[casi] Re: Foot-Shooting?

["Bert Gedin" <gedinbert@DELETETHIShotmail.com>]

Dear Antony & List,

Have just seen your message re. Blair's speech - this is my contribution
towards keeping the momentum going, although at risk of being seen as a
"conspiracy theorist".

Let's get straight to the major, concluding, point you make: that talk of
Israel as a motive for American aggression should be avoided. Really?
I beg to differ, in fact, aren't you playing into the hands of those
who wish to perpetuate the status quo, in Palestine, which, in practise
means gradually destroying the lives of Palestinians, depriving them of
livelihoods, homes, agricultural lands, the right to travel etc., in fact,
destroying anything which makes life worthwhile. Israel has been treating
the Palestinians with contempt, since many years, those Israeli-Jewish
citizens who deny that are either totally ignorant or caught up in a web of
self-deceit. Racism in any shape or form is obnoxious, including
anti-Semitism. But to deny people their right to respect and dignity, and
ultimately, forcing them off their own lands, is, surely, by any moral or
(normal)legal standards, crimes - on a massive, organised, scale - against
humanity. To, as you seem to be doing, advocate silence, is exactly what the
occupiers wish. Inadvertently, you may be colluding in the suppression of
the Palestinian people. In saying that, it is not my intention to insult
you, although you may not like what I say. People need to shed the layers of
propagandistic brain-washing, then to look, very seriously, at what is being
done in their name. - Should talk of Israel be avoided? On the contrary, in
the pursuit of truth, silence isn't neccessarily always the best ally! Free
Palestine!

Greetings,

Bert Gedin.








>From: "Antony Nelson" <AntonyNelson@blueswansystems.fsnet.co.uk>
>Reply-To: "Antony Nelson" <antony@blue-swan.co.uk>
>To: <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: [casi] Blair's speech -- keep the momentum going
>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:03:20 -0000
>
>First of all it is important to remember the war is not an Either/Or
>decision. We do not have to have a war/Or do nothing.
>
>Secondly the anti war movement should be attempting to frame the discussion
>on the real objectives of the US
>I have seen loads of alarming quotes from Bush and his dads buddies, I
>think
>that these are the way go forward.
>
>The currant Blair argument is based along these lines
>
>     war = free Iraq = good thing
>
>This may be true,  what is more worrying is
>
>     war = Destruction of treaties and organisation created to prevent
>global
>conflict = Massive Global instability
>
>It is pretty obvious how this would benefit the worlds only super power.
>
>A possible starting point would be to establish a list of these quotes and
>then attempt to confront Blair with them. Unfortunately I'm pretty c*&p at
>that kind of thing and all I could find was this article(bellow). But I
>vaguely remember talk of Global war, fighting multiple conflicts at the
>same
>time all dated prior to September the 11th and strong evidence of a pro war
>American regime. These should be asked as direct questions quoting source
>rather then being turned into a coherent accusation of intent..... It's no
>good drawing conclusions and sounding like a conspiracy theorist, better to
>ask if Blair supports the 'Project for the New American Century (PNAC)' and
>whether key allies such as the UK are 'the most effective and efficient
>means of exercising American global leadership' is not offensive to every
>other country on the planet. if so why is going along with this.
>
>And lastly talk of Israel as a motive for American aggression should be
>avoided. For some reason (at least in the UK) it comes across as being anti
>Semitic and is in effect a pretty good way of shooting yourself in the
>foot.
>(I also doubt Bush & Co. care about anyone's interests other then their
>own.
>religion loyalty and so on mean nothing to these people even oil is only a
>means to an end it's money and power they are after)
>
>
>
>SUNDAY HERALD 15th September 2002 (www.sundayherald.com)
>Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
>
>By Neil Mackay
>
>A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and
>his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime
>change' even before he took power in January 2001.
>The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a
>'global
>Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald
>Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W
>Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The
>document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And
>Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the
>neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
>The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf
>region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United
>States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf
>regional
>security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
>justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the
>Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
>The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US
>pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
>international security order in line with American principles and
>interests'.
>This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future
>as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and
>decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core
>mission'.
>The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the
>new
>American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written
>by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced
>industrial
>nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger
>regional or global role'.
>The PNAC report also:
>l refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient
>means of exercising American global leadership';
>l describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political
>leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
>l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
>l says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and
>Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf
>regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large
>a
>threat to US interests as Iraq has';
>l spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the
>presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to
>'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of
>democratisation in China';
>l calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the
>total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against
>the US;
>l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons
>of
>mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons --
>which
>the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: 'New methods of
>attack
>-- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available
>...
>combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and
>perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that
>can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
>realm of terror to a politically useful tool';
>l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and
>says their existence justifies the creation of a 'world-wide
>command-and-control system'.
>Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the
>leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: 'This is garbage from
>right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never
>seen
>the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney,
>who
>were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.
>'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their
>making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to
>control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister
>should
>have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>To unsubscribe, visit
>http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
>To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
>All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


_________________________________________________________________
Overloaded with spam? With MSN 8, you can filter it out
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&pgmarket=en-gb&XAPID=32&DI=1059


_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk