|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
 Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:40 pm
|
 |
|
‘A War Waiting for a Pretext’
IMG: John Nichol A Persian Gulf War POW accuses the United States and Britain of being hypocritical about Saddam
John Nichol revisited Iraq in November 2000
Sept. 27 — John Nichol knows all about the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. As a 27-year-old navigator for Britain’s Royal Air Force during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he was shot down over the Iraqi desert during the first low-level daylight raid of the war.
HE AND HIS PILOT ejected safely, but were captured by the Iraqis. During the next seven weeks, he was beaten, tortured and paraded before the television cameras to denounce his country’s attack on Saddam.
Since leaving the RAF in 1996, Nichol has launched a second career as a writer. He now has six books in print; a seventh, “The Last Escape,” is to be published in Britain next month. As the debate over an attack on Iraq gains urgency—100,000 protestors are expected to join an antiwar march in London this weekend—Nichol has emerged as a forthright critic of a U.S.-British strike against Saddam. He spoke to NEWSWEEK’s William Underhill in London:
NEWSWEEK: You were held captive and tortured by agents of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Why do you now oppose military intervention to secure his overthrow?
John Nichol: One reason why the West, and Britain and the United States in particular, are in such a difficult position is that they seem to think that they can cherry-pick regimes that are bad and need to be changed. We deal with bad regimes on a daily basis: we deal with Iran, we deal with Saudi Arabia, which has a truly appalling record on human rights, but we don’t talk about regime change there. America and Britain can’t set themselves up as the world policemen without a mandate from the world.
Would you agree to an intervention if it were sanctioned by the United Nations?
Nichol as a POW in Iraq in 1991
IMG: Nichol as a POW If it were sanctioned and supported. There is a very real difference between the two. A huge amount of bribery, arm-twisting and coercion goes on at the U.N. I am not naive enough to think that doesn’t have to happen, but there is a difference between Britain and the U.S. forcing through a resolution and the rest of the world actually agreeing to it. What would turn the issue for me is if the Arab countries of the region said, “We feel threatened by Saddam Hussein, could you help us?”—which is what they did in 1991.
Prime Minister Tony Blair this week produced a dossier of evidence to support the case for military action. Why weren’t you persuaded?
It did reinforce the notion that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime have an appalling record for human rights, that he has weapons of mass destruction and seeks more weapons of mass destruction. But I could name 10 other countries in the region whose names you could substitute for Iraq’s in that dossier. Iraq is a war waiting for a pretext and that is what the dossier is trying to provide. There was nothing new in it. There was evidence for all those allegations five, 10 or 15 years ago—when we were still doing business with Iraq.
Is that why you have accused Britain and America of hypocrisy in their attitude to Iraq?
Many countries have shown a degree of hypocrisy. But Britain and America are particularly bad. We trained Iraqi armed forces. Our special forces were in Baghdad training their special forces. We trained pilots in the Royal Air Force to fly aircraft and drop bombs. We gave Saddam Hussein the technology and the material to produce his weapons of mass destruction, and it’s simply not good enough to say: “Well, we have changed our mind about this.”
It is that duplicity which puts us in such a difficult position. The classic example is the attack at Halabjah in 1988 when 5,000 Kurds were killed [in a chemical attack by Iraqi forces].
Every single politician from [President] Bush and [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld to Blair stands up on television and says “Saddam Hussein gassed his own people and is a disgrace to the world.” But America sent representatives from [major U.S. companies] for a personal audience with Saddam Hussein one year after the attack.
Do you feel any animosity towards the people of Iraq after your experiences as a POW?
I feel absolutely no animosity towards the Iraqis. War is an appalling, brutal experience which I have been through on a couple of occasions. Members of the general public and even politicians seem to forget that. They think that war can be waged by computer, by cruise missile, by laser-guided bomb. It can’t be. Yes, I had some brutal treatment at the hands of some Iraqi people. I was kept in a tiny concrete cell with no bed, no cups, nothing. You were just alone there with your thoughts. But these things happen in war and, more important, 99.9 percent of Iraqis are good honest people. I went back to Iraq 18 months ago and was welcomed by everybody there.
As an ex-serviceman, how do you think the armed forces will react to being sent to fight in Iraq without the full support of the public?
The members of our armed forces are professional people. They will do exactly what their commanders in chief tell them to do because that is their job. That’s doesn’t mean some of them won’t have misgivings. The views of the armed forces are just the same as you will read in every newspaper or hear in every TV show. But there is something really important here. Politicians say we can’t criticize our armed forces when they are in action, but that doesn’t means we can’t criticize the policies that put them in that position. I particularly remember when I was flying over Bosnia being shot at by all three sides—Serbs, Muslims and Croats—and wanting someone to question the government policy on what we are doing.
What has been the lasting effect of your captivity?
People always look at an appalling experience and say, “My God I couldn’t go though that.” But it was only seven weeks. It was a horrible seven weeks, a brutal seven weeks—but only seven weeks. I came home and tragically some of my friends didn’t come home. So in that way I am incredibly lucky. I suppose what the gulf war showed me—as it was my first war—was the brutal reality of war. That doesn’t mean war isn’t sometimes necessary, but when you see it at first hand you view with suspicion politicians who are so ready to wield the military stick.
© 2002 Newsweek, Inc.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:03 pm
|
|
|
Bishop Desmond Tutu berates bellicose Bush
Women and children would suffer most in war on Iraq, Nobel winner warns
By Haroon Siddiqui
I INTERVIEWED Bishop Desmond Tutu in Toronto last Friday. The previous day, he had told a meeting in Scarborough he was saddened by the increasing intolerance of the post-Sept. 11 world. He had compared current public discourse to that of apartheid South Africa in which all blacks were demonized as savages, out "to drive the white folks into the sea," and Nelson Mandela and other liberation fighters were all labelled terrorists. The interview begins with a reference to the bishop's comments from the day before.
