War, baby,,,WAR!!

[jonnyflash]

This topic is about the war, so let's hear what all these performer folks have to say.I'll start!

This is from a NY writer and is pretty much how I feel.
"On the other hand, maybe 'Little Bush' is right. Maybe we should have the right to go and bomb any nation - or inhabitants thereof - that we find unsavory. Maybe we should be able to unload multiple tons of military hardware whenever the mood takes us. For that matter why don't we extend that privilege to all other nations as well? Everyone is free to solve grievances through the detonation of explosives!

Cambodia is free to level the Upper East Side to avenge Henry Kissinger’s secret carpet bombings. Britain can fire away at Boston to get at the source of all that IRA funding. Haiti can strafe Florida in hopes that they hit one of the murderous CIA-sponsored Ton Ton Macoutes the U.S. refuses to hand over to their courts for trial. Central America - lord knows their list of grievances is long enough - is free to blow Washington to bits, anytime it wants. Bombs away!

Except unfortunately we've tried that model already ... for much of the last several hundred years. And after the catastrophe of World War II was over, the fanfare was that we were going to try a new way to solve disputes. A multilateral forum, in which no one nation would dominate or be dominated. That was the idea behind the first so-called New World Order.

If America really wants to prove itself in the eyes of the world, then maybe it should start adhering to the principles that it helped to forge after World War II. Maybe we should start respecting international institutions, or silly little things like the GENEVA CONVENTION. If we want global support for actions against terrorism, then maybe we should stop blocking the U.N.'s efforts to actually come up with a definition for the word.

And if we don't like the way Iran, Iraq, or North Korea happen to be behaving on a given day, then we're just going to have to learn to use appropriate, multilateral methods of resolution and deterrence, for god's sake, rather than bombing sovereign nations into oblivion.

Or we could ignore the signs and just continue to clap away.

Clap, clap, clap."


tongue.gif

[River]

From the 60-s:

Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity.

River

[jonnyflash]

A Hip-Hop Casualty
Jennifer Bauduy, December 6, 2001

When author Susan Sontag and television talk show host Bill Maher disagreed with President Bush's assessment of the September 11th attackers as "cowards," they were chastised. Two columnists were fired from their papers for criticizing the president, and several newspapers pulled a political comic strip that noted Washington had trained Osama bin Laden. So when radio personality David "Davey D" Cook was fired after leading a heated anti-war debate on his program, San Francisco listeners were outraged. Was Cook the latest casualty of growing intolerance to independent views?

In early October, media conglomerate Clear Channel Communications fired Cook from its California affiliate KMEL, ostensibly due to budget cuts. The company -- which caused a furor for distributing a list to stations of songs it suggested not be played after September 11 -- dismissed Cook soon after he aired an interview with Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Lee was the only member of Congress to oppose authorizing Bush with sweeping war powers against terrorists.

[le pire]

Don't blame me I voted for Gore... Ok it was an absentee ballot and wasn't counted.

Some democracy. Makes me want to leave... Oh wait a minute, I did!

é t i e n n e

[jonnyflash]

-excerpts fom essay by Micheal Albert & Stephen R. Shalom

What is Terrorism?

Dictionary definitions indicate it is creating terror, employing fear for political purposes. More aptly, terrorism is attacking and terrifying civilian populations in order to force the civilians' governments to comply with demands. So Hitler's bombing of London was terror bombing, unlike his attacks on British military bases. The issue isn't what weapon is used, but who is the target and what is the motive. For terrorism the target is innocent civilians. The motive is political, impacting their government's behavior. Attacks on the public for private gain are not terrorism, but crime. Attacks on a military for political purposes are not terrorism, but acts of war.

Are Bin Laden and his network terrorists?

Bin Laden has issued public statements calling for the killing of U. S. civilians, among others. Evidence presented at trials compellingly ties the bin Laden network to terrorist attacks (the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the U. S. embassies in Africa in 1998). So even apart from Sept. 11, there is no doubt that bin Laden and Al Qaeda are terrorists.

Is the U.S. government terrorist?

