Blogs

Displaying 81-90 of 25858 results.
ID: 1971
Uid: 9
Author: 0
Category: 40
Title: MOSCOW TRIALS REDUX
Source:
Body: <p>In the 1930s Hitler was the number one enemy. So, the West was silent as Stalin used the (anti Semitic) Moscow trials to consolidate his rule. Today Islamism is our number one enemy and Putin is about to use (anti-Semitic) Moscow trials to consolidate his rule. Pity the long suffering Russian people. They have only just began to breath again.
ID: 1972
Uid: 9
Author: 0
Category: 40
Title: FOLLOW INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ON THE SITE INSTITUTE
Source:
Body: <p>Click <a href="http://www.siteinstitute.org"> here </A>for a useful site which gothers the latest information available about international terrorism.
ID: 1973
Uid: 9
Author: 0
Category: 40
Title: BUMERANG IN SAUDI ARABIA
Source:
Body: <p>Well, its sad to say, but the trouble the Saudis are having with AL Qaida is not all bad. After years of financing havoc in other countries, they are beginning to reap at home what they have sowed elsewhere. 9/11 did nothing to alter their modus operandi. This <a href="http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031106074209990002&_mpc=news%2e10%2e3"> type of occurance </A>makes us all safer.
ID: 1974
Uid: 9
Author: 0
Category: 40
Title: INTERNATIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE IRAQI WAR
Source:
Body: <p>There is a determined effot in the American media to ignore the wider fallout from the Vietnam war. The pundits elsewhere are more forthcoming. Note this Russian <a href="http://www.cdi.org/program/index.cfm?programid=75"> Russian perspective. </A>
ID: 1975
Uid: 9
Author: 0
Category: 40
Title: YES, WE ARE WINNING
Source:
Body: <p>I am planning a longer piece on this topic but the growing disconnect between reality and perception on our progress needs an immediate correction. It is important to recognize that we are making enormous progress. <p>A 1. Jihadists, Moslem anti Semites and radical clerics no longer operate under the radar screen. <p>2. The international civil society no longer blames all the world's illS on Western transgressionS but begins to notice the villainy of tyrants. Note recent reports about the North Korean Kulag. <p>3. The UN reports on the Arab world are providing moderate Moslems with much needed ammunition against Islamists and their own autocratic governments. <p>4. They cheered Mahathir's speech not only because of its anti-Semitism but also because he said that the Islamic Culture of Death is INEFFECTIVE. <p>5. How much pressure is on al Qaeda now? Enough for an Egyptian Islamist lawyer by the name of Montasser el-Zayat to argue in a recent interview with AFP that al-Qaeda is dead. Zayat was imprisoned between 1981 and 1984 for belonging to Jamaa Islamiya, and has played an intermediary role between Jamaa and the government, when the group called a halt in 1998 to a wave of violence which claimed around 1,300 lives in the 1990s. Zayat who claims to be in e-mail contact with al-Qaeda's number two, an Egyptian named Ayman al-Zawahiri, argued that the group was destroyed during the war in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States because"They no longer (have) the territory on which they were based, the (Taliban) government which supported them has been overthrown and the money they had in their hands has been frozen." Zayat went on to attribute Osama bin Laden's recent tapes to the al-Qaeda leader's wish"to reassure his friends and supporters that he is still present" amid rumors about his fate. Zayat acknowledges that al-Qaeda leaders can still spur"angry young people" into staging attacks worldwide but argues that those attacks are no longer coordinated." Indeed, the only reason Washington does not declare victory argues Zayat is"to justify their so-called war on terrorism." In other words, Zayat would like to explore ceasefire possibilities. <p>B. By going to war in Iraq, the American Gulliver reaped the ropes the Liliputions so carefully tied around it and the world knows it. Hence - 1. The Security Council resolution is passed 15 to0. Compare it to Resolution 1284 passed in 1998 after the Clinton administration made a major compromise to try and rebuild Security Council consensus and agrees to ease significantly the sanctions on Saddam only to have FRANCE, RUSSIA, CHINA AND MALAYSIA abstain! <p>2. It is the Chinese foreign minister, not Jimmy Carter, who read the riot act to the second member of the Axis of Evil - North Korea. Moreover, American relations with China, Japan and South Korea are excellent. <p>3. It was not Jimmy Carter but the foreign ministers of Germany, France and US ally Britain who went to Teheran to read the riot act to the third member of the Axis of Evil. <p>Now its not the time to rest on our laurels. Our sons and daughters are still dying and our enemies are surely busy reconfiguring their strategies. we have a long, hard slog ahead and hubris is the fastest road to defeat. Still, let's not lose by permitting our opponents TO throw enough sand in our eyes to obstruct the vision of our real progress.