SIDDIQUI: Yesterday you expressed dismay at the "jingoistic" American media being "utterly supportive of aggressive policies," rather than playing their critical role in a free and democratic society. Why do you think that is so?
TUTU: Part of the problem of the American system is that they are all driven by polls. They would be at a different place if President (George) Bush's ratings were very low. Now that his ratings are high, there seems to be a sense that you are digging your own grave if you attack him.
I am only glad that they were on our side in the struggle against apartheid because I am frightened to think of what would have happened if they had not been.
That doesn't speak much to their principles, does it?
That's what I'm saying. No one seems to ask: What are the merits of a case? Is this thing right or wrong? There doesn't seem to be a great deal of concern for that.
There are some dissident voices but you are very close to the kind of things that characterized the McCarthy era.
It's almost bizarre, the war-mongering and the principles they are trying to invoke, such as pre-emptive strikes. On what evidence is this being premised? Is this a principle that is of universal application? Or is it something that applies only to the U.S. because they are the only superpower?
Is it saying, in a sense, that might is right? Is there something called the rule of law? Is there an international law, which acts to rein in power so that power is accountable? Do you find this doctrine of pre-emptive strikes frightening? It is scary in the sense that if it is legitimate and valid, then we'd have a heck of a business holding back mavericks saying, "Such-and-such country harbours terrorists and is posing a threat to us." India and Pakistan, I think, are particular examples where it is going to be very difficult to say to them, "No, you can't."
If the idea is, "We've got to remove a particular ruler because that obnoxious ruler does not abide by the norms of a decent society," why should it end with Saddam?
What stops us from going further to include Iran, include North Korea?
But even if all of that were not to happen, one is fearful of the casualties. Who are the likely casualties? It's not going to be mainly military targets. We know that it is going to (mean) many civilian casualties. If the loss of civilian lives is reprehensible in New York and at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, how is it not equally reprehensible when it happens in Iraq or in Iran or in Afghanistan?
You can't slide out of this by using the awful euphemism of collateral damage: "Sorry, we were targeting military targets, but they were caught." But who are caught? It is women and children. These people have flesh and blood, similar to the people who died on Sept. 11.
But is there not a hierarchy of lives, with some lives more valuable than others?
One has to keep saying that we are all one family. We will never win the war against terrorism as long as there are conditions that make people desperate and, therefore, make them vulnerable to being recruited and used by unscrupulous people.
Our Prime Minister made a similar point the other day...
... And he got clobbered. But it is a fact that until we win the war against poverty, disease, ignorance, etc. we are really playing marbles. There's no way you're going to have security in isolation.
You have been making the same point about the Middle East.
That's what we learned in South Africa — you will not get true security from the barrel of a gun.
Yesterday, you were also critical of the demonization of Arabs and Muslims post-Sept. 11.
It is a self-defeating strategy, if you want to call it that. Christians would resent it very, very deeply if Christians were characterized by some of the weird fundamentalists in our camp. Christians would resent it very deeply if it is said that we are like the people in Northern Ireland who are forever at each others' throats.
But terrorism is being blamed on Islam.
Nonsense, absolute nonsense. If you have a sense of history, you know that the Crusaders were Christians, and you realize that the civilization about which we boast now would not have been available to us had it not been for the Muslims.
But some so-called experts on Islam are saying that Islam itself is to blame because its theology lends itself to jihad and violence.
As I was saying, where did the Crusades originate? Is that a justification for saying that Christianity is an aggressive religion? Who was responsible for the Holocaust? Because some Christians did that, would we then say that Christianity is a violent religion? Fascism — where did that come from? Europe. Nazism? Europe. Colonialism? Europe. Does that justify our saying that all of that was due to Christianity?
Apartheid was supported by one of the major Christian churches in South Africa. Do you then say, "Ah, Christianity is responsible for all this racism?"
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:12 pm
|
|
|
LONDON, UK BBC
Est. 400,000 Protesters stage anti-war rally
Anti-war protest
Organisers estimate 400,000 took part
Tens of thousands of people have taken part in a protest against military action in Iraq which organisers say was one of Europe's biggest anti-war rallies.
Organisers said 400,000 people joined in the march from the Embankment to a rally in Hyde Park on Saturday.
We can't consider murdering another 100,000 Iraqis simply to pursue America's interest in oil
Film director Ken Loach
Police said they had counted more than 150,000 people and there had been two arrests for minor public order offences.
Ministers have said threatening force is the only way to resolve the Iraqi crisis peacefully after the government published its dossier of evidence on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons programme.
But the rally's organisers, the Stop the War Coalition and Muslim Association of Britain, said this dossier has increased public opposition to war.
Bloodshed warning
Among the rally speakers were London Mayor Ken Livingstone, ex-MP Tony Benn and former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter
The demonstration came as Iraq rejected a proposed new draft resolution which the United States and Britain wanted passed by the United Nations Security Council.
Diplomats at the UN say the resolution would give Iraq seven days to accept unlimited weapons inspections.
Mayor Livingstone told the BBC more than 400,000 people had taken part in the rally on the eve of the Labour Party conference.
"This is the largest march for peace I have seen in 30 years.
"This will have an electrifying effect on the Labour Party conference and on those MPs opposed to war."
Former Labour MP Mr Benn told the crowds: "Nothing can take the British people into a war that they do not accept and do not want.
He said it would be "wholly immoral" for the US and Britain to attack Iraq.
"Although when the bloodshed begins, if it does, criminal responsibility for what has happened will rest with those who have taken that decision, there is a share of responsibility with us as well."
'Clear and present danger'
Anas Altikriti, of the Muslim Association of Britain, told BBC News Online that the demonstration had got its message across peacefully - that campaigners wanted justice for Palestine and no military strike on Iraq.
