safety of the Israeli public, the vast majority of U.S. military aid has no correlation to counterterrorism efforts. In short, the growing U.S. support for the Israeli government, like U.S. support for allies elsewhere in the world, is not motivated primarily by objective security needs or a strong moral commitment to the country. Rather, as elsewhere, U.S. foreign policy is motivated primarily to advance its own perceived strategic interests. There is a broad bipartisan consensus among policymakers that Israel has advanced U.S. interest in the Middle East and beyond. * Israel has successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Palestine. * Israel has kept Syria, for many years an ally of the Soviet Union, in check. * Israel's air force is predominant throughout the region. * Israel's frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American arms, often against Soviet weapons. * It has served as a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military assistance, such as apartheid South Africa, the Islamic Republic in Iran, the military junta in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Israeli military advisers have assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran junta, and foreign occupation forces in Namibia and Western Sahara. * Israel's intelligence service has assisted the U.S. in intelligence gathering and covert operations. * Israel has missiles capable of reaching as far as the former Soviet Union, it possesses a nuclear arsenal of hundreds of weapons, and it has cooperated with the U.S. military-industrial complex with research and development for new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems. (Stephen Zunes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is Middle East editor of Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *** IMF AND WORLD BANK BLAMED FOR WORST HEALTH CRISIS IN HISTORY *** Salih Booker, FPIF Advisory Committee member, says, "The IMF and World Bank have much to answer for. Many of the strongest critiques come from Africans, although they have little opportunity to travel to Washington to demonstrate. The policies of the World Bank and IMF have eroded Africa's health care systems and intensified the poverty of Africa's people. These institutions must be made accountable for their role in causing the worst health crisis in human history, which Africa now faces." Africa Action has launched a new campaign called "Africa's Right to Health Campaign." The campaign is based information on a new position paper, Hazardous to Health: The World Bank and IMF in Africa, published by Africa Action and written by Ann-Louise Colgan. According to this new paper, "The policies dictated by the World Bank and IMF exacerbated poverty, providing fertile ground for the spread of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases. Cutbacks in health budgets and privatization of health services eroded previous advances in health care and weakened the capacity of African governments to cope with the growing health crisis. Consequently, during the past two decades the life expectancy of Africans has dropped by 15 years." For information about Africa Action's campaign and to read the new report, go to: http://www.africaaction.org/action/campaign.htm For analysis for FPIF by Salih Booker and other Africa Action staff, visit: http://www.fpif.org/advisers/booker.html For more FPIF analysis on Africa, see FPIF Africa index: http://www.fpif.org/indices/regions/africa.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *** BUSH'S MILITARY SPENDING SPREE *** By Michelle Ciarrocca (Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Global Affairs Commentary available online in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205armsspend.html .) Forget that the Bush administration is sending U.S. troops to train local forces in Yemen, the Philippines, and Uzbekistan, and that since September 11th the U.S. has stepped up military aid to Turkey, Pakistan, India, Jordan, and a number of countries who are "with us" in the war on terror. Forget the fact that a number of these countries were previously prohibited from receiving U.S. weapons and military assistance because of poor human rights records, ongoing armed conflict, or repressive practices. Forget that September 11th has been used to justify a $396 billion military budget, the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, and that the war in Afghanistan is costing more than $1 billion a month. The human rights conditions on U.S. military aid and training programs that have been put in place over the past few decades have been pushed aside in the headlong rush into the global war on terrorism. Human rights abuses are being ignored or forgotten as the U.S. arms its allies in this new war. The goal is freedom, no matter what the cost and no matter what the human rights practices of our new partners. Defending his military budget, Bush said "I've asked for the largest increase in defense spending in 20 years not only because it will fulfill our commitment to support our troops, but because it recognizes that this country is in our war for the long pull--that we're interested in defending freedom no matter what the cost." The president is now asking for more money. President Bush has recently submitted a $27 billion emergency supplemental request to Congress. The Pentagon will receive almost half of the emergency request--$14 billion. Out of that amount, $130 million will be spent on unspecified foreign countries or "indigenous forces." What is most alarming is that more than $1 billion of that request has been tagged with the clause "notwithstanding any other provision of law"--meaning that the few laws in place to keep military aid and weapons out the hands of human rights abusers are no