ID: 1976
Uid: 16
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: ANTI-IMPERIALIST DILEMMAS, 1900 AND 2004
Source:
Body: <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/1621.html#12200301"> Sam Koritz points out <a> that nineteenth century classical liberals, like modern antiwar libertarians and conservatives, had intense debates about the comparative advantages of third party and major party strategies. This was certainly true in the 1900 when anti-imperialist gold democrats pondered whether to support William Jennings Bryan over McKinley. <P> Because of their hatred of Bryan&#8217;s views in 1896, many had bolted to the <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/1621.html#12200301">National Democrats<a>, some had stayed home, and some had supported McKinley. Now, they were faced with an every greater dilemma. Their old nemesis, Bryan, had endorsed anti-imperialism but refused to tone his inflationist support for free silver, thus directly attacking the gold standard they had long championed. What would they do? <P> The gold democrats split into four camps. As Koritz notes, many held their noses and voted for Bryan. Others stayed home. A few backed McKinley because of his continuing defense of the gold standard. Some, including Oswald Garrison Villard, Senator Carl Schurz, and Moorfield Storey, made plans for a third ticket. <P> Villard even made a personal visit to Grover Cleveland to try to persuade him to run as a third party candidate in 1900, possibly under the National Democratic banner. Cleveland, believing that the voters had no interest in what he had to say anymore, politely turned down the offer. But Villard, Storey, and their allies were not quite ready to give up yet. They organized the National Party to run Senator Donelson Caffery, a pro-gold/anti-imperialist Democrat from Louisiana. The campaign collapsed, however, when Caffery (without explanation) pulled out of the race. McKinley went on to defeat Bryan yet again and a new classical liberal/anti-imperialist party was stillborn. <P> Koritz properly cites the parallels to 2004&#8230;but the differences are also significant. Many classical liberals had at least one good reason to vote for McKinley. For all his faults, he had upheld the gold standard. In 2004, by contrast, Bush does not offer any similar temptation. Because of his unrelenting big-government approach, most recently with the Medicare bill, he has not only abandoned free market conservatives and libertarians in domestic policy but thumbed his nose at them. Does this mean that libertarians and anti-war conservatives should consider voting for Dean much like their ideological ancestors who backed Bryan? I do not think so&#8230;.but will save that for a later blog.
ID: 1977
Uid: 26
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: I'LL BE HOME FOR CHRISTMAS
Source:
Body: <P>Over the last several years, I've had more than a few things to say about Christmas, my favorite holiday of the year, including these reflections on <a href="http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/integratedlife.asp"><I>A Christmas Carol</i></a>, the <a href="http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Heroes/charlesdickens.asp">Charles Dickens</a> classic. Whatever my"Randian" predilections, some of my <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/about/favorite.htm#film">favorite films</a> have carried religious themes, including my Number 1 Favorite Film of All Time <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/benhur.htm"><I>Ben-Hur</i></a>&#8212;which opens with the birth of Jesus&#8212;though I do believe that this"Tale of the Christ" can be read more universally and symbolically as a story of personal integrity, struggle, and redemption. <P>Christmas brings forth some of the most creative impulses of the human spirit. That was one aspect of the holiday that wasn't lost even on ol' atheist Ayn Rand. One can see that impulse everywhere&#8212;from the joviality of Internet displays (see <a href="http://holidays.blastcomm.com/">here</a>, <a href="http://ww12.e-tractions.com/snowglobe/globe.htm">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.noradsanta.org/">here</a>) to the holiday displays in department store windows to the extra care on display in the work of those who love their craft, of whatever degree of specialization. <P>That love of craft I witnessed just the other day when I was in a local chocolate specialty shop. We picked up a wicker basket of chocolates, and it was wrapped very nicely, I thought; but the sales woman insisted on adding to the basket a custom-made green bow. She must have been in her late 60s, and the way she tied that bow reflected a lifetime of pride in her work. Call me a sap, but I was actually emotionally <I>moved</i> by the masterful focus she brought to every twist of the ribbon in her skillful hands. <P>The fun of this holiday season includes the fun of gift-giving (and gift-receiving) and the fun of eating, especially