"Our government is acting in an unethical manner. This has to change," he said.
Labour MP George Galloway
Mr Galloway: Britons do not want war
Film director Ken Loach was among the demonstrators.
He said: "We can't get involved in this war we can't consider murdering another 100,000 Iraqis simply to pursue America's interest in oil and their dominance in the region."
But Yasser Alaskary, of the Iraqi Prospect Organisation, a national group which represents Iraqi youth, said that they did not support the anti-war demonstration.
Instead he said: "We support the removal of Saddam Hussein and are realistic in that this requires external help and a targeted war".
But Labour MP George Galloway, said the message was clear.
"Mr Blair is not going to be speaking in our name if he brings our country into a war.
"That is no way to send our young men and women into a war that might be a fatal confrontation."
He said there was a "clear and present danger" that there might be a war in a few weeks.
And the Labour Party Conference delegates had a duty to take the "ignition keys" away from Mr Blair.
BBC political correspondent Nicholas Jones predicted that the repercussions of the march in London would be felt at the Labour Party's annual conference.
He said that there would be a lot of opposition from delegates to "Britain going it alone" with America in a war against Iraq. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:25 pm
|
|
|
Anti-war protests in Maine
PressHerald Sept.30,2002
The critics are flooding the state's congressional delegation with phone calls and letters, holding weekly vigils in 17 communities around the state and planning a large march in Augusta next month.
In recent weeks, Rep. Tom Allen's office has received more than 2,000 comments from the public, mostly from people in his district. And nearly all are opposed to a unilateral military attack on Iraq.
"They are coming in so fast and furious that it's hard to keep up with them," said Mark Sullivan, Allen's communications director.
Other delegation offices are getting a volume of calls they haven't seen since the contested presidential election two years ago, and the overwhelming majority of callers are worried about going to war without the support of a coalition of allied countries and the United Nations.
The state's largest newspapers are receiving so many letters they can't print them all. Nearly all are opposed to war.
Bennett Katz, 83, of Augusta, who surveys the public mood when he goes grocery shopping, said people overwhelmingly are telling him they don't want to go to war on Iraq. "They don't even want us to talk about it," said Katz, a Republican who served seven terms in the Legislature and was the state Senate majority leader.
Dee Clarke of Portland was so upset that she marched with about 200 anti-war protesters in Portland on Thursday. "People in America don't want this war," said Clarke, holding the hand of her 10-year-old daughter, who wore a mask depicting a child from the Middle East.
'Public just waking up'
At the rear of parade, Arthur Whitman, a 75-year-old World War II veteran, said the sentiment against the war is just starting to emerge. "The public is just waking up to the reality that is facing us," he said.
At the end of the protest route, many of the Portland demonstrators blocked traffic at a busy intersection, which led to a series of confrontations with police at different locations. In the end, police arrested 14 people, most for refusing to leave the street when ordered to by officers.
Three people were charged with assaulting officers following a scuffle at the end of the march, an incident that other protesters said was not in keeping with the peaceful tenor of most of the demonstration.
On Saturday in Bangor, more than 100 demonstrators gathered at the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building. There were no arrests.
Opposition to the administration's policy has been expressed in religious, as well as civil, forums.
At the forefront of the emerging peace movement are several of the state's mainline churches. The Maine Council of Churches board of directors voted unanimously to oppose a unilateral military attack on Iraq. The council said the policy cannot be justified and that only the United Nations has the authority to initiate an attack against a nation that poses an international threat.
The council's board, which rarely issues statements on national policy, is upset that Bush has adopted a policy that calls for pre-emptive unilateral military action against nations that are perceived as threats. That is a marked change from long-standing policy that calls for working collaboratively with other nations, said Thomas Ewell, the council's executive director.
The council's main members are the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, the Religious Society of Friends, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Episcopal Dioceses of Maine, and the United Methodist Church.
Even an anti-war march planned for Augusta on Oct. 26 has religious roots. The decision to go forward with the march was made at a conference at Northeast Harbor that was organized by a group of Down East ministers and priests.
Addressed in sermons
Some pastors are beginning to address the issue of war in their sermons. During a memorial service on Sept. 11, Erik Wikstrom, minister of the First Universalist Church in Yarmouth, told his congregation that some national leaders seem happy about the prospects of war. Wikstrom said the nation should prepare for war with reluctance and sorrow.
"Sometimes force is inevitable. Sometimes military action is necessary," he said at the service, where was also attended by about 50 uniformed firefighters. "But let us make no mistake. It is never a solution. It is something we should do in recognition that we have failed at everything else."
Elaine Peresluha, minister at the Unitarian Universalist Society of Bangor, delivered such an impassioned anti-war sermon on Sept. 15 that 12 church members joined a peace vigil the following Tuesday in Bangor.
Weekly vigils are also being held in Belfast, Kennebunk, Lewiston, Rockland, Camden, Farmington, Auburn, Brunswick, Houlton, Deer Isle, Blue Hill, Ellsworth, Bucksport, Bar Harbor, Portland and Augusta. Some of the vigils began this month, and others have been on going since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Not all Maine churches, however, support the council's position. Most religious people in Maine belong to churches that aren't represented in the Maine Council of Churches, said Michael Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine. Heath works with evangelical Christian churches, which are generally conservative on social issues and strongly supportive of Bush.
"A large percentage of churches, while they very much want peace, would favor military action in light of the threat that (Saddam) Hussein presents and the actions of 9/11," he said.
At a lunchtime vigil on Congress Street in Portland on Wednesday, Seth Berner, a 45-year-old bookseller, carried anti-war signs as he accompanied about two dozen other protesters. Berner said the talk of war is making many people anxious. All of the protesters, including Berner, were middle-aged. As they handed out leaflets, a group of four students from Portland High School walked by and derided them.
