FWD: (Voice 4 Change) "Congress Wraps in Flag, Turns Back on Country" [WWW.STOPN

[mart-remote]

Congress Wraps in Flag, Turns Back on Country Sheryl McCarthy October 10, 2002 In the summer of 1950, Charles Rangel's Army unit, the Second Infantry Division, left Fort Lewis, Wash., for South Korea to fight the North Koreans and the Chinese. Fifty-two years later, that same division is still mired in Korea, guarding the South against the North, says Rangel, who was wounded there. So it's with no little knowledge of war that he believes that for the United States to make war on Iraq would be a terrible mistake. If some enemy were planning to attack the United States, and we had the evidence, "I'd have no problem with a pre-emptive strike and taking them out," Congressman Rangel, who has represented Harlem for 32 years, told me the other day. But going to war against Iraq at this time would be wrong, he said. http://www.voice4change.org/redir.asp?url=http://www.newsday.com/news/ opinion/columnists/ny-vpmcc102959808oct10,0,663503.column  
For the rest of the story: http://www.voice4change.org  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- It's Now Congress's war Too! We did what we could. We called, e-mailed, sent letters and petitions to our representatives, marched, and held vigils. The Government did not listen. The time has come to escalate; Mass Action is now the necessary. Civil Disobedience must now be a tactic that we use. Below you will find out who voted for and against war. In addition, a very good press conference led by members of the House that voted No. We must thank them and the 23 Senators who also said no to war. Additionally we must not forget those who voted yes on Election Day. To view the rest of the story: http://www.voice4change.org  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Support for War Based on Bush Lies While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war. These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses -- including distorting his links to the al-Qaida terrorist network -- have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East. They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analys ts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary. "Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews. To view the rest of the story: http://www.voice4change.org  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Excerpt From Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence (full text at: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html ) By Rev. Martin Luther King 4 April 1967 Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. To view the rest of the story: http://www.voice4change.org  = Moving from a Culture of War to a Culture of Peace by David Adams On that dark day, September 11, the violence of the culture of war in the hands of men trained by the CIA in the far reaches of Central Asia converged on New York City, home of Wall Street, and Washington, home of the Pentagon.. "Blowback," they called it. Not that such violence is new in the world, but this time it struck at the center of empire, with main-line television on hand to broadcast. And since that day, the forces of the culture of war, on all sides, calling for vengeance, have moved toward a reign of terror and repression throughout the world. Martin Luther King wrote in Strength to Love: "Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction The chain reaction of evil—hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars—must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation." To view the rest of the story: http://www.voice4change.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

US, UK bombs Iraq - 49th time this year [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

[ProletarianNews]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

AFP. 11 October 2002.  Warplanes hit SAM site in southern Iraq: Pentagon.

WASHINGTON -- Warplanes from a US-British coalition attacked a mobile
surface-to-air missile site in southern Iraq Friday in the third
consecutive day of strikes directed at Iraqi air defenses, US military
officials said.

Rear Admiral David Gove said the latest air strike was in response to
Iraqi fire at coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zone over the south.

Coalition warplanes used precision guided munitions in targeting the
surface-to-air missile site near Taillil, 160 miles southeast of
Baghdad, the US Central Command said.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ProletarianNews
http://www.utopia2000.org

---
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

RE: War on Iraq: Who Needs It? [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

[Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

The fact is that NATO caused a humanitarian disaster of hugh proportions when it 
bombed Yugoslavia in order to dislodge Milosevic.

Sandeep 

-Original Message-
From: putnik1915 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 October 2002 16:40
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: War on Iraq: Who Needs It? [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]


HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

Dear Sandeep,

I certainly hope you are not suggesting that there is even a grain of truth
in the statement:

"...in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in
the making which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could
avert."
[Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)]

A more accurate statement would be:

"It is unarguably true that to lessen or minimize the death and destruction
in Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia, HATO (lead by the brutish US) must be
EXCLUDED from Kosovo."

Cossack

- Original Message -
From: "Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:19
Subject: RE: War on Iraq: Who Needs It? [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]


> HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
> ---
>
> I am not a history student, but some of the arguement made in this article
can be easily proved to be misleading:
>
>  in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in
the making which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could
avert.
> [Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)]
>
>
>
>
>
> HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK 
>
> ---
>
> War on Iraq: Who Needs It?
>
> By Robert Skidelsky
>
>
>
>
> The United States wants to remove Saddam Hussein from power; its main
allies would be content with his disarmament. The United States, therefore,
wants to keep the United Nations weapons inspectors out of Iraq; its allies
want to get them back in.
>
> To reconcile these aims -- at least formally -- is the point of the
intense jockeying now going on at the UN. The United States wants a new
Security Council resolution so drawn up as to make legal the early use of
force. France and Russia, while not opposed to the use of force as a last
resort, want to use existing Security Council resolutions to give
disarmament a last chance. Britain finds itself between a rock and a hard
place. It is co-sponsor with the United States of a resolution whose
not-so-hidden aim is to force out Saddam, while being openly committed to
nothing more than his regime's disarmament.
>
> In one sense the maneuvers at the United Nations are a side show.
>
> The United States will go ahead with "regime change" whatever the UN
decides. So the unenviable choice for America's allies is either to accede
to the U.S. demand for a new UN resolution that brings about "regime change"
in Iraq -- probably by war -- or to acquiesce in unilateral U.S. action to
remove Saddam. No other choice is open, because there is no force capable of
stopping the United States. This is the reality of a world with only one
superpower.
>
> The U.S. draft resolution -- at the time of writing -- makes eight demands
on Iraq. Under extreme pressure Iraq might be expected to accept seven of
them, but not the one which gives the inspection teams "the right to declare
for the purposes of this resolution ... ground and air-transit corridors
which shall be enforced by UN security forces," i.e. which allows U.S.
forces to enter Iraq where and when they want.
>
> The technique of demands drawn up to be rejected rather than accepted is
not new. On July 23, 1914, Austro-Hungary presented a 10-point ultimatum to
Serbia following the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand at
Sarajevo, giving it 48 hours to reply. Serbia accepted nine points, but not
unexpectedly rejected the 10th, which would have allowed Austrian officials
to conduct the murder investigation on Serbian territory unhindered. The
Austrian invasion of Serbia followed a few days later, and led to World War
I.
>
> A more recent example, also involving Serbia, was the so-called
Rambouillet accord of March 20, 1999. In order to enforce "peace and
self-government in Kosovo," NATO forces were to enjoy "free and ...
unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." U.S.
bombing started four days after Serbia's rejection of this implementing
provision.
>
> Monstrous though Saddam Hussein's regime is, there is much less
justification for forcing a war on Iraq today than there was for going to
war in 1914 or 1999. In the first case, the existence of Serbia did pose a
threat to the survival of Austro-Hungary; in the second case, there was --
arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in the making which only the expulsion
of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could avert.
>
> Today, there exists no legal or security case for a pre-emptive U.S.
attack on Iraq. Saddam is not a threat to the United States, though he may
be a menace to some of his neighbors. He is n

FWD: - "10 things to do in less than one hour to stop Bush's war on Iraq!" [WWW

[mart-remote]

From main line News ( [EMAIL PROTECTED])
   Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:47:14 -0400   From: Natalie Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: 10 things to do in less than one hour to stop Bush's war on Iraq!10 things to do in less than one hour to stop Bush's war on Iraq!If you have just one hour to spare you can help build theOCT 26 NATIONAL MARCH TO STOP BUSH'S WAR AGAINST IRAQ BEFORE IT STARTS!Here are some of the things that you can do in a short amount of time:1.  Make 10 phone calls.  We will send you 10 names and phone numbers ofpeople to call about the protest along with a suggested script.2.  Put up 10 posters at message boards at your school, work place, localgrocery store, library, cafe, or union.3.  Take 10 flyers (we have special flyers for students, trade unionists,community at large, BGE/Utility prices for Oct 26).  Please let us knowwhich flyer is most helpful or if you want copies of each.  Flyers can beposted on boards, given to firends, or MAIL 10 friends or family memberswith this message.4.  Send out an email message about the demonstration to everyone in youraddress book.OR DO ALL FOUR THINGS!Just email us back with your name, address, zip and phone number so we canmail you flyer or posters.And don't forget to get your tickets for the buses.  Buses will be leavingfrom the All Peoples Congress Hall, 426 E. 31st St. (near 31st & GreenmountAve.) at 9 A.M. and returning by 6 P.M.  Let us know if you would like aticket.  Tickets are $10 round trip and we will mail it to you.  Thank you.-Be part of the solution!  Work for a better world at The Armchair Activist & Armchair-Activism GLBThttp://www.armchair-activist.org  Peace - Social, Legal, & Economic Justice - Environment - Anti-BushIt's an activist's job to be informed: All Facts & Opinions - http://gratefuldread.net/fandoDo you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more
faith.yahoo.com

Re: War on Iraq: Who Needs It? [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

[putnik1915]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

Dear Sandeep,

I certainly hope you are not suggesting that there is even a grain of truth
in the statement:

"...in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in
the making which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could
avert."
[Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)]

A more accurate statement would be:

"It is unarguably true that to lessen or minimize the death and destruction
in Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia, HATO (lead by the brutish US) must be
EXCLUDED from Kosovo."