those outrageously delicious foods shared with friends and family (which, dietary restrictions aside, includes pets). I know my dog Blondie approaches Christmas morning like an impatient kid, as she rips into her presents with singular purpose (see <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/Photopages/dog6.htm">here</a>, <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/Photopages/dog19.htm">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/Photopages/dog20.htm">here</a> for some past Christmas doggie pictures, with her"eyes all aglow" indeed...). <P>Everything about this holiday is dripping in good sentiment: from the Christmas songs to the beauty of the lights that decorate the neighborhoods of my home-sweet-home in <a href="http://www.nycc.org/photos/xlites/">Brooklyn, New York</a>. <P>Most of all, however, I find the message of peace, benevolence, and goodwill to be more intoxicating than any Christmas Egg Nog. It's the kind of message that has <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/internet1201-503.htm#silent-night">led some soldiers on opposite sides of a battle to lay down their arms</a>, and nearly all soldiers so engaged to yearn for home. <P>When the song"<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cocoon/patriotism/loc.natlib.ihas.200000010/">I'll Be Home for Christmas</a>" made its debut for the <a href="http://www.dickinson.edu/~history/product/garrity/section2.html">World War II generation</a>, there was no way of knowing just how its themes would resonate with other generations of American soldiers. So, here's the lyrics to that song, in dedication to those men and women, whose"dreams" of home <I>must</i> become reality much sooner than later: <P><b>I'm dreamin' tonight of a place I love</b><P><b>Even more than I usually do</b><P><b>And although I know it's a long road back</b><P><b>I promise you</b><P><P><P><b>I'll be home for Christmas</b><P><b>You can count on me</b><P><b>Please have snow and mistletoe</b><P><b>And presents under the tree</b><P><P><P><b>Christmas Eve will find me</b><P><b>Where the love light beams</b><P><b>I'll be home for Christmas</b><P><b>If only in my dreams</b>
ID: 1978
Uid: 28
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: NOT SO CUDDLY
Source:
Body: <p>It occurs to me that I haven't yet stated (and I should) that: My views don't necessarily reflect those of Antiwar.com.</p><p>I'm pleased to see <a href=http://hnn.us/articles/1621.html#12180304>Chris Sciabarra's link</a> from this blog to"<a href=http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=36&num=8955>The Saudi Connection: How Billions in Oil Money Spawned a Global Terror Network</a>," by David E. Kaplan, with Monica Ekman and Aamir Latif, featured in the December 15 <I>U.S. News and World Report</I>. This article, based on five months of research,"a review of thousands of pages of court records, U.S. and foreign intelligence reports, and other documents," and in-depth interviews with"more than three dozen current and former counterterrorism officers, as well as government officials and outside experts in Riyadh," provides compelling evidence that the Saudi state continued to support al Qaeda after the alleged cutoff date of 1989 - right up to the Sept 11, 2001 (at least) - and that bipartisan US government support for jihad, particularly Saudi-led jihad, obstructed investigation and apprehension of anti-American <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=P243_0_1_105">Teflon terrorists</a> in the United States. Even an unethical, interventionist, Machiavellian approach to foreign policy, if rational, would have required the abandonment of US support for jihad after the dissolution of the Soviet Union but, unfortunately, government programs are easier to start than to end. Corrupt alliances offer tangible benefits to a few insiders, while the costs are paid by many outsiders: taxpayers, innocent bystanders, and soldiers.</p><p><a href="http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/020324ewoksvscharlie.htm"><img src="http://www.corporatemofo.com/Pix/020324_ewok1.jpg" vspace="6" hspace="6" border="0" align="right"></a><I>US News</I> is a respected mainstream source, and this article demonstrates the costs of interventionism, yet the vast majority of antiwar and (real, as opposed to liberventionist) libertarian sites have ignored it (<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22saudi+connection%22+david+e.+kaplan">check it on google</a>). I suspect that the left and liberal antiwar sites are ignoring the story because much of the damage occurred during the Clinton administration. But why have non-leftists opponents of war and empire ignored it? Why this insistence on portraying the terror-promoting theocratic Saudi monarcho-kleptocracy as a maligned republic of Ewoks? One of the reasons seems to be dualistic thinking, the idea that if members of the pro-war lunatic fringe criticize Saudi Arabia while advocating war then any criticism of Saudi Arabia must be pro-war. Highly illogical: our adversaries may be wrong in all their conclusions but that doesn't mean that their every statement is a lie - they'd be much less effective if so; actually, they mix truth, falsehood, exaggeration, logic, bias, and faulty reasoning. It's absurd to insist that the world conform to the opposite of anyone's opinions.