"Blow them up," said Brittany Lebeda, 17, speaking of the Iraqis. "Don't they have nuclear weapons aimed at us?"
Her friends made similar comments.
The incident reflected what appears to be a generational difference on the issue of war — although one that is opposite to the gap that appeared during the youth-led peace movement of the Vietnam War era.
A poll released last week by Critical Insights, a Portland market research company, found that older people are more likely to oppose a unilateral war than younger people are. Of those age 65 and older, 92 percent believe that Bush must first get congressional approval before attacking, the poll found. Among all ages, 78 percent believe it's necessary for Bush to get Congress' approval.
The poll found that 57 percent of Maine residents favor taking military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power.
The poll of 600 Maine residents was conducted between Sept. 15 and Sept. 22. It has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
Compared to Mainers, Americans as a whole are slightly more supportive of Bush's war plans. Some 64 percent of Americans favor military action in Iraq, according to the latest figures from the Pew Research Report. But the number dropped substantially when people were asked how they would respond in the absence of allied support or if large numbers of casualties were likely.
Nationally, as in Maine, people who oppose the war are more vocal than those who support it. A reluctance to embark on unilateral military action is the dominant theme of phone calls, letters and e-mail messages being sent to House and Senate members, including Republicans and Democrats from areas that are hawkish as well as dovish, according to a survey by The Washington Post.
Aides to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for example, counted 5,614 phone calls over the past six weeks, only 136 of which indicated support for unilateral military action.
Ordinary Mainers
Allen said the people who call his office and voice concerns about war are mostly ordinary Mainers, not peace activists.
As a general rule, people are more likely to call their congressmen when they oppose an issue rather than favor one, said Christian Potholm, a political science professor at Bowdoin College. He predicts Mainers will rally around the president once he has made his case and the military campaign begins.
He recalled the Gulf War in 1991, when a vocal anti-war faction was "completely steamrolled" once the war began and was so immediately successful.
"People don't like war," he said. "They are afraid of it and afraid of the repercussions." He added: "Support for the war goes up in direct proportion to how successful it looks. The left never comes back after the war and says, 'Gee, you know, we were wrong.' "
Members of the Maine delegation, Democratic Reps. Allen and John Baldacci and Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, have all expressed reservations about attacking Iraq without the support of the allies and the United Nations. Allen, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday he was "profoundly troubled" by the scope of Bush's initial proposed congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq, as well as its timing.
Not only did the resolution give the president a "blank check" to do whatever he wants, Allen said, but it asked Congress to give authorization before Bush has built an international coalition and before he has made up his mind about what he wants to do. Allen added that he is open to supporting a modified resolution.
Bush met with congressional leaders Friday to build support for the administration's position. He cited Iraq's ties with terrorist organizations and its pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. "To ignore these threats is to encourage them," Bush said at a Rose Garden press conference after the meeting.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:32 pm
|
|
|
Anti-War protests in Arizona
ACLU chief, 6 others arrested at protest
Rebecca Yerman of Phoenix protests outside the Civic Plaza while President Bush speaks at a political fund-raiser inside.
Cheryl Evans/The Arizona Republic
Rebecca Yerman of Phoenix protests outside the Civic Plaza while President Bush speaks at a political fund-raiser inside.
Kelly Ettenborough, Robbie Sherwood and Judd Slivka
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 28, 2002 01:40 AM
Hundreds of people in Phoenix and Flagstaff protested the possible U.S. invasion of Iraq and President Bush's visit to the state Friday.
In Phoenix, police arrested at least seven people, including Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. She said earlier in the day that she was going as a legal observer.
"She was taking a picture, and I don't think they like that," said Carolyn Trowbridge, an ACLU vice president who was with Eisenberg. "I think they are going to regret this."
In northern Arizona, about 500 protesters stood outside the fairgrounds. Once Bush went in, the number dropped dramatically. No one was arrested.
In Phoenix, at least 400 people gathered at Patriots Square and began marching east about 3 p.m. on Washington Street. The line stretched from Central Avenue to Second Street.
At the Civic Plaza, the crowd swelled. Protesters chanted and beat drums as people headed into the $700-a-plate fund-raising dinner for Matt Salmon's campaign for governor.
Carolyn Modeen, a retired nurse, drove from Sun City with some of her friends for the march.
"We have been suffering with the events as they transpired following 9/11," she said. "It's a chance for us to finally declare publicly how we feel that it's gone so wrong for this country since then."
Phoenix police estimated the crowd at 1,500, which included a small group of people in support of Bush and those in town for the United Pentecostal Church International convention hoping to glimpse the president.
"We're good peace-loving folk. We're just curious," said the Rev. Mark Morris of Branson, Mo. He watched as police arrested a man for striking one of the anarchist protesters. "I'm a barber from the Ozarks, so this is going to be barbershop talk for the next six months."
The church members joined the College Republicans from Arizona State University in singing God Bless America and chanting "W.,W.,W.," in contrast to those across the street chanting, "No blood for oil."
At both protests, people carried a signs like "Bush = Hitler"; "Just say no to Shrub"; and "Drop Bush, not bombs."
The groups were diverse, ranging from the Arizona Alliance for Peaceful Justice to Queers 4 Peace, teenagers and senior citizens, anarchists and Democrats.
"I don't think we should go into Iraq," said Brian Maclean, a student at Northern Arizona University who braved the rain to protest in Flagstaff. "Bush is using security as a ploy to get rid of our rights and civil liberties. I'm out here to voice my opinion about that."
Bush did not go directly by the protesters in either city. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:42 pm
|
|
|
AP Photo
Thousands Protest at Cheney's House
Thousands March on Cheney's House to Protest a War With Iraq
The Associated Press
W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 29 — Thousands of people opposing a war with Iraq marched to the residence of Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday, culminating three days of smaller-than-expected demonstrations.
