Iraq's North Korea ploy
The Iraqis do not have Alistair Campbell working for them, but their handling of policy and presentation shows signs of great tactical skill. We will see whether the muted presentation in the form of an interview by vice president Ramadan on an Iraqi regional tv channel is just an accident but it looks to me probably coordinated. It subtly and directly challenges the whole Bush/Blair linkage of WMD and regime change - he let it be known that Iraq would have no objection to direct negotiations with the US about matters of mutual interest (with the caveat quietly added, so long as there is no interference in our internal affairs). This is North Korea's ploy to trade WMD for regime continuity, except they have decided to be aggressive in bringing the demand forward by being openly obstructive about nuclear weapons. They have their local neighbours, China, Russia and South Korea, all supporting the idea that they should negotiate directly with the USA. WMD is an arbitrarily applied code for regime change against unpopular regimes. The Iraqis have been arguing persuasively that the pressure on them is pressure for a change in the whole middle east. Their spokesperson has just argued this again at a conference of south east asian non-aligned. Colin Powell himself has revealingly quickly come forward with an interview giving all sorts of historical arguments when US intervention has not led, he claims, to interference in internal affairs. But he had to chose his words carefully to avoid saying anything that about a post Saddam Iraq being democratic. He said that an Iraq without WMD would change the whole Middle East apparently in a quiet amiable throw away aside. But countries like Saudi Arabia who are not really expecting Iraq to unleash anthrax or nerve gas on its territory, and who know that Israel already has nuclear weapons, can read the signals about whether its own monarchical dispensation will come under threat. So just as South Korea in the east thinks it has more to lose by a direct confrontation with North Korea on the grounds of its weapons of mass destruction, so may many other countries in the world will think that direct talks between the Bush administration and the Saddam administration is preferable. The democratic countries may also feel it is preferable to war which will cause chaos and lead to hundreds of thousands of refugees. The Iraqis have inserted a large wedge with a slim edge. Direct (of course initially indirect) negotiations between Iraq and the USA even on the assumption of non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs, (because the pretext of course is only about weapons of mass destruction) would provide an opportunity to demonstrate linkage (eg a few visits by human rights inspectors of the sort whom Iran has just prudently invited in) eg the EU could make a parallel initiative for aid to the middle east especially Iraq in return for improvements in human rights records, (perhaps of a similar nature to those which are supposed to have taken place in that pillar of NATO, Turkey in return for economic inducements.) Perhaps perhaps, the whole sanctions regime might be lifted if Tony Blair does not like the infant mortality in Iraq. In the final analysis Tony Blair knows from his own experience of dealing with terrorism you have to talk with the terrorists. Besides only a dozen years ago Iraq was an ally of the US against Iran. Where has realpolitik gone? I predict that Iraq will play up this N Korea ploy in the next weeks to intensify splits in the US hegemonic camp. The coalition of the willing may soon appear the coalition of the isolated and the politically desperate. How can you be a global hegemon if people do not follow, even if you have overwhelming armed force? Especially if you petulantly refuse to talk to enemies who are willing to offer negotiations. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lerner and a split in San Franciscodemo
Greetings Economists, JKS writes, I didn't think I said anything about broadcast TV either, apart from its being too expensive. I really don't know what you are driving at. jks Doyle, Your position I am critical (mildly and friendly) of centered upon the boring quality of what the left puts out. So let's talk about that. What can we say? For example you use the word, boring, which is an emotional response on your part. I take that seriously in terms of understanding what is to be done with respect to what the left needs to do. But what you do say isn't very penetrating to the depths of the problem? To paraphrase you 'I'm bored with what I read, and hear the left say coming from the stage in mass rallies'. So how could we consider that in a larger sense? The particular instances I associate with your position are with journals, Fox network political talk shows, and mass rallies. Fox (right wing television) is entertaining, left events are dull and boring. So what are we to do from a left perspective? I'm saying that to take seriously the emotional content of media we have to consider the interactivity content of media. For example journals unlike broadcast television do not well carry emotional content. Face based communications structures like broadcast television communicate the emotional content of communications structures albeit in a one way non conversational technique. That is one reason why broadcast television come across as more interesting than written media. The boundaries imposed upon the whole process as far as the left is concerned is the conversational limits of what media produce. It is one thing to know how someone feels by watching a movie, and it is another thing to make a media conversational. Despite it's limitations carrying emotional content, emails can have something like a conversational quality to them. That is important to make things more interesting to human beings. That is what it takes to make organizing people happen. So I am taking your basic thrust to make an emotional comment about left discourse and I am pointing at what it takes to move the intellectual work forward. Two basic elements improve the emotional content in media we produce. We must utilize face based methods of communicating (so that emotional clarity can be understood), and Secondly emphasize the conversational structures that we could build. These together would massively improve the left's media communication. thanks, Doyle Saylor
USF Prof Al-Arian Arrested
From the St. Pete Times: USF professor Al-Arian arrested at his home FBI officials also take 3 in Chicago into custody under sealed indictment. By GRAHAM BRINK, Times staff writer Published Online, Feb. 21, 2003 TAMPA -- Controversial University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian was arrested at his Temple Terrace home and taken into federal custody early this morning. Al-Arian was handcuffed as agents led him through the front door of the FBI building in downtown Tampa.It's all about politics, he said to reporters. It's all about politics. Also arrested were Sameeh Hammoudeh, 42, Hatim Naji Fariz of Spring Hill, 30, and Ghassan Zayed Ballut, 41, who was arrested in Chicago, according to FBI officials. The sealed indictment is expected to charge Al-Arian with racketeering and providing material support for terrorism and conspiracy, among other things. [Times photo: Ken Helle] Sami Al-Arian is walked in cuffs through Robert L. Timberlake, Jr. Federal Building in Tampa this morning. Also expected to be named in the indictment are the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, who once headed up a think tank at USF with which Al-Arian was involved. Abdel Aziz-Odeh, a former spiritual leader of the PIJ, is also expected to be named in the indictment. Aziz-Odeh and Shallah are not believed to be in the United States. Al-Arian is scheduled to appear in federal court in Tampa later today. