H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
YOU FLASHBACK RE THE ANTHRAX
SCARES:allaboutoil//UPGRADEmag// oct 16 2001 The UPGRADEmag (the Upgrade Emag, or just the "UP") is a global edutainment news round-up, ‘broadcast’ weekly to =[10,574]= Trance// New Age// Alternative// Activist// Zippy folks who have been recommended to the Parallel YOUniversity/ Megatripolis Dance Dept as "showing signs of life". Since many recipients choose to forward it to their own lists, we estimate 26,500+ recipients. Further, because of its less 'specialist' content, it's increasingly being posted on a variety of sites worldwide, making a total weekly ‘readership’ of 275,000+ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H MAKE THE UPGRADE FIT YOUR SCREEN BY CLOSING ANY BOX ON LEFT "The UPGRADEmag is rapidly becoming the best compendium of topical sanity around." William Robertson, West London Yogashala QUESTION: HOW DO WE PREVENT ANOTHER 20,000 BEAUTIFUL AMERICANS FROM BEING SLAUGHTERED, POISONED, PLAGUED OR NUKED? ANSWER: BY HELPING THEM STOP THEIR GOVERNMENT FROM DOING IT TO ANOTHER 50,000 'FOREIGNERS! Every government in the Middle East other than Iraq condemned the Sept 11 attacks, and even Iraq sent its condolences to the victims. The enormity of the slaughter horrified many people in the region, and there were many deeply felt expressions of sympathy for those who lost their lives. But a large reservoir of anti-Americanism led many people to feel that the United States was finally getting back some of what it deserved. Among Palestinians, a poll in early October found that two-thirds considered the attacks to violate Islamic law, while a quarter thought them consistent with it. The poll showed Palestinians angry about the US government foreign policy, but not at Americans. But even among the horrified, most people in the region oppose the war on Afghanistan. The above Palestinian poll found 89% criticizing a US attack on Afghanistan, with 92% believing that it would lead to more attacks on the United States. # 'One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted.' Oscar Wilde FEEDBACK ON THE 'UNLEASH THE DOGS OF PEACE' DEMO ON SATURDAY THIS WAS THE FIRST BBBIIIGGG ONE!!! 50,000 attended (police on-site count) or 20,000 (most radio & tv reports) certainly far more than the police or organisers had expected, and more than I had even hoped for! there was such a variety of banners and chants that, by the time we reached Trafalgar Square, I started to ask friends their favourite. most enjoyed seemed to be "GEORGE BUSH WE KNOW YOU! YOUR DADDY WAS A KILLER TOO!" nice to see democracy in action and to feel cocooned in so much fookin sanity sensitivity everywhere! onlookers, as the Great Caravansarai made its triumphant but idealist-jammed way down Picadilly, seemed pleasantly stunned to see so many for peace, and there was no trace at all of violence in the air. Trafalgar Square was rammed. maybe the best thing was seeing all the arab/muslims experiencing democracy and being surrounded by lots of (decadent?) westerners of every age and background - i saw democracy letting off steam exactly as the theory goes that it should. and now a variety of middle easterners gazed down from the big lions of empire upon the kids splashing happily in the fountains, mums and dads picnicking on the floor, freeks playing guitars while ghetto blasters mixed in all the sounds of the underground. ravers, elderly peace campaigners and family, middle easterners, green wellies, distinguished older hippies, squatters, old soldiers, all nationalities, it's easier to think of who wasn't there! similar demos happened in most big European cities. the cameras didn't quite go from mega protests in Iran to riots in Palestine and Malaysia to huge peace rallies in european cities but then the war machine is maintaining a tight grip at the moment - which will have begun to lose its grip by the next one! # It was a terrific mix of people of all races, ages and religions. I have never seen so many divers people unified . Babies in pushchairs and octogenarians with folding seats sticks and frame. the women who dress all in black and have to cover their hands and face completely? They are normally completely subservient to their husbands but they were there too. Some were holding placards others standing on the statue's base waving banners. A woman in a wheel chair was handing out leaflets, blind people being led by their carers (it was a bit too crowded and confused for guide dogs) # It was one of the most positive demos I've ever been on - all kinds of people supported us. What made it unique is that for the first time not everyone had exactly the same agenda, but we all wanted peace. there were as many people demonstrating against war in general as against Bush and Blair, or their own particular piece of state sponsored terrorism (Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq etc) and terrorism in general. # The speeches were brilliant and some of them moved me to the edge of tears. There was a good PA system which makes a big difference as you could hear every word even on the edges and that united the spirit of all gathered. Even the police were cool. # You know you see film of anti vietnam