Topic: Gulf War II|
Topic page views:
Hoka hey! - heyokas!
Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001
posted 09-27-2002 10:13 PM
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-27-2002 10:25 PM
Milestones on the Road to a Military Government in the United States
by Bill Christison
former CIA political analyst
"We have a war going on."
How many hundreds of times in the past year have you heard this tired excuse, mouthed as often by Democrats as Republicans to avoid serious debate? The speaker, generally self-righteous, always believes or at least pretends that he is supporting some policy vital to the fight against evil, either abroad or in the fatherland. The Bush administration itself chose to initiate open-ended, lengthy, and large-scale wars rather than treat the events of September 11 as a crime, and that opened the door. Since most U.S. citizens liked calling it war, our leaders then began using the "fact" of war to justify any other actions they wanted to take. At the same time they refused even to consider changing any of Washington's own provocative and hate-inducing foreign policies.
What happened first was that the U.S. military, taking few casualties itself, used its high-tech aerial firepower to kill many innocents in Afghanistan. Most of the bloodshed never appeared on U.S. boob-tubes. Because, one supposes, this first war continues and someone at a high level has decided that much of the information about it cannot yet be declassified, U.S. officials have publicly avoided even estimating the amount of this collateral bloodshed (although they do claim it is small). But no one in the U.S. considers the number killed in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be small, and the number of innocents who died in Afghanistan from U.S. actions may well be higher.
Recently, the president and his handlers have been expanding their efforts to begin a second war, without bothering much to tie the expansion to terrorism. If they have their way, other wars will follow, and for years to come the U.S. will unless somehow the lunacy can be stopped spend untold billions beefing up the already bloated armed forces, the dozen or so redundant U.S. intelligence agencies, and the nation's flawed internal security organs. Deep deficits and an expanding national debt will surely result, but the Bush administration will accept them because "a war is going on". Washington will almost certainly pay no more than lip service to the poverty, health, water, food, and environmental problems facing both the global and the U.S. domestic economies, and in any case will allot only tiny resources to deal with them. As for future collateral bloodshed, the administration is unlikely to demonstrate any more concern than it has to date. And to date that concern has been almost wholly propagandistic.
Now a new development is emerging that threatens to change the structure and society of the United States itself. The Bush administration, consciously or unconsciously, is taking the first steps to create an out-and-out military government. Look at the current discussion in Washington. The question of U.S. policy toward Iraq should be a political issue, not a military one. Yet it is quite clear that the leadership in the Department of Defense (DOD) has more influence today over U.S. policy on Iraq than anyone in the State Department. We all know that the top officials at Defense are highly committed hawks on Iraq, and that these same ideologically committed hawks are also the strongest supporters in Washington of the right-wing Sharon government in Israel, which is about the only other country in the world committed to overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
This has not been the only warning of an effort to concentrate power over U.S. foreign policies in the Defense Department rather than the State Department. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, recently made a public statement supporting both Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the Jewish settlements in these areas. These are the settlements, of course, that the Sharon government regards as permanent and perpetually expandable. Rumsfeld's statement was definitely out of line with other recent U.S. policy statements on the Israel-Palestine problem, but scarce a corrective cheep came from the State Department .
Why did this happen? Perhaps it was just that Colin Powell mentally at least was on vacation. It was August, after all, and the president was on vacation, too. Maybe the lesson here is simply that if you're a good Washington in-fighter and bureaucratic risk-taker, as Rumsfeld certainly is, August is not a bad month to stick around the office and create a few little faits accomplis that might later pay you back handsomely. More likely, though, Rumsfeld already knew that both the president and the vice-president in their hearts, and particularly in this congressional-election year, would support his statement. Nevertheless, the result is still that the U.S. military establishment is playing a more dominant role than usual on a foreign policy issue that is distinctly political. The Israel-Palestine issue is one in which U.S. military forces are not even directly involved.
In the intelligence area as well, two moves are underway that Rumsfeld hopes will give Defense a larger role in foreign policy. One is a proposal that would give the military the power to carry out more covert operations independently of the CIA, and the other is a request that the Congress authorize a new, very senior slot for the DOD, a new undersecretary of defense to be responsible for all intelligence matters in the department. Both of these steps, if implemented, would further reduce the already limited influence that the Director of Central Intelligence has over the intelligence elements of the DOD, but that is not important.
Two points about these proposals, however, are vital. The first is particularly relevant to those of us who believe the U.S. should engage in less covert action, not more. Rumsfeld's proposal that the DOD be given greater authority to carry out covert actions would surely lead to more of them, especially since the CIA would continue executing such actions as well. Pressures would inevitably develop between the two agencies to compete and to duplicate. Rumsfeld's proposal should be rejected, but at the same time covert actions should also be removed from the responsibilities of the present CIA. What should happen is that the analytical half of the present CIA should be split from the operational, or spooky, half. Even without real control over the many other intelligence agencies, the CIA with its two halves is still too powerful. The operational half should become a smaller body with a new name and be run directly out of the White House, with the president by law personally responsible, along with others (see next paragraph), for every single covert action. No covert intelligence actions abroad, except for strictly tactical military intelligence collection during a declared war, should be carried out by any other intelligence agencies.
The second vital point is that the approval process for covert actions should by legislation be made intentionally more difficult. Every covert action should be approved personally, in writing and in detail, by the president and by the chairmen of the Senate and House committees responsible for intelligence, foreign affairs, and military affairs. An additional proposal, important to me but as yet accepted by no one else, is that all covert actions should be approved, also formally and in writing, by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. All three branches of the government should be involved, and each branch should have a veto power. The chief justice does not have to be an expert on foreign affairs. All he or no doubt in years to come, she needs is a knowledge of constitutional law and an understanding of behaviors that are or are not acceptable to decent people, both in this country and around the world. These proposals would almost certainly reduce drastically, in my opinion the number of covert actions undertaken by the government and give greater legitimacy to the few that survived the complete approval process.
