| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
US-Arab Relations US Air force crossed into Iran Air space by Sophia Barkat Tehran complains of Allied Airforce in Iran Airspace: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030322/ap_wo_en_po/me_gen_ir\ aq_iran_airspace_6 Trevor (tebatt@chello.nl) Re: US Airforce crossed into Iran Air space Although the whole business doesn't appear to have gone completely pear shaped yet, it does seem that the invasion isn't the walkover that it was supposed to be. Reports of armed resistance seem to be coming in hours (days?) after towns are supposed to have been "taken". One assumes that this resistance is not overcome without heavy casualties on Iraqi side - which will probably make a successful social engineering project even more difficult after the conquest (assuming it comes). It also sounds as if the first British casualties from friendly fire have occurred. Earlier mention of forbidden "scud" rockets seem to have been false (al Samud) and there is still no news of weapons of mass destruction used or discovered. Political problems with Turkey and Iran only add to a volatile situation globally - which may not be so easy to normalize after hostility ceases. The Iranian border area is probably extremely sensitive. The BBC world service radio reported that on both sides of the border, dissidents from both countries were waiting for a chance to return to their respective countries. Unfortunately, I could find no reference to the story on the BBC (background information) web-site http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2861721.stm. As usual, my search engine came up with a load of stuff -some of which might be relevant or interesting: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22Iran+bor\der%22+%2B+%22Iraqi+ dissidents%22&_sb_lang=nl+en Kurdish communities exist in parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria -so lots of potential for cross-border pproblems there -if the Kurds get too restless. http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22map+of+Kurdistan%22& sb_lang=nl+en It does rather look as if the American "intelligence" service may have been taken for a ride. One suspects that many of their sources were Iraqi dissidents who had their own agenda. Quite likely, only encouraging messages were listened to. During the build up to the war, supporters often appeared over-optimistic - continually basing their plans (betting tthe future) on positive outcomes which often did not materialize. The collapse of the French resistance, the collapse of public anti-war sentiment when the war began, the collapse of Iraqi resistance, the discovery (and use) of forbidden weapons, etc., all seem to have remained absent until now. If current aggressive attitudes are signs of a last ditch attempt by the American Administration to re-assert American hegemony before a more stable multi-polar world develops -then it is not impossible that the attempt is already showing signs of failure. If so, one can only hope that the unilateralists will accept defeat quietly and not precipitate any more, and even greater, disasters. For UN? by Sophia Barkat Apparently Arab States have one voice, and they all say UN. Here's the link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20030407/ap_on_re _mi_ea/war_gulf_states_2 by Trevor Batten re: Sophia's post Presumably, nobody (outside the US) wants to see America setting up in business, moving around the world commercially rebuilding states in its own image. The amazing thing is, until now it has been remarkably successful acting like a virus by commercially infiltrating countries and transforming them from within by taking over and modifying their cultural DNA. One wonders why they suddenly wish to abandon this approach for a more dangerous military approach. A recent BBC profile on Condolezza Rice, suggested that she was a polymath child genius and an expert on the Soviet Union. However, this latter point was also her weakness -as she tended to focus on the clash of titans and was more than a little blind to the subtleties of multi-polar and unconventional forms of conflict. A British politician (I believe George Brown) wrote in his memoirs that politicians are often so busy juggling to keep the political balls in the air -that they often forget why they needed to be there in the first place. George Alfred Brown, Baron George-Brown (1914-1985), Politician Sitter in 4 portraits Prominent 1960s Labour politician; Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (1960-4); Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1964-6); Foreign Secretary (1966-8). Created Baron George-Brown in 1970. http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22george+Brown%22+%2B+ Labour+%2B+UK&_sb_lang=nl+en Egypt's Take on the War - by Sophia Barkat Egypt, largest recipient of US Aid after Israel - called for an Arab Summit recently to talk about needs for revising National Security of Arab states. This would leave out lackey's of the US such as the kingdoms of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Under pressure from the Egyptian public, Mubarrak's party, in a show of solidarity with Iraqis, organized three peaceful anti-war processions. See link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030401/ap_wo_en_po/me_gen_ egypt_anti_war_protest_1 Previously, 64 Egyptians had been arrested by the Egyptian Govt. for protesting against the war. They too have been released: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030331/ap_wo_en_ge/me_gen_eg ypt_protesters_released_1 In response to public pressure to stop Coalition forces using the Suez Canal to get to the Persian Gulf, Mubarrak said, he cannot because "it will create 100 bin Ladens." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030331/ap_wo_en_ge/me_gen_eg ypt_iraq_mideast_reaction_4 King of Jordan's View - by Trevor Batten Ambiguities Triumphant pictures of the collapse of Saddam's image have been transmitted around the world -while the man himself still appears as illusive as bin Laden. However, the BBC reports of deep feelings of frustration, anger and damaged pride amongst the Arab nations. The US administration has compared the event with the fall of the Berlin wall -but the King of Jordan has compared it with the triumphant entry of Napoleon into Egypt. There are also fears that a domino effect in the region will suck local regimes into the conflict as the local heads of American client states have increasing difficulty in restraining the anger of their citizens. He also called for an end to the war between the Pert-Dollar and the Petro-Euro and suggested that a policy of global cooperation was more productive than one of global confrontation. Clearly, a just solution concerning both Iraq and Israel were essential steps towards stabilizing the situation in the area. Other images from Baghdad have shown women crying for their dead and wounded loved ones -and the images of hospitals overflowing with the broken bodies of men, women and children. Lack of water and electricity is making treatment difficult in hospitals. Looting crowds are a dangerous sign of a potential slide towards anarchy as troops are both insufficient in training and in number to carry out successful policing of the area. In the meantime, the struggle for power in the new regime continues. In the north of Iraq, the political tension between the aspirations of the Kurds and the fears of the Turks has not yet been resolved -while in the south, many Iraqis still regard the Americans as undesirable aliens (despite their gratitude for the liberation). A Syrian spokesman has said on the BBC world service radio that Saddam would be killed on sight in Syria -as was considered to be an Arab traitor who did not defend his country to the last man. Damaged Arab pride may well offer encouragement to their American opponents -but perhaps it is worth remembering that -presumably, it was damaged American pride (and little else) that has already lead to the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and may lead to even more interventions and incursions. When pride rules over reason then it seems that the devil is in the driving seat! The US administration calls upon Iraqis to respond to the dramatic events in Baghdad -but it might be advisable first to make sure exactly what people have seen in Baghdad (and how this is being interpreted) before making such calls. It seems that Americans, despite their global aspirations and wide ethnic mix, seem remarkably poor at understanding (or even tolerating) any point of view other than their own. The inability of Americans to understand other points of view might well prove fatal for their future ambitions. Perhaps somebody should explain the theory of "Karma" to them before it is too late. PS -I forgot to mention: In the Question Time programme (yesterday) one of the panel members mentioned that the newly appointed US military governor of Iraq has been reported (in one British newspaper) as being extremely pro-Israeli -and that if this was true then it did not seem to fit in with American promises regarding Iraq and Israel. Apr 15, 2003 US to close Iraq-Syria pipeline by Sophia Barkat Here's the link on the news: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030415/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_us military_712 Apr 15, 2003 by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post Your headline uses the future tense, however, I'm sure I heard Bush saying (today -Tuesday 15 April) that the pipeline was being cut. Although I'm also sure that I heard yesterday(?) or possibly earlier (in the business news on the BBC world service radio), that since the pipeline had been cut Syria had notified its customers that it was having to cut oil supplies to them -and that, within the oil industry this waas being taken as pretty conclusive proof that Syria had been illegally receiving oil from Iraq. Obviously, in a global system, time is strictly local (in the eye of the beholder, one might say) -and my "lifestyle" (if it could be called such) also demonstrates a rather unconventional and unstable experience of time(space) -so I could easily be suffering from a subjjective time experience (confusion/glitch/loop). On the other hand, I am also sure that I once saw, on the Sunday news on Dutch TV, a report of Kofi Annan's visit to a symposium in the Hague earlier that day -a symposium, which according to an internet announcement that I'd seen, should have taken place the day before. This would suggest that, for security or propaganda reasons news reports of many events are quite severely doctored (beyond the simple variations that arise from subjective interpretations). It makes one wonder if indeed the Apollo mission did reach the moon -and exactly how successful the war, which is now being celebrated as a victory in Washington, really was. I understand Saddam claimed that the 1991 Gulf war was a victory for him. Perhaps it was. However, if Saddam did lose the 1991 war, is it reasonable to expect that the propaganda services of such a tin-pot dictator -who can be blown aside in the period it takes for some people to have a summer holiday -could be more effective at fooling his people than the propaganda system of a giant such as Bush? PS -I heard on the BBC that Bangladesh would probably be the country most likely to be economically affected by the upheavals in the middle east region -as it has many workers in the region who rrregularly send money home to their family. by Craig Johnson Re: Trevor's post I heard Syria was buying the sanction breaking oil for 1/2 price from Iraq. I wonder how much that will effect their economy? by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett Re: Sophia's post No surprise to Syria. In fact