demos in the 60's? or early CND marches? where it's all hippy love and light and people peacefully gathered with some political purpose? It was just like that. It was like being back there in that age of love & peace that I never thought would return. We had it for an afternoon. If nothing else this attack has united the people of this world against all who want to kill innocent people. # If you have never been moved to go on a demo in your life then you a) b) are missing out on a cultural experience. It was very very moving, awesome. I can't promise the next will be as good, but I do recommend that you go if you're even remotely interested. News reports at: http://www.independent.co.uk/ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=99415 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4276924,00.html Stop the War Coalition announce another national rally on 18 November. # "What's that white powder, sonny?" "It's only cocaine, officer." "Oh, all right then, on your way." SUN OCT 21 Nonviolent civil disobedience against the war. Supportive marchers needed as well as people willing to risk arrest. Please wear black. 13:00: Temple Place (Temple tube is closed sundays, use Embankment) Organised by: Arrow, 0845 458 9571 # MON SEPT 10 24,000 children died of hunger. 6,020 children died of diarrhea. 2,700 children died from measles. TUES SEPT 11 24,000 children died of hunger. 6,020 children died of diarrhea. 2,700 children died from measles. 4,666 died in Pentagon / Twin Towers attacks. WED SEPT 12 24,000 children died of hunger. 6,020 children died of diarrhea. 2,700 children died from measles. THURS SEPT 13 24,000 children etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc # Ummm fraser. most of the time I find your views amusing or even true.... But please, I lost a lot of friends in the wtc bombing. and so did a lot of people from all over the world. Could you be a bit more sensitive to peoples feelings. I'm still grieving here… cut me some slack!!! now I know your gonna say "what about all the people that our tax dollars killed?" rubbish. we set them up. they fucked with new york and gave it back to us. and now they are going to die.. such is life. print that you hippie faggot. Djfatkat :) even if u r right, fats, as i thank you for saying i sometimes am, won't their sons and students do it back to US? daily worries of anthrax and nukes for the rest of our lives, is that what we really want? and don't forget all the home-grown alienated crazies who'll be coming out to join the party if we continue down this route. unable to even go to a rave or a club? i can't just sit back and let that happen. i can't. :( At 10:59 PM 10/14/01 -0400, you wrote: Yeah but you can't make peace with people that feel you and everything you stand for is evil and against their view of god. nobody thinks that. not even bin Laden whose aims are perfectly clear and laid out: american troops out of the arabian peninsula. and, in parallel, all arabian troops out of america. fair enuff? I'm not for the war. but something should be done. exackly. sort out the differences. any bloodshed is stupid. but 5000 of the west is worth at least 50,000 Arabs. am going to forgive u for that, due to extreme emotion. but maybe u can see now why palestinians might hate america. before the attack I was very anti war. for human rights. but now I really want some blood. would haffa million dead from starvation do, or do u actually demand flowing blood? hey here's an idea that would solve the problem with the PLO and Israel how about we kill all the afghans that are against us. and move all the people from Palestine to afghanistan. they get some dirt to call Palestine and the Israelis get to keep the west bank and the Gaza strip. yay peace in the middle east. i feel your pain, dj. coupled with your ignorance of what's really going on in the world, that makes a deadly brew that threatens the whole planet. whew, I can feel your fury and confusion from here. guess what fraser. lets see how you feel when a jetliner smashes into some landmark in England and kills 5000 of the worlds people. scaled for population, 500,000 people have been killed by the IRA here in my country. guess who was supporting, funding and giving them refuge? why the hell am I even talking to you like a human being!? I know the "war on terrorism" is a bunch of crap. Look how well we did with "the war on drugs" I have no answer for you man. I'm just really mad. sorry this is so badly written but I did it on my palm and it's has no spell checker. please put some hawk views in your newsletter. or fuck off. the last ting u need is more hawks in your head. watch your driving - u r a pink divine being underneath all this shite. fatkat fraser. # A LYNCHING OF LEADERS! WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FINALLY DISCOVER THE FULL EXTENT AND DEPTH OF WHAT THEIR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN UP TO, THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A LYNCHING OF LEADERS! Djfatcat's letter above, and others, have made me realise that I should explain my position, as I see it. let me start with a slogan of mine for the past decade; "AMERICA IS BOTH THE GREATEST HOPE FOR AND THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE PLANET." i'm not going to be corny and say that I love americans (any more than I love afghans etc) but americans are obviously closest to me after the scots and then the english. i've certainly chosen to spend several years living in america at different times , while I haven't so far visited australia or new zealand. so I don't feel i have to say any more on my feelings for americans. so why do I appear to be taking such a hard and unfeeling, even negative approach to the Tower Topples? it's not because I think those people deserved to die. nobody deserves to die - nobody! that's my own view. at worst they should be removed permanently from social access. let's get to the nub of this apparent problem. why do I keep on and on about all the REASONS that led up to Black Tuesday? why don't I just get MAD about it? let me ask my american friends to bear with me to explore a SINGLE QUESTION: suppose it had all been the other way round, with the arabs on top? (as it actually was in europe for hundreds of years). let's say that the united arab republics had used their far superior military power against most of the separate states of america at some time or other, indeed even played a large part in defining their geographical boundaries, and had used their economic and above all military power to control the cost of the vast reserves of oil which had been discovered there? let's say that the activities (some public some undercover) of the various puppet governments and quisling royalties imposed over each separate american state had directly or indirectly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans (all with different 'nationalities' because of the aforesaid divisions) and that bombings of saddam of arkansas were still being shown DAILY on american tv stations, and that haffa million american babies had died because of the sanctions which the United Arab Republics had imposed? WHAT WOULD A RED BLOODED AMERICAN DO? remember that not a single american state is well enuff armed to directly confront the colonialist arabia, and would get severely trashed if they even attempted it. as several of them has. I KNOW PRETTY DAMN WELL WHAT RED BLOODED AMERICANS WOULD DO! i have known many. they would not take it lying down! they would go underground if they had to, and they'd strike back, consistently, in whatever way they could. I KNOW this because I know the american spirit is strong. you certainly fought off the british, determined to be no part of anybody's empire. well, all I'm asking is that you grant the same pride, courage and determination to other races and religions. and if some extremists had managed to take out the twin towers of baghdad you'd be PRAYING that the United Arab Republics would learn the lesson, would not start murdering more of your people, and would start the long redress of all the iniquities heaped upon america. # IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL! HERE'S AN EXCERPT FROM "U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 12, 1998 The Congressional Record. STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS for UNOCAL CORPORATION I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy. I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500% in only 15 years. One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. And, because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absorb large new quantities of foreign oil, and it lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets. Two major infrastructure projects are seeking to meet the need for additional export capacity. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, plans to build a pipeline west from the northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Oil would then go by tanker through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean and world markets. The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including 4 American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of two possible routes. But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future. Nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Western, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union are all slow growth markets, perhaps 1.2 percent per year during the period 1995 to 2010. Asia is a different story all together. It will have a rapidly increasing energy consumption need. Prior to the recent turbulence in the Asian Pacific economies, we at Unocal anticipated that this region's demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, we stand behind our long-term estimates. The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with several variations. One option is to go east across China, but this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers just to reach Central China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company. … Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link gas resources with the nearest viable markets… Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place. The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents. The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant. Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business success. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. # INTERVIEW WITH ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI (Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser) in Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998. Q: The former CIA director Robert Gates stated in his memoirs that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahideen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. As President Carter's national security adviser, is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of The pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap! The day the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. What is most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But doesn't fundamentalism represent a world menace today? # SCOOP!! YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!!! BEFORE THE US GOVERNMENT EVEN ANNOUNCES IT!!! THE BIG QUESTION ALL ALONG HAS BEEN: WHAT CAN THE US ELITE DO FOR THE POOR PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN AFTER IT'S DESTROYED THEIR COUNTRY? WILL THEY JUST "DESERT" THE POOR STARVING, HOPE-LESS MASSES? WOULD DEAR OLD UNCLE SAM DO SUCH A NOTTY THING?!! THE US GOVERNMENT WILL ANNOUNCE SOON ENUFF THAT, YES, THE GREAT ALL-CARING, ALL-LOVING US GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO MAGNANIMOUSLY BUILD OIL AND GAS PIPELINES THROUGH AFGHANISTAN WHICH WILL INVOLVE TRAINING AND EMPLOYING THOUSANDS OF UNEMPLOYED YOUTH. WOTTA LUCKY BREAK FOR THE WORLD!! THANKYOU AMERICA! # OCT 12 Former Green Party Presidential candidate Ralph Nader roundly criticized the Bush Administration's war on terrorism in a speech before an enthusiastic paying audience of approximately 2,500 at the Masonic Center last night. He called for a democratic debate over the Administration's policies, saying "the mindless bombing of Afghanistan's infrastructure will not end well for Afghanistan and, I fear, it will not end well for us. We are entitled to ask what this war will cost: what it will cost Afghans, what it will cost our rights and democracy here, and what the huge shift of money into the military and corporate bailouts will cost our domestic programs?" Nader called for "sobriety in these moments of impetuousness, restraint, and to move forward under international law to apprehend the criminals. This is an international crime and we've got to find ways to bring these criminals to justice. "Grief and mourning for the victims must eventually give way to honoring their memory," he stated, and quoted a statement by President George W. Bush that the terrorists "hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom to assemble, our freedom of speech, and our freedom to disagree," in justifying the appropriateness of his own remarks. Nader said that the best way to honor the memories of those lost on September 11th was to exercise and defend our democratic freedoms and to, "make sure our government doesn't slaughter the lives of hundreds of innocent people." He charged that "thought police in Washington dismiss all critical analysis as justifying the terrorist attack," calling for a rejection of that notion while describing the terrorists' act as "criminal butchery, a massacre more than an attack, and with no justification". He urged the audience to "never allow Washington to tell you to shut up, get in line, and waive the flag. Never let them take your flag away from you." He urged the audience to think for themselves, to not inhibit what they have to say, and asked "how many times have we been told that they were dropping bombs only on military targets?" He concluded that there was no such thing as limiting bombing to only military targets and that, "we are not going to be able to bomb our way to a solution of this problem." He described the Administration's rationale for the bombing as "cheap propaganda which is going to get more rancid and grim. U.S. attacks on Afghanistan will spread more hatred of our country and our allies." He also worried that 7.5 million Afghans face starvation this winter, which he said was only four weeks away in Afghanistan, while the U.S. has dropped only "135,000 snacks." Quoting approvingly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's assertion that "poverty, disease, and illiteracy are breeding grounds for tolerance of terrorism," Nader proposed a profound reorientation of U.S. foreign policy to support democratic forces and to, "side with the millions and millions of workers and peasants rather than with dictators and oligarchies." He proposed a "balanced approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," and an end to economic sanctions against Iraq which he said was taking the lives of 5,000 Iraqi children a month. "You do not destabilize a dictator by destroying the lives of innocent children and adults." The focus of the speech was a major departure from the usual agenda of the longtime consumer activist who usually sticks closely to themes concerning how corporations have gained too much power and are subverting democracy. But he did draw a connection to those themes, noting that corporations are taking advantage of the tragedy for their own greedy purposes, pointing to corporate lobbying for government bailouts, even