The intention here is less to argue that the Bush administration is intentionally driving to create a military government in this country, than to predict that its actions, unless countered, will inevitably lead to this result. We have a president with little experience, lots of machismo, a correct belief that "war" has made him popular, and a mindset strong on blacks and whites but weak on grays and pastels. We have a secretary of state inordinately loyal to the president's family and apparently unwilling to confront the president on any substantive matter. And then we have a group of committed ideologues headed by two close friends, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and supported by the number-two and number-three men at the DOD, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, as well as others in and out of government. All are rabid supporters of right-wing conservatism, vast military spending, U.S. unilateralism, imperialism, and global domination; and most are equally fanatice supporters of Israel.
Strengthened by the events of September 11, this group has come to dominate the views of the president and therefore the foreign policies of the U.S. It is serendipitous that both Cheney and Rumsfeld have had lengthy experience in heading the DOD over several decades. They naturally put some of their trusted advisers including Wolfowitz and Feith in top positions under Rumsfeld. And that made the DOD the natural bureaucratic base for the group now dominating U.S. foreign policies.
President Bush probably has not given the slightest thought to the question of whether he is helping to set up a nucleus inside the DOD that might control the country's foreign policy as long as he is president. It's very likely that Rumsfeld has thought about this, however, and probably regards the prospect with pleasure. If Bush becomes a two-term president, Rumsfeld can look forward either to another six years, or as long as he wants until retirement, of being an extraordinarily powerful person. There will be Bush, good friend Cheney (or a much less powerful VP if Cheney departs the scene), and below them no one else matching Rumsfeld's own power. He could be excused for anticipating that he would pretty much dominate all aspects of the foreign policy and military scene. He is probably not even very worried about competition from the only other power center that might emerge the group that coalesces around the head, whoever it will be, of the new Homeland Security Department.
Rumsfeld has already set up a new command within the DOD that covers the continental U.S., and this alone will give him major influence over the issue of homeland security. In any domestic emergency, he will control more resources, equipment, and personnel than even the ballyhooed new department. As mentioned above, he is also already working hard to strengthen his influence over the U.S. intelligence establishment, which is another arena in which he might expect some competition from the head of the new department. Since he's on the ground and already running, he has a leg up in this competition.
In any event, if things go Rumsfeld's way, by the time he ends his term in office, he may well have so jiggered and reorganized the foreign affairs bureaucracy and its procedures that he will have established a new status quo in Washington. It won't really matter that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld perhaps didn't do it all deliberately, and that maybe in part it just happened. We will be far closer to a military government than we are now, and reversing the trend won't be easy. Voters in this country had better start reversing this process in the 2002 election and finish the job in 2004.
Otherwise, pity the poor State Department. And the next president, whoever he may be. And pity the rest of us, too.
* * * * * * *
RIGHT NOW IS THE TIME TO GET OUT AND DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE WARS OUR GOVERNMENT IS LEADING US INTO. Kathy and I can't think of another time when our own government has made as critical a mess in the world as the one we now face. Even demonstrating on busy street corners with a group of friends for an hour once a week can be helpful. We have two signs that have elicited more reactions than most others we've tried, and maybe you'll enjoy them.
WAR AGAINST IRAQ
MAKES YOU THE
The other reads:
NO TO WAR
HONK FIVE TIMES
(LONG, SHORT, LONG, LONG, LONG)
-- _ -- -- --
("NO" IN MORSE CODE)
Many people slow down to read both of these signs, and we receive many thumbs-up and honks of NO in Morse. Of course, we also get a few yells of "Nuke 'em" and "F--- you." But that's life in the slow lane of Santa Fe, NM.
Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit. His wife Kathy also worked in the CIA, retiring in 1979. Since then she has been mainly preoccupied by the issue of Palestine.
[Edited 5 times, lastly by Mech on 09-28-2002]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-27-2002 11:13 PM
PHOTOS 9/28/2002 WASHINGTON DC IMF/IRAQ PROTEST
What First Amendment Rights?
POLICE STATE AMERICA...Are You safe now?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 09-28-2002]
Hoka hey! - heyokas!
Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001
posted 09-28-2002 10:34 AM
The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"
International War Crimes Tribunal"
Abdali Road - Kuwait -Pictures"
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
According to U.S. Army estimates, 25,000 hapless people were massacred on these highways.31 "Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. The 1907 Hague Convention governing land warfare also makes it illegal to declare that no quarter will be given to withdrawing soldiers." The intent obviously was to destroy Iraq’s military once and for all, not to force it out of Kuwait--something already accomplished.
"THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIELD MANUAL - The Law of Land Warfare, 1956"
War Crimes Court Opens for Business
Published on Thursday, May 23, 2002 in the Boston Globe
US Pushes to Keep Its Troops Exempt From World Court
Bush says U.S. will try to end stalemate over international court, won't join
Tue Jul 2,12:13 PM ET
By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent
Today: July 10, 2002 at 18:45:11 PDT
U.S. Backs Down From Immunity Demand
Today: July 12, 2002 at 10:55:18 PDT
U.N. Nears Deal on Crimes Tribunal
Today: July 12, 2002 at 19:25:10 PDT
U.N. Passes Deal on War Crimes Court
ASSOCIATED PRESS ___________________________________________________________________
Europeans open door to world court immunity
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
[Edited 16 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 09-28-2002]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-28-2002 12:26 PM
US Adviser Warns of Armageddon
by Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus yesterday appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon in the Middle East".
The outspoken remarks from Brent Scowcroft, who advised a string of Republican presidents, including Mr Bush's father, represented an embarrassment for the administration on a day it was attempting to rally British public support for an eventual war.