When the U.S. government targets civilians with the intention of pressuring their governments, yes, it is engaging in terrorism. Regrettably, this is not uncommon in our history. Most recently, imposing a food and drug embargo on a country - Iraq - with the intention of making conditions so difficult for the population that they will rebel against their government, is terrorism (with food and medicine as the weapons, not bombs). Bombing civilian centers and the society's public infrastructure in Kosovo and Serbia, again with the intent of coercing political outcomes, was terrorism. And now, attacking Afghanistan (one of the world's poorest countries) and hugely aggravating starvation dangers for its population with the possible loss of tens of thousands, or more lives, is terrorism. We are attacking civilians with the aim of attaining political goals unrelated to them - in this case hounding bin Laden and toppling the Taliban.

What is the legal way of dealing with terrorism?

In our world, the only alternative to vigilantism is that guilt should be determined by amassing of evidence that is then assessed in accordance with international law by the United Nations Security Council or other appropriate international agencies.

Punishment should be determined by the UN as well, and likewise the means of implementation. The UN may arrive at determinations that one or another party likes or not, as with any court, and may also be subject to political pressures that call into question its results or not, as with any court. But that the UN is the place for determinations about international conflict is obvious, at least according to solemn treaties signed by the nations of the world.

Thus, to pursue a legal approach means assembling evidence of culpability and presenting it to the UN or the World Court. It means those agencies undertaking to apprehend and prosecute culprits. It does not involve victims overseeing retaliation without even demonstrating guilt, much less having legal sanction, much less in a manner that increases the sum total of terrorism people are suffering and the conditions that breed potential future terrorism

. If all terrorists were pursued through legal channels, what would the international response have been to the September 11 attacks?

Presumably, if provided proof of culpability, UN agencies would seek to arrest guilty parties. They would first seek to negotiate extradition. If a host government failed to comply, as a last resort they could presumably send in a force to extract guilty parties. But these actions would be taken in accord with international law, by forces led by international agencies and courts, in a manner respecting civilian safety, and consistent with further legitimating rather than bypassing respect for law and justice.



. If all terrorists were pursued through legal channels, what would the international response have been to the embargo of Iraq, the bombing of Kosovo and Serbia, and the bombing of Afghanistan?

These acts, among many others, violate international law in many respects, not least because they harm civilians. Presumably, then, were international legal channels strengthened and respected, aggrieved parties could bring these and other cases to legal attention, leading to diverse prosecutions, many of which would be aimed at officials from the U.S.


What are the reasons to oppose U.S. bombing of Afghanistan?

Guilt hasn't yet been proven.

Bombing violates International Law.

Bombing will be unlikely to eliminate those responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Huge numbers of innocent people will die.

Bombing will reduce the security of U.S. citizens.

But doesn't the U.S. have the right of self-defense?

If under attack, any country has the right to repel the attack, according to international law. But the right of self-defense is not unlimited. The standard precedent is the Caroline case, which held that action in self-defense should be confined to cases in which the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Thus, self defense would permit the United States to shoot down attacking enemy planes, but not to wage a war half way around the globe a month after a terrorist attack, a war that U.S. officials say might go on for years. Instead, this is the sort of situation that should be turned over to the United Nations for action.

But let's suppose someone doesn't like the above formulation. What norm would we want instead? If a country's civilian population is attacked, then that country has the right to determine the perpetrator to its own satisfaction, issue an ultimatum, determine on its own the adequacy of the response to the ultimatum, and attack the perpetrator's host country, causing great civilian harm. Would we really want this to be a universal norm? This would mean that Cubans could attack Washington on grounds that Miami harbors support for terrorists who have attacked Cuban civilians. Likewise, Iraqis, Serbs, and now Afghans, not to mention Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Colombians, Guatemalans, and so on, could all target Washington on grounds that the U.S. government has attacked or abetted attacks on their civilian populations ‑ and, for that matter, ironically, Washington can attack itself, on the grounds that it abetted the creation and arming of bin Laden's terror network which in turn attacked the U.S.

[le pire]

What do you mean by "innocent?"

I went to church one sunday in Liverpoole not long after Sept 11 and the priest said "50,000 people worked in the World Trade Center. Everyday, 50,000 people working in the pursuit of money."