Cossack

- Original Message -
From: "Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:19
Subject: RE: War on Iraq: Who Needs It? [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]


> HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
> ---
>
> I am not a history student, but some of the arguement made in this article
can be easily proved to be misleading:
>
>  in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in
the making which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could
avert.
> [Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)]
>
>
>
>
>
> HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK 
>
> ---
>
> War on Iraq: Who Needs It?
>
> By Robert Skidelsky
>
>
>
>
> The United States wants to remove Saddam Hussein from power; its main
allies would be content with his disarmament. The United States, therefore,
wants to keep the United Nations weapons inspectors out of Iraq; its allies
want to get them back in.
>
> To reconcile these aims -- at least formally -- is the point of the
intense jockeying now going on at the UN. The United States wants a new
Security Council resolution so drawn up as to make legal the early use of
force. France and Russia, while not opposed to the use of force as a last
resort, want to use existing Security Council resolutions to give
disarmament a last chance. Britain finds itself between a rock and a hard
place. It is co-sponsor with the United States of a resolution whose
not-so-hidden aim is to force out Saddam, while being openly committed to
nothing more than his regime's disarmament.
>
> In one sense the maneuvers at the United Nations are a side show.
>
> The United States will go ahead with "regime change" whatever the UN
decides. So the unenviable choice for America's allies is either to accede
to the U.S. demand for a new UN resolution that brings about "regime change"
in Iraq -- probably by war -- or to acquiesce in unilateral U.S. action to
remove Saddam. No other choice is open, because there is no force capable of
stopping the United States. This is the reality of a world with only one
superpower.
>
> The U.S. draft resolution -- at the time of writing -- makes eight demands
on Iraq. Under extreme pressure Iraq might be expected to accept seven of
them, but not the one which gives the inspection teams "the right to declare
for the purposes of this resolution ... ground and air-transit corridors
which shall be enforced by UN security forces," i.e. which allows U.S.
forces to enter Iraq where and when they want.
>
> The technique of demands drawn up to be rejected rather than accepted is
not new. On July 23, 1914, Austro-Hungary presented a 10-point ultimatum to
Serbia following the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand at
Sarajevo, giving it 48 hours to reply. Serbia accepted nine points, but not
unexpectedly rejected the 10th, which would have allowed Austrian officials
to conduct the murder investigation on Serbian territory unhindered. The
Austrian invasion of Serbia followed a few days later, and led to World War
I.
>
> A more recent example, also involving Serbia, was the so-called
Rambouillet accord of March 20, 1999. In order to enforce "peace and
self-government in Kosovo," NATO forces were to enjoy "free and ...
unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." U.S.
bombing started four days after Serbia's rejection of this implementing
provision.
>
> Monstrous though Saddam Hussein's regime is, there is much less
justification for forcing a war on Iraq today than there was for going to
war in 1914 or 1999. In the first case, the existence of Serbia did pose a
threat to the survival of Austro-Hungary; in the second case, there was --
arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in the making which only the expulsion
of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could avert.
>
> Today, there exists no legal or security case for a pre-emptive U.S.
attack on Iraq. Saddam is not a threat to the United States, though he may
be a menace to some of his neighbors. He is not an Islamic fundamentalist,
and no evidence has been adduced of Iraqi involvement in the terrorist
attack of Sept. 11, 2001. In any case, effective disarmament of the Saddam
regime -- a legitimate peace aim following Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait --
can be secured by a toughened inspection regime: Even the much-evaded
inspectorate system in place between 1991 and 1998 succeeded in

RE: War on Iraq: Who Needs It? [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

[Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

I am not a history student, but some of the arguement made in this article can be 
easily proved to be misleading:
 
 in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster in the making 
which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could avert. 
[Sandeep Vaidya (LMI)] 
 
 
 


HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK  

---

War on Iraq: Who Needs It?

By Robert Skidelsky 


 

The United States wants to remove Saddam Hussein from power; its main allies would be 
content with his disarmament. The United States, therefore, wants to keep the United 
Nations weapons inspectors out of Iraq; its allies want to get them back in. 

To reconcile these aims -- at least formally -- is the point of the intense jockeying 
now going on at the UN. The United States wants a new Security Council resolution so 
drawn up as to make legal the early use of force. France and Russia, while not opposed 
to the use of force as a last resort, want to use existing Security Council 
resolutions to give disarmament a last chance. Britain finds itself between a rock and 
a hard place. It is co-sponsor with the United States of a resolution whose 
not-so-hidden aim is to force out Saddam, while being openly committed to nothing more 
than his regime's disarmament. 

In one sense the maneuvers at the United Nations are a side show. 

The United States will go ahead with "regime change" whatever the UN decides. So the 
unenviable choice for America's allies is either to accede to the U.S. demand for a 
new UN resolution that brings about "regime change" in Iraq -- probably by war -- or 
to acquiesce in unilateral U.S. action to remove Saddam. No other choice is open, 
because there is no force capable of stopping the United States. This is the reality 
of a world with only one superpower.