The US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, yesterday spelled out what she called the "very powerful moral case" for toppling Saddam Hussein. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing," she told BBC Radio 4's Today program. She said the Iraqi leader was "an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us".
But while Ms Rice was making the case for a pre-emptive strike, the rumble of anxiety in the US was growing louder. A string of leading Republicans have expressed unease at the administration's determination to take on President Saddam, but the most damning critique of Mr Bush's plans to date came yesterday from Mr Scowcroft.
The retired general, who also advised Presidents Nixon and Ford, predicted that an attack on Iraq could lead to catastrophe.
"Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East," Mr Scowcroft wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
The Israeli government has vowed it would not stand by in the face of attacks as it did in 1991, when Iraqi Scud missiles landed on Israeli cities. It claims it has Washington's backing for retaliation.
Mr Scowcroft is the elder statesman of the Republican foreign policy establishment, and his views are widely regarded as reflecting those of the first President Bush. The fierceness of his attack on current administration policy illustrates the gulf between the elder Bush and his son, who has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on domestic and foreign policy.
In yesterday's article, Mr Scowcroft argued that by alienating much of the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would halt much of the cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle against the al-Qaida organization.
"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr Scowcroft wrote.
Both the American and British governments are expected to time a public relations effort to rebuff the critics and build public support in the immediate run-up to an invasion.
Senior Whitehall figures say that crucial in that effort will be evidence that President Saddam is building up Iraq's chemical biological warfare capability and planning to develop nuclear weapons.
The US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed yesterday that the Pentagon was considering a change in the status of a navy pilot shot down over Iraq 11 years ago. He is currently classified as "missing in action".
There have been reports that Lieutenant-Commander Michael Speicher was still being held by Iraq.
If he was reclassified as a prisoner of war, it would represent an additional source of conflict between Washington and Baghdad.
Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 09-28-2002]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-28-2002 01:08 PM
BUSH Caught "red-handed" lieing!!!!!!!!!!
Agency disavows report on Iraq arms
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES September 27,2002
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations.
In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.
The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report.
"He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."
Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the IAEA in 1991.
Many news agencies — including The Washington Times — reported Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 comments as referring to a 1998 IAEA report. The White House did not ask for a correction from The Times.
To clear up the confusion, Mr. McClellan cited two news articles from 1991 — a July 16 story in the London Times by Michael Evans and a July 18 story in the New York Times by Paul Lewis. But neither article cites an IAEA report on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program or states that Saddam was only six months away from "developing a weapon" — as claimed by Mr. Bush.
The article by Mr. Evans says: "Jay Davis, an American expert working for the U.N. special commission charged with removing Iraq's nuclear capability, said Iraq was only six months away from the large-scale production of enriched uranium at two plants inspected by UN officials."
The Lewis article said Iraq in 1991 had a uranium "enrichment plant using electromagnetic technology [that] was about six months from becoming operational."
In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration.
"There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed.
The IAEA also took issue with a Sept. 9 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies — cited by the Bush administration — that concludes Saddam "could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."
"There is no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections, I would say that they're misleading you because there isn't solid evidence out there," Mr. Gwozdecky said.
"I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December '98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said.
Mr. Gwozdecky said there is no evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability right now — either through his organization, other agencies or any government.
HOW MUCH ELSE IS HE LIEING ABOUT??!!!
694 posts, May 2002
posted 09-28-2002 02:46 PM
I drew this at the age of 14. It's still applicable, IMO. lol.
A new political term "hempocrat", which it says but you can't really see it. Think about hemp and it's many uses, and how widely it's ignored. It's ridiculous, and yet another aspect of nature that will ultimately make the consumption of earths resources unnecessary for survival. Accordingly it fits in that category of suprression which is intended to prolong the 'game' or the 'racket' with the illusion that oil and trees are all we can use to make electricity and paper. Bah.
It's just a freight train comin' your way, bilderboogas and rockafellas and tri lateral comissiona's and all that. Slap mah fro!
[Edited 5 times, lastly by Alpha-Theta on 09-28-2002]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-28-2002 05:51 PM
by AHMED RASHID
The Nation Sept. 27, 2002
There are mounting fears in Afghanistan that President George W. Bush's war against Iraq will seriously compromise further attempts by the US-led Western alliance to stabilize Afghanistan--even as the US Defense Department appears to be finally acknowledging its failures in helping to rebuild the country.
Almost a year after the defeat of the Taliban, President Hamid Karzai's government is weaker than it was a few months ago, ethnic and political rivalries plague the country, the military power of the warlords has increased and there is a new wave of anti-Americanism from the Pashtun tribes in the east and south, who feel alienated and victimized both by the Kabul government and US forces.
The fragile security situation was highlighted by the September 5 assassination attempt against Karzai in Kandahar, a car bomb in Kabul that killed twenty-six people and stepped-up rocket attacks against US forces. On September 14 Afghan police intercepted an explosives-laden tanker truck headed for the US air base outside Kabul, and two days later rockets were fired at a US garrison at Khost, in the largest artillery barrage by Al Qaeda forces since their defeat last November.
The success of the US-led Afghan war depends less on catching the remnants of Al Qaeda than on insuring that the escalating political crisis does not cause the demise of the Karzai government. Since last December the Bush Administration has primarily focused on its military and intelligence war against Al Qaeda rather than on a political and economic strategy, which would help stabilize the fragile government and kick-start reconstruction.
Karzai has been unable to extend the writ of Kabul's authority across the country or find a political formula to rein in the warlords. He has been stymied not just because of continuing ethnic and tribal tensions but by the stark failure of the international community to deliver on two key pledges made last December. The first was to mobilize an International Security Assistance Force to stabilize Kabul and five other cities. The ISAF still has only 5,000 troops, and only in the capital. Even more dangerous has been the world's failure to deliver on reconstruction funds.