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has called a press conference in Washington D.C. for the early afternoon. Al-Arian, a tenured computer engineering professor, is no stranger to federal scrutiny. The Kuwaiti-born professor was the focus of a federal investigation in the mid 1990s, when agents suspected that an Islamic think tank he operated at USF was a front for Middle Eastern terrorists. The accusation arose after Shallah, a former head of the think tank, left Tampa in 1995 and soon resurfaced as the head of PIJ, a terrorist organization. Al-Arian also was accused of raising money for Palestinian groups with ties to terrorism. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he made fiery speeches that denounced Israel, including one in which he said: Victory to Islam. Death to Israel. Al-Arian, who applied for U.S. citizenship several years ago, was never charged with a crime. But the FBI never announced that its investigation was closed. Al-Arian's recent problems began last fall after his alleged ties to terrorists were aired on national television. That created a firestorm for USF, which said it received hate mail and several death threats. Al-Arian was immediately suspended with pay and banned from campus. In December, after a 12-1 vote for dismissal by USF's board of trustees, Genshaft notified Al-Arian that she intended to fire him. Last February, in an unusual move, federal authorities announced that Al-Arian remained under investigation but would not elaborate. Genshaft said today that she would wait to learn more about the arrest before making any decisions. Al-Arian has repeatedly denied any connection to terrorist activities or providing any funds to carry out terrorist plots. His brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, also taught at the university. He spent more than 3 1/2 years in jail on secret evidence linking him to terrorists. He was released in 2000 but arrested again in November 2001 and deported last August.
Marshall/Martial Plan
not much into paul krugman, don't necessarily agree with some of his take on marshall plan, think title of his 2/21 nyt column is great play on words... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21KRUG.html?ex=1046842592ei=1en=dce9f5e0c7040c64
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lerner and a split in San Francisco demo
(Doyle) Your position I am critical (mildly and friendly) of centered upon theboring quality of what the left puts out. So let's talk about that. Whatcan we say? For example you use the word, boring, which is an emotionalresponse on your part. I take that seriously in terms of understanding whatis to be done with respect to what the left needs to do. But what you dosay isn't very penetrating to the depths of the problem? To paraphrase you'I'm bored with what I read, and hear the left say coming from the stage inmass rallies'. So how could we consider that in a larger sense? Boredom is not an emotion. I also don't think it even was a word that I used initially; it was yours. I hasn't even originally beentalking about what one hears coming from the stage in mass rallies,which is mostly unimportant. I turned down an offer tos peak for the NLG at theFedb. 14 rally in Columbus, Ohio (I was visiting), no one was listening anyway.I wouldn't be surprised if a casual internet post didn't penertrate to the heart of any problem. But I don't think the problem we face is that our stuff isn't entertaining in the way that Fox TV is, whatever that way is. You have a point in emphasizing the conative, noncogniytive aspects of political communication, but the left has never been short on that -- outrage is our stock in trade. I am not satying that is a bad thing. If anything, I was suggesting that we are falling down, vias a vias the other side, on the cognitive, analyrical aspects, also their presentation. I am not sure that pursuing ! the conversation at this level of abstraction is worth while. jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
On Saturday, February 22, 2003 at 06:52:57 (-0500) Michael Hoover writes: not much into paul krugman, don't necessarily agree with some of his take on marshall plan, think title of his 2/21 nyt column is great play on words... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21KRUG.html?ex=1046842592ei=1en=dce9f5e0c7040c64 Krugman has actually been doing a rather fine job of debunking the many lies of the Bush administration, unusual among mainstream commentators. His beliefs about the U.S. efforts at fostering prosperity, stability and democracy after World War II are typical fantasies, unfortunately. Reworking his sentence gives a much better picture of reality: America's leaders understood that fostering wealth accumulation (greed), instability and corporate rule was as important as building military might in the struggle against Democracy. We wanted stability for *our* investors, didn't care one whit about what the people of the world wanted (to hell with the Vietnamese, to hell with the Italians, to hell with the Resistance) and worked frantically to return control of the defeated states to the hands of the discredited ruling class. For him to even use the phrase America can also be proud of the way it built democratic institutions shows how little he knows of the history and the meaning itself of the word democracy. Finally, he drives his Range Rover deep into the weeds with this one: Meanwhile, outraged Iraqi exiles report that there won't be any equivalent of postwar de-Nazification, in which accomplices of the defeated regime were purged from public life. As if very many very nasty people did *not* remain in power, or were not returned to power with the generous assistance of U.S. taxpayers, in Germany and Italy (among others). Krugman can be proud of his efforts to shed some truth on the mendacious and militant Bush regime, but he should remember that the roots of the current phase of our empire were firmly and consciously put in place beginning with our reconstruction of a postwar world order that would serve the needs of U.S. investors first, no matter the consequences for democracy. Bill
secular Jews
Title: secular Jews [was: Lerner and a split in San Francisco demo] Max writes ... Lerner is organizing jews as jews. For all I know Chomsky is secular. ... Most of my knowledge of Rabbi Lerner is hear-say, so I'll drop him. But I do want to comment on the above. As seems to be the case with Chomsky, most Jews in the U.S. are secular.[*] Lerner is organizing Jews as _religious_ Jews; he's the go-to guy for the leftish reform-Jewish community. On the other hand, the folks I see on most Sundays -- the Sholem community and the national international network they belong to -- are organizing secular Jews as a group (including goys such as myself, because I'm married to a secular Jew). As indicated by the name of the group -- Peace -- the group isn't just pushing Yiddish (instead of Hebrew) but is politically active. Many of the members attended the anti-war demos last weekend. The students must be involved in the community in some way. (My son did some work for ACORN.) [*] For those who don't know, the distinction is sorta like the Italians as an ethnic group versus Italians who are Catholics and Italians who aren't Catholics. The analogy doesn't fit exactly, since almost all ethnic Jews -- to the extent that we can use that phrase, given the wide variety of Jewish ethnicities -- avoid other religions besides Judaism. Unless you consider atheism to be a religion... Jim
Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lerner and a split in San Francisco demo Ref # PEN-L:34965
