Newsgroup: it.comp.macintosh
Titolo: [OT] Errano 3 milioni

 bella manifestaziona :-)
Qui a Londra oltre 2 milioni!
Sarebbe stato meglio se fossero stati 5, di milioni, ma bisogna pure contare
che moltissime persone che volevano prendere parte alla manifestazione (tra
cui il sottoscritto) erano bloccati al lavoro...

Le Cantinier wrote:
 > Erano 3 milioni a Roma. Siete stati propio bravi. Siete stati i piu
 > presente del mondo. Félicitations.
Solo una domanda: come volete fermare Saddam e Bin Laden ? Con le 
manifestazioni di pace? Quando attaccheranno l'America (Bin Laden ha già 
lanciato minacce) come lo fermerete? con le buone parole, gli manderete 
una colomba bianca? appenderete al balcone la bandiera "PACE", invieremo 
Fassino e compagnia a mediare la pace?...non credo sinceramente che si 
fermerà. Parlate con la gente che si è salvata dalle torri, avranno un 
giudizio più "reale" di quello che andrebbe fatto a quei due figli di 
p--------
Siete al corrente che il bamboccio (Saddam) legava gente del suo popolo 
su postazione strategiche per rendere l'America una nazione spietata ed 
i suoi soldati delle belve sanguinarie quando borbadavano le postazioni 
suddette? le tv ed i giornali dicevano: civili uccisi dagli aerei 
americani su postazioni strategiche irachene!.....come no....
Io sono con Bush. Che Dio salvi l'America e noi tutti.
-- 
Mark Greene
"Due cose sono infinite: l’universo e la stupidità umana,
ma riguardo l’universo ho ancora dei dubbi"

 Prova a meditare su questo fatto...
Credo che ce l'abbiano anche con noi, o sbaglio? e perché con noi? non 
siamo quelli delle manifestazioni pacifiste?


 suddette?
eh?
-- 
Matteo L.
for mailbox messages sum 36 + 36

 Credo che ce l'abbiano anche con noi, o sbaglio? 
nei video e nei messaggi di Bin Laden io ho sempre sentito accuse
rivolte verso gli stati uniti, mai verso l'europa od il resto del mondo.
poi ho sentito anche vari personaggi dire a piu' riprese che "questo non
e' un attacco rivolto solo verso gli USA ma contro tutto il mondo
occidentale", ma questo e' un altro discorso.


 eh?
se leggi i giornali ne hanno parlato, Cor sera in particolare


 Io sono con Bush. Che Dio salvi l'America e noi tutti.
Nessuno ha mai detto che Saddam sia un Santo e che il terrorismo vada
incoraggiato. Ed io non sono mai stato a priori contro tutte le guerre.
Ma questa non ha davvero ragione d'essere. Non c'entra un cazzo il
terrorismo con l'attaco all'Iraq. E non e' certo questo il modo per
liberare gli iracheni da Saddam.
L'Iraq ed il Kuwait sono i due paesi con i giacementi di petrolio piu'
longevi della terra. Senza poi contare che gli USA hanno la macchina
bellica piu' imponente del pianeta e tenerla inattiva ha delle ricadute
enormi sull'economia interna. I fattori sono tanti, ma il terrorismo
davvero non c'entra un cazzo. E' solo il pretesto.
Purtroppo quello che tu e tanti altri come te non riuscite a capire e'
che uccidendo milioni di persone non si risolvera' proprio un bel
niente. Come niente e' stato risolto in Afghanistan, perche' il paese e'
stato abbandonato a se stesso. Se gli USA si fossero comportati in
Europa dopo la seconda guerra mondiale come hanno fatto in Afghanistan a
quest'ora dubito che avremmo tutti un computer fra le mani.
E adesso i milioni di morti iracheni (perche' la guerra si fara', eccome
se si fara'!!!!) non faranno altro che incrementare la miseria e l'odio
che i poveri del mondo nutrono nei nostri confronti.
Non ho ancora capito bene perche' ti ho risposto. Forse solo perche' hai
almeno provato ad argomentare le tue motivazioni. La realta' e' che ti
disprezzo per la superficialita' con cui parli della pace e della guerra
Addio
<plonk>
-- 
Outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog is too dark to read  (Groucho Marx)
"ab_bar" is ROT13 encoded

 <plonk>
<PLONK>


 se leggi i giornali ne hanno parlato, Cor sera in particolare
no, scusa, non avevo proprio capito bene la frase.
appena posso mi informo.


 siamo quelli delle manifestazioni pacifiste?
Non pensavo che l'avrei mai detto: a questo punto sei OT.
Segui il follow-up.
-- 
l'indignazione e' come un orgasmo
dura poco e poi viene sonno

 fuori Saddam e Bin Laden
qualche considerazione:
- se Saddam Hussein *sparisse* all'istante oggi, per qualunque motivo,
molto probabilmente andrebbe al potere un qualche governante musulmano
del ceppo sciita, visto che la popolazione irachena e' prevalentemente
di questo orientamento (Saddam e' invece sunnita).
Un governo sciita potrebbe verosimilmente sodalizzare con il vicino
Iran, e dare origine ad una coalizione Iran-Iraq che avrebbe il
controllo della maggior parte delle risorse petrolifere del medio
oriente: cio' ovviamente rappresenterebbe un grosso problema per le
industrie petrolifere statunitensi, mentre la situazione attuale con
Iran e Iraq divisi e' molto piu' "gestibile". Divide et impera, insomma.
Gli USA non vogliono che Saddam se ne vada, vogliono *prendersi* l'Iraq
installando un governo controllato da loro.
- Bin Laden con l'Iraq non c'entra un accidente, tantomeno con Saddam
Hussein che ha a piu' riprese effettuato "epurazioni" dei
fondamentalisti islamici nel suo paese.
Il fatto che nessuno ricordi mai che l'Iraq *non e'* un paese islamico
come per esempio l'Arabia Saudita (il vice-premier Tarek Aziz e'
*cristiano*) e' piuttosto sintomatico della qualita' dell'informazione
italiana, comunque. 
e comunque: per "far fuori" Saddam e Bin Laden ti pare una buona
soluzione *bombardare* una nazione? se tu hai una mosca in cucina usi lo
schiacciamosche o fai esplodere la caldaia? 
Nota: questo naturalmente e' il *mio* punto di vista, costruito sulla
base di quanto ho letto in rete e sui giornali (molto), e sentito o
visto in tv (poco).  


Per concludere:
Noto che se uno la pensa in modo diverso viene indicato come un 
imbecille e viene plokato...mah...viene da pensare.......


 una colomba bianca?
Bravo, beviti fino all' ultima goccia tutto quello che ti dicono alla CNN e
vai a dormire come un bravo americano.

 > presente del mondo. Félicitations.
NEL TUO "SOGGETTO" HAI SCRITTO "ERRANO TRE MILIONI".
NON C'è DA AGGIUNGERE ALTRO. E POI, QUANTE DIVERSE VISIONI DELLA PACE?
TANTE: NO A NESSUNA GUERRA; NO ALLA GUERRA ALL'IRAK; NO ALL GUERRA MA
SE L'ONU DICE Sì, FORSE. E POI LE BANDIERE DEL CHE! ERA PROPRIO UN
VERO PACIFISTA, VERO? NIENTE FOSSE COMUNI, NIENTE "CASE DI CORREZIONE"
(BELLO L'EUFEMISMO!).
MAH, MI RIMANGONO TANTI DUBBI, E DICO PURTROPPO, PERCHè CREDO CHE SIA
MOLTO UNA PACE STRUMENTALIZZATA. PURTROPPO. SCUSATE SE NON C'ENTRA
ASSOLUTAMENTE CON QUESTO NG.

 imbecille e viene plokato...mah...viene da pensare.......
E' un buon inizio...
Segui l'istinto, non fare resistenza!
-- 
Ma a cuinassi no riscisini l'aina e l'omu
che da li documenti escisini fratili in primu.

 
|'o\| |/o \/o \/o \ |   On The aaria: 
http://www.mp3.com/stations/aaria
|._/|_|\__/\__/\__/ | * An out of control ego will sometimes get in the
       /_/ /_/      |   way of your success.                  (Todd H.)

 wrote in message
news:1fqjdid.tx91ca1t3wdtqN%mh5...@mclink.it...


 Io sono con Bush. Che Dio salvi l'America e noi tutti.
Prova di conoscenza sulla guerra all'Iraq
Ne sai abbastanza per giustificare la guerra contro l'Iraq?
1. Domanda: Quale percentuale della popolazione mondiale hanno gli USA?
Risposta: il 6%
2. D: Quale percentuale della ricchezza mondiale possiedono gli USA?
R. il 50%
3. D. Quale paese ha le maggiori riserve di petrolio?
R. L'Arabia Saudita
4. D. Qual è il paese che ha le seconde maggiori riserve di petrolio?
R: l'Iraq
5. D. Quanto si spende ogni anno per i bilanci militari nel mondo?
R: più di 900 miliardi di dollari
6. D. Quanta parte di questa cifra è spesa dagli USA?
R: il 50%
7. D.: quale percentuale della spesa militare degli USA assicurerebbe
l'essenziale per vivere a ciascuno sul pianeta, secondo le Nazioni
Unite?
R.: il 10%, circa 40 milioni di dollari, la cifra richiesta inizialmente
per finanziare il nostro attacco all'Afganistan
8. D. Quante persone sono morte nelle guerre dopo la fine della seconda
guerra mondiale?
R: 86 milioni
9. D. Da quando l'Iraq possiede armi chimiche e batteriologiche?
R. Dai primi anni '80
10.D. Queste armi l'Iraq le ha costruite da solo?
R. No sia i materiali che le tecnologie sono stati forniti dal governo
USA insieme all'Inghilterra e a multinazionali private.
11. D. Il governo US ha condannato l'uso di queste armi contro l'Iran?
R: No
12. D. Quante persone sono state uccise da Saddam nella città curda di
Halabja nel 1988?
R: 5,000
13. D. Quanti paesi occidentali hanno condannato ciò all'epoca.
R: Nessuno
14. D: Quanti litri dell'arma chimica agent Orange ha usato l'America in
Vietnam?
R: 35 milioni di litri.
15. D: Esistono collegamenti provati fra l'Iraq e l'attacco terroristico
dell'11 settembre?
R: No
16. D: Qual è il numero stimato di civili morti accidentalmente nella
guerra del Golfo?
R: 35,000
17. D. Quanti morti civili occidentali gli iracheni hanno provocato alle
forze occidentali durante la guerra del Golfo?
R: 0
18. D: Quanti soldati iracheni in ritirata sono stati sepolti vivi dai
carri armati U.S. con gli aratri montati sul davanti?
R: 6,000
19. D.: Quante tonnellate di uranio impoverito sono state lasciate in
Iraq e Kuwait dopo la guerra del Golfo?
R.: 40 tonnellate.
20. D.: Secondo le Nazioni Unite quale è stato l'aumento percentuale dei
casi di cancro in Iraq fra il 1991 e il 1994?
R: 700%
21. D.: Quanta della forza militare irachena ha dichiarato di aver
distrutto nel 1991?
R: 80%
22. D.: Esistono prove che l'Iraq intenda usare le sue armi per altro
che la deterrenza e la difesa?
R: No
23. D.: L'Iraq è oggi una minaccia per la pace nel mondo maggiore di
dieci anni fa'?
R: No
24. D.:Quanti morti civili ha previsto il Pentagono in caso di un
attacco all'Iraq nel 2003?
R: 10,000
25. D.: Quale percentuale di questi saranno bambini?
R: Oltre il 50%
26. D.: Da quanti anni gli USA sono impegnati in attacchi aerei
sull'Iraq?
R.: 11 anni.
27. D.:Gli Usa e l'Inghilterra erano in guerra contro l'Iraq fra il
dicembre 1998 e il settembre 1999?
R: No
28. D.: Quanti chili di esplosivi sono stati lasciati cadere sull'Iraq
fra il Dicembre 1998 e il Settembre 1999?
R: 8 milioni.
29. D.: Quanti anni fa' è stata introdotta la Risoluzione 661 delle
Nazioni Unite che impone sanzioni strette alle importazioni ed
esportazioni dall'Iraq?
R.: 12 anni fa'.
30. D.: Quale è stato il tasso di mortalità dei bambini nel 1989 in Iraq
su 1000 nati ?
R: 38
31. D.: Quale è stato il tasso stimato di mortalità infantile in Iraq
nel 1999 (su 1000 nati)?
R: 131 (che rappresenta un aumento del 345%)
32. D.: Quanti iracheni si stima che siano morti entro l'ottobre del
1999 in conseguenza delle sanzioni delle Nazioni Unite?
R: 1,5 milioni
33. D.: Quanti bambini iracheni si stima siano morti dal 1997 a causa
delle sanzioni del 1997?
R: 750,000
34. D. E' stato Saddam a metter fuori gli ispettori dall'Iraq?
R: No
35. D.: Quante ispezioni ci sono state in Iraq nel novembre/dicembre
1998?
R: 300
36. D. Quante di queste ispezioni hanno avuto problemi?
R: 5
37. D. Gli ispettori che cercavano le armi hanno avuto libero accesso
alla direzione del partito Ba'ath?
R.: Sì
38. D. Chi ha affermato: "L'Iraq ha di fatto disarmato ad un livello
senza precedenti nella storia moderna"?
R: Scott Ritter, il capo dell'UNSCOM, la prima missione di ispettori
delle Nazioni Unite in Iraq.
39. D. Nel 1998 quanta della capacità dell'Iraq posteriore al 1991 di
sviluppare armi di distruzione di massa gli ispettori delle Nazioni
Unite hanno preteso di aver scoperto e smantellato?
R: il 90%
40. D. L'Iraq è disposto a permettere agli ispettori di tornare in Iraq?
R: Sì
41. D: Quante risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite Israele ha violato fino al
1992?
R: Oltre 65;
42. D: Su quante risoluzioni delle Nazioni Unite a proposito di Israele
l'America ha posto il veto fra il 1972 e il 1990?
R: più di 30.
44. D: Quanti paesi si sa che possiedono armi nucleari?
R: 8
45. D.: Quante testate nucleari possiede l'Iraq?
R: 0
46. D: Quante testate nucleari hanno gli USA?
R: oltre 10.000;
47. D: Quale nazione ha usato le armi nucleari?
R: gli USA
48. D: Quante testate nucleari possiede Israele?
R: Più di 400.
50. D: Chi ha detto, "La nostra vita comincia a finire il giorno che
diventiamo silenziosi sulle cose che contano"?
R: Martin Luther King, Jr
Charles Sheketoff, Direttore Esecutivo dell' Oregon Center for Public
Policy PO Box 7, Silverton, OR 97381
Jeffrey R. Cram, Ph.D.
TEL & FAX: 
530 478 9660
 Email: 
cr...@semg.org
 Web: 
www.semg.org
Snail Mail: 10961 Sutter Way Nevada City, CA 95959
Lind & Kyle Consultants 
www.lindandkyle.com
-- 
I know what I like
Los endos

 ASSOLUTAMENTE CON QUESTO NG.
benvenuto :-/
-- 
*plonk*

 finirai per lamentarti di come ti trattano.
Non mi lamento, solo che mi sembra un tantino da dittatura, ho sei della 
stesa idea o sei messo al bando....siamo ancora in democrazia, qui.


 vai a dormire come un bravo americano.
Tu a chi credi ? a Saddam ? a Bin Laden ?