Essentially, Washington has frozen the status quo following the December Bonn conference, which nominated the Karzai-led interim government. And even though Karzai was elected to a two-year term in June at the Loya Jirga, or grand tribal council, the United States has done little to strengthen the central government.
Washington has begun to help build a new national army, but this will take years to achieve. And this policy is directly undermined by continued US funding of the warlords. Even though the majority of the 1,500 delegates to the Loya Jirga harshly criticized the warlords, the Pentagon has renamed them "regional leaders," giving them a legitimacy that Afghans themselves are unwilling to bestow.
At the end of August the Pentagon finally appeared to be getting the message. "I do think increasingly our focus is shifting to training the Afghan national army, supporting ISAF, supporting reconstruction efforts--those kinds of things that contribute to long-term stability," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told me in an interview at the Pentagon.
Also, for the first time US officials appeared to be seriously concerned about lack of funds. "My single biggest concern is that the economic aid that was promised at the Tokyo conference, which I think is crucial not just for economic purposes but for political and security purposes, is just not coming through at the levels that were pledged," Wolfowitz said. The January Tokyo conference pledged $4.5 billion for reconstruction, of which donor nations promised to give $1.8 billion this year. "Barely 30 percent of what was promised for this year has been delivered," Wolfowitz added. He said the United States now had no objections to expanding ISAF beyond Kabul and would urge the Europeans to step up aid deliveries.
However, the Pentagon's apparent U-turn is only providing a halfway-house policy. It would like to see ISAF expand but wants others to do the job; Washington has ruled out using US troops as peacekeepers. It would also like others to provide more reconstruction money; in September several US officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, harshly criticized the Europeans for their slowness in providing funds.
Yet Washington's own contribution has been half that of the European Union. So far this year the United States has given $300 million, nearly all of which has been spent. In contrast, Washington is spending an estimated $1 billion a month on the Afghan war effort--a fact that has been strongly criticized by the UN's special representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi; the EU envoy to Kabul, Francesc Vendrell; and Karzai.
Given the lead US role in the war and the unilateralism that the Bush Administration has turned into a mantra vis-à-vis Iraq, other countries are unlikely to respond to either initiative unless Washington shows the way. "The United States has to play a leadership role in providing both greater security through contributions to ISAF and funding for reconstruction, if it wants other countries to step up to the line," says a European ambassador in Kabul. That appears increasingly unlikely as the US military machine prepares to attack Iraq. In his meeting with Bush at the UN General Assembly in mid-September, Karzai voiced fears--as do almost all Afghans--that war in the Middle East will lead Washington to forget Afghanistan, just as it did after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal.
The war against terrorism has shown notable successes with the breakup of Al Qaeda cells and large-scale arrests in Karachi, Singapore and Buffalo in September alone. But the Afghanistan/Pakistan region is the key to insuring that Al Qaeda does not re-emerge as a military force under a new Islamist or nationalist guise. Everywhere else in the world, Al Qaeda operates underground and in secret. In Afghanistan it rockets US troops in broad daylight.
Extremist forces are making a comeback in the Pashtun belt by coalescing around Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. An ethnic Pashtun, career warlord and former Afghan prime minister, Hekmatyar is now one of the biggest threats to Afghan stability. Afghan officials and Western diplomats in Kabul say there is clear evidence that Hekmatyar--who killed thousands of civilians in a vain bid to capture the city during the country's early 1990s civil war--has joined forces with Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants to destabilize the fledgling Karzai government.
The Pashtuns--the majority ethnic group--have serious grievances against the government. Because of the support of many Pashtuns for the Taliban, they feel they are being victimized by both the Americans and the Tajiks of the Northern Alliance, who dominate the army, police and intelligence apparatus in Kabul. Many Pashtuns consider Karzai, himself a Pashtun, to be a hostage to Tajik and US power and policies. Pashtun civilians have been the victims of US bombing raids, and the central government hasn't initiated a single reconstruction project in the Pashtun belt.
Hekmatyar is believed to have established contact with several disgruntled warlords, including Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Afghanistan's leading proponent of Wahhabi Islam; former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, once the head of the Northern Alliance; and Ismail Khan, the governor of Herat in the west. Karzai is too weak to take action against any of them.
Significantly, in the early 1980s these leaders (and Hekmatyar) belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood, which emerged out of the Arab world and was the precursor to today's more extreme Islamist movements. Hekmatyar is now trying to revive those connections and the Brotherhood's ideology, which is stridently anti-Western and antidemocratic. He says "all true Muslim Afghans who want an Islamic government in their country must know it is possible only when the United States and allied soldiers are forced out."
Hekmatyar is also trying to whip up Pashtun nationalism. In tapes sent to journalists he accuses the United States and the Kabul government of beginning "a genocide of Pashtuns." He has a considerable network of supporters in Pakistan, including retired officers of that country's Inter-Services Intelligence. After the 1979 Soviet invasion, the ISI promoted Hekmatyar ruthlessly, until he was dumped in favor of the Taliban in 1995.
Clearly, President Bush's recent pledge that the United States, Saudi Arabia and Japan will provide $180 million to rebuild the key Kabul-Kandahar-Herat road, which cuts through the Pashtun belt, reflects Washington's awareness of the unrest in the south. Roads are certainly important, but the urgent need is for the United States to demonstrate that it wants to re-establish a central government with institutions, economic resources and military and political power that can give a sense of nationhood and a functioning state back to the Afghans. Only then can Al Qaeda and its allies be truly deprived of their former base for terrorism.
151 posts, Jul 2002
posted 09-28-2002 07:34 PM
Hoka hey! - heyokas!
Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001
posted 09-28-2002 08:44 PM
Iraq Rejects Push by U.S. to Toughen Inspection Rules; Lobbying Continues in U.N.
By JULIA PRESTON and PATRICK E. TYLER
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 28 — Iraq rejected today a proposal by the United States and Britain for a Security Council resolution imposing tough weapons inspections, saying that it would not accept any new rules for the work of United Nations inspectors.
Diplomats from Washington and London shuttled to Moscow and Beijing today after consulting in Paris, trying to overcome strong objections to the draft resolution among the other three permanent, veto-bearing members of the Security Council.
The proposal gives Iraq 30 days to make full disclosure of its weapons of mass destruction and provides for intrusive inspections, authorizing a military attack if Baghdad does not comply.
In Baghdad, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan of Iraq said that his government had agreed to allow the weapons inspectors to return under conditions laid down previously by the United Nations and would not accept new terms.
"The stance on the inspectors has been decided and any additional procedure that aims at harming Iraq will not be accepted," Mr. Ramadan told reporters. He rejected as "lies" the accusations by Bush administration officials of ties between President Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, warned that the United States would sustain heavy losses in an attack and pledged that Iraq would fight a fierce war.
The Bush administration quickly responded that the resolution was up to the Security Council to decide.
"Iraq does not have a say in this matter," said Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary. "Even if they did, it again shows that they want to string things out, change their tune and build up their arms."
Even as the diplomacy continued, the United States and Britain signaled their determination to take military action if Iraq did not comply with their tough demands.
The resolution they have drafted would give Iraq one week to make an initial weapons declaration and accept the Security Council's terms, and a further 23 days to reveal all of its weapons programs, the start of disarmament under United Nations supervision.
In his weekly radio address today, President Bush lobbied for another resolution he needs before moving forward: a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force.
"By passing this resolution we will send a clear message to the world community and to the Iraqi regime the demands of the United Nations Security Council must be followed: the Iraqi dictator must be disarmed," Mr. Bush said. "These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced," he said.
After several days of debate in which leading Democrats have spoken against giving Mr. Bush the free military hand he has sought, the president said he remained optimistic that Congress would in the end approve a war powers resolution."We're making progress, we are nearing agreement, and soon we will speak with one voice," he said.
In Moscow today, Marc Grossman, the American under secretary of state for political affairs, worked to persuade Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov, to accept the new resolution. After the discussions, which lasted for more than two hours, Mr. Grossman expressed optimism, although he did not mention any details about the American and British draft proposal.
"Everyone agreed that there is a challenge to the United Nations," he said. "I think all members of the Security Council want to see if we can solve it."
Russian officials, however, were more reserved.
Mr. Ivanov, in an official statement after the meeting, reiterated Russia's position that weapons inspectors should return to Iraq immediately on the basis of existing Security Council resolutions.
Only international inspectors "should give the answer to whether there are weapons of mass destruction there," he said, referring to Iraq, in the statement.
British officials said today that the Defense Ministry was pulling up to 4,000 of its front-line troops off domestic assignments and placing them in a high state of readiness to join more than 60,000 American forces based in the region or heading there. These forces are expected to double by December, American officials say, if Mr. Bush goes forward with a large call-up of reserves followed by the deployment of major air and ground forces to the gulf.
The Iraqi foreign minister, Naji Sabri, traveled to Tehran today to seek support from Iran, which had been one of Iraq's most bitter enemies after a war from 1980 to 1988.
Arriving at the airport in Tehran,Mr. Sabri said the real "axis of evil" was Washington and Tel Aviv, borrowing President Bush's phrase for Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Mr. Sabri noted the rift on the Security Council over Washington's proposal.
Hans Blix, leading the team of United Nations inspectors preparing for a return to Baghdad, departed today for Vienna, where on Monday morning the team will sit down with three Iraqi military officials and make an initial set of demands to smooth the transport of more than 280 inspectors into the country around the middle of October.
An official from the inspection team said Mr. Blix was not concerned that his mandate from the Security Council would not be clear by Monday since this meeting was about "practical arrangements" relating to transportation, housing and communications. Still, given the attention riveted on Iraq, Mr. Blix's encounter will be an early test of Baghdad's willingness to allow unconditional and unfettered access.
French officials said today that President Bush had thus far failed to persuade President Jacques Chirac to back the stringent American and British draft resolution that would demand that the Iraqi leader admit his "material breach" of past disarmament resolutionsRussian and French diplomats have said they fear that Washington wants to increase the Council's demands so sharply that Baghdad will balk, and the weapons inspections will never get under way.
It was too early to determine whether Russia, China and France would be able to force a compromise on Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, representing the other two permanent members of the Security Council, or would offer a competing proposal.The compromise France was seeking would give the 15-member body a role in authorizing war through a second resolution should Mr. Hussein reject or obstruct the return of United Nations inspectors.
Mr. Bush and his national security advisers oppose the two-resolution approach, but much was still under discussion, including how Security Council members might travel to Iraq with a military guard to protect them, diplomats said, and directly supervise the work of inspectors.
Mr. Grossman was in Moscow today after stopping in Paris, to press the American and British draft. The precise text was being tightly held to preserve room for compromise, diplomats said. Separately, Britain dispatched two senior diplomats, Peter Ricketts, to Paris and Moscow, and William Ehrman to Beijing, for negotiations.
Meanwhile, Iraqi opposition forces in northern Iraq observed Iraqi military forces pulling back from front-line positions facing the Kurds. In one area near Erbil, the Kurdish capital, Iraqi forces had retreated 10 miles. Kurds speculated that Iraqi commanders were widening the distance to prevent defections. Control points between the Kurdish enclave and central Iraq were also being tightened to prevent defections and infiltrations, officials said.