Greetings Economists, JKS writes, Boredom is not an emotion. I also don't think it even was a word that I used initially; it was yours. I hasn't even originally been talking about what one hears coming from the stage in mass rallies, which is mostly unimportant. I turned down an offer tos peak for the NLG at the Fedb. 14 rally in Columbus, Ohio (I was visiting), no one was listening anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if a casual internet post didn't penertrate to the heart of any problem. But I don't think the problem we face is that our stuff isn't entertaining in the way that Fox TV is, whatever that way is. You have a point in emphasizing the conative, noncogniytive aspects of political communication, but the left has never been short on that -- outrage is our stock in trade. I am not satying that is a bad thing. If anything, I was suggesting that we are falling down, vias a vias the other side, on the cognitive, analyrical aspects, also their presentation. I am not sure that pursuing ! the conversation at this level of abstraction is worth while. jks Doyle, Well this is after all just a discussion list, not a place to take seriously building the left. I'm not attacking your sentiment above. That is the fact of life about what these lists do. Given that though I want to finish my thought here. We can look at the communication problems the left has in producing work. Where the work is boring we can do something. As to your comment Boredom is not an emotion, quoting The Vehement Passions Fisher, Princeton Press, 2002, page 154, But fear and boredom, like the twentieth century's newly invented category within the passions, depression, are immobilized states in which the spirit feels inactive, incapable of motion. They are conditions in which the life energies seem injured. As immobility is a sign of damage to the body, so too the immobility of boredom, depression, or fear (which we speak of in the phrase paralyzed with fear) directs us to a conversion of feelings or passions away from movement, toward the motionlessness of states. Whereas the passions were volatile, the states seem to have no internal ending: we speak of interminable boredom. Depression, fear, and boredom are all states from which the spirit needs to be rescued, precisely because within itself it knows no way out. Unlike the other passions, these seem never to be spent, nor do they lead to calm, as in Milton's line for the no longer enraged Samson, whose revenge is now complete once he has brought down the walls and killed his enemies: Calm of Mind/All Passion Spent. Among the most brilliant pages of Heidegger's eighty volumes of writing are the ninety pages that give ana analysis of boredom in his lectures of 1929-30, lectures now translated in the book The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics. Clearly in the years of writing Being and Time and the lecture courses on which it was based, Heidegger had both fear and boredom in mind as states through which the world as a whole disclosed itself, to use his vocabulary. His very great analysis of fear in the lecture series just before Being and Time copied and spiritualized the precise terms of Aristotle's heroic analysis of courage. Deliberately moving from passions to moods, Heidegger restates fear without an object and without occasion-in the cleaned-out theological language of Kierkegaard, Angst or dread. Doyle, The general way that neuroscience talks about such moods is a 'feeling' and reserves emotion for the body. Here is something Joseph LeDoux writes in The Emotional Brain, Touchstone Simon and Schuster, 1996 page293, ...And the somatic system clearly has the requisite speed and specificity to contribute to emotional experiences (it takes much less than a second for your striated muscles to respond to a stimulus and for the sensations from these response to reach your cortex). This point was noted many years ago by Sylvan Tomkins and was the basis of his facial feedback theory of emotion, which has been taken up and pursued in recent years by Carroll Izzard. While most contemporary ideas about somatic feed back and emotional experience have been about feedback from facial expressions, a recent theory by Antonio Damasio, the somatic marker hypothesis, calls upon the entire pattern of somatic and visceral feed back from the body. Damasio proposes that such information underlies gut feelings and plays a crucial role in our emotional experiences and decision making processes. Doyle, For the left, then where our work does bore us we have the means to address that issue in how we 'produce' brainwork. Face based communications with GPS Semantic Web systems would alter the social structure of working class organization of the planet. That applies to understanding what is wrong with Broadcast Television, front Stage presentations at mass rallies, written journals. Conversational shared information structures are important hence the recent Supreme Court case brought by
Re: Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
True. They might still have the receipts for U.S weaponry bought by the govt. of SH. Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan by Michael Perelman 22 February 2003 Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
Bill Lear wrote: Krugman can be proud of his efforts to shed some truth on the mendacious and militant Bush regime, but he should remember that the roots of the current phase of our empire were firmly and consciously put in place beginning with our reconstruction of a postwar world order that would serve the needs of U.S. investors first, no matter the consequences for democracy. Yeah, but it's important to remember that Western Europe was being reconstructed so serve as the junior partners of empire, whereas Iraq is conceived of as a vassal state. And if they could, the Bush admin would probably prefer to treat Afghanistan like the burned-out reactor at Chernobyl, buried in concrete. But they can't quite do that. Doug
Re: RE: RE: Lerner and a split in San Francisco demo
Max B. Sawicky wrote: The underlying issue in the Lerner/ANSWER flap is whether the anti-war movement will be steered towards or away from support for a right of return for Palestinians, thereby denying the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Max, this is hardly a central issue to the peace movement as it exists. Lerner seized on this, and people like Corn and Cooper who were looking for an excuse to go after ANSWER seized on Lerner. I'm no fan of the Workers World Party, but I don't think this is the time to make a big deal out of it, or to scream about the right of return for Palestinians. The point is to stop the goddamned war before it starts, and Lerner et al should just shut up for now. Doug
Building a Left in the US Re: Lerner and a split in San Francisco demo
Max B. Sawicky wrote: The underlying issue in the Lerner/ANSWER flap is whether the anti-war movement will be steered towards or away from support for a right of return for Palestinians, thereby denying the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Max, this is hardly a central issue to the peace movement as it exists. Lerner seized on this, and people like Corn and Cooper who were looking for an excuse to go after ANSWER seized on Lerner. I'm no fan of the Workers World Party, but I don't think this is the time to make a big deal out of it, or to scream about the right of return for Palestinians. The point is to stop the goddamned war before it starts, and Lerner et al should just shut up for now. Doug I don't speak for Max, who may agree with you that the point is to stop the goddamned war before it starts, but I don't think that the anti-war movement -- Lerner or no Lerner, WWP or no WWP -- is or can become big and militant enough to stop the war before it starts. We don't want to put all our eggs in the basket of remote hope that global protest waves will stop the war, because if we did, the anti-war movement would die soon after the bombings began, much as the movement against the first Gulf War expired. Besides, with or without the war on Iraq, the question of Israel and Palestinians is and will remain on the political agenda of leftists, and so will a host of other questions, old and new. The point for leftists in any nation is not to build a single-issue movement, an anti-war movement or anything else, but to build a left that can come to power. A US left that can't squarely address the question of Israel and Palestinians isn't much of a left. -- Yoshie * Calendar of Events in Columbus: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html * Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://solidarity.igc.org/
advice in writing book?