The U.S. draft resolution -- at the time of writing -- makes eight demands on Iraq. 
Under extreme pressure Iraq might be expected to accept seven of them, but not the one 
which gives the inspection teams "the right to declare for the purposes of this 
resolution ... ground and air-transit corridors which shall be enforced by UN security 
forces," i.e. which allows U.S. forces to enter Iraq where and when they want. 

The technique of demands drawn up to be rejected rather than accepted is not new. On 
July 23, 1914, Austro-Hungary presented a 10-point ultimatum to Serbia following the 
assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo, giving it 48 hours to 
reply. Serbia accepted nine points, but not unexpectedly rejected the 10th, which 
would have allowed Austrian officials to conduct the murder investigation on Serbian 
territory unhindered. The Austrian invasion of Serbia followed a few days later, and 
led to World War I. 

A more recent example, also involving Serbia, was the so-called Rambouillet accord of 
March 20, 1999. In order to enforce "peace and self-government in Kosovo," NATO forces 
were to enjoy "free and ... unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia." U.S. bombing started four days after Serbia's rejection of this 
implementing provision.

Monstrous though Saddam Hussein's regime is, there is much less justification for 
forcing a war on Iraq today than there was for going to war in 1914 or 1999. In the 
first case, the existence of Serbia did pose a threat to the survival of 
Austro-Hungary; in the second case, there was -- arguably -- a humanitarian disaster 
in the making which only the expulsion of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo could avert. 

Today, there exists no legal or security case for a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iraq. 
Saddam is not a threat to the United States, though he may be a menace to some of his 
neighbors. He is not an Islamic fundamentalist, and no evidence has been adduced of 
Iraqi involvement in the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001. In any case, effective 
disarmament of the Saddam regime -- a legitimate peace aim following Iraq's expulsion 
from Kuwait -- can be secured by a toughened inspection regime: Even the much-evaded 
inspectorate system in place between 1991 and 1998 succeeded in liquidating most of 
its external military capacity. 

There is a moral argument for removing any regime which oppresses its own people, 
whatever international law says. But it is rather late in the day to come up with this 
in Saddam's case, and in any event, why stop with Iraq? The newly-proclaimed moral 
argument is simply a pretext for a war desired for other reasons. 

Why then is the United States so keen on a war against Iraq? Put to one side President 
George W. Bush's personal motive for "finishing Dad's business" and vague talk of oil 
interests. These may play some part in the thinking of the Bush administration but 
they are not of its essence. The fundamental reasons seem to be three. 

The first lies in the area of psychological reassurance. The Americ

Fwd: (Stop IMF List) - Re: "IMF defends actions in Russia!" [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK

[mart-remote]

 Original Message  From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [stop-imf] IMF defends actions in Russia! To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This is an absolutely stunning piece from the IMF, where it manages todefend its "reform" program for Russia. It fails to acknowledge thatmost of Russia's meager economic accomplishments in recent years tookplace by virtue of its refusal to follow IMF direction -- eg., bydefaulting in 1998 -- and astonishingly belittles the utter failure,corruption and looting of the country's privatization process. (Sure,there were problems with Russia's "dirty privatization," but now itappears it is "starting to confer some broad-based benefits.") For an empirical discussion of the utter theft of the state carried outin the name of the IMF-supported privatization, see an interview we didin Multinational Monitor with Forbes reporter Paul Klebnikov, "Theft ofthe Century: Privatization and the Looting of Russia" athttp://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02jan-feb/jan-feb02interviewklebniko.html --Robert Weissman http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2002/082602.htm Has Russia Been on the Right Path?A CommentaryBy Kenneth RogoffEconomic Counsellor and Director,Research Department, IMFVedomosti August 26, 2002 In June, the designation of Russia as a "market economy" by the U. S.Department of Commerce—and the announcement by the European Commissionthat it would follow suit—was hailed by President Putin as a recognitionof how far Russia has come ten years after the dissolution of the SovietUnion. This designation comes at a time when crises in some LatinAmerican countries and U.S. corporate scandals have provokedsoul-searching in many quarters about pro-market or "neoliberal"policies. So it is natural to ask: Has Russia been on the right path? And where isit headed? To some Western observers, the answer to the first question is anobvious "No." For instance, according to the distinguished economictheorist Joseph Stiglitz, Russia should have learned from the "enormoussuccess of China, which created its own path of transition, rather thanjust using a blueprint or recipe from Western advisors." China pursued atwo-track approach, pursuing faster market reforms along its coastalregions than in the hinterland. But it is unlikely that China's successful strategy could have beenpursued in Russia. China started its reforms with "the advantage ofbackwardness": it was one of the poorest countries in the world in 1978.Today, after 20 years of growth, the average person in China earns about800 dollars annually, half the income of the average Russian. Of course,China's strategy has created its own challenges; for example, the IMF's2002 World Economic Outlook discusses how Chinese banks are dealing withchallenges resulting from the slow restructuring of state enterprises. Another key difference is that in the former Soviet Union, over 85percent of the workforce was in non-agricultural state enterprisescompared to under 20 percent of the workforce in China. This allowedChina to reform the state sector slowly while it grew by transferringsurplus agricultural labor to township and village enterprises. ButRussia needed to end the subsidization of the state sector to freeresources for the new non-state sectors of the economy. The best evidence that the two-track approach would not have worked inthe transition economies is that such an approach was in fact tried insome countries, and abandoned. In the mid-1980s, Mikhail Gorbachev inthe Soviet Union, Janos Kadar in Hungary, and Wojciech Jaruzelski inPoland did try a Chinese-style approach of limited reform. However, thepower of the center had been significantly eroded so that it was simplynot possible to implement effectively such reforms, even ignoring thefar greater complexity of privatizing industry rather than agriculture.It was the failure of these attempts that led to more aggressive effortstoward a market economy. But even if a two-track approach couldn't be followed, shouldn't thetransition have proceeded more gradually along its single track?Shouldn't the legal and institutional reforms needed to support a marketeconomy have been carried out first? This view is also held by many"gradualists", including not only Professor Stiglitz but also the notedHarvard University Sovietologist Marshall Goldman. They argue thatexisting institutions should have been abandoned only when the newinstitutions, e.g. for financial market oversight and taxation, werefunctional. The gradualist view seems to be that if only Russian leaders could havekept communism going for 20 more years while they sent bank regulatorsand tax inspectors for Western training, everything would have beenbetter. This is improbable for at least a couple of reasons. First, it isunlikely that market institutions could have been developed in alaboratory setting and without actually starting the messy transition tothe market. Institutions take a long time to nurture and thein