by industries in trouble long before the terrorist attacks, for the limiting of regulations, including the opening up of the Alaskan Arctic reserve, and opposing benefits for workers who are losing their jobs. The event was billed as a "People Have the Power" rally in support of San Francisco ballot initiatives for a Municipal Utility District, which would create public control of power in response to California's failed electricity deregulation. But clearly Nader and other speakers felt compelled to address the war. The event was also organized as part of a series of "super rallies" being held around the country by Nader's new Democracy Rising campaign. Will this get Nader, the GP presidential candidate and third largest vote getter, on television? Any bets? Or do we need instead to hear the 1006th pro-war talking head? 1007th? 1008th? Jonathan Nack / Democracy Rising. http://www.democracyrising.org # London SAT OCT Dionysian Underground have a room booked for 11am where they hope to show their video (incl Den of E stuff) but need a Video Projector. <anarchx@another.com> 6pm - Discordian Anarchy talk. @ Camden Centre (opp Euston) http://invisible.at/mystery # THE NEW INTERNATIONALIST besides the UPGRADEmag, the other best compendium of topical sanity which is long-standing and not nearly well-known enough is the erudite "New Internationalist" magazine, produced by a collective of rotating editors in Oxford, Australia and New Zealand. It's the poor, Southern "developing" world's take on everything i.e. the vast majority of human beings... in my opinion everyone getting the upgrade should subscribe to this wonderful, eye-opening magazine, and buy a subscription for their local library - i cannot think of a more positive act of illumination (apart from practising the yoga, but that doesn't necessarily raise our consciousness of the plight of others who are suffering more than ourselves). the latest, monthly issue is a special called "Twin Terrors" (Issue 340) and the title is taken from an amazing quote by Mark Twain on the French Revolution, contrasting the much longer, larger and more dreadful Reign of Terror with the thousand or so aristocratic axings, which people were taught to be so horrified by. sound familiar? guess who the new aristocracy are, even though their constitution was based on the French one. actually, we almost equally are, in Britain, NZ, France etc. will robertson. # PATRIOTISM AND FREE SPEECH Divide and conquer. Sound tactics, and they're being used against us. According to most of the opinion polls I've seen, over 90% of all Americans favor the continuation of U.S. bombing raids in Afghanistan. And let's be perfectly clear about this, when we bomb Afghanistan our intent is to inflict damage that must ultimately be born by the long-suffering people of that ill-fated land. If there actually is such overwhelming support in this country for continuing the cycles of violence (although I'm not convinced such broad support truly exists), then it is even more important that our national dialogue include voices who admittedly are in the minority on this issue. Perhaps I am overly naďve, but I was shocked at how quickly some previously enlightened voices of reason joined the "bomb 'em back to the stone age" chorus. Even formerly sound intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens lost their balance. How else can one explain his unseemly comparison of Noam Chomsky with Falwell and Robertson. Madness can be the only explanation, a madness brought about by a tragedy that is just too great for some minds to bear. And thus, the small and fragile coalition for peace begins to collapse as well. If ever there has been a time for a calm and collected discussion of all aspects of the perilous age we have just entered, it is now. Opinions offered by persons who hold no actual power are just that, opinions. They are certainly not "attacks." If we are to believe the words of President Bush, that freedom will not yield to terrorism, then it is imperative that the bedrock of all our other freedoms, free speech, be preserved at all costs. One of those costs is to give a fair hearing to all sides of an issue. As a nation, what do we gain or lose when local television stations cancel programs like Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" because he had the audacity to question the cherished belief that the United States can do no wrong? To my mind, simply asking unpopular questions is a highly patriotic act. Hard questions like Chomsky's and Maher's are not intended to weaken this nation. Quite the contrary. They're an attempt to engage our citizens in a discussion of issues that a few of our leaders would just as soon we ignored. Taking a stand against an unlimited war against an unfocused enemy is certainly not anti-american. I can't speak for the people wearing U.S. military uniforms today, but I vividly recall being proud to defend the right of anti-war protestors to demonstrate when I was then on the "other side" while serving in Viet Nam. My guess is that many of our servicemen and women feel the same way today. For those of us who believe that intelligent humans should be able to solve their disputes without resorting to massive violence