Hi! Ihave had good use of the many tips on literature and debates on the list, thanks everyone. Now I thought ofaskingdirectly for advice. Im writing and researching on my firstbook project, carrying onfrom an article I had published a year ago in First Monday (Copyleft vs. Copyright - A Marxist Critique). I havethestructure of the text roughly finished andam ready to look for publishers. Any suggestions onwho might be interested, how to approach them, etc.? Other comments and advice on the undertaking would also be much appreciated. /Johan Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
America on Trial - convicted in UK
Remarkable television this evening in London. Motion carried 56% to 44% in a representative audience selected by National Opinion Polls, with Richard Perle speaking for the defence. Passionate debate. A (presumably non-voting) contingent of the audience were some 20-30 Americans flown over from St Louis. US opponents of the Bush administration made spirited contributions and were were roundly applauded. At the end other Americans were shocked by the result. I feel I have come over here to be insulted said one. The gap is very considerable. Objectively it marks the fact that Britain no longer has the might to be an imperialist hegemon. It is still imperialist, but the population are very uneasy about any international actions that do not have the semblance of international law. Nevertheless to get a majority vote in favour of a proposition to declare the US guilty allegedly beyond reasonable doubt of thinly disguised imperialism is a tectonic shift Channel 4 staged a debate on the proposition that America's strike-first foreign policy is thinly disguised imperialism, which is likely to fuel a new arms race [etc , I could not catch the rest but it was strong and I cannot get the video to work. ] http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/america_trial.html Channel 4 introductory notes Jon Snow chairs a studio debate as part of channel 4's commitment to providing alternative voices and opinions in its coverage of the Iraq crisis. Are the United States about to destroy the balance of international relations forever, putting us all at risk to secure its own interests? Or is President Bush the only leader bold and responsible enough to carry out the world's dirty work and remove the threat of Saddam Hussein for once and for all? Post September 11, the US now believes that pre-emptive action against a perceived threat can be used as justification for an unprovoked war. But what are their real motives? And, after Iraq, where does Bush venture next? Are we about to witness a new age of American imperialism? The US stance and its readiness to take unilateral action have grave implications for the future role and authority of the United Nations. And, as her closest ally, what are the consequences for us here in the UK? America on Trial challenges the position of the United States as they embark on a new era in foreign policy. America on Trial broadcasts on Channel 4 on Saturday 22nd Feb 2003 at 6.45pm Chris Burford London
Fwd: Fw: A reply to Ian Williams
[I'm sure [EMAIL PROTECTED] will forward this, but in case he's away for the weekend...] From: Ian Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: A reply to Ian Williams Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 16:20:14 -0500 To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Louis Proyect Cc: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 4:17 PM Subject: Re: A reply to Ian Williams Dear Mr Proyect before you go to ad hominem attacks, you should check which homo you are attacking. I am not and never have been a liberal. I am a socialist. The many people who wonder about why I did not mention the Palestinians can rest assured. I joined the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Britain in the 60's when I was indeed vociferously against the War in Vietnam. I can produce reams of newsprint written by me about the Palestinians beginning well before most of the Left thought it was fashionable, or before some of them had been sanctioned by Moscow to support the PLO. I have never, ever as you allege advocated a new role for America in the world, which came down to American power on behalf of American ideals, not least suspect that in terms of the last few decades American Ideals is an oxymoron. Because the US was mostly right in WWII does not make it perfect for every occasion, any more than being wrong in Vietnam means that it is always wrong - although as we noted it is a good rule of thumb. I did indeed support the European Socialist Parties who collectively pulled an unwilling US into NATO's efforts to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo - and had for many years before argued strongly that the UN's members should vigorously enforce the existing UN resolutions. I have written extensively about the failure of to enforce UN decisions on Israel, and indeed on Indonesia and Morocco over East Timor and Western Sahara. because of the US. Socialists do not have frame their policy as the dialectic opposite of whatever the US is doing at any time. There are over-riding principles including humanitarianism, and human rights on which to base a policy. I may add that that there is nothing wretched about Bogdan Denitch whose actual record in fighting Nazis - with bayonets not slogans - involvement in the labor movement, and civil rights makes me proud to have co-authored articles with him. As a Croatian Serb, his ability to remain a Marxist internationalist puts to shame the national-communism that so many Leninists sects and parties have succumbed to. Ian Williams From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Louis Proyect To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 3:22 PM Subject: A reply to Ian Williams Dear Mr. Williams, I was rather taken aback to see your article on the Counterpunch website that warned about the dangers to world peace posed by Bush administration figure John Bolton, who shares the same agenda as--in your own words--Likudnik fundamentalists. The last time I saw you in person was at the Socialist Scholars Conference where you were lambasting the left for not supporting NATO's war against the dastardly Serbs. As George Packer put it in a recent NY Times Magazine puff piece on behalf of the get Iraq left (Hitchens, Walzer, etc.): Many of them had cut