 >renato wrote:
<cut>
Grazie per le tue delucidazioni, ma io se non l'avete capito ho parenti 
in USA, precisamente a NY e delle vostre idee pacifiste verso l'iraq e 
Bin Laden proprio se ne sbattono. Come già detto un giorno vorrei 
tornare dai miei senza paura di morire. Forse è chiedere troppo ? O 
bisogna sempre avere timore che quel finocchio ti faccia cadere sulla 
testa un boing con 200 persone dentro ?


 >Mark Greene wrote:
<cut>
...e poi per essere sinceri fino in fondo: io mi sento un pò americano oltre
che italiano e sinceramente provo un rancore e un odio verso Bin Laden 
indescrivibile. L'11 sett è rimasto un lutto indelebile, una ferita che 
non si rimarginerà, sono morti molti americani, molti innocenti, molti 
fratelli americani.
Sono entrati nella nostra patria e ci hanno colpito e tutt'ora ci 
minacciano. Ma se solo provano ad attaccarci di nuovo se ne pentiranno 
amaramente. Giustizia dovrà essere fatta.


 <cut>
Concludo, dicendo: visto che l'occidente è un nemico secondo Bin Laden, 
se facesse una strage come in America qui in Italia sareste della stessa 
opinione di adesso?


 la scusa degli insulti perche' non regge.
Io no ho nulla nei vostri confronti, solo che visto che io accetto le 
vostre idee sia che mi piaccione che no, non vedo perché dicendo invece 
la mia ricevo solo insulti o vengo preso per inbecille? Questa cosa non 
riesco proprio a capirla.
Poi se vuoi plonkarmi, fai pure, siamo in democrazia no?


 amaramente. Giustizia dovrà essere fatta.
Bene. Io rispetto naturalmente le tue opinioni, però se fossi in te
proverei a guardare il "problema" con una visione più ampia. Vedi ogni
volta che cerco di capire quello che succede intorno a me sono abiutuato
a farlo ascoltando tutti i possibili pareri e tutti i possibili punti di
vista. Se io ne tralasciassi qualcuno il mio giudizio/opinione ne
risulterebbe incompleto, non trovi? Allora  l'11 settembre ha provocato
in me una sensazione terribile, di impotenza, sgomento e una profonda
tristezza. Poi ho provato a chiedere a me stesso: Cosa hanno fatto gli
americani per meritare tutto questo? ( Non i 4000 morti delle
twinstowers, dico gli *americani*). Probabilmente molti avrebbero
risposto:" Niente, nessun americano ha potuto fare qualcosa di tanto
terribile per meritare una simile punizione". Bene fermo restando che
nemmeno io giustifico una simile azione, ho provato a cercare una
possibile risposta, guarda in rete ho trovato questa, è in brasiliano ma
conprensibilissima. Prova a leggerla per un momento e vedi se ti da
qualche elemento in più per giudicare cio che potrebbe accadere tra
qualche settimana.
Ciao
Silêncio pelas vítimas do terror.
UM MINUTO DE SILÊNCIO
Com certeza você ficou horrorizado com o ataque terrorista de 11 de
setembro. Passado um ano desse ato terrível, vamos fazer um minuto de
silencio em respeito aos 3.000 americanos, a maioria civis, assassinados
covardemente por terroristas.
Entretanto, por uma questão de justiça, também vamos fazer silêncio,
proporcionalmente, por:
QUATORZE MINUTOS em homenagem aos 70.000 civis japoneses mortos no
bombardeio a Hiroshima,
OITO MINUTOS em homenagem aos 40.000 civis japoneses no bombarde io a Nagasaki.
VINTE MINUTOS de silencio pelos 100.000 civis cambojanos que mor reram
nos bombardeios que Nixon ordenou.
CENTO E CINQUENTA MINUTOS de silencio para homenagear os 750.000 civis
norte vietnamitas que morreram nos bombardeios sistemáticos e
consecutivos a cidade de Laos.
VINTE E SEIS MINUTOS pelos 130.000 civis iraquianos mortos em 19 91 por
ordem de Bush pai.
UMA HORA pelos 300.000 civis palestinos massacrados por Israel com
armamento americano.
QUARENTA MINUTOS pelos 200.000 iranianos mortos pelo Iraque com armas e
dinheiro dados a Hussein pelos mesmos AMERICANOS que mais tarde viraram
seus inimigos.
TRINTA MINUTOS pelos russos e os 150.000 afegãos mortos nas mãos do
Talibán, também armas e dinheiro de USA.
MEIA HORA pelos 150.000 mortos por tropas americanas na invasão do Panamá.
MEIA HORA pelos 150.000 inocentes nos bombardeios americanos a Kosovo.
Fazendo isso você ficaria em silencio por SEIS HORAS e CINQUENTA E TRES
MINUTOS  para todos os TRESEMIL americanos.
SEIS HORAS e CINQUENTAETRESMINUTS para TODAS  as suas víti mas.
!!!DOIS MILHOES E CINQUENTA E OITO MIL ALMAS!!!...
A pergunta, agoram é: quantos minutos devemos guardar para o ata que ao Iraque?
-- 
Scusi lei crede in Dio? 
Beh credere è una parola grossa, 
diciamo che lo stimo.

 >Gianni wrote:
<cut>
Grazie per la prima risposta civile che ricevo i questo post.
Rispetto il tuo parere, solo che il mio e l'ho già reso noto, mi vede 
schierato con l'America per via della mia famiglia. Non voglio e lo 
ripeto tornare in America con la paura che qualche aereo cada sulle 
nostre teste. Poi è vero che non si dovrebbe rispondere alla violenza 
con altra violenza (anche se Bin Laden lo ha fatto).


 con altra violenza (anche se Bin Laden lo ha fatto).
Beh però la situazione ti impedisce di essere obiettivo fino in fondo.
Tu guardi questo " problema" solo per ciò che potrebbe accadere ai tuoi
familiari. Un'atteggiamento comprensibile ma, permettimi, non corretto.
Insomma alla "salvo io perisca il mondo" Senti mi permetto di
consigliarti una lettuta e un sito, così tanto per sentire "altre
campane" che non siano Cnn e simili.
Noam Chomsky - I cortili dello Zio Sam - Gamberetti Edirice
http://www.gwbush.com/store/
Ciao


 
http://www.gwbush.com/store/
Opps era questa la home page 
http://www.gwbush.com/


 Che cazzo c'entra tutto questo con l'Iraq?
Ha armi chimiche (il capo degli ispettori ha detto che Saddam non 
collabora, quindi
qualcosa sotto c'è) ed ha contatti con Bin Laden. 1 + 1 fa 2.


 Ciao
ok :) lo leggerò sicuramente.
Ciao.


 hasta bush siempre
Come mai ancora in Florida davanti al tuo Olivetti Prodest e non fra i
riservisti, bananino mio?
<fascio mode on>
mancano le palle per far seguire le azioni alle belle idee che hai?
<fascio mode off>
Consiglio lettura delle strisce di Trudeau (altro yankee) sul Vietnam.
Non ti preoccupare: ci sono le figure.


 e' uno stato fondamentalista.
Come mi si diceva in un post: tu continua a credere a Bagdad.


 informazione sulla questione Irachena?
Io rispondo a tutti.


 Come mi si diceva in un post: tu continua a credere a Bagdad.
E tu continui a credere agli USA: non sei in una posizione migliore.


 E tu continui a credere agli USA: non sei in una posizione migliore.
Ma neanche peggiore.


 dimostrami che sono compari o e' solo frutto della tua propaganda.
Ci pensaranno gli ispettori dell'ONU. Aspetta qualche altro giorno.


 Ma neanche peggiore.
Mi giro da una parte: vedo un tizio a capo della nazione piu' potente
del mondo e a capo di aziende che hanno interessi nella nazione da
attaccare, supportato da un altro piu' o meno nella stessa posizione.
Mi giro dall'altra: vedo milioni di persone, decine di nazioni, mezzi di
informazione, gente di stimata cultura, dissentire non nel fine ma nei
modi.
E *secondo te* tu non sei in una posizione peggiore.
Ti farei notare che il caro Adolf espresse le stesse idee rispetto agli
austriaci ed ai sudeti. Ma questa, ovviamente, e' un'altra storia.


 austriaci ed ai sudeti. Ma questa, ovviamente, e' un'altra storia.
Lascia stare Adolf, quello non va neanche nominato.


 "Vuoi che si metta una scopa nel culo e ti ramazzi la stanza?" <cit.>
No, lo consegnerei ai parenti delle vittime delle Torri.


 petrolieri statunitensi!
Ti ripeto per l'ennesima volta che rispondo a tutti, e dei governanti 
statunitensi non
me ne può fregare di meno. La cantilena su Saddam continua perché per me 
è così, difendo le mie idee.


 Saddam Hussein? Ma che cavolo stai dicendo? =:\
Lui e Bin Laden. Sono pienamente convinto, i fatti lo dimostreranno, che 
Saddam abbia appoggiato
con soldi e favori le azioni di Bin Laden.


 Lascia stare Adolf, quello non va neanche nominato.
Scomodo, eh?


 Scomodo, eh?
terribile direi.


 
Niente di tutto questo.


 ordini.
Sarei pronto a difendere la patria, la famiglia, l'America se ce ne 
fosse bisogno. Tu non faresti questo per l'italia, per la tua famiglia?


 le tue fantasie, prego.
no no, le mie idee.


 no no, le mie idee.
Idee non sostenute da fatti concreti =  fantasie.
Mica difficile.


 Mica difficile.
No infatti.


 con soldi e favori le azioni di Bin Laden.
questa e' grandiosa, posso usarla come sign per un po' ?
-- 
il vino contro il petrolio

 
Ho giocato stamane al SuperEnalotto e ho vinto sessanta milardi di
vecchie lire! Aspettate la possima estrazione  e ve lo dimostrero'...
(un iBook 800 in regalo a tutti!)


 *plonk*

 grazie.
fatto. e quelle che dico non sono scuse del cazzo.


 
|'o\| |/o \/o \/o \ |   On The aaria: 
http://www.mp3.com/stations/aaria
|._/|_|\__/\__/\__/ | * An out of control ego will sometimes get in the
       /_/ /_/      |   way of your success.                  (Todd H.)

 fratelli americani.
Convinciti: e' stato un atto voluto da americani contro americani per il
bene dell'americano numero uno. La rinascita dell'impero val bene 3000
insignificanti omuncoli e due vecchi palazzoni.
La "strategia del terrore" non l'ha inventata il governo italiano.
Guarda caso, quel Bin Laden che tanto detesti e' stato (?) culo e
camicia con Bush e i suoi amici petrolieri, almeno finche' c'era da fare
affari. E i talebani (che nulla avrebbero a che vedere con OBL, ma per
gli americani son tutti arabi e morta li') in afghanistan ce li ha messi
l'america, che gli facevano tanto comodo. E Saddam era tanto buonino
finche' c'era la possibilita' di impossessarsi dell'afghanistan e della
via energetica verso l'oriente; adesso bush e' smutandato e ribatte
l'antico chiodo, sperando di diventare *almeno* il padrone assoluto di
tutto il petrolio che riesce a raggiungere. Eh, attaccare il Sudan
cosi', di primo acchito, sembrava brutto nei confronti degli europei, ma
se abbastanza nazioni del vecchio continente si inimicano la scimmietta
di washington, vedrai che ripartira' la caccia ai campi d'addestramento
dei talebani. Che ovviamente, da bravi pecorai con le pezze al culo
quali sono, fanno le vacanze nel sudan. Perfino io mi posso permettere
un viaggetto in toscana, ogni tanto.


 puniti per avere spento in un giorno 4000 vite innocenti.
Stai parlando di Bush, quello che massacra e/o fa massacrare ogni giorno
da anni migliaia di "arabi"? Quello che si prepara ad attaccare una
nazione che *non ha minacciato nessuno*, e massacrarne gli abitanti, per
destituire un tizio che non gli vuole regalare il petrolio? Quello che
*sta scatenando la terza guerra mondiale* senza nessun motivo se non il
tornaconto personale suo e del suo collegio di petrolieri?
Sono d'accordo, va consegnato ai parenti delle sue vittime, i quali gli
insegneranno l'educazione e un po' di umilta'.


 risponderanno altre bombe (umane questa volta)?
Spero sinceramente di no. Saddam va comunque fermato, idem per Bin 
Laden. Senza i capi non credo che possano fare più del male.


 ti sei risposto da solo.
non ci siamo.
Saddam i fondamentalisti islamici li ha perseguitati ed eliminati a piu'
riprese, non li appoggia ne' li ospita o li rifornisce di armi.
(non l'avevo gia' scritto, questo?) 
-- 
Matteo L.
for mailbox messages sum 36 + 36

 e l'eloquio di uno Schifani. Inutile. Un rombetto, e da un pezzo.
Pensa a chi l'elasticità e l'eloquio non ce l'ha mai avuto......