FWD: Re: "A generation lost to the market economy in Bulgaria" [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG

[mart-remote]

From: "Irina Malenko"  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: "mart-remote" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: Fw: A generation lost to the market economy in Bulgaria Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:49:06 +0100 - Original Message - From: blagovesta doncheva Sent: 11 October 2002 06:12 Subject: Re: Fw: A generation lost to the market economy in Bulgaria Dear All, That article is DISGUSTINGLY MANIPULATIVE - as most of the figures quoted! - and full of DAMNED LIES! What makes me especially mad is that repeated assertion that there is consensus re market economy and - N-A-T-O! If the majority of people are asked about market economy, they will not know what you are talking about. "Market economy" is an abstract term that speaks nothing to them. But if you ask if they like their present life better that the life before 1989, it is quite another thing: they will answer without any hesitation – NO! The PAID author has pointed "more than 60 %" are nostalgic for the “communist era”. What does “more than 60% mean?” - 70? 80? NOTE THE CONTRADICTION between the assertion for “consensus re the market economy” – and the nostalgia for the past figure of “more than 60 %”!!! THERE IS NO CONSENSUS RE NATO! There is such consensus ONLY among the so-called political parties! But how much percent of the PEOPLE are the DAMNED political parties? 80 % of the people are AGAINST NATO! They want referendum but it is not allowed because, as one of the DAMNED politicians put it, the result will be a BIG GREAT "NO"!!! All the so-called Agencies for sociological public opinion researches are PAID to publish MANIPULATIVE data and blatantly to manipulate people here and abroad! That article is SHAMELESSLY manipulative - besides some figures that seem acceptable the HIGHLY PAID author distributes a DAMNED heap of lies! Look at the consensus thing! Look at that excerpt: "Among the changes the transition has brought, freedom to travel is most appreciated, with 70 percent pleased with the change, the poll said. It is followed by the end of food shortages (65 percent), the right to do business freely (66 percent), free elections (58 percent) and the restitution of farmlands (14 percent)." Note the CONTRADICTION with the figures quoted above it!!! But let's look more closely at it. freedom to travel I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry! Freedom of travel – BIG SHAKES! Who travels? Could the hungry travel? Could the unemployed travel? Could the ill travel? Could the beggars travel? Who travels? Only the government and party people - with the taxpayers’ money – our tortured money! Only the economical MAFIA people – with the sweat money squeezed out of the slaves working for them for next to nothing - and with the money stolen from all of us through the neoliberal so-called privatization. Look at the figure and compare it with the other figures quoted in the article – doesn’t the comparison results strike you as, mildly said, funny? Read again the sentence “We can manage to feed ourselves, but we no longer have enough money to go on holiday.” That poor woman means going to holiday in the boundaries of BULGARIA! Her family and she are bound to the town they live – that town has turned into a concentration camp for them: THEY CANNOT LEAVE IT because they are POOR and ! ALL their money are spend on FOOD, electricity, water, and central heating bills! end of food shortages - Besides the years after the WWII at the end of the forties there was ONLY ONE YEAR OF FOOD SHORTAGES, and it was 1991! Why? Because the future businessmen from the Bulgarian Communist Party nomenclature - who SOLD Bulgaria to the US in 1989 and 1990! - hid the food in anticipation of the coming "price liberation". They bought huge quantities of food products at the low prices of the "totalitarian regime" - and then sold them at the New High "Liberated" prices! In this way they turned into very rich people overnight, one can say! (I personally know of a man who bought tons of sugar directly from the Sugar factory in the town of Gorna Orjahoviza, kept them in warehouses, and afterwards sold that quantity at a great profit for himself!) the right to do business freely Which is the date of that "research"? Because it might have been so in the first 4-5 years of the Great Neoliberal Liberation - it means till about 1995. Now it is impossible to get such figures. The people in their majority have already understood that the "free business" is ONLY one more of THEIR MANTRAS! "Free" successful business can do only the politicians and those near and close to them - THE POLITICAL-ECONOMICAL MAFIA OF US SERVANTS THAT IS KILLING BULGARIA FOR YEARS ON A RUN TOGETHER WITH THEIR US MASTERS!! A great majority of ORDINARY people who tried to do some "free business" has lost everything and lives the despicable life of the other Bulgarians outside THE MAFIA. free elections - 66 % How is it possible that 66 % rejoice at the so-called "free elections" - and the participants in those" free el