their teeth in the antiwar movement of the 1960's, but by the early 90's, when some of them made trips to besieged Sarajevo, they had resolved their own private Vietnam syndromes. Together -- hardly vast in their numbers, but influential -- they advocated a new role for America in the world, which came down to American power on behalf of American ideals. That kind of describes you, doesn't it? I mean where does all this nonsense about regime change come from. When liberals like you were beating the drums for war against Milosevic on behalf of the Kosovars, many people wondered why you didn't seem as bothered by Israeli brutality toward its own Muslim subjects. You and the wretched Bogdan Denitch co-authored an article that posed the question in this manner: Real internationalists can hardly use the dubious rights of 'national sovereignty' to oppose action to stop massacres. Opposition to US military intervention is an understandable rule of thumb, but it shouldn't become obsessive dogma. After all, most Europeans were happy with US intervention in World War II. (http://www.soc.qc.edu/ssc/williams.htmlhttp://www.soc.qc.edu/ssc/williams.html) Don't you see the problem with putting national sovereignty in quotes? If you decide that the USA and its imperialist allies in Western Europe can take sides in a civil war (and that's what we are talking about), what's to prevent a Donald Rumsfeld or a Paul Wolfowitz to use the same kinds of appeals to expediency themselves? It is really a slippery slope once you decide to adopt the point of view of the US State Department as you did. Louis
Re: Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan
H..Dont be too sure. If any bioweapons scientists rat on Hussein or make up stories they can be assured of employment in US labs and that they will not be harassed by inspectors.. Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 10:35 AM Subject: [PEN-L:34968] Re: Re: Marshall/Martial Plan Part of the denazification was to bring Nazis to the US to help in the Cold War. I doubt that we will bring too many of SH's people here. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A reply to Ian Williams
Dear Mr. Williams, I was rather taken aback to see your article on the Counterpunch website that warned about the dangers to world peace posed by Bush administration figure John Bolton, who shares the same agenda as--in your own words--Likudnik fundamentalists. The last time I saw you in person was at the Socialist Scholars Conference where you were lambasting the left for not supporting NATO's war against the dastardly Serbs. As George Packer put it in a recent NY Times Magazine puff piece on behalf of the get Iraq left (Hitchens, Walzer, etc.): Many of them had cut their teeth in the antiwar movement of the 1960's, but by the early 90's, when some of them made trips to besieged Sarajevo, they had resolved their own private Vietnam syndromes. Together -- hardly vast in their numbers, but influential -- they advocated a new role for America in the world, which came down to American power on behalf of American ideals. That kind of describes you, doesn't it? I mean where does all this nonsense about regime change come from. When liberals like you were beating the drums for war against Milosevic on behalf of the Kosovars, many people wondered why you didn't seem as bothered by Israeli brutality toward its own Muslim subjects. You and the wretched Bogdan Denitch co-authored an article that posed the question in this manner: Real internationalists can hardly use the dubious rights of 'national sovereignty' to oppose action to stop massacres. Opposition to US military intervention is an understandable rule of thumb, but it shouldn't become obsessive dogma. After all, most Europeans were happy with US intervention in World War II. (http://www.soc.qc.edu/ssc/williams.html) Don't you see the problem with putting national sovereignty in quotes? If you decide that the USA and its imperialist allies in Western Europe can take sides in a civil war (and that's what we are talking about), what's to prevent a Donald Rumsfeld or a Paul Wolfowitz to use the same kinds of appeals to expediency themselves? It is really a slippery slope once you decide to adopt the point of view of the US State Department as you did. Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: A response to Loius Proyect
Dear Mr Proyect before you go to ad hominem attacks, you should check which homo you are attacking. I am not and never have been a liberal. I am a socialist. The many people who wonder about why I did not mention the Palestinians can rest assured. I joined the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Britain in the 60's when I was indeed vociferously against the War in Vietnam. I can produce reams of newsprint written by me about the Palestinians beginning well before most of the Left thought it was fashionable, or before some of them had been sanctioned by Moscow to support the PLO. The question is not really whether or not you care about the Palestinians or not. Christopher Hitchens is also for the Palestinians, although I must say that with his recent drift the prognosis is guarded. What I was alluding to was the tendency of liberals like yourself to stop short of calling for the bombing of Tel Aviv. If we are talking about a single measure of world justice, then Israel should have gotten its share of recycled-Uranium shells a long time ago. I have never, ever as you allege advocated a new role for America in the world, which came down to American power on behalf of American ideals, not least suspect that in terms of the last few decades American Ideals is an oxymoron. Because the US was mostly right in WWII does not make it perfect for every occasion , any more than being wrong in Vietnam means that it is always wrong - although as we noted it is a good rule of thumb. What makes you think the US was mostly right in WWII? I think you've been watching too many Stephen Spielberg/Tom Hanks movies. Archibald MacLeish, at that time an Assistant Secretary of State, predicted the outcome of an allied victory: As things are now going, the peace we will make, the peace we seem to be making, will be a peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping, a peace, in brief...without moral purpose or human interest. I did indeed support the European Socialist Parties who collectively pulled an unwilling