 Non certo gestita da un solo capetto.
Appunto credo che Bin Laden avesse appoggio da Saddam.....di Gheddafi 
non lo so.


 non lo so.
siamo al surreale.
e Arafat? dove lo metti Arafat?


 un cazzo.
Quando hanno invaso l'Iraq hanno distrutto o catalogato qualsivoglia
bunker. Per costruire un bunker devi armare tanto di quel casino che non
serve un satellite per accorgertene.


 e Arafat? dove lo metti Arafat?
vuoi mettere agnoletto ?
-- 
siamo tutti sovversivi

 lui e' probebilmente un attore pagato dalla CIA :-D
Che, guardacaso, ha broadcastato un messaggio proprio quando l' Iraq ha
acconsentito agli aerei spia americani di sorvolare ed analizzare il
territorio.
Fascistazzi maledetti e guerrafondai, sono, al governo americano. Spero che
crepino tutti di Ebola (al governo, non il popolo americano che non c'entra
niente)

 
Il problema - grave - e' che gli Americani SANNO quante armi di
distruzione di massa hanno gli iracheni. 
Gliele hanno vendute loro per asfissiare gli iraniani, e visto che li
sorvegliano molto bene, SANNO quante ne hanno consumate e CONTRO chi. 
Gli basta una semplice sottrazione, per scoprire che ne manca un tot, e
immaginano dove siano finite, anche se non ne hanno le prove.
L'altro problema - ancor piu' grave - e' che gli americani continuano a
comportarsi come sceriffi ignoranti. Armano il primo malandrino che
trovano contro un altro malandrino; poi gli tirano il pacco e questi si
rivolta contro di loro..
Osama armato contro i russi, Saddam armato contro gli iraniani, ecc.
ecc. ...
Quindi, gli gira il cazzo quando gli sfugge tutto di mano. Non hanno il
senso della storia, non hanno storia, non sanno e non vogliono sapere
nulla dei corsi e ricorsi storici, della filosofia, della cultura, non
vogliono avre memoria ed imparare dai loro errori. Sanno tutto e solo
della tecnologia, ma non hanno l'elesticita' mentale per posizionarla
correttamente e usarla di conseguenza.
L'Uomo non e' al centro del loro pensiero: c'e' solo il denaro. Vecchio
Calvino, anche tu sei stato - probabilmente - frainteso.
Giovani adolescenti, se fossero senesi sarebbero del Nicchio, "arrivo e
picchio", in diverse occasioni tornano utili, ad esempio negli anni '40
ci hanno dato una mano di cui non bisogna dimenticarsene e che non si
puo' e non si deve sottovalutare, ma che non ci ha comprato, ne' nel
fisico ne' nel cervello. Negli anni '80 hanno sviluppato un sistema di
Personal Computing che - stranamente - ha messo al centro di tutto
l'Uomo, ma lo hanno immediatamente negato con un altro sistema che al
centro di tutto mette solo l'Utile di Impresa e al quale hanno garantito
fama e successo...
Quando cresceranno noi non ci saremo piu': speriamo solo che lascino un
minimo di futuro possibile per i nostri figli.
-- 

 indescrivibile.
Dei tuoi disturbi mentali parlane con un buon analista.
-- 
Ma a cuinassi no riscisini l'aina e l'omu
che da li documenti escisini fratili in primu.

 con soldi e favori le azioni di Bin Laden.
Le tue personali opinioni mi paiono una base un po' inadeguata per
sostenere una guerra.
Ti chiami Napoleone?


 no no, le mie idee.
Tu neanche sai che cosa sia, una idea.


 non lo so.
Suggerimento: perchè per usare la prima non occorre accendere il
cervello.


 Laden. Senza i capi non credo che possano fare più del male.
bush va cmq fermato, idem per Tony Blair. Senza i capi non credo che
possano fare piu' del male
-- 
ciao
chris

 decide un coetaneo di steve jobs.
E a te sembrera' vecchissimo, immagino.


 questa e' grandiosa, posso usarla come sign per un po' ?
Solo se mantieni il wrap demenziale :-D


 Solo se mantieni il wrap demenziale :-D
ovviamente
-- 
siamo tutti sovversivi

 è così, difendo le mie idee.
leggiti anche testi di americani che non stanno nel gregge.
ero a ny sabato alle nazioni unite e c'erano 100.000 americani che
ringraziavano francia e germania...
comunque incollo un paio di email che ho ricevuto -
se hai dsl ti posso mandare un po di foto che ho fatto sabato (slideshow
da 900 Kb)
stefano
filmpics - 
http://geocities.com/stefano_giovannini
opinioni di jimmy carter / noam chomski  / norman schwartzkopf / e.
weinberg 
+
brian eno che non e' americano ma ha vissuto in USA per 5 anni...
ti consiglio di leggere i testi sotto -
ne vale la pena.
te li mando anche via email per comodita'. spero non sia contrario alla
netiquette.
ma rispondi sul newsgroup....
e non sono proprio tutti "intellettuali di sinistra" come chomski
remove "DONTSPAMME." to reply
----
A Statement By President Carter: An Alternative To War
31 Jan 2003
from 
http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=1165
By Jimmy Carter:
Atlanta.....Despite marshalling powerful armed forces
in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of
war in the State of the Union message, our government
has not made a case for a preemptive military strike
against Iraq, either at home or in Europe.
Recent vituperative attacks on U.S. policy by famous
and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le
Carre, although excessive, are echoed in a Web site
poll conducted by the European edition of TIME
magazine. The question was "Which country poses the
greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With several
hundred thousand votes cast, the responses were: North
Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States,
84 percent. This is a gross distortion of our nation's
character, and America is not inclined to let foreign
voices answer the preeminent question that President
Bush is presenting to the world, but it is sobering to
realize how much doubt and consternation has been
raised about our motives for war in the absence of
convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq.
The world will be awaiting Wednesday's presentation of
specific evidence by Secretary of State Colin Powell
concerning Iraq's possession of weapons of mass
destruction. As an acknowledged voice of moderation,
his message will carry enormous weight in shaping
public opinion. But even if his effort is successful
and lies and trickery by Saddam Hussein are exposed,
this will not indicate any real or proximate threat by
Iraq to the United States or to our allies.
With overwhelming military strength now deployed
against him and with intense monitoring from space
surveillance and the U.N. inspection team on the
ground, any belligerent move by Saddam against a
neighbor would be suicidal. An effort to produce or
deploy chemical or biological weapons or to make the
slightest move toward a nuclear explosive would be
inconceivable. If Iraq does possess such concealed
weapons, as is quite likely, Saddam would use them only
in the most extreme circumstances, in the face of an
invasion of Iraq, when all hope of avoiding the
destruction of his regime is lost.
In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama
bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements
on his international terrorist network is mostly
limited to still-unproven allegations about its
connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top
priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after
September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become
the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the
general public.
In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global
team effort against international terrorism, there are
other major problems being held in abeyance as our
nation's foreign policy is concentrated on proving its
case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just
postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited
"road map" that the U.S. and other international
leaders have drafted for resolving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering
cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American
sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the
same time, satellite observations of North Korea have
indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under
international surveillance since 1994, are now being
moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed
destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives.
It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be
met with aggressive diplomacy.
Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the
capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited
weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his
country, what can be done to prevent the development of
a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a
sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a
permanent entity until the United States and other
members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its
presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years
following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four
years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in
locating and destroying Iraq's formidable arsenal,
including more than 900 missiles and biological and
chemical weapons left over from their previous war with
Iran.
Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such
follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an
on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to
war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the
results would be certain, military and civilian
casualties would be avoided, there would be almost
unanimous worldwide support, and the United States
could regain its leadership in combating the real
threat of international terrorism.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is chair of The
Carter Center in Atlanta, Ga., a not-for-profit,
nongovernmental organization that advances peace and
health worldwide.
----
Thomas E. Ricks article on Gen. Schwarzkopf in Washington Post
Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page C01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html
TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.
The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he
hasn't
seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney,
Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war
now.
He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's
worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the
potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.
And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man
on
the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush
administration's
hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi
leader,
but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons
programs.
"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability
is a
frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't
know
what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand
up
and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I
would like to have better information."
He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush
administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive
the
timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the
inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something
conclusive."
This isn't just any retired officer speaking. Schwarzkopf is one of the
nation's best-known military officers, with name recognition second only
to
his former boss, Secretary of State Powell. What's more, he is closely
allied with the Bush family. He hunts with the first President Bush. He
campaigned for the second, speaking on military issues at the 2000 GOP
convention in Philadelphia and later stumping in Florida with Cheney,
who
was secretary of defense during the 1991 war.
But he sees the world differently from those Gulf War colleagues. "It's
obviously not a black-and-white situation over there" in the Mideast, he
says. "I would just think that whatever path we take, we have to take it
with a bit of prudence."
So has he seen sufficient prudence in the actions of his old friends in
the
Bush administration? Again, he carefully withholds his endorsement. "I
don't
think I can give you an honest answer on that."
Now 68, the general seems smaller and more soft-spoken than in his
Riyadh
heyday 12 years ago when he was "Stormin' Norman," the fatigues-clad
martinet who intimidated subordinates and reporters alike. During last
week's interview he sat at a small, round table in his skyscraper
office,
casually clad in slacks and a black polo shirt, the bland banks and
hotels
of Tampa's financial district spread out beyond him.
His voice seems thinner than during those blustery, globally televised
Gulf
War briefings. He is limping from a recent knee operation. He sometimes
stays home to nurse the swelling with a bag of frozen peas.
He's had time to think. He likes the performance of Colin Powell --
chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, now secretary of
state.
"He's doing a wonderful job, I think," he says. But he is less impressed
by
Rumsfeld, whose briefings he has watched on television.
"Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements
Rumsfeld has made," says Schwarzkopf.
He contrasts Cheney's low profile as defense secretary during the Gulf
War
with Rumsfeld's frequent television appearances since Sept. 11, 2001.
"He
almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it." That, Schwarzkopf admonishes,
is
a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war.
The general is a true son of the Army, where he served from 1956 to
1991,
and some of his comments reflect the estrangement between that service
and
the current defense secretary. Some at the top of the Army see Rumsfeld
and
those around him as overly enamored of air power and high technology and
insufficiently attentive to the brutal difficulties of ground combat.
Schwarzkopf's comments reflect Pentagon scuttlebutt that Rumsfeld and
his
aides have brushed aside some of the Army's concerns.
"The Rumsfeld thing . . . that's what comes up," when he calls old Army
friends in the Pentagon, he says.
"When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army,"
Schwarzkopf says. "He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is
the
guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him
--
or else."
That dismissive posture bothers Schwarzkopf because he thinks Rumsfeld
and
the people around him lack the background to make sound military
judgments
by themselves. He prefers the way Cheney operated during the Gulf War.
"He
didn't put himself in the position of being the decision-maker as far as
tactics were concerned, as far as troop deployments, as far as missions
were
concerned."
Rumsfeld, by contrast, worries him. "It's scary, okay?" he says. "Let's
face
it: There are guys at the Pentagon who have been involved in operational
planning for their entire lives, okay? . . . And for this wisdom,
acquired
during many operations, wars, schools, for that just to be ignored, and
in
its place have somebody who doesn't have any of that training, is of
concern."
As a result, Schwarzkopf is skeptical that an invasion of Iraq would be
as
fast and simple as some seem to think. "I have picked up vibes that . .
.
you're going to have this massive strike with massed weaponry, and
basically
that's going to be it, and we just clean up the battlefield after that,"
he
says. But, he adds, he is more comfortable now with what he hears about
the
war plan than he was several months ago, when there was talk of an
assault
built around air power and a few thousand Special Operations troops.
He expresses even more concern about the task the U.S. military might
face
after a victory. "What is postwar Iraq going to look like, with the
Kurds
and the Sunnis and the Shiites? That's a huge question, to my mind. It
really should be part of the overall campaign plan."
(Rumsfeld said last week that post-Saddam planning "is a tough question
and
we're spending a lot of time on it, let me assure you." But the Pentagon
hasn't disclosed how long it expects to have to occupy Iraq, or how many
troops might be required to do that.)
The administration may be discussing the issue behind closed doors,
Schwarzkopf says, but he thinks it hasn't sufficiently explained its
thinking to the world, especially its assessment of the time, people and
money needed. "I would hope that we have in place the adequate resources
to
become an army of occupation," he warns, "because you're going to walk
into
chaos."
The Result of a Bad Ending?
Just as the Gulf War looks less conclusive in retrospect, so has
Schwarzkopf's reputation diminished since the glory days just after the
war,
when, Rick Atkinson wrote in "Crusade," Schwarzkopf "seemed ubiquitous,
appearing at the Kentucky Derby, at the Indianapolis 500, on Capitol
Hill,
in parades, on bubblegum cards."
Twelve years and two American presidents later, Saddam Hussein is still
in
power, and the U.S. military is once again mustering to strike Iraq.
Some strategic thinkers, both inside the military and in academia, see
Schwarzkopf's past actions as part of the problem. These experts argue
that
if the 1991 war had been terminated more thoughtfully, the U.S. military
wouldn't have to go back again to finish the job.
"Everyone was so busy celebrating the end of the Vietnam syndrome that
we
forgot how winners win a war," says one Gulf War veteran who asked that
his
name not be used because he hopes to work in the administration.
Schwarzkopf in particular draws fire for approving a cease-fire that
permitted the Iraqi military to fly helicopters after the war. Soon
afterward, Iraqi helicopter gunships were used to put down revolts
against
Hussein in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north of Iraq. Only later
were
"no-fly zones" established to help protect those minority populations.
"It's quite clear that however brilliant operationally and
technologically,
the Gulf War cannot be viewed strategically as a complete success," says
Michael Vickers, a former Special Forces officer who is now an analyst
for
the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think
tank.
Added one Pentagon expert on Iraq, "With benefit of hindsight, the
victory
was incomplete, and the luster of the entire operation has faded."
When Army colonels study the Gulf War at the Army War College nowadays,
notes one professor there, "a big part of the class is discussing war
termination."
For all that, few experts contend that Schwarzkopf is really the one to
blame for the way the Gulf War ended. "Insofar as Gulf War 1 didn't
finish
the job, blame is more likely and appropriately laid on Bush 41 and, to
a
somewhat lesser extent, on Colin Powell," says John Allen Williams, a
political scientist who specializes in military affairs at Loyola
University
Chicago.
Schwarzkopf himself doesn't entirely disagree with the view that the war
was
ended badly. "You can't help but sit here today and, with 20/20
hindsight,
go back and say, 'Look, had we done something different, we probably
wouldn't be facing what we are facing today.' "
But, he continues, Washington never instructed him to invade Iraq or
oust
Saddam Hussein. "My mission, plain and simple, was kick Iraq out of
Kuwait.
Period. There were never any other orders." Given the information
available
back then, the decision to stop the war with Saddam Hussein still in
power
was, he says, "probably was the only decision that could have been made
at
that time."
'Tell It Like It Is'
Schwarzkopf was never as lionized in military circles as he was by the
general public. Like a rock star, he shuns commercial air travel mainly
because he can barely walk through an airport without being besieged by
autograph seekers and well-wishers. But his reputation inside the Army
has
"always been a bit different from the outside view," notes retired Army
Col.
Richard H. Sinnreich, who frequently participates in war games and other
military training sessions.
Sinnreich doesn't think that many in the armed forces blame Schwarzkopf
for
the inconclusive ending of the Gulf War. "I know of no Army officer,
active
or retired, who holds such a view," he says. "The decision to suspend
offensive operations clearly was a political decision that I suspect the
relevant principals now profoundly regret, even if they're loath to
admit
it."
But what did sour some in the Army on Schwarzkopf, says Sinnreich, was
his
"rather ungracious treatment of his Gulf War subordinates."
Schwarzkopf raised eyebrows across the Army when, in his Gulf War
memoir, he
denounced one of his generals, Frederick Franks, for allegedly moving
his
7th Corps in a "plodding and overly cautious" manner during the attack
on
the Iraqi military. He elaborated on that criticism in subsequent rounds
of
interviews. This public disparagement of a former subordinate rankled
some
in the Army, which even more than the other services likes to keep its
internal disputes private.
"I think his attack on Franks was wrong," says Army Maj. Donald
Vandergriff,
in a typical comment.
"It wasn't meant to be an attack on Fred Franks," Schwarzkopf responds
in
the interview. Rather, he says, he was trying to provide an honest
assessment, in the tradition of the Army's practice of conducting
brutally
accurate "after-action reviews." "No matter how painful it is, [when]
you do
your after-action review, tell it like it is."
The other behavior that bothered some was Schwarzkopf's virtual absence
from
the Army after the Gulf War. Many retired generals make almost a
full-time
job of working with the Army -- giving speeches at West Point and at the
Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., visiting bases to mentor
up-and-coming
officers, sitting on Pentagon advisory boards, writing commentaries in
military journals.
"The fact that Schwarzkopf . . . did not make himself available to speak
to
the many, many Army audiences anxious to listen to him won him no
friends in
the Army," notes retired Army Brig. Gen. John Mountcastle.
Adds Earl H. Tilford Jr., a former director of research at the War
College's
Strategic Studies Institute: "You never saw him at Carlisle, never."
Likewise, a professor at West Point recalls repeatedly being brushed off
by
Schwarzkopf's office.
Schwarzkopf says he avoided those circles for good reason. After the
Gulf
War, he says, he decided to take a low profile within the Army because
he
didn't want to step on the toes of the service's post-Gulf War leaders.
There were sensitivities about overshadowing those generals, he says,
especially after word leaked that he had been considered for the post of
Army chief of staff but had declined the position.
Seeing that "open wound," he says, "I purposely distanced myself for a
reasonable time."
The Army War College's location in rural Pennsylvania makes it difficult
to
reach from his home in the Tampa area, he says. And he notes that he has
done much other work behind the scenes on behalf of the Army, including
meeting with presidential candidate Bush to lobby him on military
readiness
issues.
He also has been busy with nonmilitary charities. After a bout with
prostate
cancer in 1994, he threw himself into helping cancer research; no fewer
than
10 groups that fight cancer or conduct other medical research have given
him
awards in recent years.
No More Heroes?
Perhaps the real reason that Schwarzkopf's reputation has shrunk has
more to
do with America and less to do with Schwarzkopf's actions. American wars
used to produce heroes such as Washington, Grant and Eisenhower, whose
names
were known by all schoolchildren, notes Boston University political
scientist Andrew Bacevich.
But in recent decades, Bacevich says, "military fame has lost its
durability." Sen. John McCain may appear to be an exception, he says,
but he
is someone noted less for what he did in the military than for what he
endured as a prisoner of war.
More representative, Bacevich notes, may be Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks,
the
officer who would lead U.S. forces in any new war with Iraq. Franks "has
not
ignited widespread popular affection," says Bacevich, himself a retired
Army
colonel.
It may be that American society no longer has an appetite for heroes,
military or otherwise, says Ward Carroll, a recently retired naval
aviator
and author of "Punk's War," a novel about patrolling the no-fly zone
over
southern Iraq. American society may not be making the kinds of
sacrifices
that make people look for heroes to celebrate. "You don't have
rationing,
you don't have gold stars in the window, and the other things that made
[war
heroes] a part of the fabric of American life" in the past, he says.
Even Schwarzkopf's own Gulf War memoir was titled "It Doesn't Take a
Hero."
Or it just may be that America no longer puts anyone up on a pedestal.
"Even
our sports heroes aren't heroes anymore, in the way that Lou Gehrig and
Mickey Mantle were," says Carroll. "The picture is a lot more blurred
nowadays."
Washington Post researcher Rob Thomason contributed to this report.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
-----
Subject: Noam  Chomsky: "to create a different world, one that is not
based on violence and subjugation, hate and fear."
Here is a recent missive by Noam Chomsky while at the World Social Forum
in
Porto Alegre, Brazil February 01, 2003
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2938
We are meeting at a moment of world history that is in many ways unique
– a
moment that is ominous, but also full of hope.
The most powerful state in history has proclaimed, loud and clear, that
it
intends to rule the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns
supreme.  Apart from the conventional bow to noble intentions that is
the
standard (hence meaningless) accompaniment of coercion, its leaders are
committed to pursuit of their "imperial ambition," as it is frankly
described in the leading journal of the foreign policy establishment –
critically, an important matter.  They have also declared that they will
tolerate no competitors, now or in the future.  They evidently believe
that
the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they can
dismiss with contempt anyone who stands in their way.   There is good
reason
to believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to teach the
world
some lessons about what lies ahead when the empire decides to strike a
blow
-- though "war" is hardly the proper term, given the array of forces.
 