</p><p>If anti-interventionists ignore the mountain of evidence indicating Saudi government support for al Qaeda, it's likely to lead to a loss in credibility; it could also actually encourage intervention in Saudi Arabia. Considering the many business and personal ties between the Bush administration and Saudi royalty, not to mention the lack of a pro-US alternative, intervention by the US in explicit opposition to the monarchy is unlikely. More likely is intervention in defense of the monarchy, or certain factions thereof, and/or the Saudi state. That being the case, it's likely that the greater the degree of (misplaced) trust in the quasi-ally, the greater the support for intervention.</p><p>More speculatively, I think there's a tendency among non-leftist anti-interventionists to blame US interventionism on alien and ideological fringe influences. This seems to be our equivalent of the old Russian peasant expression:"If the czar only knew&#8230;!" Today, some wish to believe that Bush II is a reasonable, ethical, non-interventionist Forrest Gump who's merely being misled by his weirdo ministers. This assumption is apparently based on some comments made during the presidential campaign, as if campaign promises have predictive value.</p><p>Another issue involving words vs. deeds is this supposed US-backed democratic revolution targeting Muslim and Arab nations. Is there a single Arab or Muslim nation allied with the United States that could credibly be called a democracy? If not, where's the revolution?</P><p>Even the existence of a war against anti-US terrorism is questionable. In defense of the idea we can cite the fact that some terror-funding organizations have been shut down and <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=P322_0_1_0">some</a> terrorists and supporters have been arrested and some killed, and the overthrow of the Taliban may have weakened al Qaeda. On the other, the prominent jihadiphilic US government officials that allowed and encouraged terrorists to infiltrate the America have not been removed or punished - on the contrary, they've been rewarded for with increased funding and power. It's also not clear if the Saudi and Pakistani governments, their intelligence agencies in particular, have stopped aiding al Qaeda. Karzai's Afghan government accuses Pakistani intelligence of shielding the Taliban and al Qaeda:</p><p><I>"In Pakistan, meanwhile, President Pervez Musharraf has twice asked Riyadh to curtail the millions of Saudi dollars that pour into local Islamic political parties, jihad groups, and religious schools. Again, the Saudis have promised change, but Pakistani officials are skeptical. They point to the visit to Mecca last month by the chief of the Jamiat-e-Ullema Islam, one of Pakistan's top Islamic parties. The JUI shares power in Pakistan's Northwest Territory, where it provides sanctuary for Taliban members staging attacks in Afghanistan. Why was JUI's boss in Mecca? For fundraising, JUI sources told </I><a href=http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=36&num=8955>U.S. News</a><I>."</I></p>
ID: 1979
Uid: 20
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM DOUBLE STANDARDS
Source:
Body: In Monday&#8217;s <I>Washington Times</I> there are two excellent columns concerning the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. In the first one <A HREF=http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031221-100048-6898r.htm>Nat Hentoff</A>, quite possibly America&#8217;s staunchest defender of the First Amendment, highlights some of the arguments made by the dissenting judges. Their points are so valid that they leave one with a sense of wonderment as to how the other justices could have voted to sustain a law so clearly injurious to our right to free speech.<P> Hentoff also reminds us that the law in effect curtails the ability of individuals of modest means to speak politically during the crucial period before an election by denying them the right to pool their resources, while it leaves the First Amendment rights of billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates intact. At the end of his piece he quotes a letter writer to the <I>New York Times</I>, Edward Wronk, who says, &#8220;The powerful have only gotten more powerful.&#8221;<P> In the second column <A HREF=http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031221-100044-6378r.htm>John R. Lott Jr.</A>, perhaps America&#8217;s staunchest Defender of the Second Amendment, discusses a recent announcement by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that it is considering buying a television or radio station. Just as Hentoff shows that the law fosters inequality among individuals Lott demonstrates that the law creates inequality among institutions. He asks, <blockquote>&#8220;But what really distinguishes General Electric&#8217;s versus General Motors&#8217; ability to influence elections? Is it really simply ownership of television networks? Can unions buy radio stations? Can anyone possibly rationalize such distinctions?"</blockquote></B> Apparently McCain, Feingold, and Sandra Day O&#8217;Connor can but I can&#8217;t.<P>