US into NATO's efforts to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo - and had for many years before argued strongly that the UN's members should vigorously enforce the existing UN resolutions. I have written extensively about the failure of to enforce UN decisions on Israel, and indeed on Indonesia and Morocco over East Timor and Western Sahara. because of the US. Oh, is that the kind of socialism you were referring to? I should have known better. These are the same socialists whose governments brought Yugoslavia to the brink to begin with. The spectacle of Germany invoking the crusade against Hitler is singularly obscene in light of the light of the behavior of the KLA: The KLA splits down a bizarre ideological divide, with hints of fascism on one side and whiffs of communism on the other. The former faction is led by the sons and grandsons of rightist Albanian fighters -- either the heirs of those who fought in the World War II fascist militias and the Skanderbeg volunteer SS division raised by the Nazis, or the descendants of the rightist Albanian rebels who rose up against the Serbs 80 years ago. Although never much of a fighting force, the Skanderbeg division took part in the shameful roundup and deportation of the province's few hundred Jews during the Holocaust. The division's remnants fought Tito's Partisans at the end of the war, leaving thousands of ethnic Albanians dead. The decision by KLA commanders to dress their police in black fatigues and order their fighters to salute with a clenched fist to the forehead led many to worry about these fascist antecedents. Following such criticism, the salute has been changed to the traditional open-palm salute common in the U.S. Army. (Chris Hedges, March 28, 1999, NY Times) Socialists do not have frame their policy as the dialectic opposite of whatever the US is doing at any time. There are over-riding principles including humanitarianism, and human rights on which to base a policy. Right. Like the need to stop the bloody Hun from impaling Belgian babies on their bayonets. I may add that that there is nothing wretched about Bogdan Denitch whose actual record in fighting Nazis - with bayonets not slogans- involvement in the laboir movement, and civil rights makes me proud to have co-authored articles with him. As a Croatian Serb, his ability to remain a Marxist internationalist puts to shame the national-communism that so many Leninists sects and parties have succumbed to. Oh please, Bogdan Denitch is about as much of a Marxist internationalist as the parliamentarians who voted for WWI, your forefathers. Ian Williams Ian Williams 343 E 30th St #11K New York, NY 10016 Tel: +1 212.686.8884 Fax + 1 212 686 8885 email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] website http://www.ianwilliams.infowww.ianwilliams.info Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Join your local tape drive
Title: Join your local tape drive -- --- Drop Bush, Not Bombs! --- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT) http://www.kvmr.org --- I uke, therefore I am. -- Cool Hand Uke I log on, therefore I seem to be. -- Rodd Gnawkin Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube: http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan attachment: C-=WINDOWS=TEMP=nsmailV6.jpeg.j
nuther new war fornt
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379889 I don't think the vast majority of Americans have any idea how many places in the world the US has troops, which are increasingly operations groups as opposed to advisors. Why is the US hated? Track the US military forces around the world, and that's a start. (Then you can track the countries in which the IMF has a hand, for much of the rest of the story). Margie )%% !!! With little fanfare, America opens a new front in the war on terror By Frank Gardner in Djibouti 20 February 2003 Largely unseen by the rest of the world, America has opened up a new military front in the so-called war on terror. From a warship off Yemen, and from a heavily guarded base in East Africa, the Pentagon is running the Joint Task ForceHorn of Africa. On a windswept ridge on an extinct volcano crouches a team of US Special Forces. Hunching against the wind, they peer through a small device on a tripod. Laser on, shouts one. An invisible laser beam streaks across the desert valley, locking onto a distant target. Seconds later a pair of US Marine Harrier jumpjets scream in, release their bombs, and arc into the blue horizon. It is a training run for US special ops to hone the skills they learned fighting Al-Qa'ida in the mountains of Afghanistan. Quietly, and with little fanfare, the Pentagon and the CIA have been building up a sizeable presence in Djibouti, the peaceful republic in the Horn of Africa. At an old Foreign Legion base in the former French colony there are now nearly 2,000 US troops, preparing to go on counter-terrorist missions. Armoured Humvee jeeps burst periodically from the gates, probing into the surrounding bush. Blackened helicopters with encrypted communications for special operations clatter above the camp then sweep low over the white-washed walls of Djibouti city and vanish towards the mountains. A few miles offshore, sits the hi-tech warship USS Mount Whitney, the HQ and intelligence base for the JTF-HOA. The commander is Marine Major-General John Sattler. We're here to stop this region turning into a haven for Al-Qa'ida, he says. When they lost their bases in Afghanistan, he explains, the Pentagon feared the terrorists would flee west to Yemen and East Africa. So a task force was set up to react rapidly to reports of terrorist activity. His command covers seven countries, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Yemen, Somalia and Kenya. So is he just watching, I ask him, or preparing to go in, guns blazing? Direct action, in the Pentagon jargon, is the last resort, I was told. The Pentagon would prefer to work with the countries in the region, training them to tackle terror and pooling their intelligence resources. Yemen is held up as a shining example of such co-operation. British and US special forces have been training Yemenis in counter-terrorism. But in Yemen, America has already taken the law into its own hands. Last November, the CIA used Djibouti to launch an unmarked Predator drone over Yemen. Using co-ordinates phoned in from a Yemeni intelligence officer on the