longer relevant. (Michelle Ciarrocca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is an analyst with the Arms Trade Resource Center who writes for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *** COLOMBIA TURNS TO THE RIGHT *** Colombians are expected to elect a right-wing presidential candidate committed to waging a wider war against the guerrilla armies. Meanwhile the Bush administration has redefined Colombia's five-decade-old civil conflict as a "war on terrorism" and called for millions more in U.S. arms and training. According to FPIF expert Kimberly Stanton at the RFK Human Rights Center, "Regardless of who wins Colombia's presidential elections, the United States has the right and the obligation to ensure that U.S. military aid does not contribute to human rights abuses. The background and proposals of Alvaro Uribe, the candidate that is leading in the polls, are troubling in this regard. His proposal to arm a million Colombians to serve as the first line of defense in the civil war is a recipe for transforming the civilian population into a military target." Another FPIF analyst, William LeoGrande of American University warned: "The danger in Colombia is that the U.S. will involve itself in another Latin American civil war on a scale much bigger than it did in Central America in the 1980s." See FPIF's Colombia In Focus at http://www.fpif.org/colombia/index.html. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- II. Outside the U.S. (Editor's Note: FPIF has a new component called "Outside the U.S.," which aims to bring non-U.S. voices into the U.S. policy debate and to foster dialog between Northern and Southern actors in global affairs issues. Please visit our Outside the U.S. page for other non-U.S. perspectives on global affairs and for information about submissions at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html. ) *** CORPORATE AMERICA AND ISRAELI OCCUPATION *** By Sam Bahour (Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Outside the U.S. Global Affairs Commentary available in its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0205corpisrael.html .) U.S. military-related corporations support Israeli occupation by way of an institutionalized mechanism provided for by Congress. Congress has stipulated that 75% of U.S. foreign military aid to Israel, which amounts to over $2 billion annually, must be spent buying U.S. products and services. Firms like Lockheed, Boeing, United Technologies, Raytheon, ExxonMobil, Northrop, Pgsus, General Dynamics, and Oshkosh, among others, are directly contributing to the tools that Israel uses to violate international and humanitarian law. The following are some specific cases: * U.S. weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, which provides the fighter jets that have been used by Israel to bomb Palestinian cities that have been under military closure for 18 months, proudly announced on September 5, 2001 from Fort Worth, Texas that Israel had decided to purchase 52 more Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets. The contract value was reported as approximately $1.3 billion for only the aircraft. * Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation, sells Israel U.S. armaments used to destroy Palestinian cities and perform political assassinations of Palestinian civilians from the sky. "Our company's relationship of more than 40 years with Israel is a source of pride," said Sikorsky President Dean Borgman in a February 1, 2001 press release, while announcing his firm was awarded a $211.8 million contract for 24 additional Black Hawk helicopters to serve the Israeli Air Force. * Other less visible military suppliers are those like Federal Laboratories in Saltsburg, Pennsylvania, which provides CS tear gas to the Israeli military. During the first Palestinian Intifada (uprising) in 1988, Federal Laboratories witnessed civil disobedience actions at their plant gate in Saltsburg and a lawsuit in U.S. courts after Israel misused their lethal tear gas by firing it into closed areas, resulting in the killing of many Palestinians. Federal Laboratories stopped exporting the gas for six months in 1988 and sent a fact-finding team to Israel before resuming sales. Corporate America's support of the Israeli occupation is not confined to military equipment suppliers. In fall 1999, Burger King opened a franchise restaurant in an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank, only to be forced by its customers to close down the store to avoid a worldwide boycott. In April alone three U.S. firms have been lured into collaboration with Israel's illegal occupation. Fifth Third Bank in Northeastern Ohio purchased $500,000 worth of bonds from Israel. Robert King, president and chief executive of the Cleveland affiliate of Fifth Third Bancorp in Cincinnati proudly stated in a press release that, "This year is the state of Israel's 50th anniversary, and now more than ever, it is poised to continue its growth as an industrial world leader." No mention was made by Mr. King that such growth comes at the cost of systematic, gross violations of human rights by Israel. Microsoft Israel put company executives in Redmond, Seattle in an awkward position when they sponsored two large billboards on a main Israeli highway saluting Israel's armed forces at the same time the Israeli military was indiscriminately bombing the Jenin refugee camp. Only days after a grassroots letter writing campaign, partly led by the Israeli peace group Gush-Shalom, Microsoft executives announced that Microsoft Israel had acted alone and was instructed to take down the billboards, which they promptly did. Israel is the largest research and development site for Microsoft outside America. Bill Gates would serve world peace well by continuing his involvement and requesting that Israel end the occupation in order to qualify for continued commercial opportunities. The same can be said for Intel Corporation, which has the largest production facilities outside of the U.S. located in Israel. (Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American businessman living in the besieged Palestinian City of Al-Bireh/Ramallah in the West Bank and can be reached at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.) Also see new commentary by Ahmed Rashid, "Afghan Women Emerge As Elections Take Place" at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0205jirga.