Work Begins On Caspian-Afghan-Pakistan Gas Pipeline [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

[Rick Rozoff]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

http://www.rosbalt.com/2002/10/11/50460.html

Rosbalt (Russia)
October 9, 2002


Work to Finally Resume on Gas Pipeline between
Turkmenistan and Pakistan 


October 9. The construction of a massive gas pipeline
across Turkmenistan to Pakistan, shelved during
20-years of civil war in Afghanistan, is to resume.
The Presidents of Afghanistan, Pakistan and
Turkmenistan plan to sign an agreement on the
construction of the Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistan pipeline
later this October.

The project, which is expected to bring new prosperity
to an impoverished and war-ravaged region, has been on
the drawing board for more than 20 years, but has been
thwarted by two decades of conflict in Afghanistan.
The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan
are lobbying hard to see the construction of the link,
which would enable resource-rich but landlocked
Turkmenistan to export its gas. Afghanistan meanwhile
stands to benefit from millions of dollars a year in
lucrative transit fees that may help speed the
recovery of the war-ravaged state.

But analysts are more cautious about the project,
which they say would only be feasible if it were also
to supply gas to Pakistan's rival India. This is
considered unlikely amid simmering tensions between
the two countries. Instability also remains high in
Afghanistan, where little government control is
exercised beyond Kabul and where there are frequent
deadly clashes between warlords in the unruly
provinces.

© Neftegaz.Ru 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

On Eve Of War: NATO Commander Backs Turkey Against Kurds, Greece, EU [WWW.STOPNA

[Rick Rozoff]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

http://www.turkishdailynews.com/FrTDN/latest/for.htm#f8

Turkish Daily News
October 11, 2002

NATO commander says Iraq's integrity will be protected


-Support by NATO-member Turkey would be crucial in any
operation against Saddam. The country was a staging
point for U.S. strikes on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf
War. U.S. jets, deployed in a southern Turkish base,
have been patrolling a no-fly zone over northern
Iraq
-Turkey demands a say in the deployment of any EU
force in its "sphere of influence", which includes the
Balkans and the Aegean Sea, in return for Ankara's
approval to let the EU use NATO planning facilities.
EU-member Greece objects to a proposal giving Turkey
rights to veto any EU military deployment in its
region. 
-The United States is urging the European Union to
open up to the Turks, anxious not to alienate a NATO
member seen as a key Muslim ally in the war on
terrorism. 


 


NATO's top commander said Wednesday that the United
States respected Iraq's territorial integrity,
allaying Turkey's fears over a possible independent
Kurdish state in northern Iraq after a seemingly
imminent U.S. operation on Iraq. 

Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, the U.S. Air Force general
commanding NATO forces in Europe, was speaking in
Istanbul at a conference on the NATO alliance's ties
with former foe Russia. 

"It is U.S. government policy that we respect the
territorial integrity of Iraq and we very much
understand the sensitivities of Turkey," Ralston said.


Last week, two rival Iraqi Kurdish factions reconvened
their assembly for the first time in six years in a
clear show of unity before a possible military action
in Iraq, alarming Turkey. 

Support by NATO-member Turkey would be crucial in any
operation against Saddam. The country was a staging
point for U.S. strikes on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf
War. U.S. jets, deployed in a southern Turkish base,
have been patrolling a no-fly zone over northern Iraq
to protect Iraqi Kurds from the forces of Baghdad. 