Mr. Hussein was also said to have replaced several key governors, including in the southern Basra region, with officers from his security forces to bolster discipline against defections and betrayal.
Iraqi opposition members were lining up to volunteer for American training as fighters, interpreters, spies and target spotters, after the State Department announced that it would use part of the $92 million allocated under the Iraq Liberation Act to train thousands of recruits from the Iraqi opposition, as well as members of the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq.
The United States has also increased the tempo of patrols and bombing missions into Iraq, administration officials said. These patrols were authorized by the United Nations to enforce no-flight zones to prevent Iraq's air forces from attacking Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north.
There have been 42 such bombing missions this year, Pentagon officials said.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 09-28-2002]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-29-2002 12:25 PM
Sunday, Sept. 29, 2002
U.S. Split on Iraq Despite Bush Hope
WASHINGTON(AP) - Despite President Bush's predictions of unity on Iraq, members of Congress voiced sharply divergent views Sunday on military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Two Democratic congressmen, speaking from Baghdad, said Iraqi officials have assured them that they will allow weapons inspectors unfettered access. The lawmakers accused Bush of wrongly pushing the United States toward war.
``They said they would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted,'' said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., on ABC's ``This Week.''
``Let the U.N. inspectors do their job,'' added Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich. He said that Iraqi officials told them that they would allow ``unrestricted, unfettered'' access, though they do want ``their sovereignty respected.''
Iraq has made similar statements, though on Saturday made clear that it would allow inspectors only under terms of previous U.N. resolutions, suggesting inspectors would not have access to presidential palaces and other sites.
The Democrats' comments were quickly dismissed by the Senate's second-ranking Republican, Don Nickles of Oklahoma.
``They both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government,'' Nickles said.
Nickles said Bush simply is trying to enforce resolutions that Iraq has defied. He said Iraq has continued to build weapons of mass destruction.
``And there's new terrorist threats that we found out the hard way that are very deadly to the United Nations and our interests,'' he added, invoking the Sept. 11 attacks, though he did not explain how Iraq might be linked to the al-Qaida network involved in the U.S. strikes.
For Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., ``the threat from Iraq is part of the overall war on terror.''
With such divided views, Bush must make his case for military action, said Sen. John, Breaux, D-La.
``We don't want to get into a situation LIKE VIETNAM, for instance, where we had a house divided, the Congress was divided, the American people were divided,'' he said on ``Fox News Sunday.''
``Anything the president can do to meet with the congressional leaders, to address a joint session of Congress, to bring about unanimity, I think would be very important and very positive,'' he said.
After a week of political sniping over Iraq, Bush on Saturday predicted that Congress soon would pass a resolution giving him authority to take military action against Iraq.
``We're making progress, we are nearing agreement, and soon we will speak with one voice,'' the president said.
While some vocal Democrats oppose military action, others support the White House, and few doubt that a resolution ultimately will pass.
On a fact-finding trip to Baghdad, Bonior and McDermott said there is no reason to consider military action until Iraq fails to live up to its word. For now, McDermott said, there is no need for resolutions by Congress or the U.N. Security Council authorizing force.
``You don't start out by putting the gun to their head and saying we're going to shoot you if you blink,'' McDermott said.
Asked about Iraq's history of denying access to inspectors, Bonior said the United States should not ``play the blame game.''
Bonior said they he and his colleagues met with Iraqi ministers, who assured them that weapons inspectors could ``come any time you want, anywhere you want.''
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 09-29-2002]
Hoka hey! - heyokas!
Stamford, CT, USA
1750 posts, Dec 2001
posted 09-29-2002 07:51 PM
Nation & World 10/7/02
Ready. Aim. Fire first
But is the U.S. military a little gun-shy about starting wars?
BY MARK MAZZETTI
It was a "what if" scenario–the sort that military planners are paid to imagine–and it was not nearly ready for prime time.
Earlier this summer, a top aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld outlined for his boss a concept for striking North Korea's weapons of mass destruction–a case study in the application of the Bush administration's new doctrine of pre-emptive military action.
The hypothetical scenario envisioned a swift attack, carried out without consulting South Korea, America's ally on the peninsula.
When word of the briefing spread, administration heavyweights, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, worked to bury the scheme.
Consider it a clumsy way to ring in the age of pre-emption, which officially debuted with the recent release of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy.
In what may be the boldest rethinking of American foreign policy since Harry Truman, the document makes the case that Cold War logic no longer applies in a world where terrorists, possibly armed with weapons of mass destruction, strike at civilians without warning.
"This kind of enemy will not be deterred or contained the way, perhaps, the Soviet Union might have been," Powell said last week.
Breaking from the deep-rooted American instinct to strike only if attacked first, the so-called Bush Doctrine advocates pre-emptive military action against practitioners of terrorism–including overthrowing governments that support them–and it may soon provide the justification for an American attack on Iraq.
U.S. officials insist that the Bush Doctrine is not a one-trick pony meant solely to justify an Iraq invasion. "Any state that has a weapons-of-mass-destruction program and has an irresponsible dictator falls within the president's paradigm shift," says one Bush administration official. "This is a historic moment."
But as the dust-up over the Pentagon's North Korea briefing illustrates, laying out a broad strategic vision is one thing; applying it in the real world is quite another. In short: It is not at all clear where, besides Iraq, the Bush Doctrine could really be put into practice.
The military gets to weigh in now; the admirals and generals are putting finishing touches on the National Military Strategy, a practical blueprint for implementing the White House's grand vision.
Early indications are that those in uniform are far less enamored of pre-emption than their civilian bosses: A draft of the document, which had not yet made it to Rumsfeld's desk, all but ignored the concept, U.S. News has learned.