The doctrine is not entirely new, nor unique to the US, but it has never
before been proclaimed with such brazen arrogance – at least not by
anyone
we would care to remember.
 
I am not going to try to answer the question posed for this meeting: How
to
confront the empire.  The reason is that most of you know the answers as
well or better than I do, through your own lives and work.  The way to
"confront the empire" is to create a different world, one that is not
based
on violence and subjugation, hate and fear.  That is why we are here,
and
the WSF offers hope that these are not idle dreams.
 
Yesterday I had the rare privilege of seeing some very inspiring work to
achieve these goals, at the international gathering of the Via Campesina
at
a community of the MST, which I think is the most important and exciting
popular movement in the world.  With constructive local actions such as
those of the MST, and international organization of the kind illustrated
by
the Via Campesina and the WSF, with sympathy and solidarity and mutual
aid,
there is real hope for a decent future.
 
I have also had some other recent experiences that give a vivid picture
of
what the world may be like if imperial violence is not limited and
dismantled.  Last month I was in southeastern Turkey, the scene of some
of
the worst atrocities of the grisly 1990s, still continuing: just a few
hours
ago we were informed of  renewed atrocities by the army near Diyarbakir,
the
unofficial capital of the Kurdish regions.  Through the 1990s, millions
of
people were driven out of the devastated countryside, with tens of
thousands
killed and every imaginable form of barbaric torture.  They try to
survive
in caves outside the walls of Diyarbakir, in condemned buildings in
miserable slums in Istanbul, or wherever they can find refuge, barred
from
returning to their villages despite new legislation that theoretically
permits return.  80% of the weapons came from the US.  In the year 1997
alone, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than in the entire Cold War
period
combined up to the onset of the state terror campaign – called
"counterterror" by the perpetrators and their supporters, another
convention.  Turkey became the leading recipient of US arms as
atrocities
peaked (apart from Israel-Egypt, a separate category).
In 1999, Turkey relinquished this position to Colombia.  The reason is
that
in Turkey, US-backed state terror had largely succeeded, while in
Colombia
it had not.  Colombia had the worst human rights record in the Western
hemisphere in the 1990s and was by far the leading recipient of US arms
and
military training, and now leads the world.  It also leads the world by
other measures, for example, murder of labor activists: more than half
of
those killed worldwide in the last decade were in Colombia.  Close to
1⁄2
million people were driven from their land last year, a new record.  The
displaced population is now estimated at 2.7 million.  Political
killings
have risen to 20 a day; 5 years ago it was half that.
 
I visited Cauca in southern Colombia, which had the worst human rights
record in the country in 2001, quite an achievement.  There I listened
to
hours of testimony by peasants who were driven from their lands by
chemical
warfare – called "fumigation" under the pretext of a US-run "drug war"
that
few take seriously and that would be obscene if that were the intent. 
Their
lives and lands are destroyed, children are dying, they suffer from
sickness
and wounds.  Peasant agriculture is based on a rich tradition of
knowledge
and experience gained over many centuries, in much of the world passed
on
from mother to daughter.  Though a remarkable human achievement, it is
very
fragile, and can be destroyed forever in a single generation.  Also
being
destroyed is some of the richest biodiversity in the world, similar to
neighboring regions of Brazil. Campesinos, indigenous people,
Afro-Colombians can join the millions in rotting slums and camps.  With
the
people gone, multinationals can come in to strip the mountains for coal
and
to extract oil and other resources, and to convert what is left of the
land
to monocrop agroexport using laboratory-produced seeds in an environment
shorn of its treasures and variety.
 
The scenes in Cauca and Southeastern Turkey are very different from the
celebrations of the Via Campesina gathering at the MST community.  But
Turkey and Colombia are inspiring and hopeful in different ways, because
of
the courage and dedication of people struggling for justice and freedom,
confronting the empire where it is killing and destroying.
These are some of the signs of the future if "imperial ambition"
proceeds on
its normal course, now to be accelerated by the grand strategy of global
rule by force.  None of this is inevitable, and among the good models
for
ending these crimes are the ones I mentioned: the MST, the Via
Campesina,
and the WSF.
 
At the WSF, the range of issues and problems under intense discussion is
very broad, remarkably so, but I think we can identify two main themes. 
One
is global justice and Life after Capitalism – or to put it more simply,
life, because it is not so clear that the human species can survive very
long under existing state capitalist institutions.  The second theme is
related: war and peace, and more specifically, the war in Iraq that
Washington and London are desperately seeking to carry out, virtually
alone.
 
Let's start with some good news about these basic themes.  As you know,
there is also a conference of the World Economic Forum going on right
now,
in Davos.  Here in Porto Alegre, the mood is hopeful, vigorous,
exciting. 
In Davos, the New York Times tells us, "the mood has darkened." For the
"movers and shakers," it is not "global party time" any more.  In fact,
the
founder of the Forum has conceded defeat: "The power of corporations has
completely disappeared," he said.  So we have won.  There is nothing
left
for us to do but pick up the pieces -- not only to talk about a vision
of
the future that is just and humane, but to move on to create it.
 
Of course, we should not let the praise go to our heads.  There are
still a
few difficulties ahead.
 
The main theme of the WEF is "Building Trust." There is a reason for
that. 
The "masters of the universe," as they liked to call themselves in more
exuberant days, know that they are in serious trouble.  They recently
released a poll showing that trust in leaders has severely declined. 
Only
the leaders of NGOs had the trust of a clear majority, followed by UN
and
spiritual/religious leaders, then leaders of Western Europe and economic
managers, below them corporate executives, and well below them, at the
bottom, leaders of the US, with about 25% trust.  That may well mean
virtually no trust: when people are asked whether they trust leaders
with
power, they usually say "Yes," out of habit.
 
It gets worse.  A few days ago a poll in Canada found that over 1/3 of
the
population regard the US as the greatest threat to world peace.  The US
ranks more than twice as high as Iraq or North Korea, and far higher
than
al-Qaeda as well.  A poll without careful controls, by Time magazine,
found
that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the US as the greatest
threat to world peace, compared with less than 10% for Iraq or North
Korea. 
Even if these numbers are wrong by some substantial factor, they are
dramatic.
 
Without going on, the corporate leaders who paid $30,000 to attend the
somber meetings in Davos have good reasons to take as their theme:
"Building
Trust."
 