and destruction, the right, actually OBLIGATION, of speaking freely is of prime importance. Eventually our leaders will grow weary of bombing large rocks into small rocks, and then some serious questions must be asked. For example, what is our exit strategy for these military campaigns? How many civil liberties are to be forever forfeited in the name of domestic security? How is our foreign policy going to change once we've moved the entire world to a permanent war footing? What forms of speech are to be forbidden as "terrorist acts?" And who is to be allowed to ask these questions? The destiny of our nation may well depend upon the answers to these and other difficult questions. Let us pray that we remain free to ask them. larry hagerty / burning man # OSAMA'S FATAL ATTRACTION For fleeting moments I think the Taliban might actually have a point when they say Western women are amoral. One came last week, when all around me other women started proclaiming how much they fancied Osama bin Laden! "Every woman adores a Fascist the boot in the face, the brute Brute heart of a brute like you." He needn't even be handsome: look how Hitler, a strutting grease-ball, set silly Unity Mitford all a-quiver: "Yesterday we had lunch with the Fuhrer," she wrote home in 1936, "it was wonderful and he was simply heavenly." Jenny McCartney/ed by fraser. # "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." Charles Schultz WHO'S WHO AND WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO The Vice President is an oil executive and former Secretary of Defense. The National Security Advisor is a director of a transnational oil corporation and a Russia scholar. The Secretary of State is a man with no diplomatic experience, and the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The other interesting appointment is Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld is the former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals. He and Cheney were featured as speakers at the May, 2000, Russian-American Business Leaders Forum. So the consistent currents in this cabinet are petroleum, the former Soviet Union, and the military. Based on the record of Daddy Bush, in all his guises, and the general trajectory of US foreign policy as far back as the Carter Administration, I feel I can reasonably conclude that Middle Eastern and South Asian fossil fuels are one of their major preoccupations. Not just because this klavern has some very direct financial interests in fossil fuel, but because they surely know that worldwide oil production is peaking as we speak, and will soon begin a permanent and precipitous decline that will completely change the character of civilization as we know it within 20 years. I further conclude that the economic colonization of the former Soviet Union is probably high on that agenda, and in fact has a powerful synergy with the issue of petroleum. Russia not only holds vast untapped resources that beckon to imperialism in crisis, it remains a credible military and nuclear challenger in the region. We have not one, but three members of the Bush de facto cabinet with military credentials, which makes the cabinet look quite a lot like a military General Staff. All this way before September 11th. Then there's the subject of NATO, which might have expected consignment to the dustbin of the Cold War after the Eastern Bloc shattered in 1991. Peace dividend and all that. But it didn't. It expanded directly into the former states of the Eastern Bloc toward the former Soviet Union, and contributed significant forces to the devastation of Iraq - a key country in the world oil market, over which control translates into the ability to manipulate oil prices. Then when Yugoslavia refused to play ball with the International Monetary Fund, the US and Germany began a systematic campaign of destabilization there, even using some of the veterans of Afghanistan in that campaign. NATO became the military arm of that agenda - the break-up of Yugoslavia into compliant statelets, the further containment of the former Soviet Union, and the future pipeline easement for Caspian Sea oil to Western European markets through Kosovo. You see, this is important to understand, and people - even those against the war talk -a re tending to overlook the significance of it. NATO is not a guarantor of international law, and it is not a humanitarian organization. It's a military alliance with one very dominant partner. And it can no longer claim to be a defensive alliance against European socialists. It is an instrument of military aggression. NATO is the organization that is now going to thrust further along the 40th parallel from the Balkans through the Southern Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. The US military has already taken control of a base in Uzbekistan. No one is talking about how what we are doing seems to be a very logical extension of a strategy that was already in motion, and has been in motion for two decades. Once we recognize the pattern of activity designed to simultaneously consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil, and contain and colonize the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan is exactly where they need to go to