The generals aren't dead set against striking first; after all, the notion of pre-empting an enemy attack ("anticipatory self-defense," in the Bush administration lexicon) is as old as warfare. But the White House version is new and different.
It advocates taking military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. It calls for action, even without ironclad evidence of danger. And it suggests that U.S. power might "dissuade" other nations from trying to match American military might.
In the words of one senior officer, "there is a brave new world coming with this new defense policy."
Hit 'em. There is little debate about the appeal of going on the offensive to dismantle terrorist networks before they can strike. The approach gives planners the advantage of tactical surprise and permits them to strike with a smaller force.
"Obviously, taking the offensive under the rules of war is something the military would love to do," says Gen. Gregory Martin, commander of U.S. air forces in Europe.
Case in point: The Pentagon is drawing up plans to send special operations forces into states like Yemen that are harboring senior al Qaeda leaders.
Applying the doctrine to rogue states is where the water gets muddied. It has certainly been done before.
Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, before it became operational, and many in the military consider the 1989 invasion of Panama another example. But top commanders, including some whose job it has been to devise war plans, are struggling to understand how hitting states first makes military sense.
These officers say that even when confront- ing countries the president designated as an "axis of evil"–Iraq, Iran, and North Korea–the containment calculus still works.
"Personal survival is what matters to the Kim Jong Ils and Saddam Husseins of this world," says one former four-star officer. "This [pre-emption] absolutely is the right doctrine to deal with enemies that are not organized into states. When it comes to dealing with other countries I'm not so sure."
Even big-think objections to the Bush Doctrine offered by academics have practical consequences that get the military's attention.
The doctrine imagines that the United States would not "allow an adversarial military power to rise," as one Bush official put it.
That "confirms the notion that America is now embarking on an imperial role," argues James Chace, a specialist in international relations at Bard College. "The great danger of American power nowadays is that it will prompt other powers to combine against us."
What that means to the generals is that strategic alliances built up over the years could be ruptured.
Like it or not, the military may have to change the way it goes about its business. At a recent gathering of combatant commanders–the brass in charge of forces deployed outside the United States–Rumsfeld challenged them to adapt to the new terrorism threat.
The military will have to reassess where it bases forces, so it will not have to move troops and equipment into a region before a strike–and risk telegraphing its punch. The Pentagon will rely heavily on special operations forces that can deploy in smaller numbers and move without being detected, and on precision bombers that can strike a target from long range.
Gathering reliable intelligence will become even more important. "If we are going to be pre-emptive in nature, we better be pretty damn sure we understand their intent," says a senior Air Force official. Satellites in space can't do that very well, putting a premium on spies on the ground who can help predict what an enemy will do.
Do as I say. These are just nuts-and-bolts problems, compared with objections to pre-emption being raised abroad and at home.
"We'll be putting ourselves in the position of a rogue nation," says Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, who argues that the strategy might inspire copycats.
While the Bush National Security Strategy warns that other countries should not "use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression," the new doctrine might give ideas to China in its struggle against Taiwan or to Russia in its fight against Chechen rebels in Georgia.
This pattern was clearly on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's mind when he warned India not to mimic the new U.S. policy.
"Pakistan is not Iraq, and India is not the United States," he advised his adversary to the south. "They had better not try it."
Musharraf may have reason to put down a marker.
"India has a history of mirroring the U.S. rhetoric, and even trying to mirror U.S. actions on issues ranging from terrorism to nuclear strategy," says a Senate Democratic official who deals with South Asia policy. "We can't think we are planning our own doctrine in a vacuum."
The White House is billing the Bush Doctrine as the first coherent strategy to confront the dangers of the post-Cold War world. This might be so, but much will depend on how the United States acts upon the doctrine's muscular rhetoric and how the world reacts.
"The ripple effects from this are really hard to gauge," says Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "These fundamental shifts in our defensive posture don't come around very often."
With Thomas Omestad
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 09-29-2002]
151 posts, Jul 2002
posted 09-29-2002 11:03 PM
United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq
A partial list compiled by Stephen Zunes, University of San Francisco
252 (1968) Israel-- “Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind” measures which “change the legal status of Jerusalem, ” including the “expropriation of land and properties thereon”
262 (1968) Israel-- Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport
267 (1969) Israel-- Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem
271 (1969) Israel --- Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers
298 (1971) Israel--- Reiterates demand that Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem
353 (1974) Turkey --- Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops for Cyprus
354 (1974) Turkey ----- Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353
360 (1974) Turkey----Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus “without delay”
364 (1974) Turkey ---- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
367 (1975) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
370 (1975) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus-
377 (1979) Morocco --- Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara
379 (1979) Morocco --- Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara
380 (1979) Morocco -- Reiterates need for compliance with previous resolutions
391 (1976) Turkey ---Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
401 (1976) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
414 (1977) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
422 (1977) Turkey -- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
440 (1978) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
446 (1979) Israel --- Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power, that it rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions and that, “in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”
452 (1979) Israel --- Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem
465 (1980) Israel --- Reiterates previous resolutions on settlements policy
471 (1980) Israel --- Demands prosecution of those in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages, reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention
484 (1980) Israel--- Reiterates that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
487 (1981) Israel --- Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency
497 (1981) Israel --- Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region
541 (1983) Turkey --- Reiterates need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn
550 (1984) Turkey --- Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may “not to facilitate or in any way assist” the secessionist entity
573 (1985) Israel --- Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations
592 (1986) Israel --- Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories
605 (1987) Israel --- “Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention.”
607 (1986) Israel --- Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories
608 (1988) Israel --- Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations
636 (1989) Israel -- Reiterates call that Israel to cease its deportations
641 (1989) Israel --- Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist its deportations
658 (1990) Morocco --- Calls upon Morocco to “cooperate fully” with the Secretary General of the Unid Nations chairman of the Organization of African Unity for “in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara.”