ground, the drone flew to a car carrying six Al-Qa'ida suspects, fired its missiles and destroyed the car. The drone returned to Djibouti. It would have been the perfect deniable op, had the Pentagon not gloated over it so publicly. The US has been accused of extra-judicial killing, targeting suspects without bringing them to trial. There have been no further US airstrikes but officials told me privately that Somalia and Yemen remained prime candidates for such an operation. One of our aims is to make this is a hard place for Al-Qa'ida to work in. General Sattler says. But while Washington feels it is now taking the war on terror to the enemy, by having so visible a presence here, America may well be offering Al-Qa'ida a new and tempting target. Frank Gardner is the BBC's Security Correspondent. His special report will be shown tonight on BBC2's 'Newsnight' at 10.30pm. *** I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, blood dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if, unfortunately, their revolution must be of the violent type because the haves refuse to share with the have-nots by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want, and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans. General David Sharp, former US Marine Commandant, 1966 All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a
US already attacking Iraq's defences
US and Britain pound Iraqi defences in massive escalation of airstrikes By Raymond Whitaker 23 February 2003 Iraq has been ordered to destroy dozens of missiles which violate UN limits, but the US and Britain are not waiting to see whether Saddam Hussein complies. In recent days, an Independent on Sunday investigation reveals, they have stepped up attacks on missile sites near Basra which could threaten the military build-up in Kuwait and the Gulf. The raids are being carried out by aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, established by the victors after the first Gulf war. They claim the patrols are being carried out in the name of the UN - especially ironic, given the passionate debate over the need for a second Security Council to authorise war on Iraq. Some have always disputed whether the no-fly zones have UN authority, but now the US and Britain have widened the rules of engagement to the point where warplanes are effectively preparing the way for an imminent invasion. Targets have included surface-to-air batteries as well as an anti-ship missile launcher which was considered a threat to the growing concentration of naval vessels in the Gulf. In the past two weeks there have been at least three strikes in the same area on Ababil-100 mobile missile batteries. They are capable of rapidly firing four missiles a distance of nearly 90 miles, each with a single explosive warhead or up to 25 anti-tank bomblets. From Basra they could easily reach the ground forces building up in northern Kuwait, which has been declared a closed military zone. Attacks on such battlefield weapons, rare until recently, are part of a semi-secret air campaign, conducted under cover of the no-fly patrols, which has intensified sharply since the beginning of the year. Allied aircraft have gone into action over Iraq almost every day. By the end of this month the number of missions is likely to overtake the 78 flown during the whole of 2002. While the number of attacks and the targets are known, important information is almost always kept back, including the number and type of aircraft deployed, the weapons used and the success or otherwise of each attack: US Central Command communiques routinely say battle damage assessment is ongoing, and further details are never released. The Iraqis ritually say civilians have been killed; equally ritually, this is denied. What is certain, however, is that no allied aircraft has been shot down in more than a decade of patrols Significantly, the air attacks have been heavily concentrated in the south of Iraq, with only one having been reported north of Baghdad since the beginning of the year. Millions of leaflets have also been dropped in the south, some warning Iraqis not to repair bomb damage, others giving the frequencies of anti-regime broadcasting stations. The US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, proclaimed last week that there were sufficient forces in the Gulf region for war to be launched at any time. At the weekend, the Pentagon claimed that it had some 200,000 troops in the region, roughly half of them in Kuwait. Within days there will be five US carrier battle groups in and around the Gulf, as well as the Ark Royal and its task force. The number of strike aircraft, including a third of the Royal Air Force's strength, is climbing to about 500. They will be able to unleash devastating power against Saddam when ordered to do so, but already Iraq's air defences have been significantly eroded by months of military action. Mr Rumsfeld's announcement took military chiefs by surprise, however. Delays in reaching agreement with Turkey have hampered the deployment of some significant elements in the US invasion plan. Britain's Challenger 2 tanks and about half the 42,000 personnel in its combined force are still on the high seas. Sharp rise in number and type of targets Until last summer, coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq hit back only at missile or artillery batteries that opened fire on them, or loosed AGM-88 anti-radiation missiles at radar units locking on to them. But with an invasion looming, the number and type of targets attacked have increased sharply. * Last September, in a raid given unusual publicity, more than 100 British and US warplanes hit the main Iraqi air command and control centre in the west of the country, which would direct any Scud attacks on Israel. * Air defence command bunkers along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers south of Baghdad, and the fixed communications that link them to missile and gun positions, have come in for repeated attack. * Fibre-optic links get the most attention, since they are quickly repaired. The Iraqis are warned through leaflets that repair crews may be targeted. * While continuing to dismantle Iraq's air defences, coalition aircraft are increasingly attacking battlefield weapons in the far south of Iraq, the likely focus of an invasion. Fixed and mobile surface-to-air missile batteries
The Kurds: Betrayed again?