He implied that they deserved it somehow and thus were not "innocent victims."

Arguments could be made about the Afghan population in the same way. For example, you know the REALLY FAMOUS photo of the Afghan whom with the piercing blue/green eyes? The photographer went looking for her in light of recent events and found out that she's currently hiding in the mountains somewhere with her two children because she worked for the Taliban! Does she deserve to be bombed..?

War is messy business.

It's far too easy to blanket different acts of the US government under one label. I think the actions on Iraq are totally unrelated to Serbia -- Solobodon was a maniacal dictator in the tradition of Hitler bent on ethnic cleansing. His motives are racial, religious and socio-political. Besides, the multinational sanctions and "terrorism" as you call it, worked and the people did overthrow his regime. Unfortunately, it's not so cut and dry as that. The Balkans are a historical hot bed of violence and unrest (WWI came out of there). The albanians (the "innocent" ones) are a HUGE problem in Italy, where the immigrate to and do lots of heroin and commit more violent crimes than any other segment of the population.


Iraq, it's all about $$$ and oil. The embargo is even called "food for oil." This sickens me. It's like the USA is saying "Ok our obese asses get to drive around in 8 miles per gallon SUV's or your entire population starves."

What particularly bothers me about the current situation is how unilateral the USA is being (not that it's a surprise). There seems to be an attitude of "well we were attacked so now we can do whatever we want and we don't have to answer to anybody." Sympathy from allies is quickly turning to disgust and anger. All too often this kind of mentality carries over into other relations and negotiations.

Will this ever end? Sadly, no.


é t i e n n e

[Danny Hustle]

[quote]Originally posted by le pire:
<strong>What do you mean by "innocent?"

I went to church one sunday in Liverpoole not long after Sept 11 and the priest said "50,000 people worked in the World Trade Center. Everyday, 50,000 people working in the pursuit of money."
He implied that they deserved it somehow and thus were not "innocent victims."

</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is pretty funny seeing that the richest conglomorate on the face of the planet is a church.

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: Danny Hustle ]</p>

[Triona]

[quote]Originally posted by Danny Hustle:
<strong>

This is pretty funny seeing that the richest conglomorate on the face of the planet is a church.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but it isn't his church... biggrin.gif

[le pire]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Danny Hustle:

This is pretty funny seeing that the richest conglomorate on the face of the planet is a church.

That fish is 10 days old and I ain't buyin' it. McDonald's pulls in more than any church, and the point could be made that they are more widespread.

é t i e n n e

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]</p>

[jonnyflash]

I'm with the Hustler on this one,
The pope has all kinds of gold and gems and crap, and his syndicate
er.. I mean organisation..owns more property than any other organization or individual on the planet.So many folks go to church like I used to, and so many pay their 10 to 20% tithe each Sunday.
The priest passes the basket instead of the hat!
We're being upstaged here!
Is that a cross under his robe or is he just happy to see me?

[le pire]

The church WAS a powerful organization, but unlike McDonald's, the don't have spy satellites that they use to determine population trends and where to build their next "installation." Ray Croc used to fly around in a Cesna to scope out where he wanted to start suburban sprawl.

Go ahead and rant against the church for being hypocritical, manipulative, pedeofiling old men etc etc etc, but as far as being an economic power? I don't think so. The catholic church in the USA? Certainly not. Besides, the USA is a protestant country so I think you're looking in the wrong direction. Try Pat Robertson and all his media conglomerates, and who's that TV guy who runs "Liberty" University? Scariest place on earth. I visited the campus once.

Yeah the pope has a palace... So what? So does the queen of England and how much power does she have? (zero) Nobody goes to church anymore in Europe and nobody cares what the pope says. Okay maybe the Italians care.


é t i e n n e

[Danny Hustle]

le pire,

What I state isn't a guess it is a well known fact. You can reference it not in one place but in 1000 places and you will see the same answer.

The Catholic church is THE richest organization on the face of the planet.

Microsoft doesn't make pocket change compared to church money.

It's a fact, not a guess. It is also irefutable. The church itself admits to it.