672 (1990) Israel--- Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories
673 (1990) Israel --- Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672
681 (1990) Israel --- Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories
690 (1991) Morocco --- Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory
694 (1991) Morocco -- Reiterates that Israel “must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.”
716 (1991) Morocco --- Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus
725 (1991) Morocco -- “Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan”
726 (1992) Israel --- Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories
799 (1992) Israel --- “Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention.”
807 (1993) Croatia --- Demands return of heavy weapons seized from UN storage areas
809 (1992) Morocco --- Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum
815 (1993) Croatia -- Reaffirms UNSC resolution 807
822 (1993) Armenia ---Calls for Armenia for “immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan”
853 (1993) Armenia --- Demands “complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces” from Azerbaijani territory
874 (1993) Armenia --- Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces
884 (1993) Armenia -- Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces
896 (1994) Russia --- “Calls upon all concerned to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia”
904 (1994) Israel --- Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, “to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers.”
973 (1995) Morocco -- Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara
995 (1995) Morocco --- Calls for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum
1002 (1995) Morocco --- Reiteration of call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts
1009 (1995) Croatia Demands that Croatia “respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave or return in safety”
1017 (1995) Morocco --- Reiterates the call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts and to cease “procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum.”
1033 (1995) Morocco -- reiterates call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts
1044 (1996) Sudan Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists
1054 (1996) Sudan -- Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044
1056 (1996) Morocco -- Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara
1070 (1996) Sudan --- Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054
1073 (1996) Israel --- “Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured.”
1079 (1996) Croatia --- Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia
1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus --- Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step towards a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending
1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus -- Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step towards a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending
1120 (1997) Croatia --- Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls of Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct it and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin
1145 (1997) Croatia --- Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin
1172 (1998) India, Pakistan -- Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles
1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus ---Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending
1185 (1998) Morocco -- Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force
1215 (1998) Morocco -- Urges Morocco to promptly sign a “status of forces agreement”
1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus -- Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending
1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus --- Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending
1264 (1999) Indonesia -- Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign
1272 (1999) Indonesia ---- Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps
1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus --- Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251
1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus -- Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251
1319 (2000) Indonesia -- Insists that Indonesia “take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor,” stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia
1322 (2000) Israel --- Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power
1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus -- Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions
1338 (2001) Indonesia --- Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319
1359 (2001) Morocco --- Calls on the parties to “abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict”
1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus --- Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus
1402 (2002) Israel -- Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities
1403 (2002) Israel -- Demands that Israel go through with “the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay”
1405 (2002) Israel -- Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp
1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus --- Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus
1435 (2002) Israel --Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure
[Edited 1 times, lastly by GAS_MASK on 09-29-2002]
174 posts, Oct 2001
posted 09-30-2002 12:38 PM
Scott Ritter Interview EXCLUSIVE to Indymedia
(originally posted on IMC by
Felix 6:16am Mon Sep 30 '02
Having just given his speech to 400,000 people at the 'Stop The War' coalition in London. Scott Ritter gave me this interview on the subject of American Imperialism. This is exclusive to Indymedia
ritter_intu0evv2.mov (mimetype: video/quicktime )
SR"If Bush goes to war against Iraq, in violation of international law, that's the birth of an American empire.... we'll be in the period of American Imperialism."
Felix" If people tolerate this, then what will be next?"
SR" The demise of the United States of America..."
2621 posts, Jul 2000
posted 09-30-2002 01:22 PM
Your E-Invitation to GWII...
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Thermit on 09-30-2002]
Bird Man of Hudson County
Jersey City, NJ
779 posts, May 2002
posted 09-30-2002 01:59 PM
Gulf War II : The Sequel
Brought to you by---BushLaden Productions
See CIA agents become mavericks, turning against the country that loved and nurtured them.
Gee Dumbya as the Dry Drunk
Chained Dick as Electro-Heart
Jack AssCrack as The Witchfinder General
Balls Wolfkovitz as Killer Kowalsky
Power Colon as The Almost Sane One
Condom Lice as The Fashion Queen
Big George Sr. as The Watcher in the Woods
Arid Shaboom as The Butcher Shop Owner
Tony Bland as Bowzer
Arid Fluctuater as The Minister of Poppagander
Richard Nicswine as The Ghost
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-30-2002 02:31 PM
U.S. Supplied Germs to Iraq in '80s
Mon Sep 30, 2:31 PM ET
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.
The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.
"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."
The disclosures put the United States in the uncomfortable position of possibly having provided the key ingredients of the weapons America is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert Byrd , D-W.Va. Byrd entered the documents into the Congressional Record this month.
Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Middle East envoy.
"Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.
"I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it," Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other government agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.
Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three.
The company sent the bacteria to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors concluded had been used as a front to acquire samples for Iraq's biological weapons program.
The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod — used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin — directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.
Botulinum toxin is the paralyzing poison that causes botulism. Having a vaccine to the toxin would be useful for anyone working with it, such as biological weapons researchers or soldiers who might be exposed to the deadly poison, Tucker said.
The CDC also sent samples of a strain of West Nile virus to an Iraqi microbiologist at a university in the southern city of Basra in 1985, the records show.
On the Net:
The documents are available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
HOW RECKLESS CAN YOU GET??!!
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-30-2002 02:40 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.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-30-2002 03:03 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?"
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-30-2002 03:12 PM
LONDON, UK BBC
Est. 400,000 Protesters stage anti-war rally
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.
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.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-30-2002 03:25 PM
Anti-war protests in Maine
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.
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.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-30-2002 03:32 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.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-30-2002 03:42 PM
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
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 09-30-2002 04:03 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.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 10-01-2002 01:12 AM
Support fades for military action against Iraq
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Tuesday October 1, 2002
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