"Many thinking people are questioning this war," said Rita Clark, 70, a grandmother who said she was originally from Nicaragua. Clark, who has arthritis, said she wasn't sure if she could complete the long walk to Cheney's house.
"I don't know if I can get that far, but I have to do this for my children and my grandchildren," she said.
Protesters, some holding signs that said "No Blood for Oil," blamed Cheney for pushing the nation toward war. Police estimated about 2,500 people turned out for the peaceful event.
Demonstrator threats to shut down the nation's capital and disrupt meetings of world financial leaders during the weekend fell flat, but protest organizers contended their goals were met.
Needed attention was drawn, they said, to those seeking more money for global AIDS research and calling for changes in world economic policies.
"It's been a highly successful couple of days," said David Levy, a protest organizer with the Mobilization for Global Justice. Levy was the only demonstrator to show up for a scheduled Sunday morning news conference to evaluate the weekend of demonstrations.
Police had prepared for as many as 20,000 demonstrators. During the largest event, on Saturday, several thousand protesters filled five city blocks as they shouted opposition to policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which were holding their annual meetings.
Levy said the anti-globalization movement has drawn public scrutiny to the policies of those financial institutions, which demonstrators say harm the environment and worsen conditions for the poor in underdeveloped countries.
"No, we didn't change the state of the global economy," said Zoe Baldwin, 21, a college senior from Garfield, N.J. "The main purpose for most of these demonstrations, it's basically a huge outreach tool."
Meetings of global financial institutions have been a magnet to violence-scarred protests since 1999, when anti-globalization protesters clashed with police in Seattle. In April 2000, Washington police arrested about 1,300 people during demonstrations against the IMF and World Bank.
Last year's fall meeting of finance officials was canceled after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, so protesters called off their plans. Many held anti-war demonstrations instead.
Protests in Washington during the April meetings were peaceful and focused on issues ranging from the war against terrorism to U.S. policy in the Middle East.
The World Bank and IMF scaled back this year's September meeting from a week to two days to trim security costs. The finance ministers return to Washington in the spring, but next year's larger annual fall meeting is to be held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Demonstrators had threatened to shut down the city Friday by blocking traffic with a march, a mass bike ride and other actions to protest war and capitalism. Disruptions were minimal, although several clashes with police occurred, and windows were broken at a downtown Citibank office. Police arrested 649 demonstrators.
Saturday's demonstrations passed off with little trouble, except two men and two women who refused to identify themselves were arrested on illegal weapons charges near the end of the demonstrations. The four were found with smoke bombs and an explosive device that the police described as a coffee can filled with nails and explosive ordnance.
On the Net: Mobilization for Global Justice: http://www.globalizethis.org
District of Columbia police: http://www.mpdc.dc.gov
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 11:03 pm
|
|
|
Attacks on civil liberties at DC protest named "unprecedented".
Quarantines, Blockades, Few Arrests as People of Globe are Innoculated from Banks
by Liz Highleyman
links by Joanne McNeil
Thousands protested the IMF and World Bank Saturday with a large rally and attempts to "quarantine" IMF delegates.
About 7,500 protesters converged in Washington, DC, on September 28 to protest the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Demonstrators decried the detrimental effects of neoliberal economic policies and called for global justice and democracy.
Saturday’s actions began with a rally on the lawn surrounding the Washington Monument. At noon some 400 people marched from the U.S. Treasury to the monument, calling for the cancellation of international debt and increased funding for AIDS prevention and care.
The rally, coordinated by Mobilization for Global Justice, featured many speakers and performers including consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Oscar Olivera of the Coalition in Defense of Water and Life in Bolivia, and musician Michelle Shocked.
Following the rally, demonstrators marched through the city to Farragut Square, near the site of the IMF and World Bank. The previous evening, police extended an exclusion zone around the financial institutions to keep protesters blocks away from meeting delegates. After a rally at Farragut Square, the protesters continued on to Murrow Park and up to nearby police barricades fronting the IMF and World Bank buildings. The demonstrators, many wearing biohazard suits, stated their goal of "quarantining" the IMF/World Bank and preventing delegates from leaving their meetings.
As the day ended, protesters were confined by police at several intersections. Eleven protesters were detained but only four were jailed. As the demonstrations drew to a close at about 7:30pm, a group of forty activists bound together with duct tape lay in the streets near a barricade on Pennsylvania Street in an attempt to block delegates, most of whom were transported out in chartered buses under police escort.
In contrast to Friday’s actions, those on Saturday were permitted and there were few arrests. However, a number of protesters remain in jail since yesterday. Jail solidarity actions are continuing. As was the case Friday, the police presence remained overwhelming, utilizing members of several local and regional forces.
Sunday is the main day of the IMF meetings. Among the actions planned for tomorrow are a series of "People’s Assembly" gatherings in Farragut Square and a protest against Bush’s impending war on Iraq.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:12 am
|
|
|
Support fades for military action against Iraq
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Tuesday October 1, 2002
The Guardian
Support for military action against Iraq has dropped four points to only 33% of voters in the last seven days, suggesting that Tony Blair's dossier of evidence has failed to impress the voters, according to the results of the Guardian/ICM weekly tracker poll published today.
The survey shows that the gap between those who disapprove of military action and those who believe it necessary has risen to 11 points - he widest margin since the Guardian started tracking public opinion on the issue four weeks ago.
The poll, taken over the weekend of the Stop the War march in London, shows the proportion of voters who say they approve of a military attack on Iraq has fallen from 37% to 33% over the last week. But opposition to military action has also fallen - by two points - since the dossier's publication last Tuesday.
The biggest movement in opinion has been among the "don't knows", who have risen in the last seven days from 18% to 24%. Men, on balance, still marginally approve of military action by 42% to 40%. But, among women, opponents to the war now outnumber supporters by 48% to 24%.