The general also praised Turkey's efforts to resolve a
disagreement between NATO member Turkey and the
European Union, saying Turkey has done enough
sacrifice for a resolution. "Now the problem is back
with the EU and the EU needs to work at it," Ralston
said. 

He said he was "disappointed" by a lack of progress in
negotiations that would allow the union to take
command of a 800-strong peacekeeping operation in
Macedonia. The force is almost entirely made up of
European troops but remains under NATO command. A
dispute between Greece and Turkey has blocked a
handover to the EU. 

Turkey demands a say in the deployment of any EU force
in its "sphere of influence", which includes the
Balkans and the Aegean Sea, in return for Ankara's
approval to let the EU use NATO planning facilities.
EU-member Greece objects to a proposal giving Turkey
rights to veto any EU military deployment in its
region. 

Ralston's visit to Istanbul also coincided with the
release of a progress report by the European
Commission on Turkey's performance to meet membership
criteria. The report came as a cold shower for Turkey
as it declined to suggest a date for the beginning of
accession talks, despite U.S. pressure. 

The United States is urging the European Union to open
up to the Turks, anxious not to alienate a NATO member
seen as a key Muslim ally in the war on terrorism. 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

NATO International: Germans, Dutch Take Over Afghan Military Occupation [WWW.STO

[Rick Rozoff]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

http://www.rnw.nl/news/news.html#3356184

Radio Netherlands
October 2002

Dutch and Germans to Run Afghan Force

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende and German
chancellor Gerhard Schröder agree in principle on a
Dutch-German joint command of the International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The two
heads of government discussed the matter yesterday
during Mr Balkenende's first official visit to
Germany. The Dutch Prime Minister did emphasize that
the government and parliament have yet to rule on the
matter.

Command of the international force must be taken over
from Turkey at the beginning of next year.

Prime Minister Balkenende and Chancellor Schröder also
discussed the expansion of the European Union. The
Netherlands and Germany both favor expansion on
condition that Europe's agricultural policy is
reformed.



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

Space-Based NATO: Czech DM Offers US Missile Shield Facilities [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG

[Rick Rozoff]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2002/Art/1009/news3.php

The Prague Post
October 10, 2002

Tvrdik seeks missile defense 

Minister says U.S. should deploy shield system on
Czech soil 

By Sam Beckwith 
Staff Writer, The Prague Post 
(October 9, 2002)

-"I offered the United States the opportunity to
deploy the missile defense system on Czech soil." 
-Although the cost of the missile defense shield is in
the tens of billions of dollars, the U.S. government
has offered its allies the chance to participate
through "non-monetary contributions." 
"This could be the active participation of [Czech]
experts [in the project] or the possibility of us
allowing [U.S.] radars or information sensors on our
territory," Tvrdik explained. 
-Tvrdik's proposal attracted predictably fierce
criticism from the Communist Party of Bohemia and
Moravia (KSCM). Deputy Chairman Vojtech Filip said
that the defense minister should offer his
resignation. 




The Czech Republic will play a role in the United
States' controversial missile defense program if
Defense Minister Jaroslav Tvrdik has his way. 

Tvrdik recently proposed Czech involvement in the
program at a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Richard Armitage at the
Pentagon. 

"I expressed the interest of the Czech Republic in
joining this program," Tvrdik told reporters. "I
offered the United States the opportunity to deploy
the missile defense system on Czech soil." 

The cost of repairing damage caused by August's floods
has forced the Czech government to scrap its planned
purchase of 24 Jas-39 Gripen fighter jets. The
fighters would have cost around $60 million (1.86
billion Kc). The defense minister said that the U.S.
program "can enable the Czech Republic to ensure a
considerably higher level of protection with the same
or lower costs." 

Although the cost of the missile defense shield is in
the tens of billions of dollars, the U.S. government
has offered its allies the chance to participate
through "non-monetary contributions." 

"This could be the active participation of [Czech]
experts [in the project] or the possibility of us
allowing [U.S.] radars or information sensors on our
territory," Tvrdik explained. 

Although Tvrdik has discussed the possibility of Czech
participation in the program with Prime Minister
Vladimir Spidla and President Vaclav Havel, he must
receive parliamentary approval if the Czech government
is to make a formal offer of assistance. 

The Russian and Chinese governments have criticized
the missile defense project and some of the United
States' European allies have publicly doubted whether
the project is feasible. 

Tvrdik's proposal attracted predictably fierce
criticism from the Communist Party of Bohemia and
Moravia (KSCM). Deputy Chairman Vojtech Filip said
that the defense minister should offer his
resignation. 

Defense Ministry spokesman Milan Repka emphasized that
negotiations remain at a very early stage. 