The coming war with Iraq is undoubtedly contributing to these
interesting
and important developments.  Opposition to the war is completely without
historical precedent.  In Europe it is so high that Secretary of
"Defense"
Donald Rumsfeld dismissed Germany and France as just the "old Europe,"
plainly of no concern because of their disobedience.   The "vast numbers
of
other countries in Europe [are] with the United States," he assured
foreign
journalists.  These vast numbers are the "new Europe," symbolized by
Italy's
Berlusconi, soon to visit the White House, praying that he will be
invited
to be the third of the "three B's": Bush-Blair-Berlusconi – assuming
that he
can stay out of jail.  Italy is on board, the White House tells us.  It
is
apparently not a problem that over 80% of the public is opposed to the
war,
according to recent polls.  That just shows that the people of Italy
also
belong to the "old Europe," and can be sent to the ashcan of history
along
with France and Germany, and others who do not know their place.
 
Spain is hailed as another prominent member of the new Europe -- with
75%
totally opposed to the war, according to an international Gallup poll. 
According to the leading foreign policy analyst of Newsweek, pretty much
the
same is true of the most hopeful part of the new Europe, the former
Communist countries that are counted on (quite openly) to serve US
interests
and undermine Europe's despised social market and welfare states.  He
reports that in Czechoslovakia, 2/3 of the population oppose
participation
in a war, while in Poland only 1⁄4 would support a war even if the UN
inspectors "prove that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." The
Polish press reports 37% approval in this case, still extremely low, at
the
heart of the "new Europe."
 
New Europe soon identified itself in an open letter in the Wall Street
Journal: along with Italy, Spain, Poland and Czechoslovakia – the
leaders,
that is, not the people – it includes Denmark (with popular opinion on
the
war about the same as Germany, therefore "old Europe"),  Portugal (53%
opposed to war under any circumstances, 96% opposed to war by the US and
its
allies unilaterally), Britain (40% opposed to war under any
circumstances,
90% opposed to war by the US and its allies unilaterally), and Hungary
(no
figures available).
 
In brief, the exciting "new Europe" consists of some leaders who are
willing
to defy their populations.
 
Old Europe reacted with some annoyance to Rumsfeld's declaration that
they
are "problem" countries, not modern states.  Their reaction was
explained by
thoughtful US commentators.  Keeping just to the national press, we
learn
that "world-weary European allies" do not appreciate the "moral
rectitude"
of the President.  The evidence for his "moral rectitude" is that "his
advisors say the evangelical zeal" comes directly from the simple man
who is
dedicated to driving evil from the world.  Since that is surely the most
reliable and objective evidence that can be imagined, it would be
improper
to express slight skepticism, let alone to react as we would to similar
performances by others.  The cynical Europeans, we are told,
misinterpret
Bush's purity of soul as "moral naiveté" – without a thought that the
administration's PR specialists might have a hand in creating imagery
that
will sell.  We are informed further that there is a great divide between
world-weary Europe and the "idealistic New World bent on ending
inhumanity."
That this is the driving purpose of the idealistic New World  we also
know
for certain, because so our leaders proclaim.  What more in the way of
proof
could one seek?
 
The rare mention of public opinion in the new Europe treats it as a
problem
of marketing; the product being sold is necessarily right and honorable,
given its source.  The willingness of the leaders of the new Europe to
prefer Washington to their own populations "threatens to isolate the
Germans
and French," who are exhibiting retrograde democratic tendencies, and
shows
that Germany and France cannot "say that they are speaking for Europe."
They
are merely speaking for the people of old and new Europe, who – the same
commentators acknowledge -- express "strong opposition" to the policies
of
the new Europe.
 
The official pronouncements and the reaction to them are illuminating. 
They
demonstrate with some clarity the contempt for democracy that is rather
typical, historically, among those who feel that they rule the world by
right.
 
There are many other illustrations.  When German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder dared to take the position of the overwhelming majority of
voters
in the last election, that was described as a shocking failure of
leadership, a serious problem that Germany must overcome if it wants to
be
accepted in the civilized world.  The problem lies with Germany, not
elites
of the Anglo-American democracies.  Germany's problem is that "the
government lives in fear of the voters, and that is causing it to make
mistake after mistake" – the spokesperson for the right-wing Christian
Social Union party, who understands the real nature of democracy.
 
The case of Turkey is even more revealing.  As throughout the region,
Turks
are very strongly opposed to the war – about 90% according to the most
recent polls.  And so far the government has irresponsibly paid some
attention to the people who elected it.  It has not bowed completely to
the
intense pressure and threats that Washington is exerting to compel it to
heed the master's voice.  This reluctance of the elected government to
follow orders from on high proves that its leaders are not true
democrats. 
For those who may be too dull to comprehend these subtleties, they are
explained by former Ambassador to Turkey Morton Abramowitz, now a
distinguished senior statesman and commentator.  Ten years ago, he
explained, Turkey was governed by a real democrat, Turgut Ozal, who
"overrode his countrymen's pronounced preference to stay out of the Gulf
war." But democracy has declined in Turkey.  The current leadership "is
following the people," revealing its lack of "democratic credentials."
"Regrettably," he says, "for the US there is no Ozal around." So it will
be
necessary to bring authentic democracy to Turkey by economic
strangulation
and other coercive means – regrettably, but that is demanded by what the
elite press calls our "yearning for democracy."
 
Brazil is witnessing another exercise of the real attitudes towards
democracy among the masters of the universe.  In  the most free election
in
the hemisphere, a large majority voted for policies that are strongly
opposed by international finance and investors, by the IMF and the US
Treasury Department.   In earlier years, that would have been the signal
for
a military coup installing a murderous National Security State, as in
Brazil
40 years ago.  Now that will not work; the populations of South and
North
have changed, and will not easily tolerate it.  Furthermore, there are
now
simpler ways to undermine the will of the people, thanks to the
neoliberal
instruments that have been  put in place:  economic controls, capital
flight, attacks on currency, privatization, and other devices that are
well-designed to reduce the arena of popular choice.  These, it is
hoped,
may compel the government to follow the dictates of what international
economists call the "virtual parliament" of investors and lenders, who
make
the real decisions, coercing the population, an irrelevant nuisance
according to the reigning principles of  democracy.
 
When I was just about to leave for the airport I received another of the
many inquiries from the press about why there is so little anti-war
protest
in the US.  The impressions are instructive.  In fact, protest in the
US, as
elsewhere, is also at levels that have no historical precedent.  Not
just
demonstrations, teach-ins, and other public events.  To take an example
of a
different kind, last week the Chicago City Council passed an anti-war
resolution, 46-1, joining 50 other cities and towns.  The same is true
in
other sectors, including those that are the most highly trusted, as the
WEF
learned to its dismay: NGOs and religious organizations and figures,
with
few exceptions.   Several months ago the biggest university in the
country
passed a strong antiwar resolution – the University of Texas, right next
door to George W's ranch.  And it's easy to continue.
 
So why the widespread judgment among elites that the tradition of
dissent
and protest has died?  Invariably, comparisons are drawn to Vietnam, a
very
revealing fact.  We have just passed the 40th anniversary of the public
announcement that the Kennedy administration was sending the US Air
Force to
bomb South Vietnam, also initiating plans to drive millions of people
into
concentration camps and chemical warfare programs to destroy food
crops. 
There was no pretext of defense, except in the sense of official
rhetoric:
defense against the "internal aggression" of South Vietnamese in South
Vietnam and their "assault from the inside" (President Kennedy and his
UN
Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson).  Protest was non-existent.  It did not
reach
any meaningful level for several years.  By that time hundreds of
thousands
of US troops had joined the occupying army, densely-populated areas were
being demolished by saturation bombing, and the aggression had spread to
the
rest of Indochina.   Protest among elite intellectuals kept primarily to
"pragmatic grounds": the war was a "mistake" that was becoming too
costly to
the US.  In sharp contrast, by the late 1960s the great majority of the
public had come to oppose the war as "fundamentally wrong and immoral,"
not
"a mistake," figures that hold steady until the present.
 
Today, in dramatic contrast to the 1960s, there is large-scale,
committed,
and principled popular protest all over the US before the war has been
officially launched.  That reflects a steady increase over these years
in
unwillingness to tolerate aggression and atrocities, one of many such
changes, worldwide in fact.  That's part of the background for what is
taking place in Porto Alegre, and part of the reason for the gloom in
Davos.
 
The political leadership is well aware of these developments.  When a
new
administration comes into office, it receives a review of the world
situation compiled by the intelligence agencies.  It is secret; we learn
about these things many years later.  But when Bush #1 came into office
in
1989, a small part of the review was leaked, a passage concerned with
"cases
where the U.S. confronts much weaker enemies" – the only kind one would 
think of fighting.  Intelligence analysts advised that in conflicts with
"much weaker enemies" the US must win "decisively and rapidly," or
popular
support will collapse.  It's not like the 1960s, when the population
would
tolerate a murderous and destructive war for years without visible
protest.   That's no longer true.  The activist movements of the past 40
years have had a significant civilizing effect.  By now, the only way to
attack a much weaker enemy is to construct a huge propaganda offensive
depicting it as about to commit genocide, maybe even a threat to our
very
survival, then to celebrate a miraculous victory over the awesome foe,
while
chanting praises to the courageous leaders who came to the rescue just
in
time.
 
That is the current scenario in Iraq.
 
Polls reveal more support for the planned war in the US than elsewhere,
but
the numbers are misleading.  It is important to bear in mind that the US
is
the only country outside Iraq where Saddam Hussein is not only reviled
but
also feared.  There is a flood of lurid propaganda warning that if we do
not
stop him today he will destroy us tomorrow.  The next evidence of his
weapons of mass destruction may be a "mushroom cloud," so National
Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice announced in September – presumably over New
York. 
No one in Iraq's neighborhood seems overly concerned, much as they may
hate
the murderous tyrant.  Perhaps that is because they know that as a
result of
the sanctions "the vast majority of the country's population has been on
a
semi-starvation diet for years," as the World Health Organization
reported,
and that Iraq is one of the weakest states in the region: its economy
and
military expenditures are a fraction of Kuwait's, which has 10% of
Iraq's
population, and much farther below others nearby.
 
But the US is different.  When Congress granted the President authority
to
go to war last October, it was "to defend the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." We must
tremble
in fear before this awesome threat, while countries nearby seek to
reintegrate Iraq into the region, including those who were attacked by
Saddam when he was a friend and ally of those who now run the show in
Washington  --  and who were happily providing him with aid including
the
means to develop WMD, at a time when he was far more dangerous than
today
and had already committed by far his worst crimes.
 
A serious measure of support for war in the US would have to extricate
this
"fear factor," which is genuine, and unique to the US.  The residue
would
give a more realistic measure of support for the resort to violence, and
would show, I think, that it is about the same as elsewhere.
 
It is also rather striking that strong opposition to the coming war
extends
right through the establishment.  The current issues of the two major
foreign policy journals feature articles opposing the war by leading
figures
of foreign policy elites.  The very respectable American Academy of Arts
and
Sciences released a long monograph on the war, trying to give the most
sympathetic possible account of the Bush administration position, then
dismantling it point by point.  One respected analyst they quote is a
Senior
Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,  who warns
that
the US is becoming "a menace to itself and to mankind" under its current
leadership.  There are no precedents for anything like this.
 
We should recognize that these criticisms tend to be narrow.  They are
concerned with threats to the US and its allies.  They do not take into
account the likely effects on Iraqis: the warnings of the UN and aid
agencies that millions may be at very serious risk in a country that is
at
the edge of survival after a terrible war that targeted its basic
infrastructure – which amounts to biological warfare -- and a decade of
devastating sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of people
and
blocked any reconstruction, while strengthening the brutal tyrant who
rules
Iraq.  It is also interesting that the criticisms do not even take the
trouble to mention the lofty rhetoric about democratization and
liberation. 
Presumably, the critics take for granted that the rhetoric is intended
for
intellectuals and editorial writers – who are not supposed to notice
that
the drive to war is accompanied by a dramatic demonstration of hatred of
democracy, just as they are supposed to forget the record of those who
are
leading the campaign.  That is also why none of this is ever brought up
at
the UN.
 
Nevertheless, the threats that do concern establishment critics are very
real.  They were surely not surprised when the CIA informed Congress
last
October that they know of no link between Iraq and al Qaeda-style
terrorism,
but that an attack on Iraq would probably increase the terrorist threat
to
the West, in many ways.  It is likely to inspire a new generation of
terrorists bent on revenge, and it might induce Iraq to carry out
terrorist
actions that are already in place, a possibility taken very seriously by
US
analysts.  A high-level task force of the Council on Foreign Relations
just
released a report warning of likely terrorist attacks that could be far
worse than 9-11, including possible use of WMD right within the US,
dangers
that become "more urgent by the prospect of the US going to war with
Iraq." 
They provide many illustrations, virtually a cook-book for terrorists. 
It
is not the first; similar ones were published by prominent strategic
analysts long before 9-11.
 
It is also understood that an attack on Iraq may lead not just to more
terror, but also to proliferation of WMD, for a simple reason: potential
targets of the US recognize that there is no other way to deter the most
powerful state in history, which is pursuing "America's Imperial
Ambition,"
posing serious dangers to the US and the world, the author warns in the
main
establishment journal, Foreign Affairs.   Prominent hawks warn that a
war in
Iraq might lead to the "greatest proliferation disaster in history."
They
know that if Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, the dictatorship
keeps them under tight control.  They understand further that except as
a
last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely to use any WMD it has,
thus
inviting instant incineration.   And it is also highly unlikely to leak
them
to the Osama bin Ladens of the world, which would be a terrible threat
to
Saddam Hussein himself, quite apart from the reaction if there is even a
hint that this might take place.  But under attack,  the society would
collapse, including the controls over WMD.  These would be "privatized,"
terrorism experts point out, and offered to the huge "market for
unconventional weapons, where they will have no trouble finding buyers."
That really is a "nightmare scenario," just as the hawks warn.
 