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- III. Letters and Comments *** DIGNITY OF VENZUELA *** Re: Oil and Venezuela's Failed Coup by Luis E. Lander and Margarita López Maya. It is about time that governments in Latin America stand up and put things in the right place. The national resources of each country is a dear asset of the people of those nations and NOT a property of any international corporation. Congratulations. Keep the dignity of Venezuela alive. - Guillermo Valdivieso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *** SAD DAY *** Re: "U.S. Hit List at the UN," by Ian Williams. I was horrified when I read what has been happening at the UN. I've certainly not heard anything about these people being forced out from any other news organization. Thank you for informing us of what Bush & Co. are doing behind our backs. Many of us across this nation found out long ago that we weren't getting all the news but only what the right wingers wanted the various news organizations to spin on any given day. And when we thought it couldn't possibly get worse, along comes the selected president and his administration and the media's glowing reports about a man who can do no wrong in their eyes but has done nothing but bring daily destruction down on his own nation and the rest of the world. Thank goodness we have the internet where we can read from sites like yours about what's really happening in our own country. It's a sad day indeed when we can no longer trust anything coming from the various U.S. media organizations and are turning to foreign news outlets and the internet to find out what's being done in our name with our tax money. - Jodie Jones ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- *** A LAUGHING MATTER *** Re: Deconstructing George W. Bush. I had to laugh at the statement in this otherwise well-reasoned article that U.S. support for the military dictatorship in Pakistan "has been partly responsible for the rise of anti-American extremism in those parts of the world." As the author surely must be aware General Musharraf's coup, while actively opposed by the U.S., was welcomed by virtually every element of Pakistani society as a long overdue relief from the hyper-corrupt rule of feudal landlords disguised as democratically elected politicians. Of course the U.S. continued to impose sanctions on Pakistan due to its military rule until some time after the 9-11 attacks forced it to embrace Musharraf as its ally. Since his government has continued to enjoy widespread popular support, particularly his campaign against native Pakistani terrorists, which has been criticized largely for not going far enough. Recent drops in his popularity are associated primarily with a perception that he has not delivered on his original commitment to prosecute the generation of thieves which stole from the Pakistani people and not any disillusionment with his anti-terrorist policies. Despite being a military dictatorship, Pakistan is one of the few states of the Islamic world in which there are virtually no restrictions on the freedom of the press nor persons being held in jail due to their political views. Rather, the threat to freedom of expression in Pakistan has long been and continues, albeit to a lesser degree, to be from extremists in every political party, which have a long tradition of killing, rather than refuting, their opponents. The author is sophisticated enough to know there is no similarity between Musharraf's government and U.S.-backed dictatorships of Latin America or feudal governments of the Gulf. It is unfortunate that he was sloppy enough to lump them together. - Michael Piston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /-------------------------------------------------------------------\ +++---------- PARTNER: OneWorld U.S. ----------+++ Know Your World OneWorld U.S. (http://www.oneworld.net/us/) now offers a Daily Headlines email service. We save you time by culling through hundreds of nonprofit and specialized news agency articles every weekday to find the most topical and engaging articles on environment, development, human rights, U.S. foreign policy, and globalization. Subscribe to the new service at: http://owa.benton.org/archives/oneworldus.html. +++---------- PARTNER: OneWorld U.S. ----------+++ \-------------------------------------------------------------------/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new kind of think tank--one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh, internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on https://secure.webburner.net/fpif/donate/index.html to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail. ***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. ***** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies. We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies you may receive. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to: http://www.fpif.org/progresp/index.html and follow the instructions. To subscribe directly, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- End of forwarded message -------From }}}>Begin End<{{{ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