As for the people who died in the world trade center, they were not in there chasing money they were earning money to provide food, shelter, and clothing, for their families.

I knew three people personally that died that day. Two of them worked with me everyday. None of them was a rich capitailist money chaser. They were people working for a living to support their families just like you, and just like me.

Best,

Dan-
[quote]Originally posted by le pire:
<strong>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Danny Hustle:

This is pretty funny seeing that the richest conglomorate on the face of the planet is a church.

That fish is 10 days old and I ain't buyin' it. McDonald's pulls in more than any church, and the point could be made that they are more widespread.

é t i e n n e

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

[Danny Hustle]

Johnny,
We had better be careful, if we agree again I think the ground may open up and swallow us both! smile.gif

[quote]Originally posted by jonnyflash:
<strong>I'm with the Hustler on this one,
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Danny Hustle ]</p>

[le pire]

Dan,


I NEVER said I agreed with that stupid priest from Liverpoole.
This is something you non-catholics don't seem to understand: we don't blindly follow the mumblings of a senile polish guy in italy just because he's got the title of Pope. He's just there to give the organization some structure and tell us things like: statues are OK, we like the virgin mary, birth control is bad. We also can make up our own minds when it comes to the priest and his sermons, too.

Second, when people say the catholic church is richer than multinational corporations I say this:

Bullshit. You're just beating a VERY dead horse and saying "well euuhhh, everybody knows it's true." The catholic church no longer has any real power and is simply trying to hold on to what little is left. The Pope's palace's in France were seized by the government back in the 18th century and then what was left was taken after World War II in retribution for Italy going facist. The American catholic church has a massive priest shortage and is actually considering ordaining women. I worked in a church as a teenager, and I can tell you that what $$$ come in from the collection plate is enough to keep the parish running and do some humanitary projects, but it isn't much.

Besides, the church does far more good than harm. At least mine does. Do you go to church ever Sunday? The people who are so quick to condemn the church are most often the ones who have no part in it. Personally, I think criticism, should work the way comedy does: i.e. you have to understand it first. The performer who flails around on a unicycle in his act has spent years learning how to ride it perfectly.

And it isn't the Catholic church who's causing this crap in the middle east - that's your big money oil barrons.


é t i e n n e

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: le pire ]</p>

[Stephon]

I hate to inject some facts into this debate but:

According to Forbes, the world's company with the highest revenues is DaimlerChrysler. McDonald's ain't evin on the list, Steve.

"Smokescreens" by Jack T. Chick at Chick Publications (http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_10.asp) quotes "THE VATICAN BILLIONS" by Avro Manhattan:
"In a statement published in connection with a bond prospectus, the Boston archdiocese listed its assets at Six Hundred and Thirty-five Million ($635,891,004), which is 9.9 times its liabilities. This leaves a net worth of Five Hundred and Seventy-one million dollars ($571,704,953)."

"The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe."

Now, that book is 10 years old, (so the figures may be +/- at this point) and Mr. Chick clearly has an agenda, but there at least is some referencable information.

[le pire]

Thanks for the fact checking Stephon; and those are just the assets that they disclosed...


é t i e n n e

[Danny Hustle]

1. I never said you agreed with him.
2. I am not a non Catholic. Get your facts straight.
3. The church has more money than anyother organization in the world.
4. number three is a PROVEN fact. EVEN THE CHURCH ADMITS IT!!!!!!!! Do a google search and see for yourself.

Here is just one page, there are many more. And god forbid you should go to the library and do any real research.

This is from: http://www.georgetown.edu/centers/woodstock/publications/p-arch.htm

<strong>"Chapter 5: Financial Administration
Any diocese can give to the People of God only what the People of God can pay for. Msgr. Benjamin G. Hawkes.

While money isn't everything, it's probably better than holy pictures for paying people's salaries. Archbishop Edward T. O'Meara.

Without financial resources, the church, like any other organization, cannot do very much. Money buys food, clothing, shelter, and office supplies. It pays salaries, rent, telephone, and energy bills. Money cannot buy everything, especially the supernatural goals the church holds dear. But efficient and effective use of financial resources make the achievement of these goals a possibility.