The poll came as the Labour conference voted that military action must take place "in the context of international law and with the authority of the UN".
Commenting on the Guardian poll, Clare Short, the international development secretary, said support for UN-based action was growing: "I'm very pleased that international opinion is coalescing around the position of let's act through the UN, and act more urgently on the Palestinian position."
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults aged over 18 by telephone between 27 and 28 September 2002. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.
2002 Guardian UK |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue Oct 01, 2002 3:11 pm
|
|
|
Mech,
First of all I want to thank you for your astute observations of the Anti-War movement. I do believe Tony Blair's days are numbered as PM. I sure hope the USA wakes up and votes Dumbking out, because the future of the world is waiting in the balance.
I was listening to the groups "Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy" and "Consolidated" on my way to work this morning. Both written in 1991, you can just substitute now and then. Same story, same named administration. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Wed Oct 02, 2002 12:45 am
|
|
|
I wouldn't go as far as to say its a 'movement". It's just ordinary people...mothers, grandparents, teachers, high school kids, WW II Veterans, you name it, ALL of whom oppose Bush and Blair's Military Policy of invading other countries on the grounds of suspicion and assumption.There was a time Bush and Blair hid behind Sept.11th to try and keep everyone who opposes their agenda sidelined. Well guess what? Opposition is starting to grow and grow. What Bush doesn't realize is the fact that the U.S. economy is so bad right now..(going to get much worse),a lot more people are going to finally get fed-up with his rhetoric...especially when they can no longer put food on the table and make a livable wage. It's not right in my opinion to make war on a country when we support regimes that are as bad or worse than iraq...that's hypocricy at it's finest...and it's going to have an effect, down the road and the people who always pay the price are the inocent.You know there is something REALLY wrong when hundreds of thousands of people EVERYWHERE start taking their grievences to the street...only to be beaten back by a heavy-duty, militarized police state.By the way....you won't hear it on the news either.Is there a reason for that? Oh yeah.
Mech
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Wed Oct 02, 2002 5:20 am
|
|
|
The Charleston Gazette
Bush's war plans are a cover-up, Byrd says
By Paul J. Nyden
STAFF WRITER
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said President Bush's plans to invade Iraq are a conscious effort to distract public attention from growing problems at home.
"This administration, all of a sudden, wants to go to war with Iraq," Byrd said. "The [political] polls are dropping, the domestic situation has problems.... So all of a sudden we have this war talk, war fervor, the bugles of war, drums of war, clouds of war.
"Don't tell me that things suddenly went wrong. Back in August, the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war," Byrd told the Senate on Friday.
"Are politicians talking about the domestic situation, the stock market, weaknesses in the economy, jobs that are being lost, housing problems? No."
Byrd warned of another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Passed on Aug. 7, 1964, that resolution handed President Lyndon Johnson broad powers to escalate the war in Vietnam, a conflict that cost 58,202 American lives and millions of Asian lives.
"Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines," Byrd told the Senate. "Nothing would please this president more than having such a blank check handed to him."
Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from voting for Bush's war resolution. "But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration."
Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., both praised Byrd after he spoke.
"It is the height of patriotism to ask such hard questions," Clinton said. "No one exemplifies that more than the senior senator from West Virginia."
Byrd said, "Before the nation is committed to war, before we send our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there are critical questions that must be asked. To date, the answers from the administration have been less than satisfying."
Byrd repeatedly said Bush has failed to give members of Congress any evidence about any immediate danger from Iraq. Byrd also criticized his speech to the United Nations.
"Instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program, the president offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support.
"Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the president basically told the nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me," Byrd said.
"We must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted every other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction program. We must not act alone. We must have the support of the world."
Byrd said Congress needs solid evidence and answers to several specific questions, including:
# Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?
# Should the United States act alone?
# What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around the globe?
# How many civilians would die in Iraq?
# How many American forces would be involved?
# How do we afford this war?
# Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers?
# Does the U.S. have enough military and intelligence resources to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while mobilizing resources to prevent attacks on our own shores?
Byrd said the proposed resolution Bush sent Congress on Thursday would be the "broadest possible grant of war powers to any president in the history of our Republic. The resolution is a direct insult and an affront to the powers given to Congress."
Byrd also criticized Bush's request for power to carry out "pre-emptive attacks" and send troops to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank and anywhere else in the Middle East.
"I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers," Byrd said. "This is the worst kind of election-year politics." |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Wed Oct 02, 2002 5:32 am
|
|
|
The sun can't set on this empire too soon
The U.S. has no right to indulge in imperialism
It sure smells like imperialism. That's the word historians use when powerful nations grab control of desired resources, be it the gold of the New World or the oil of the Middle East.
Imperialist greed is what "regime change" in Iraq and "anticipatory self-defense" are all about, and all of the rest of the Bush administration's talk about security and democracy is a bunch of malarkey.
In the laundry list of reasons the Bush team has been trotting out in defense of a unilateral invasion of Iraq, oil is never mentioned. Is the fact that Iraq holds a huge pool of oil a piddling footnote to this debate? Is that Gulf War protest sign, "No Blood for Oil," too cynical, even passe? Perhaps we should ask National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who served as a Chevron director and had an oil tanker named after her.
Despite her corporate connections, Rice is a scholar, and she should know her history: For 50 years, we and the British before us have assumed the same neocolonial posture vis-a-vis Iraq as we do with Saudi Arabia and its surrounding sheikdoms and Iran. The Gulf War, fought to save U.S. corporate interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, was only the latest example of this heavy-handed policy. Think Halliburton and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The strategy is pretty much the same as that drawn up by the Romans: Find and support local strongmen who can deliver the goods to the imperial capital, come hell or high water. How they treat their own people is not our business; we have never cared about democracy in the Mideast unless one of its dictators happened to fail to toe our line.