pursue that agenda. Afghanistan borders Iran, India, and even China but, more importantly, the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These border Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan borders Russia. Turkmenistan sits on the Southeastern quadrant of the Caspian Sea, whose oil the Bush Administration dearly covets. Afghanistan is necessary for two things: as a base of operations to begin the process of destabilizing, breaking off, and establishing control over the South Asian Republics, which will begin within the next 18-24 months in my opinion, and constructing a pipeline through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to the Asian market. The focal point of these actions in the short term is Southern Asia, but they have already scripted this as a worldwide and protracted fight against terrorism. It's far better than drug wars as a rationalization, and the drug war thing was being discredited in any case. Leftists are regaining power and popularity in Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil, and Argentina. Cuba has gained immense prestige over the last few years. The empire is beginning to unravel. We can hardly justify intervention in these places by saying they are not towing the economic line by allowing the absolute domination of their societies by transnational corporations. That exposes the agenda. So we simply claim they are supporting terrorism. This brings me to a point about what all this means for Americans' security, which they are perfectly justified to worry about. The actions being prepared by this administration will not only not enhance our security, it will significantly degrade it. Military action against many groups across the globe, which is what the administration is telling us quite openly they are planning to do, will put a lot of backs against the wall. That can't be very secure. The concept of war being touted here is a violation of the principles of war on several counts, and will inevitably lead to military catastrophes, if you're inclined to view this from a position of moral and political neutrality. And the people who are now in possession of half the world's remaining oil reserves are subject to destabilization for which we can't even pretend to predict the consequences - but loss of access to critical energy supplies is certainly within the realm of possibility. Worst of all, we will be destabilizing Pakistan, a nuclear power in an active conflict with its neighbor, and we will be provoking Russia, another nuclear power. The security stakes don't get any higher, and Americans can ill afford to ignore nukes. And I think that this domestic agenda is a tremendous threat to the security of anyone who is critical of the government or their corporate financiers, and we already know that the real threats are against populations that can easily be scapegoated as the domestic crisis deepens. There is a very real threat right now of creeping fascism in this country, and that phenomenon requires its domestic enemies. Historically those enemies have included leftists, trade unionists, and racially and nationally oppressed sectors. This whole "state of emergency" mentality is already being used to quiet the public discourses of anti-racism, of feminism, of environmentalism, and of both socialism and anarchism. And while there is token resistance by officials to anti-Muslim xenophobia, the stereotypical images have saturated the media, and the government is already beginning to openly re-instate racial profiling. It is only a short step from there to go after other groups. We have long been prepared by the ideologies of overt and covert racism, and racism as both institution and corresponding psychology in the United States is nearly intractable. It's for all these reasons, I say emphatically that we can not accept anything from this administration; not their policies nor their bullshit stories. What they are doing is very, very dangerous, and the time to fight back against them, openly, is right now, before they can consolidate their power and their agenda. Once they've done that, our job becomes much more difficult. Goff / US The long-term goal of the war in Kosovo was also the construction of a pipeline (see http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumnew22.htm ). Ironically, the NATO-supported local guerrilla (KLA) were also Islamists, including mercenaries of Osama Bin Laden. Going back further in time, the Gulf war was also about oil, and was even caused by the CIA, as the former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark writes in "The Fire This Time" (Thunder's Mouth Press, 1994), described online in http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/Binion100201/binion100201.html The CIA first sowed discord between Iraq and Kuwait, and then told Saddam he could get away with invading Kuwait. Later, the U.S. used Saddam's aggression as a pretext to occupy Saudi Arabia (to "protect" it against Saddam) and of course to occupy Iraq and Kuwait for good. The presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil was what made Osama Bin Laden really mad at the US, and caused his clash with the Saudi government and his exile to Afghanistan. YOU 2608 |