Even before the Bush administration began beating the war drums about
Iraq,
there were plenty of warnings that its adventurism was going to lead to
proliferation of WMD, as well as terror, simply as a deterrent.  Right
now,
Washington is teaching the world a very ugly and dangerous lesson: if
you
want to defend yourself from us, you had better mimic North Korea and
pose a
credible military threat, including WMD.  Otherwise we will demolish you
in
pursuit of the new "grand strategy" that has caused shudders not only
among
the usual victims, and in "old Europe," but right at the heart of the US
foreign policy elite, who recognize that "commitment of the US to active
military confrontation for decisive national advantage will leave the
world
more dangerous and the US less secure" – again, quoting respected
figures in
elite journals.
 
Evidently, the likely increase of terror and proliferation of WMD is of
limited concern to planners in Washington, in the context of their real
priorities.  Without too much difficulty, one can think of reasons why
this
might be the case, not very attractive ones.
 
The nature of the threats was dramatically underscored last October, at
the
summit meeting in Havana on the 40th anniversary of the Cuban missile
crisis, attended by key participants from Russia, the US, and Cuba.  
Planners knew at the time that they had the fate of the world in their
hands, but new information released at the Havana summit was truly
startling.  We learned that the world was saved from nuclear devastation
by
one Russian submarine captain, Vasily Arkhipov, who blocked an order to
fire
nuclear missiles when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers
near
Kennedy's "quarantine" line.  Had Arkhipov agreed, the nuclear launch
would
have almost certainly set off an interchange that could have "destroyed
the
Northern hemisphere," as Eisenhower had warned.
 
The dreadful revelation is particularly timely because of the
circumstances:
the roots of the missile crisis lay in international terrorism aimed at
"regime change," two concepts very much in the news today.  US terrorist
attacks against Cuba began shortly after Castro took power, and were
sharply
escalated by Kennedy, leading to a very plausible fear of invasion, as
Robert McNamara has acknowledged.  Kennedy resumed the terrorist war
immediately after the crisis was over; terrorist actions against Cuba,
based
in the US, peaked in the late 1970s continued 20 years later.  Putting
aside
any judgment about the behavior of the participants in the missile
crisis,
the new discoveries demonstrate with brilliant clarity the terrible and
unanticipated risks of attacks on a "much weaker enemy" aimed at "regime
change" – risks to survival, it is no exaggeration to say.
 
As for the fate of the people of Iraq, no one can predict with any
confidence: not the CIA, not Donald Rumsfeld, not those who claim to be
experts on Iraq, no one.  Possibilities range from the frightening
prospects
for which the aid agencies are preparing, to the delightful tales spun
by
administration PR specialists and their chorus.  One never knows.  These
are
among the many reasons why decent human beings do not contemplate the
threat
or use of violence, whether in personal life or international affairs,
unless reasons have been offered that have overwhelming force.  And
surely
nothing remotely like that has been offered in the present case, which
is
why opposition to the plans of Washington and London has reached such
scale
and intensity.
 
The timing of the Washington-London propaganda campaign was so
transparent
that it too has been a topic of discussion, and sometimes ridicule,
right in
the mainstream.  The campaign began in September of last year.  Before
that,
Saddam was a terrible guy, but not an imminent threat to the survival of
the
US.  The "mushroom cloud" was announced in early September.  Since then,
fear that Saddam will attack the US has been running at about 60-70% of
the
population. "The desperate urgency about moving rapidly against Iraq
that
Bush expressed in October was not evident from anything he said two
months
before," the chief political analyst of United Press International
observed,
drawing the obvious conclusion: September marked the opening of the
political campaign for the mid-term congressional elections. The
administration, he continued, was "campaigning to sustain and increase
its
power on a policy of international adventurism, new radical preemptive
military strategies, and a hunger for a politically convenient and
perfectly
timed confrontation with Iraq." As long as domestic issues were in the
forefront, Bush and his cohorts were losing ground – naturally enough,
because they are conducting a serious assault against the general
population. "But lo and behold! Though there have been no new terrorist
attacks or credible indications of imminent threat, since the beginning
of
September, national security issues have been in the driver's seat," not
just al Qaeda but an awesome and threatening military power, Iraq.
 
The same observations have been made by many others.  That's convenient
for
people like us: we can just quote the mainstream instead of giving
controversial analyses.  The Carnegie Endowment Senior Associate I
quoted
before writes that Bush and Co. are following "the classic modern
strategy
of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass
discontent
into nationalism," inspired by fear of enemies about to destroy us. 
That
strategy is of critical importance if the "radical nationalists" setting
policy in Washington hope to advance their announced plan for
"unilateral
world domination through absolute military superiority," while
conducting a
major assault against the interests of the large majority of the
domestic
population.
 
For the elections, the strategy worked, barely.  The Fall 2002 election
was
won by a small number of votes, but enough to hand Congress to the
executive.  Analyses of the election found that voters maintained their
opposition to the administration on social and economic issues, but
suppressed these issues in favor of security concerns, which typically
lead
to support for the figure in authority – the brave cowboy who must ride
to
our rescue, just in time.
 
As history shows, it is all too easy for unscrupulous leaders to terrify
the
public, with consequences that have not been attractive.  That is the
natural method to divert attention from the fact that tax cuts for the
rich
and other devices are undermining prospects for a decent life for large
majority of the population, and for future generations.  When the
presidential campaign begins, Republican strategists surely do not want
people to be asking questions about their pensions, jobs, health care,
and
other such matters.  Rather, they should be praising their heroic leader
for
rescuing them from imminent destruction by a foe of colossal power, and
marching on to confront the next powerful force bent on our
destruction.  It
could be Iran, or conflicts in the Andean countries: there are lots of
good
choices, as long as the targets are defenseless.
 
These ideas are second nature to the current political leaders, most of
them
recycled from the Reagan administration.  They are replaying a familiar
script: drive the country into deficit so as to be able to undermine
social
programs, declare a "war on terror" (as they did in 1981) and conjure up
one
devil after another to frighten the population into obedience. In the
`80s
it was Libyan hit-men prowling the streets of Washington to assassinate
our
leader, then the Nicaraguan army only two-days march from Texas, a
threat to
survival so severe that Reagan had to declare a national emergency.  Or
an
airfield in Grenada that the Russians were going to use to bomb us (if
they
could find it on a map); Arab terrorists seeking to kill Americans
everywhere while Qaddafi plans to "expel America from the world," so
Reagan
wailed.  Or Hispanic narcotraffickers seeking to destroy the youth; and
on,
and on.
 
Meanwhile the political leadership were able to carry out domestic
policies
that had generally poor economic outcomes but did create wealth for
narrow
sectors while harming a considerable majority of the population – the
script
that is being followed once again.  And since the public knows it, they
have
to resort to "the classic modern strategy of an endangered right wing
oligarchy" if they hope to carry out the domestic and international
programs
to which they are committed, perhaps even to institutionalize them so
they
will be hard to dismantle when they lose control.
 
Of course, there is much more to it than domestic considerations – which
are
of no slight importance in themselves.  The September 11 terrorist
atrocities provided an opportunity and pretext to implement
long-standing
plans to take control of Iraq's immense oil wealth, a central component
of
the Persian Gulf resources that the State Department, in 1945, described
as
"a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest
material
prizes in world history." US intelligence predicts that these will be of
even greater significance in the years ahead.  The issue has never been
access.  The same intelligence analyses anticipate that the US will rely
on
more secure supplies in the Western hemisphere and West Africa.  The
same
was true after World War II.  What matters is control over the "material
prize," which funnels enormous wealth to the US in many ways, Britain as
well, and the "stupendous source of strategic power," which translates
into
a lever of "unilateral world domination" -- the goal that is now openly
proclaimed, and is frightening much of the world, including "old Europe"
and
the conservative establishment in the US.
 