That is why our CIA facilitated the rise to power of Iraq's Baath party and ultimately the succession of Saddam Hussein as its current leader. The first Bush administration supported Hussein, providing him with the means to wage chemical and biological war, up to the day he invaded Kuwait, another of our client states. After his defeat, we became totally disinterested in the freedom of the people of the countries we had rescued. So much so, in fact, that Saudi Arabia was allowed to thrive as the world capital of religious hatred and the major sponsor of terrorists, producing Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers who gave us the Sept. 11 tragedy.
The same contempt for democracy has marked our policy toward Iran, that other member of the "axis of evil" we helped create. When Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh moved to eliminate foreign control over Iran's oil, the CIA and its British counterpart overthrew him in 1953. Despite our babbling about democracy, we had no compunction about replacing the elected Mossadegh with a guy who claimed the hereditary right to the throne as shah of all shahs.
When the shah dared to act in the interest of his people--and his own bank account--by bolstering the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the push for higher oil prices, we came to regard him, too, as expendable.
Even our support of Israel had less to do with the struggle of a brave people for a deserved homeland and more with the usefulness of that country as an agent of our Mideast ambitions and a reliable ally in offsetting expanding Soviet influence in the region.
With the end of the Cold War, we were at a loss for a noble rationale to justify our heavy Mideast presence, which has been enormously profitable to some American corporations and industries that are well represented in this administration. Support democracy? We do subsidize Israel, the region's only functioning democracy, but our motives look less than pure when we fawn over cooperative dictatorships such as the regime in the United Arab Emirates, which forked over $6.4 billion to Lockheed Martin for fighter jets and gives us access to its oil.
Having just fought to free themselves from one of history's great empires, this nation's founding founders fiercely and repeatedly warned of the risks of imperial ambitions. Because of this, most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, grasp the fundamental truth that foreign entanglements destabilize, backfire and cost too much in lives and dollars.
Instead of exploiting our natural patriotism to fight a nonsensical war, our government should forgo the temptations of empire. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Wed Oct 02, 2002 5:35 am
|
|
|
IRAQ WAR COULD COST U.S. TAXPAYERS 9 to 13 BILLION A MONTH..........
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Fighting a full-scale war with Iraq would cost up to $9 billion a month, congressional budget experts said as the Senate prepared to open debate this week on a resolution authorizing President Bush to wage that war.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld continued to press the need for tough action against Iraq, citing 67 incidents in the past two weeks of Iraq firing on U.S. and British warplanes patrolling no-fly zones in the country.
"With each missile launched at our air crews, Iraq expresses its contempt for U.N. resolutions" demanding that Iraq allow unimpeded weapons inspections and disarm, Rumsfeld said Monday.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a report Monday said uncertainty about the length and intensity of a war with Iraq made predicting the cost difficult.
But it estimated that deploying U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf would cost from $9 billion to $13 billion, and that the monthly cost of combat by either heavy ground or air forces would be $6 billion to $9 billion.
Another $5 billion to $7 billion would be required to bring the troops home after a war. The monthly cost of a postwar peacekeeping force — excluding humanitarian aid, reconstruction and the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction — would be $1 billion to $4 billion.
"This debate should not be driven by how much it will cost U.S. taxpayers," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. But he said it was important to keep in mind that three months of combat with a heavy ground force and a five-year occupation by a large U.S. force could cost more than $272 billion.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 10-01-2002] |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:50 am
|
|
|
Today: October 01, 2002 at 14:10:09 PDT
B-2 Bombers Would Use British Island
By SCOTT CHARTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS
KNOB NOSTER, Mo.- The commander of the nation's B-2 stealth bombers said Tuesday he expects to again use a British island in the Indian Ocean as a base for the radar-evading planes if the United States attacks Iraq.
The island, Diego Garcia, was a stopover point for B-2s returning from last fall's initial wave of bombing in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Through "political channels," the U.S. military's needs "are well-articulated to the United Kingdom," Col. Doug Raaberg said of Diego Garcia's availability.
The nation's 21 B-2s are headquartered at Whiteman Air Force Base, about 60 miles southeast of Kansas City. Raaberg assumed command of the 509th Bomb Wing in April.
During the opening days of last fall's air war, the batwing bombers set a record for history's longest combat flight - 44 hours. The flights included a brief stop on Diego Garcia, the B-2 engines running constantly, to take on fresh two-man crews for the return to Missouri.
Stops at forward bases allow the $1.3 billion planes - the world's most expensive aircraft - to receive repairs and maintenance without long trips home to Missouri.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/oct/01/100105376.html
|
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Thu Oct 03, 2002 3:12 am
|
|
|
Today: October 02, 2002 at 12:10:16 PDT
New Mission Launched in Afghanistan
By MATT KELLEY
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON- In the largest ground operation in Afghanistan in six months, up to 2,000 U.S. Army troops are searching the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan for Taliban and al-Qaida holdouts.
The troops from the 82nd Airborne are part of a new strategy that puts more regular soldiers into the hunt for enemy fighters while lessening the strain on special forces units that could be needed for a war in Iraq.
The Army soldiers are combing an area of Afghanistan's Paktia province that borders Pakistan and has long been a focus of U.S. efforts to rid the country of members of the terrorist network and its Taliban allies. The region has been the scene of clashes between rival warlords and scattered attacks on U.S. soldiers.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai suggested during a visit to Qatar over the weekend that deposed Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar might be hiding along the Pakistani border.
"We believe it's a target-rich environment," said Col. Martin Schweizter, the operation's commander. Army soldiers have questioned six suspects and uncovered several small caches of weapons during searches so far.
The operation, dubbed "Alamo Sweep," is the largest since Operation Anaconda in March and is expected to continue for several weeks at least.
The new operation is the most visible part of a shift in tactics for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The large number of conventional troops replace smaller, more clandestine special forces units.
Military commanders say the show of force means larger numbers of troops can move in more quickly if Taliban or al-Qaida fighters are found. The 82nd Airborne units are using Apache helicopter gunships and Black Hawk helicopters carrying troops to swoop into remote areas where enemy activity is suspected.
Special forces units are still in Afghanistan and searching for the enemy; one such unit - acting on a tip from a local governor - uncovered more than 500,000 rounds of small-arms ammunition in central Afghanistan on Tuesday.
Top military commanders and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld met in August to discuss possible changes to special operations forces' role in the war on terrorism. Besides being the main ground force in Afghanistan, special operations units also have trained anti-terrorism forces in the Philippines, Yemen and the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
At the August meeting, Gen. Charles R. Holland of the Special Operations Command outlined his ideas to use special forces to help in the hunt for al-Qaida operatives worldwide. Having regular troops take over much of the search inside Afghanistan could free up some special forces units for duty elsewhere - or for some much-needed rest.
Special forces troops also are expected to play a prominent role in any U.S. military action against Iraq. The elite soldiers could be used for missions including finding and destroying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and guiding U.S. bombs to the correct targets.
Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/oct/02/100207623.html
____________________________________________________________________
Today: October 02, 2002 at 12:10:15 PDT
Americans Ponder War Prospects
By DAVID CRARY
ASSOCIATED PRESS
The young soldiers at upstate New York's Fort Drum are ready to fight in Iraq. A preacher near their base prays those orders won't come.
Out in Ohio, a man who flew 35 combat missions against Nazi Germany ponders the prospect of a new war and says, "I'd go a little bit slow."
While the ultimate decision on attacking Iraq will be made by the powerful in Washington, citizens elsewhere are engaged in a distinctively American tradition - debating in public forums and private thoughts whether going to war is wise.
On the fringes, some Americans wish a war against Saddam Hussein had already started; others oppose U.S. military action of almost any type. But in dozens of interviews conducted across the nation by Associated Press reporters, most people - like Pam Gillispie of Sioux Falls, S.D. - sensed that the choices facing their leaders are complex.
"We need to protect ourselves," said Gillispie, 52, who grew up in the Vietnam era, and has a 22-year-old son. "At the same time, I hate the thought of going to war. I just want to be ready. I would hate to see another 9-11."
In Athens, Ohio, 82-year-old John Jones, the World War II veteran, has been working hard at keeping up with Iraq-related news.
"I'd like to see the United Nations unified behind us, rather than just the United States and England," he said. "If we get the U.N. behind us, it would be all right to go into an all-out conflict. Until then, I'd go a little bit slow."
Jones said he has noted an occasional gap in the rhetoric of the Bush administration and some military commanders. "The political people are pushing, and the military are saying hold back a little," Jones said. "That gives me pause."
At Fort Drum in northern New York, some active-duty soldiers suggested war was necessary.
"The U.N. has given Saddam enough chances," said Pfc. Brent Litchard of North Umberland, Pa., who is convinced Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
"We just can't sit around and wait for him to use them." Lindsay Forfa, a private from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said she recently got married, "so personally I'm not looking forward to the possibility of being deployed to Iraq." "But I think the United States has to take control of the situation," she said.
"Saddam is a terrorist in every way." Sgt. Alex Meek of Red Oak, Iowa, said he was "impartial" about whether war should start, but added, "If the president tells me to do my job, I'm going to be one of the first ones to jump up and say, 'Ready!'"
In nearby Watertown, N.Y., Jehovah's Witness preacher Armand DeBardelaben suspects war is inevitable, but hopes he is wrong. "Any time you have war, people die," he said.
"I don't want anyone to die." DeAnna Tonak, 18, of Centerline, Mich., is a student at the University of Michigan's Dearborn campus and worries that some fellow students might have to fight if war breaks out.
She also fears war would raise the danger of terrorist attacks in the United States.
"This is going to be a war fought here," Tonak said. "There will be bloodshed in this country."
In South Dakota, the Iraq debate has particular resonance because of the pivotal role of native son Tom Daschle, who as leader of the Senate's Democratic majority, has sometimes differed with President Bush.
Stan Lorenz, 51, a Sioux Falls businessman, voted for Bush and will stand by him in the event of war.
"That's why we elect a president," Lorenz said. "Whatever he decides, I guess I would support it."
But Morris Oakie, an American Indian from Sioux Falls, said the United States would risk overextending itself by invading Iraq. "It's kind of dumb," said Oakie, 27. "We're already dealing with another problem on terrorism. I don't know why the president would get himself into a bigger hole than the one he's already in."
At a bar in Des Moines, Iowa, engineer Mike Hoffmann, 47, said war with Iraq was overdue.
"We should have finished it the first time," he said, referring to the Gulf War.
By contrast, Josh Armbruster, 25, a Des Moines chef, was skeptical of Bush's motives.
"It sounds more like he's trying to do what his dad didn't quite do," Armbruster said. "The president's calling anybody who doesn't support the war un-American - give me a break."
In Seattle, Chinese immigrant Pokow Chun, 73, said she lived through Japan's invasion of China in 1937, and wishes the United States would decide against invading Iraq.
"I saw the result of war," she said. "It's horrible spending all our time fighting each other."
Another immigrant, Iraq-born Ala Faik, 50, of Ann Arbor, Mich., also hopes bloodshed can be avoided, but not at all costs. Saddam, he said, "is a war criminal who needs to be removed."
Editor's Note: Associated Press reporters Doris Haugen in Sioux Falls, Miranda Leitsinger in Des Moines, William Kates at Fort Drum, Melanthia Mitchell in Seattle, and David Runk in Detroit contributed to this report.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/oct/02/100207616.html |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 7:02 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