ID: 1980
Uid: 19
Author: 32
Category: 41
Title: HARD-LINE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: SYMBOLIC GAIN, REAL PAIN
Source:
Body: Lately, the Bush administration and its neo-conservative supporters have been crowing about how President Bush's hard-line foreign policy caused Muammar Qaddafi to end his unconventional (biological, chemical and nuclear) weapons programs and open them to international inspections. They have also been implying that the tough U.S. policy will continue to make bad regimes capitulate. But the gains from Qaddafi's abandonment of such programs are mostly symbolic. In contrast, the president's aggressive foreign policy has made the danger of a terrorist attack greater than at any time since the attacks on September 11, 2001.<P> Much has been made of the timing of Qaddafi's first overture to negotiate an end to his unconventional weapons programs--in March of this year, shortly before the United States invaded Iraq. Although the imminent U.S. invasion may have prompted Qaddafi's feelers to bargain away his weapons efforts, Qaddafi has been trying to mend fences with the United States and the West for a decade. Five years ago, he turned over two Libyans for trial in the terrorist bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988; recently, he agreed to pay reparations for the incident. British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted that Qaddafi's disarmament initiative arose from the success of those negotiations. Also, for several years Libya has eschewed terrorist attacks. And it is probably no coincidence that negotiations to end Libyan unconventional weapons programs accelerated only after the United States agreed to allow the United Nations to end economic sanctions against Libya. Qaddafi most likely wanted to see some gains from his years of efforts to reconcile with the West before he made any more concessions.<P> Moreover, Qaddafi has watched as the Bush administration was accused of hyping evidence about the threat of Iraqi unconventional weapons to justify the war and became bogged down in a Middle Eastern guerrilla quagmire--both of which make the probability of a U.S. invasion of Libya over its weapons programs much less likely. Also, Qaddafi has seen the Bush administration's initial tough line toward the North Korean nuclear program melt into a much milder policy than that of the Clinton administration. In 1994, President Clinton had threatened war unless the North Korean regime froze its nuclear program. In the wake of North Korea's subsequent admission of cheating on the nuclear freeze agreement and withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Bush administration is now making noises about negotiating an end to North Korea's nuclear program in return for a normalization of relations with that nation-the right policy but hardly a hard-line policy that would send shivers down Qaddafi's spine.<P> What did Qaddafi concede? He apparently had stockpiles of crude chemical weapons, a primitive biological weapons program and a fledgling nuclear program. Although Qaddafi's renunciation of such weapons is a positive development, Libya's ability to produce any of them has been undermined by the sanctions and Qaddafi's purges of scientists. Thus, Qaddafi probably concluded that the minimal losses from giving up his crude weapons efforts would be more than offset by the economic rewards of playing"reformed dictator" poster boy in the Bush administration's public relations efforts to defend hard-line policies in the Middle East, which lately have been under fire. So vanquishing the overrated"Libyan threat" is less of an accomplishment than meets the eye.<P> Meanwhile those truculent Bush administration policies are likely to pose the very real danger of"blowback" to Americans everywhere from an enraged Islamic world. Tom Ridge, the president's own secretary of homeland security, raised the U.S. alert level and announced that the danger of a terrorist attack, possibly in the United States, is"perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11, 2001." Despite the firestorm in even the mainstream media when Howard Dean perceptively noted that the capture of Saddam Hussein had not made the United States any safer, the administration now seems to be confirming that fact. And, when polled, 60 percent of Americans also agreed with Dean's view. Thus, the hard-line Bush administration foreign policy toward the Middle East likely will reap only symbolic gain but very real pain.<P>