I think a realistic look at the world gives a mixed picture.  There are
many
reasons to be encouraged, but there will be a long hard road ahead.
thanks to:
victory is certain mailing list - please forward
to subscribe, go to 
http://www.victoryiscertain.com
-------
Subject: commentary from Eno
This commentary from musician Brian Eno
in TIME Europe
Jan. 20, 2003 Vol. 161, No. 3
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,901030120-4072
88,0
0.html
Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascination
and
puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country
that
prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor
people?
How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to
exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the
world's
beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special
interest
groups? For me, the question has become: "How can a country that has
produced so much cultural and economic wealth act so dumb?"
I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced,
entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America:
a
vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be
changed
for the better. That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978
until
1983. That America was an act of faith — the faith that "otherness" was
not
threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big
enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world
could
throw at it. But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a
suspicious, introverted America, a country-sized version of that
peculiarly
American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is
defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web
of
society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns
paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle.
Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last
resort,
nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new
thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last
century came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of
much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward — courageous,
innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But,
unfortunately,
over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on
increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something
indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original
and
subtle thought — America's real wealth — is squandered.
This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of
the
left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has
further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural
criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the
fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the
politics.
The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too.
Political
discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's
promotion of
American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're
either
with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous
mullah, not an American President.
When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious.
"They
want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it,
they're
going to stop us from having it." But does everyone want what America
has?
Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the
highest
rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy,
incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush
recently
declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human
progress."
Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it
as a
clumsy arrogance born of ignorance.
Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment
benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human
progress.
We think it's important — civilized, in fact — to help people who fall
through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding
that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for
everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass
bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this sounds like socialism,
big
government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less
gun
crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life
than
the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some
of
what we've got.
Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way,
insisting
on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of
human
progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving
as
if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking
about
communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work,
because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough
to
shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century.
There's a
better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't
shut it
out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a
lot
to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in
history,
but wasn't that the original idea?
Brian Eno
------
Subject: Eliot Weinberger essay - (The only  forum for criticism is the
Internet)
Eliot Weinberger writes for newspapers and magazines abroad.
He has given the  MakeThemAccountable.com site permission to post
the English versions of his articles.
They may be reproduced freely.
These articles will be published for the first time in the U.S. as a
book,_9/12_, available in March from the Prickly Paradigm Press,
distributed
by the University of Chicago Press.
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/wein/030115_NYSixteenMonthsAfter.htm
_11 January 2003_: 
By Eliot Weinberger
For years they'll be debating the future of the empty
pit where the World Trade Center once stood, with fantastic or hideous
proposals of gardens in the sky or indoor lakes or threatening
tic-tack-toe-shaped fortresses. But at the moment, the only thing
certain
is the fate of the actual towers themselves. The scrap steel will be
shipped from the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island to the Grumman
shipyard in Trent Lott's fiefdom of Pascagoula, Mississippi. There, it
will
be melted down and turned into the "New York," an $800 million "state of
the art" amphibious assault ship. In Bush America, every ploughshare
must
be beaten into a sword.
    War and war and war. 150,000 troops are massed in the surrounds of
Iraq,
many of them reservists pulled from their normal lives, preparing for
what
the Pentagon is already declaring the "greatest precision-bombing aerial
assault in history," to be followed by an invasion which the United
Nations
estimates will cause 500,000 causalties. There are troops or "advisers"
in
India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgzystan, Georgia, the Philippines,
Colombia. . . and speculation that Iraq is merely a stop on the road to
Iran. 
    Military operations in Afghanistan are continuing at a cost of a
billion
dollars a month-- compared to the $25 million a month the U.S. is
spending
there on humanitarian aid, most of it paying for the offices and
maintenance of the aid workers, or vanishing into the crevices of local
corruption. Helmeted and armored Special Forces troops still move like
Robocop through the villages, past the hundreds of thousands of
displaced
peasants trying to survive the winter.
    This year, the Pentagon budget will increase by $38 billion to
almost
$400
billion. The increase alone is practically the entire budget of the
second-biggest military spender, China. Meanwhile, millions of Americans
have lost their jobs or have had their salaries greatly reduced. There
are
schools around the country that will be closing a month early this year
because of budget cuts, further evidence of the theory that Republicans
never allot any money for education in order to keep the electorate
stupid
so that they'll vote for Republicans.
    Everything is war and war, the talk of war, while the real, declared
war–-
the War on Terrorism–- is a complete failure. It could not be otherwise:
One cannot, by definition, wage a military (and not metaphorical) war
against terrorism, for the terrorists themselves are not waging a war.
Wars
are fought to coerce an enemy to accept one's policies or sovereignty.
Even
when they involve the mass slaughter of civilians-- as has been
increasingly the case since World War I-- they are not terrorism. (A
Palestinian suicide bombing, however repulsive, is the act of a civilian
combatant in a war of independence.) Terrorism is committed by small,
clandestine, independent groups–- the evil twins of NGO's–- in the
attempt
to persuade like-minded people to join their side, whether physically or
intellectually. The massacre at the World Trade Center was, in terms of
the
United States, a means without an end: There were no grounds on which
the
U.S. could admit "defeat"; the only possible "victory" for al-Qaeda was
a
sympathetic response from within the Muslim world.
    In a revenge-seeking and deliberate confusion of host and guest, the
U.S.
military easily overthrew the essentially unarmed Taliban regime,
leaving
vast areas of the country in the hands of warlords, and partially
restoring
the freedoms (music and television, women without burqas and girls in
school, clean-shaven men) which the Afghans had enjoyed under that
oppressive Soviet occupation the U.S., through its fundamentalist
surrogates, the Taliban, had fought so long. [Freedom, however, only
goes
so far: A few days ago, a political cartoonist was thrown in prison for
mildly satirizing President Karzai.] The country is in ruins, but the
pipeline from Kazakhstan has now become a reality, and its plans are
drawn,
the fulfillment of an old dream among the Bush crowd. As Dick Cheney
said
in 1998, when he was CEO of Haliburton: "I can't think of a time when
we've
had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant
as
the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight.
The
good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are
democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States.
Occasionally
we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not
normally choose to go. But we go where the business is."
    The War on Terrorism has been good for business, but hasn't done
anything
bad against the terrorists. With one possible exception (an Egyptian
strategic planner), not a single important al-Qaeda member has been
killed
or captured. George Bush has not mentioned the name"Osama bin Laden" in
six
or eight months, and no wonder: He may think he's Wyatt Earp, but those
evil-doing Clanton Brothers aren't playing by the rules and they never
showed up at the OK Corral. So all Bush can do is just shoot at anybody
who
looks mean.
    After all, al-Qaeda-- once one strips away the propaganda-- appears
to
be
a group of, at most, a few hundred educated, middle-class fanatics, who
masterminded terrorist actions, mainly in Africa, at the rate of one
every
eighteen months. They also ran camps in Afghanistan for thousands of
young
peasants attracted to local jihads, including 5,000 trained by Pakistani
intelligence for incursions into Kashmir and 3,000 Uzbekis attempting to
overthrow the dictatorship in Uzbekistan (which receives hundreds of
millions of dollars in U.S. military aid). It is these Afghan and
foreign
peasants, Taliban foot soldiers and jihadis, that the Bush Team has
labeled
"al-Qaeda terrorists" and left to rot in Guantanamo Bay (in cages, by
the
way, identical to the one in which Ezra Pound was placed in Pisa in
1945).
Al-Qaeda, as the recent bombings in Kenya prove, continues as it did
before. Forced out of Afghanistan, it is merely less visible.
There is indeed a malevolent "sleeper cell" in the United States, but it
is
not the one in Attorney General John Ashcroft's apocalyptic imagination.
It
was formed in the 1970's, in the Ford Administration, by Donald
Rumsfeld,
then as now Secretary of Defense, and his young disciple, Dick Cheney,
whom
Rumsfeld got appointed as White House Chief of Staff. During the Reagan
years they attracted brilliant young ideological extremists: Paul
Wolfkowitz, Richard Perle, Eliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, among them.
In
1992, the last year of the Bush Sr. administration, convinced, as
everyone
was, that Bush would be reelected, and hoping for a second-term purge of
the multilateralists surrounding the President, they launched their
first
secret manifesto: "Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years
1994-1999," written by Wolfkowitz and Khalilzad, under the direction of
then Secretary of Defense Cheney.
    According to their "Guidance," with the collapse of the Soviet
Union,
the
"first objective" of the United States was now "to prevent the
re-emergence
[sic] of a new rival":
    "The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and
protect a
new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors
that
they need not aspire to a greater role."
    We must "discourage" the "advanced industrial nations" from
"challenging
our leadership." 
    "We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors
from
even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
    "We will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing. . .
those
wrongs which threaten our interests. . . Various types of U.S. interests
may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials,
primarily
Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism. . ."
    The report, which never mentioned any allies in these global
efforts,
was
an embarrassment to Bush Sr. and his consensus-building advisers, and
was
quickly suppressed after it was leaked to the New York Times. Then Bush
was
defeated by Clinton, and the cell went underground in the boardrooms of
corporations and right-wing foundations and think tanks.
    In 1997, "appalled by the incoherent policies of the Clinton
administration," they formed a group called the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), "to make the case and rally support for
American
global leadership" and to restore "military strength and moral clarity."
Their founding statement was signed by, among others, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Wolfkowitz, Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, and Jeb Bush (at the time the Heir
Apparent), along with such imams of conservatism as Francis Fukuyama,
William Bennett, and Norman Podhoretz.
    In September 2000-- when the election of Gore seemed a certainty--
PNAC
produced what was to become the Hammurabic Code of the Bush Jr.
Administration: _Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And
Resources For A New Century_. The document, which is endless, speaks
openly
of a "Pax Americana": expanding current U.S. military bases abroad, and
building new ones in the Middle East, Southeast Europe, Latin America,
and
Southeast Asia. It is contemptuous of the United Nations. It recommends
"pre-emptive strikes" and particularly mentions Iraq, Iran, and North
Korea. It suggests that to fight these countries we need small nuclear
warheads to target "very deep, underground bunkers." (Such weapons,
called
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators, are now being developed.) It speaks of
fighting and "decisively winning simultaneous major theater wars." (Thus
Rumsfeld's current obsession with taking on Iraq and North Korea at the
same time.) It is the origin of that bizarre, Teutonic phrase, "homeland
security." It advocates, as has now been done, pulling out of the
Anti-Ballistic Missile and all other international defense treaties-- in
the Pax Americana we won't need them. It recommends increasing defense
spending to 3.8% of the Gross Domestic Product (the amount of the 2003
budget, almost to the penny). It talks not only of controlling outer
space
with Star Wars weaponry, but also of controlling cyberspace, fighting
"enemies" (foreign or domestic?) on the Internet. One of its many charts
reads:
________________________________________________________________________
____
_
                    Cold War        21st Century
________________________________________________________________________
____
_
Security System:        Bipolar     Unipolar
________________________________________________________________________
____
_
Strategic Goal          Contain Soviet      Preserve Pax Americana
                Union
________________________________________________________________________
____
_
Main Military               Deter Soviet        Secure and expand zones
of
Mission(s)              Expansion           democratic peace; deter rise
                                    of new great-power competi-
                                    tors; defend key regions;
                                    exploit transformation of war
________________________________________________________________________
____
__
Main Military               Potential global    Potential theater wars
spread
Threat(s)               war across many     across globe
                    theaters
________________________________________________________________________
____
__
Focus of Strategic          Europe             East Asia
Competition        
________________________________________________________________________
____
__
    The U.S., in short, is "the essential defender of today's global
security
order." Allies are unnecessary; world opinion is irrelevant; potential
competitors must be crushed early. And, in the eeriest moment in the
report, it imagines "some catastrophic event," a "new Pearl Harbor,"
that
will be the catalyst for the U.S. to decisively launch its new Pax.
(Small
wonder that, on September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld insisted we
immediately
invade Iraq and, shortly after, Condoleezza Rice convened senior members
of
the National Security Council to ask them to "think about 'How do you
capitalize on these opportunities?'" )
    The Sleeper Cell has awoken. After successfully engineering a
judicial
coup d'etat to install their genial figurehead as President, they now
control the U.S. government. Led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, Wolfkowitz is
Deputy Defense Secretary, Khalilzad is Ambassador to Afghanistan, Libby
is
Cheney's chief of staff, Abrams (after having been disgraced in the
Iran-contra scandal, and after years campaigning for a law to require
the
posting of the Ten Commandments in every government building) is now
chief
White House adviser on the Middle East. A half-dozen others from PNAC
hold
important posts in the Defense and State departments. Their goal has
been
cheerfully described by Condoleezza Rice (who believes that Bush is
"someone of tremendous intellect"): "American foreign policy in a
Republican administration should refocus the United States on the
national
interest. There is nothing wrong with doing something that benefits all
humanity, but that is, in a sense, a second-order effect." Richard
Perle,
chairman of the Defense Policy Board, is more honest: "This is total
war. .
. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it
entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just
wage
a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from
now."
In ways that Ronald Reagan would envy, the Sleeper Cell is masterful at
manipulating the new forms of mass media, particularly the hyperbolic
television news and radio talk shows. It officially began the rhetorical
invasion of Iraq precisely on September 1 (in the words of Andrew Card,
White House chief of staff, "You don't launch a new product in August")
and
was relentless in creating frightening stories until the November
elections. Endless reports of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein
(some
of them, of course, true) were combined with assertions that, as
Rumsfeld
put it, there is "bulletproof evidence" linking Saddam and al-Qaeda
(none
of which has ever been produced), which in turn were combined with
frequent
warnings from Ashcroft and the FBI and the CIA of new "spectacular
attacks"
from al-Qaeda "that meet several criteria: high symbolic value, mass
casualties, severe damage to the American economy and maximum
psychological
trauma."
    It is dizzying trying to keep up with the news, to remember what
happened
the day before-- which is precisely their intention–but let two examples
suffice: In December, a few days after Iraq turned over a 12,000-page
list
of their weapons to the U.N.-- an act first demanded by the White House,
and then ridiculed when Iraq complied-- the media were suddenly flooded
with a story that Iraq had given al-Qaeda the nerve gas VX, an odorless,
colorless oil that causes death in minutes. This story, needless to say,
fit all the criteria for sensational news: Iraq/al-Qaeda connection,
gruesome death, and terrorist threat. A few days later, those
omnipresent
and anonymous "senior officials" were telling CNN that there was
"absolutely no intelligence" on this matter, "zero confirmation of
evidence." Obviously the story had originally come from the government,
and
it followed the classic pattern of what was, during the Vietnam War,
called
"disinformation": leak false information, wait until it has its effect,
and
then deny it, knowing that assertions remain in the collective memory
longer than their negations.
    Far more serious is the current frenzy over the possibility that
Iraq
will
somehow release smallpox, either among American troops in the projected
war, or in the U.S. itself through its imagined terrorist surrogates.
This
has led to the mass-production of smallpox vaccines-- to the delight of
the
drug company executives in the Bush inner circle-- ambitious plans to
vaccinate the entire country and the predictable "lifeboat" debates on
television of who should be vaccinated first.
    The smallpox panic largely comes from the assertions of Judith
Miller, a
New York Times reporter, that unnamed "intelligence sources" are
"investigating" whether a scientist named Nelja Maltseva from the
Russian
Institute of Viral Preparations visited Baghdad in 1990 and sold Iraq a
vial of a smallpox strain that caused an epidemic in Kazakhstan in 1972.
    Dr. Maltseva died two years ago. Both her daughter and a laboratory
assistant claim that she only visited Iraq once, in 1971, as part of a
global smallpox eradication effort, and that her last trip abroad was to
Finland in 1982. Furthermore, the Russians have always claimed that the
Kazakhstan epidemic never happened, but was merely Cold War propaganda.
    Edward Said attacked Miller years ago for her "thesis about the
militant,
hateful quality of the Arab world." Among her many books, she is the
co-author of _Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf_ with Laurie
Mylroie, who is the author of _Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against
America_, which expounds the theory that Saddam personally orchestrated
the
1993 World Trade Center bombing-- a theory that only Richard Perle seems
to
believe ("splendid and convincing"). Like almost everyone on the White
House Team, Miller is associated with two right-wing think tanks, the
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (the latest
issue
of its magazine features Oriana Fallaci on the "moral superiority of
Western culture") and the Middle East Forum, which has been posting the
names of university professors critical of Bush on its website. The
Forum
is run by Daniel Pipes, who is famous for his comment about the "massive
immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not
exactly
maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene".
    The general hysteria about smallpox, in other words, and the very
real
possibility of mass vaccinations with its statistically inevitable
corresponding deaths, is entirely the result of unsubstantiated rumors
published by someone with a clear agenda.
Meanwhile, over at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld has created 2POG, the $7
billion
Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, whose "super-intelligence
support
activity" will combine "CIA and military covert action, information
warfare, and deception." Along with the usual boys'-magazine fantasies
of
high-tech espionage (including something about "tagging" the clothes of
terrorists with DNA samples that can be perceived by laser beams from
satellites) the "proactive" component consists of "duping al-Qaeda into
undertaking operations it is not prepared for and thereby exposing its
personnel." That is, encouraging terrorist acts that will provoke an
American response. If this seems unimaginable, or paranoid, it is worth
remembering Operation Northwoods, which the Pentagon proposed to Kennedy
a
few months before he was assassinated. The idea then was a project of
bombings, hijackings and plane crashes that would kill American citizens
and lead to popular sentiment for an invasion of Cuba. (Kennedy-- even
James Bond-addicted Kennedy-- rejected that one.)
    Around another bend of the Pentagon, the Defense Research Projects
Agency
has created the Information Awareness Office, whose mission is "Total
Information Awareness" (TIA). The Office is run by former Admiral John
Poindexter, who in 1990 was convicted of five felony counts for lying to
Congress about the Iran-contra affair. TIA, according to Poindexter,
will
create "ultra-large-scale, semantically rich, easily implementable
database
technologies" that will allow the Pentagon to access "world-wide,
distributed, legacy databases as if they were one centralized database."
Which means: every possible computerized record in the U.S., on which an
individual's name appears, will be copied and collated by the Pentagon:
credit card purchases, library books, police records, automatic
toll-collectors on bridges, university course enlistments, membership
lists, and on and on-- as well as all e-mails and logs of Internet
surfing.
They have received $200 million for a pilot program. Over the door of
Poindexter's office is the motto "Scientia Est Potentia," Knowledge Is
Power. (George Bush presumably being the exception that proves the
rule.)
The Sleeper Cell has awoken, and there is nothing to stop them. The
Democratic Party, afraid of being branded "unpatriotic" by the
Republicans,
has gone into hibernation. The tattered remains of the Left is-- as the
Left always is-- more preoccupied with fighting among themselves. With a
few individual exceptions, there is almost no opposition in the major
media. (Powerful anti-Bush articles by, among others, Gore Vidal, Harold
Pinter, and John Berger, are published in England, but not here.) The
only
forum for criticism is the Internet, which, though still uncontrolled,
remains the one point in the PNAC program that has yet to be (openly)
addressed by the Bush Team. As we enter Bush II Anno III, anger has
turned
into a kind of sullen resignation.
    Perhaps the problem is that there are no words to describe this
Administration. All the pejoratives, however accurate, that might be
applied-- "warmongerers" and "imperialists," "corrupt" and
"bloodthirsty,"
"fanatical" and "criminal"-- have been drained of their meaning by
decades
of propaganda. They are as banal as the rhetoric of the think tanks.
Small
wonder that American writers have generally been either silent or
bathetic
("9/11 reminded me of the day my father died") on all that has happened
in
the last two years. We no longer have the words to even think about what
is
happening, about violence that is not "just like a movie," about people
like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Perle and Wolfkowitz and Rice and Ashcroft
and
Bush, who are not Pol Pot or Stalin or Hitler, who are lesser forms of
evil, but evil nonetheless. To begin to talk about them is to relive the
old nightmare of the scream with no sound.