Every archdiocese is a multimillion dollar operation. The smallest archdiocese, Anchorage, has a budget of $1.5 million for its central offices. The revenues of the New York archdiocese, including parishes, exceeded $264 million in fiscal year 1983. The endowment and deposit and loan funds of the archdiocese totaled more than $172 million. The plant facilities, evaluated at cost, were more than $811 million. Across the Hudson River in the poorer archdiocese of Newark the figures are still big. At replacement value, the 250 parishes plus schools are evaluated at over $1 billion. The annual operating budget is close to $100 million with 10,000 employees…." </strong>[/quote]

5. I am not bashing or critisizing the church I am stating a simple fact. I don't think it is bad that the church has money.
6. I have no oil barons. Get your head out of your ass and stop blaming me personally for the worlds problems.
7. I attend church regularly
8. Think about it, the Catholic church has been doing business for over 1000 years, by sheer existance in 1000 years it should have collected, and invested, more money than any other organization on the planet. This is common sense. Microsoft has only been in existance since the late 70's and they have billions. And they only sell software. The Catholic churh has been in existance over 1000 years and they sell life everlasting.

I don't know about you but I'd pay a lot more for life everlasting than I would for Windows XP. But hey, that's just me.

You are refusing to see the big picture. You say it is not rich based on what? Oh yes, your observation of one poor parish. Great, that makes a lot of sense. Brilliant argument. Do just a little research and you will see the light.

Also do not forget the rich (And I mean very rich) Catholics that die and leave all of their holdings to the church, plus churches pay no taxes, plus they own their own country.

I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you. As far as, "Any real power" goes I never said it had any and I don't know if it does. I said it had money, and it does, more than anyone else.

Best,

Dan-

[QUOTE]Originally posted by le pire:
[qb]Dan,


I NEVER said I agreed with that stupid priest from Liverpoole.
This is something you non-catholics don't seem to understand: we don't blindly follow the mumblings of a senile polish guy in italy just because he's got the title of Pope. He's just there to give the organization some structure and tell us things like: statues are OK, we like the virgin mary, birth control is bad. We also can make up our own minds when it comes to the priest and his sermons, too.

Second, when people say the catholic church is richer than multinational corporations I say this:

Bullshit. You're just beating a VERY dead horse and saying "well euuhhh, everybody knows it's true." The catholic church no longer has any real power and is simply trying to hold on to what little is left. The Pope's palace's in France were seized by the government back in the 18th century and then what was left was taken after World War II in retribution for Italy going facist. The American catholic church has a massive priest shortage and is actually considering ordaining women. I worked in a church as a teenager, and I can tell you that what $$$ come in from the collection plate is enough to keep the parish running and do some humanitary projects, but it isn't much.

Besides, the church does far more good than harm. At least mine does. Do you go to church ever Sunday? The people who are so quick to condemn the church are most often the ones who have no part in it. Personally, I think criticism, should work the way comedy does: i.e. you have to understand it first. The performer who flails around on a unicycle in his act has spent years learning how to ride it perfectly.

And it isn't the Catholic church who's causing this crap in the middle east - that's your big money oil barrons.


é t i e n n e

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Danny Hustle ]

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Danny Hustle ]</p>

[martin ewen]

' I am not a non catholic'
Wow thats a double negitive which is, as we all know, a tricky positive. (read 'I am a catholic.')
Is the other protaganist in this little hump catholic too?
Are we having a liberal catholisism contest.
Oh goody, who gets to pick up the folk guitar first.
So you're catholic by admission, you attend church regularily and you argue that by far your organisation is the richest on the planet.
great to be on the winning team isn't it?
Or am I missing something, .
Did you mean anti-catholic?
whatever.
Its a spiffing subject.

[Danny Hustle]

Hi Martin,

I knew you would chime in smile.gif

Somedays the double negative can work for you. I should have put non catholic in quotes, but what the hell.

I simply said the Catholic church has a shit load of money and the people I knew that died on 9/11 were not chasing a buck but making a living.