As the Lerner and a split in San Francisco demo and other more stupid debates here in the US and even much more stupid debates among the Peace Initiative members in Turkey go on, the Kurds are on their way to get screwed again. Sabri http://tinyurl.com/69hn The Kurds don't want to be Iraqis Betrayed again? By Peter W. Galbraith International Herald Tribune Friday, February 21, 2003 WASHINGTON: Zalmay Khalilzad, President George W. Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition, went to Ankara this month and told top Kurdish leaders to accept that a large deployment of Turkish troops - supposedly for humanitarian relief - would enter northern Iraq after any American invasion. He also told the Kurds that they would have to give up plans for self-government, adding that hundreds of thousands of people driven from their homes by Saddam Hussein would not be able to return to them. For the Kurds this brought bitter memories. They blame Henry Kissinger for encouraging them to rebel in the early 1970s and then acquiescing quietly as the shah of Iran made a deal with Iraq and stopped funneling American aid to them. (Kissinger's standing among Kurds was not helped by his explanation: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.) After the Gulf War, the first President Bush called on the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. When the Kurds tried to do just that, the American military let the Iraqis send out helicopter gunships to annihilate them. The elder Bush partly salvaged his standing with the Kurds a month later when he cleared Iraqi forces from the region, thus enabling the creation of the first Kurdish-governed territory in modern history. In the latest buildup to war, the Kurds took comfort from their special status as the only Iraqi opposition group to control a territory, to possess a significant population and to have a substantial military force. But Turkish consent to the deployment of American troops for a northern front is considered an important element in American planning. In addition to billions in cash, Turkey has demanded ironclad assurance that there will not be a separate Kurdish state. The Kurds did their best to meet Turkish and American concerns. They promised that they would not seek independence, confining their ambitions to a self-governing entity within a federal Iraq. They also promised not to take Kirkuk, an oil-rich city that they describe as their Jerusalem. However, this proved inadequate for the Turks. They fear that federalism could be a way station to Kurdish independence - and they may be right. The 4 million Kurds who live in the self-governing area overwhelmingly do not want to be Iraqis. After 12 years of freedom, the younger people have no Iraqi identity and many do not speak Arabic. The older generation associates Iraq with poison gas and mass executions. Still, Washington sided with Turkey. The Kurds were told that federalism would have to wait for deliberation by a postwar elected Iraqi Parliament, in which they would be a minority. The Bush administration may have got the power calculus wrong. The Kurds have established a real state within a state, which meets all governmental responsibilities from education to law enforcement. Their militias number 70,000 to 130,000, and there is a real risk of clashes with any Turkish humanitarian force. The democratically elected Kurdistan assembly has completed work on a constitution that would delegate minimal powers to a central government in Baghdad, and could submit it for a popular vote. Short of arresting Kurdish leaders and the assembly, a U.S. occupation force might have no practical way of preventing the Kurds from going ahead with their federalist project. The younger Bush's war has always had a moral component to it: liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal regime. If it sides so completely with Turkey in putting down the democratic hopes of Iraq's Kurds, the administration looks shortsighted and cynical. And not just to the Kurds. The writer is a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia.
patriarchy and finance
Focus: Chauvinism and the City Sex, secrets and lies A campaign of slurs against the first woman to head London's Stock Exchange came to a head last week. Allison Pearson, who interviewed scores of City women as research for a bestselling novel, here reveals the true scale of chauvinism inside the Square Mile Sunday February 23, 2003 The Observer The streets of the City are the cleanest in London. Spookily clean. You could eat chateaubriand for two off the pavements of the Square Mile, one of the biggest financial districts in the world. I was walking past the Bank of England the first time I noticed the streets and the investment analyst with me explained: 'The City hires a falconer who turns up with his hawk to take out the pigeons.' So there's no muck on the streets? 'That's right,' she laughed, 'All the shits are on the inside.' I don't believe the City employs a hawk to take out troublesome females, not yet anyway, but it has a similarly ruthless approach to anyone who threatens to mess with its reputation. Over the past couple of years, more and more women have come forward to complain about sexist and discriminatory behaviour in banks and insurance firms. There was Isabelle Terrillon, infamously advised to wear 'short, tight skirts' by the gentlemen of Nomura. There was Julie Bower, who won a record £1.4 million from Schroder Salomon Smith Barney after her career was summed up in a meeting as 'had cancer, been a pain, now pregnant'. But these publicised cases are a tiny fraction of the total, probably less than 10 per cent. Much of the really ugly stuff is swept away, the women paid off and gagged with confidentiality clauses, long before the public gets a whiff of the stench. The case of Clara Furse may be a lot harder to clean up. In 2001 Furse was named chief executive of the London Stock Exchange, the first woman to take the helm in the institution's 242-year history. It was a landmark appointment. Furse, 45, is the person they point to when equal opportunities busybodies complain that City guys are like the middle drawing in the Ascent of Man: the mono-browed one with the knuckles scraping along the ground. Well, they're not pointing to Furse any more. Last week Don Cruickshank, chairman of the Stock Exchange, took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement to reject the 'outrageous, totally unfounded and offensive slurs' about his female colleague. A whispering campaign about Furse's private life had reached the newspapers. The Stock Exchange traced the attack to a group of traders; their complaints were displayed on a website run by a former trader who goes by the self-explanatory name of Mr Angry. 'Quite obviously, they have no grounds to attack Clara on her work track record,' says a woman who worked with Furse 'so they attack her personal life instead. It's the same old story. They can issue all the denials they like, but people here will say, well, there's no smoke without fire. That's the way they get women out. The drip-drip of innuendo.' When she joined the Stock Exchange, Furse, a mother-of-three, gave an interview in which she was at pains to distance herself from feminism or any other unnatural practices that might antagonise her new colleagues. Speaking of her 25 years in the City, she said: 'It's been wonderful. There is no gender stuff. There was some in the media, but I cannot say I have encountered it in my working life.' There is no gender stuff? Clara Furse wasn't lying - she just didn't know she wasn't telling the truth. Frankly, asking a City woman if she has experienced sex discrimination is like asking a lamppost about its experience of dogs. The offence is so frequent that it scarcely seems worth commenting on. Around the time Furse got her job, I was interviewing scores of women in the Square Mile as part of research for a novel about a stressed-out working mother. Kate Reddy, the heroine of I Don't Know How She Does It, is a fund manager, and I wanted to understand her world and the pressures it put her under. What I found was not a bunch of sob sisters planning their next sex-discrimination suit, rather a group of armadillo-plated dames who had adapted to a hostile environment. They had grown immune to a sexism so baroque that during the interviews my jaw spent most of the time on the floor. Maria, an oil specialist and mother of two small boys, insisted that she had no problems working in a practically all-male environment. Then she recalled an evening when she had to take Arab clients out partying in a lap-dancing club with the guys in her team. At 3am, she had to make her excuses when they ordered up the hookers. I asked Maria how that made her feel and she snapped 'I am bloody good at my job' before giving a helpless, what-can-you-do shrug. I was to become familiar with that shrug. I got one from Claire, a broker, who expressed milk for her baby and stored it in an office fridge. She discovered it had been spiked with vodka by one of the lads