"It is not as if he has offered Czech territory in
Hradec Kralove, Olomouc and Cesky Krumlov for U.S.
missiles and radars," he said. "Tvrdik only called the
scheme a very interesting one in which he is willing
to participate." 


-- Martina Sedlakova and wires contributed to this report

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

---
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST

==^
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^

Nato should call Bush's bluff [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

[toolgt]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

 The Americans need Europe at least as much as we need them 

Dan Plesch
Thursday October 10, 2002
The Guardian 

Next month George Bush will address the Nato summit in Prague. His advisers intend that Europe will agree that his doctrine of pre-emptive attack be added to Nato's policy toolkit. No doubt he will use spin and coercion to try to get his way, but now is not the time for Nato to sign up to the Bush doctrine. Instead, the strength of its 19 democracies must be applied to containing the US administration and reinforcing Nato's historical role.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808881,00.html

---
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST

==^^===
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===

The US And World Peace [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]

[Rick Rozoff]

HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2002-daily/11-10-2002/oped/o1.htm

Jang (Pakistan)
October 11, 2002

US and world peace
Masud Akhtar Shaikh

The writer is a retired Colonel and freelance
columnist
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

A dispassionate analysis of some of the recent US
foreign policy initiatives would lead one to the
inevitable conclusion that the biggest threat of Third
World War emanates from the country that claims to be
the most vocal champion of world peace, that is,
America. Throughout the Cold War, America kept
equipping itself with all sorts of imaginable weapons
of mass destruction, along with the appropriate means
to launch these weapons to hit any target anywhere in
the world. Even its adventures in space were mostly
undertaken with the aim of keeping a vigilant eye on
all possible targets on earth and to hit these targets
most effectively from space. The excuse advanced by
the successive US governments for consumption by the
naive American people and the world at large, for
building a massive military juggernaut at a
mind-boggling recurring cost of trillions of dollars
every year, was the bugbear of communism and the
imaginary threat from the Soviet Empire.

Under the same pretext, America continued its hunt for
military bases located at some of the most strategic
points all over the globe. Military and financial
assistance was used as the main instrument of foreign
policy in order to win over the friendship of
countries in which such strategic points were located.
The ruse of military pacts was also employed for the
same purpose. When countries like Cuba showed
reluctance to oblige the Americans, military pressure
and bullying tactics were used unabashedly to cow down
the countries concerned. Also, keeping in view the
strategic importance of oil in both peace and war,
America tried its level best to bring all the oil
wells of the so-called "free world" under its direct
or indirect control. Similar tactics were employed for
this purpose as well.

America's guilty conscience forced it to adopt certain
measures it thought were necessary to convince the
taxpayers and the allies that the Soviet Union and
communism did in fact pose a real threat to world
peace. For this purpose, the US commandeered its
massive propaganda machinery for non-stop maligning of
the Soviet Union and the doctrine of communism
throughout the world. In addition, America remained on
the lookout for some opportunity to show the world how
detrimental communism had become to the interests of
the capitalist countries. For this purpose, it did not
hesitate interfering even in the internal affairs of
independent countries that showed the slightest trend
of preferring communism to capitalism. This was the
policy under which American armed forces were stoked,
first in Korea and then in Vietnam, to fight
long-drawn wars against communism. Whether American
participation in these two wars did or did not
convince her allies that communism was the greatest
monstrosity facing the capitalist world, the American
people were certainly not convinced. People do not
want to lose thousands of their kith and kin fighting
other people's wars in far off lands for years on end.
It is a pity that subsequent US governments did not
learn much from their misadventures in Korea and
Vietnam.

After the Soviet penetration into Afghanistan, the US
government was quick enough to poke its nose again in
a third country, though it did that in a covert
manner. Rather than sending its own troops to that
country, it enticed Pakistan for picking the American
chestnuts from the fire in Afghanistan.

Then came the demise of the Soviet empire, primarily
due to the collapse of its economy, and not as a
result of the so-called pre-emptive operations
launched by America -- operations that had been
endangering world peace every time these were
launched. However, the US obsession for launching
pre-emptive military operations against other
sovereign states continues unabated even after the end
of the Cold War. The selected new victims of such US
aggression are countries arbitrarily classified by
America as her potential enemies that are liable to
pose a serious threat, either to the US security or to
world peace that America claims to have taken upon
itself to preserve. In fact this is tantamount to a
robber forcibly assuming the responsibility of
ensuring the security of the people of a town! At
least that is what the performance of the US
governments during and after the Cold War indicates.

To meet such imaginary threats, America insists upon
creating a national anti-missile defence system in
violation of its previous international commitments,
despite violent objections from some major world
powers. It is obviously for the same reason that
America has also come out with certain reservations
regarding the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, for the
ratification of which it has been exerting unwarranted
pressure on many oth