This caused le piere to accuse me of having oil barons. Which of course is silly. If I had oil barons I surely wouldn't be spending my time arguing with peasants like us. I'd be home counting my oil baron money with many beautiful women of questionable moral reputation. I would also convert to another religon unless I was friends with the Kennedy's. Then I would develop an Nantucket lockjaw and summer in Hianus (or however you spell it **wink**)

I will not be singing kumbia anytime soon and you should all be thankful.

What I am saying,

1. I am a catholic
2. the catholic church has more money than anyone
3. who do YOU think should have more money than GOD! (This is said while twisting my moustach with one eyebrow arched)
4. I attend church regularly
5. I think the catholic church is seriously f*cked up, but I am used to f8cked up things after all I live in America with MY oil barons.
6. GOOOooooo TEAM!

[quote]Originally posted by martin ewen:
<strong>' I am not a non catholic'
Wow thats a double negitive which is, as we all know, a tricky positive. (read 'I am a catholic.')
Is the other protaganist in this little hump catholic too?
Are we having a liberal catholisism contest.
Oh goody, who gets to pick up the folk guitar first.
So you're catholic by admission, you attend church regularily and you argue that by far your organisation is the richest on the planet.
great to be on the winning team isn't it?
Or am I missing something, .
Did you mean anti-catholic?
whatever.
Its a spiffing subject.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[jonnyflash]

Let me begin by stating that the establishment church has absolutely nothing in common with the school of Liberation Theology as practiced by Romero, and that I see them as two completely different animals.

My own research has revealed that almost every church in Vancouver receives $30,000 Canadian dollars mimimum per year from the provincial and federal governments.
The church with it's HQ in the Vatican has been proven the richest entity in the world.As for most powerful?...
Along with the lame once-was remnants of the monarchist regimes(unfortunately still reproducing),
some lame-ass has-been remnants of the theocratic regimes still cling to life.Are they rich? Yes. Do they have political power? Not in and of themselves, I'd say. I see them more as political managers of sorts, stampeding their flocks to this or that political party each election.Of course, the ability to do so means that they are always considered important and valuble by the real decisionmakers. They are playing McCoy to the financiers' Captain Kirk.
For the record, this writer spent 5 years in private Christian school
and attended multiple hundreds of sermons.
Huzza!

[Mr.Taxi Trix]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by le pire:
[QB]Go ahead and rant against the church for being hypocritical, manipulative, pedeofiling old men etc etc etc, "

OK!

In Boston a Catholic Priest
On little boy's butts likes to feast
He spreads god and light
Holds 'em down if they fight
Would the church tell him "bad boy!" at least?

Quite far from it, they covered it up
Moved him on to new litters of pups
With no birth control pill
There's more grist for the mill
And more lads to teach "Hey, bottom's up!"

So your weekly donation's well spent.
Instead of more food clothes or rent
Lawyers fees will be paid
For this sleeze to get laid.
(Thanks for such a great chance to just vent.)

[Prof Willie B]

Hey guys, I thought this was about war. I can understand the segue into religion because they seem to go hand in hand but I want to go back to the war thing.

What has me puzzled is Dubya's rants about "The Elvis Axle".

So the Koreans had something to do with it, big deal, they make half the parts in half the world's cars. The only involvement Iran or Iraq could have had is some of their oil (swapped for arms) might have been in it.
I know them "home-town, good old boys" take their Elvis seriously but surely George can take this issue up with the local Automotive Chamber of Commerce, rather than the UN.

The much misunderstood and maligned "Elvis' Axle" is not a world threat, simply a piece of junk in the back of "Billy Bob's Body Shop" at 22 Peach Tree Drive, Memphis.

I know, my big brother is a motor mechanic.

[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: Prof Willie B ]</p>

[jonnyflash]

My Theory:
1. The real problem is that markets must continually expand,
the rate of profit for Capital must continually increase.In a finite world.

2. The above forces compel US leaders to make their currency a continental currency, ie "dollarizing" the entire continent.They must do this soon in order to compete with Germany's Euro, which has already been made the currency in lotsa countries on THeir continent.

3.it's a (many fronted) battle between the leaders of the industrialized nations for
the land, labour and resourced of the unindustrialized world.