 Dei tuoi disturbi mentali parlane con un buon analista.
eehhhh!!!!! Se uno la pensa in modo diverso subito 
dall'analista....forse sarebbe bene
una bella terapia di gruppo con tutti voi.....ma dubito che serva.. :(


 Tu neanche sai che cosa sia, una idea.
Tu si?


 rilievi degli ispettori (che smentiscono).
Gli ispettori non hanno ancora terminato il loro lavoro, aspettiamo.


 weinberg 
<snip>
Molte conferme, molte sorprese (per me). Le sorprese non fanno che
peggiorare il disegno, ahinoi.
Intanto gli ammerigani discutono di macdonald e del perche' noialtri
selvaggi europei lo detestiamo tanto. "Ma come, ero a [inserire una
qualunque capitale europea, gli ammerigani conoscono *solo* le capitali,
e probabilmente anche quelle se le devono cercare su google] l'estate
scorsa, e la gente faceva la fila davanti al macdonald". Inutile
affrontarli con la retorica quando non capiscono neppure i disegnetti.


 una bella terapia di gruppo con tutti voi.....ma dubito che serva.. :(
Ma sei davvero convinto di "pensarla"? Se smettessi due secondi di farti
i film dove arrivi e spacchi tutto per vendicare l'onore ferito, magari
riusciresti a focalizzare il bersaglio. Hint: parla ammerigano e
dovrebbe bere il decaffeinato.


 l'Uomo, 
Per quanto mi riguarda ringrazio l'europeissimo Clive Sinclair :-D
Il quale, detto per inciso, ha inventato il computer economico per
l'unico, egoistico scopo di finanziare le proprie ricerche nell'ambito
delle energie alternative. Avrebbe potuto essere miliardario se solo
fosse stato un po' strønzo; invece e' un uomo onesto ed e' soltanto
milionario! Che tordo, eh?
E la (a tutt'oggi) migliore, piu' umanistica, applicazione del computer
casalingo e' il web, che nella sua forma -appunto- "filosoficamente
corretta" (mioddio ^_^) e' una creazione europea.
E' una bella sensazione avere soddisfatto i bisogni primari e poter
finalmente uscire dalla logica produci-consuma-crepa; purtroppo anche da
noi gli adoratori del profitto la fanno da padrone: nel togliere la
nostra considerazione al denaro, ci siamo dimenticati di levargli anche
l'importanza.


 dovrebbe bere il decaffeinato.
Non so se vi è sfuggito, ma con voi io non ho niente di personale. Io 
non ce l'ho con voi.
Ve la prendete come se avessi detto qualcosa nei vostri confronti. Io ce 
l'ho con Bin Laden e compagnia per aver ammazzato quasi 3000 persone 
americane, ed il rancore che provo supera tutte le altre cose. Magari è 
sbagliato ma forse no. Io resto in attesa del giudizio degli ispettori 
prima di dare il verdetto, è comunque certo che se mi capitasse Bin 
Laden certamente saprei cosa fare...
Un saluto da un americano che vive in Italia e spera un giorno di 
tornare in America senza la paura di nuovi attentati come l'11 settembre.
-- 
Mark Greene
"Due cose sono infinite: l’universo e la stupidità umana,
ma riguardo l’universo ho ancora dei dubbi"
"God bless America"

 dovrebbe bere il decaffeinato.
E si strangola coi salatini...


 tornare in America senza la paura di nuovi attentati come l'11 settembre.
Te lo dico ad alta voce:
LEVATEVI DALLE PALLE BUSH E I SUOI. UNA NAZIONE NON LA SI FA MANDARE
AVANTI DAGLI INDUSTRIALI.


 Tu si?
Eggià.


 Eggià.
ooohhhh, vedi su un punto siamo d'accordo. :)
-- 
Mark Greene
"Due cose sono infinite: l’universo e la stupidità umana,
ma riguardo l’universo ho ancora dei dubbi"
"God bless America"

 ooohhhh, vedi su un punto siamo d'accordo. :)
Quale?


 affrontarli con la retorica quando non capiscono neppure i disegnetti.
comunque anche questi sono luoghi comuni...
sto a new york da tre anni e rispetto a milano dove sono nato e vissuto
trovo un ambiente e persone culturalmente piu' ricche...
ho fatto un anno di servizio civile ad alessandria e non ti dico il
clima vuoto e depresso di quella cittadina padana.
alla fine se passi il tempo libero a guardare la televisione alla fine
credi a quello che ti fanno vedere.
qui sono tutti incazzati con bush - tutti ti dicono che ha rubato le
elezioni...
ogni tanto leggo corriere/repubblica/
ansa.it
 e trobvo il giornalismo
italiano parecchi scadente.
mi ricordo telegiornali dedicare 10 minuti ai vari conati dei vari
politicanti a roma...
e il costanzo sscio' e amenita' varie.
in america se puoi ascoltiare NPR national public radio, BBC world
service e trovare notizie/opinioni/approfondimenti che in Italia ti
sogni.
poi ormai con l'internet puoi leggere in tempo reale il Guardian  o i
dispacci della Reuters.
sabato a new york c'erano 100/200.000 persone.
giovani anziani varia provenienza diversi stati sociali.
e chi conosco raramente va da mcdonald's...
nei fast food americani vanno soprattutto le minoranze dei ghetti -
quelli che non hanno educazione e non sanno che possono mangiare meglio
allo stesso prezzo.
i poveri mangiano pollo fritto e hamburger perche' ti danno un senso di
sazieta'.
e' un lungo discorso - e ci sono molte ingiustizie sociali qui in
america.
ma ci sono molte persone indipendenti / colte e preparate.
gli articoli che ho postato provengono dalla mailing list di un mio
amico musicista di fama che vive nel massachussets dove penso veramente
pochi si riconoscono in bush.
e se qui a ny vado in un bar alle 2 di notte posso parlare col barista
di guderian e del blitzkrieg. discutere dell'orrore inutile di hiroshima
e nagasaki.
non solo della figa e dello sport e di berlusconi.
gli americani non sono solo un gregge di seguaci di bush. e'
un'affermazione superficiale.
sarebbe come dire che berlusconi rappresenta l'italia...
allora che ci fai ancora li?
per rispondere a mark -
la CNN ha i suoi buoni interessi economici  per la 2a guerra del golfo.
magari segui anche la BBC e notizie canadesi....
prendere la CNN come verita' assoluta mi sembra un po ingenuo...
ho conosciuto un ex soldato della delta force che adesso fa il
buttafuori in un locale.
era un para'/cecchino.
ha vissuto in veneto per 5 anni negli anni 80.
ha combattuto nella prima guerra del golfo e mi ha detto che gli viene
da piangere quando pensa ai soldati itracheni uccisi come formiche,
seppelliti vivi nelle trincee dai carri armati/bulldozer.
appena potevano si arrendevano e baciavano gli stivali ai soldati
americani.
erano tutti magri e denutriti.
essere nel;l'esercito era l'unico modo per mangiare.
alla fine saddam mi fa schifo -
magari alla fine eliminarlo sara' il male minore -
ma bush mi ricorda quel poliziotto del film di orson welles "l'infernale
quinlan"/"a touch of evil".
non ha certo gli slanci idealistici di un bill clinton.
e i suoi collaboratori sono un rimpasto delle amministrazioni
nixon/reagan...
comunque allego un opinione dal nytimes di oggi...
potrebbe essere un saggio sul cinico opportunismo politico.
stefano
http://geocities.com/stefano_giovannini
February 19, 2003 
Flashback for the Kurds 
By PETER W. GALBRAITH 
WASHINGTON — As the Bush administration struggles to induce Turkey to
support a war with Iraq, our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq are
realizing that once again America is about to double-cross them. 
Zalmay Khalilzad, President Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi
opposition, went to Ankara this month and told top Kurdish leaders to
accept a large deployment of Turkish troops — supposedly for
humanitarian relief — to 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 1970's and then acquiescing
quietly as the shah of Iran made a deal with Iraq and stopped funneling
American aid to them. (Mr. Kissinger's standing among Kurds was not
helped by his explanation: "Covert action should not be confused with
missionary work.") 
After the Persian Gulf war, the first President Bush called on the Iraqi
people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When the Kurds tried to do just
that, the American military let the Iraqis send out helicopter gunships
to annihilate them. Mr. 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. Kurdish leaders have been courted at the highest levels, meeting
with Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
But American support hit a wall: Turkish consent to the deployment of
American troops for a northern front against Iraq is considered an
important, although probably not essential, element in American
planning. In addition to billions in cash, Turkey has demanded an
ironclad assurance that there will not be a separate Kurdish state. 
The Kurds did their best to meet Turkish and American concerns. They
promised 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 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 four 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, seeing the Kurds as an easier mark, 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. 
But the Bush administration may have gotten the power calculus wrong.
The Kurds have established a real state within a state, with an
administration that performs 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 already
completed work on a constitution for the region 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,
an American occupation force may have no practical way of preventing the
Kurds from going ahead with their federalist project. 
And now it seems Turkey's financial demands may exceed what Washington
is willing to pay, and Turkey will sit out the war. That could weaken
Turkey's influence in creating a postwar Iraq, and improve the Kurds'
prospects for self-rule. 
President Bush's war has always had a moral component to it: the
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. 
Peter W. Galbraith is a former United States ambassador to Croatia. 
Copyright 2003  The New York Times Company |Privacy Policy 

 l'importanza.
Grande verita': ma noi che usiamo mac, forse lo abbiamo scelto perche'
privilegiamo appunto la qualita' della vita, la centralita' dell'Uomo
rispetto al profitto, e tante altre cose che consociamo tutti.
Gli switcher non sanno neppure di cosa parliamo!
-- 

 tornare in America senza la paura di nuovi attentati come l'11 settembre.
e non hai paura di morire in un incidente d'auto mentre stai andando a
prendere l'aereo?
o di essere investito da un taxi a new york?
o di essere rapinato e accoltellato da un tossico?
cadere dal motorino e spaccarti la testa?
guarda che hai meno probabilita' di morire in un attentato di bin laden
che a tornare in auto da una discoteca un sabato notte...
e allora che fai - non vivi piu'?
non torni in america perche' hai paura degli attentati?
guarda al disastro nella metropolitana in corea...
e' pastato un tipo un po squilibrato e una bottiglia di liquido
infiammabile per uccidere 120 persone [forse 200] in pochi minuti...
basta andare dal benzinaio self service - non occore uranio o carbonchio
o vaiolo...
e tutto questo allarmismo e' anche propaganda per intimorire il pubblico
mantenendo supporto per la guerra e insabbiare scandali come quello
dell'enron dove migliaia di persone sono finite sul lastrico per
l'ingordigia dei potenti amici/finanziatori di bush...
-- 
http://digilander.libero.it/stefpics
remove "DONTSPAMME." to reply

 allora che ci fai ancora li?
infatti sto in Svizzera :-D
Purtroppo Berlusconi rappresenta *davvero* una certa Italia, e Bush ha
un seguito enorme; ambedue fanno presa sulla stessa tipologia di
persone: pseudoricchi che si credono tutelati e poveracci che sperano
nel miracolo economico.
Siamo noi che frequentiamo minoranze con una cultura decente, ma se ti
guardi in giro, *fuori* dal tuo giro, vedrai che gli ammerigani (che non
per niente non chiamo "Americani") hanno piu' o meno il punto di vista
del nostro amico ammazzaterroristi.


 Gli switcher non sanno neppure di cosa parliamo!
Quelli della pubblicita' si', ma non postano qui :-D


 Quale?
Ho l'impressione che sia di lingua madre swahili, non c'e' speranza.


 che idee strane, eh? :(
beh era il discorso di mark che ha affermato qualcosa sul fatto che l'11
settembre sono morti 3000 americani.
non erano solo americani -
poi non approvo l'affermare la nazionalita' dei defunti in una
tragedia...
poi sono morti sicuramente molti immigrati illegali di cui non si sa
nome/generalita'.
comunque molti americani non hanno idee cosi' superficiali come si crede
e come si legge da certi commenti...


 e come si legge da certi commenti...
...come molti italiani non hanno idee come le vostre.


 ...come molti italiani non hanno idee come le vostre.
E' evidente, dato che ci governa Silvio Banana...


 Si`, era chiarissimo... era ironia amara.
quello che e' forse amaro 
che mark non risponde piu' quando vengono riportati commenti e opinioni
di americani informati e autorevoli...
avrei voluto sapere il suo punto di vista piu' che leggere certi
commenti politici a livello di bar sport.
ho appena visto questa foto nell'ultima pagina di una nuova rivista di
cultura popolare.
un soldato irakeno morto col corpo carbonizzato e senza una gamba e il
viso intatto come stesse dormendo tranquillamente.
non vi era bisogno e non vi era una parola di commeno.
gli americani che dissentono hanno stile.
sto ascoltando NPR e fanno parlare anche chi la pensa diversamente.
se penso all'italia penso ai litigi del costanzo show...
litigare non serve.
communque se vuoi avere ottime informazioni con una prospettiva piu'
progressista puoi ascoltare NPR su 
npr.org
o la bbc world news.
sono critici con bush e soci -
ma rispetto a una repubblica o manifesto sono meno faziosi /
litigiosi...
e quando fai del buon giornalismo i fatti parlano piu' dei commenti o
delle opinioni.
stefano
-- 
remove "DONTSPAMME." to reply

 di americani informati e autorevoli...
<cut>
No non rispondo più, credevo ad un "dibattito" costruttivo, ma 
sull'altro ng si ricevono solo insulti...preferisco parlare di mac, 
almeno su questo argomento possiamo parlare senza prob.
Ciao.


 che sia una e tue risposte da vendicatore mascherato.
Argomento chiuso, non ci torno sopra. Parliamo di mac.