For the above reasons, I see a future of continental warfare where imperialists of the more developed continents will have huge wars over who gets to extract wealth from different areas of the world.
This will require the end of civil liberties as we have known them
within the imperialist states, and an increase in the number of internal wars and government repression in the unindustrialized world.

[martin ewen]

spamThis ones doing the rounds
I think its funny
In Speech, Bush Calls Iraq, Iran and North Korea 'Axis of Evil" -- N.Y.Times, 1/30/02
&gt;
Follow-up story:

spamspamspamspam ANGERED BY SNUBBING, LIBYA, CHINA SYRIA FORM AXIS OF JUST AS EVIL.
Cuba, Sudan, Serbia Form Axis of Somewhat Evil; Other Nations Start Own Clubs
&gt;
spamspamspam Beijing (SatireWire.com): Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address.
&gt;
spamspamspam Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having a dumb name, just for starters.spam "Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil... we're the best."
&gt;
spamspamspamspam Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded,although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.
&gt;
spamspamspam "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
&gt;
spamspamspam "An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein.spam "This is not my rule, it's tradition.spam In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the Axis.spam So you can only have three.spam And a secret handshake.spam Ours is wicked cool."
&gt;
THE AXIS PANDEMIC
&gt;
spamspamspamspam International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.
&gt;
spamspamspamspam Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs.spam Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia, and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.
&gt;
spamspamspam With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America; while
Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Should Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.
spamspamspamspam "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said
&gt; Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
&gt;
spamspamspam While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in
"Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application.
Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
&gt;
spamspamspamspam Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but
&gt; privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

[jonnyflash]

This is precious!

Spin of the Week
PR Watch, February 8, 2002
Not since the hysterical "This is your brain on drugs" ads have young people been so simultaneously perplexed and amused by the misguided efforts of grown-ups to get them to not do drugs. During the Super Bowl, the government reached uncharted levels of hypocrisy, launching an ad campaign that claimed your local drug dealer is in cahoots with terrorists like Osama bin Laden. Of course, the ads conveniently glossed over the U.S. government's historical role in the international drug trade. But the ads also seemed to forget some more recent history - that the War on Terror just installed into power some of the biggest heroin dealers on the planet, the Northern Alliance. For all the Taliban's myriad evils, they actually destroyed thousands of tons of Afghanistan's poppy crops. As GNN has reported, the return of the Northern Alliance may mean cheap smack for millions of patriotic youngsters:

Super Bowl Propaganda
In what appears to be the U.S. government's biggest single event advertising buy, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy spent over $3.2 million for two 30-second ads aired during the Super Bowl.

[jonnyflash]

Excerpt from interview with ex-cop Micheal Rupert
for the rest, go to: http://www.guerrillanews.com/counter_intelligence/194.html

Historically, it is extremely well documented that Osama bin Laden is and was a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency in the 1980's when he joined with Mujahedeen Freedom fighters in Afghanistan. He worked with Gulbadin Hekmatyar who was running six heroin factories under CIA protection in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As recently as 1996, the U.S. government had secret agreements with the government of Sudan to allow him sanctuary there for the purposes of monitoring him. In 1997-1998 after the cruise missile attacks on the El Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which were absolute disasters for the U.S. because no weapons were made there. The U.S. intelligence community had ample ability to know and to track his movements. I have just learned that from 1998, Reuters is reporting, that a green light was given for covert operations against bin Laden and when you couple this with the fact that we know now, from European reports from Germany, France and Israel, that advance warning had been given to the U.S. government of an imminent attack, the current U.S. government position on this is really not sustainable.


So let me get this straight. Because you have been really clear in our past conversations about the murky world of intelligence communities and the whole business of war. And you have discussed the fact that there is always some group or faction that benefits directly from an armed conflict. But are you saying that, even in this case, with the horrific damage done not only to the financial center of New York and the United States, but also to the psychological well-being of the American population, that some faction of the U.S. government had foreknowledge of these attacks?


I absolutely believe, at this moment, that the United States government had foreknowledge of the attacks and allowed them to occur.
To read more..click
here (http://www.guerrillanews.com/counter_intelligence/194.html)