Syria was surprised they left it open as long as they did. They wondered what in the hell the US was up to. If that was a crude attempt of the US administration trying to use the carrot /stick approach of diplomacy-well all I can say is they miserable failed. As I said it takes quite a high level of intelligence to use this technique properly. Even a lower animal you teach a language (though hand cues, body cues depending on the type of animal you are talking about) before you talk to it. Since the US Administration and the Syrian Administration can directly talk to each other (Syrian leader even speaks English so there is not even a language barrier) the US should have made the Syrian leader aware that the oil line would be left open only if they cooperated. You have to communicate some for any kind of program, whether carrot/stick, debate, discussion will work. The only place you don't have to communicate is in war but even there you have to eventually communicate in the end. Maybe that is why this administration is so quick to go to the barbaric method of the bully technique. This administration is mentally challenged in the communicating area. But then what would you expect when you have a leader who is incapable of communication in English his own language. We have a list of what is called Bushism that go around daily. A new one each day. They have an endless supply of them. they show bush's lack of communication skills by pointing out many completely stupid things he has said. Admittedly they are mostly from his governor days and first year as selected president only because his handlers have him on a tightly scripted text now. by Trevor Batten Re: Cherrie's post "cherrie lynn lipsett" <cherrie9@intercorp.com> wrote: "The only place you don't have to communicate is in war but even there you have to eventually communicate in the end." Many years ago, I read in an account of the battle of Arnhem (where the Germans beat the hell out of a British attempt to retake the town towards the end of the war). Apparently, the German commander contacted the British commander -to inform him that unfortunately, the Brittish hospital was located in a position which the German commander wished to shell with heavy artillery -and to ask if the British commander would be so kind as to move the hospital within twenty four hours. Considering the brutal reputation of the Germans in WWII -then one would expect a little more effort from the American army to help the sick and wounded in Iraq. As a school kid, I also read a (popular) book about a British corvette captain chasing a German submarine. Each captain tried to imagine how the other was thinking -in order to decide what their own best strategy might be. In some sense, it seems that conflict may well be the ultimate of "communication" systems -but then, as you remark, this requires intelligence -as perhaps do all forms of communication..... Cherrie wrote: "Maybe that is why this administration is so quick to go to the barbaric method of the bully technique. This administration is mentally challenged in the communicating area." I suspect you may be right there..... perhaps even evidence of behaviour within the autistic spectrum? Cherrie wrote: "But then what would you expect when you have a leader who is incapable of communication in English his own language." Yes, however, I afraid it seems to be infectious. Blair appears to be becoming more incoherent by the day he too seems to have great difficulty in actually managing to well, connect, thoughts into a single sentence! Personally, I keep thinking it's a replay of the Manchurian candidate -have they both visited North Korea latelyy? ...... Or is it the CIA up to their old tricks again? Cherrie wrote: "We have a list of what is called Bushisms that go around daily. A new one each day. They have an endless supply of them. they show Bush's lack of communication skills by pointing out many completely stupid things he has said." Well, I suppose that's the good thing about open, democratic, societies -I guess they function pretty well without a leader. Look at the Reagan years -you can't tell me that he defeated the eviil empire single-handed! Cherrie wrote: "Admittedly they are mostly from his governor days and first year as selected president only because his handlers have him on a tightly scripted text now." Yeah, it must be difficult trying to forget all the things one's not supposed to say...... I mean one has to be so careful to say "we have no plan to invade Syria" and not accidentally say "intention" instead of "plan". by Craig Johnson Re: Trevor's post My ex father in law was a D+8 day veteran of WWII. He won 3 bronze stars and 3 purple hearts. Right after the brutal battle for Cherbourg he confided to me that once they headed east into the hedgerows and farm areas, his unit and a German unit faced off in trees separated by a grass field. After numerous charges and close to 70 wounded stuck out in the field, the Germans waved a flag of truce to allow ambulances to remove the wounded. American Medics in trucks and German Red Cross vehicles converged into the middle of the field to pick up the wounded. The Germans pulled out automatic weapons and mowed down the American medics and wounded. After that incident, he told me he shot every "goddam" German Red Cross vehicle or unit he came across after that, till he met up with the Russian's. I think your event occurred a little closer to the end of the war when the German high Command knew it was over anyway. by Trevor Batten Re: Craig's post Well, I guess this just shows the danger of lumping people together in easily definable groups and assuming that everybody is the same within the group. The English TV series "Colditz" -which dramatized the famous prisoner of war camp and its history of escapes -featured a sympathetic (traditional) German army camp commandant who often conspired with his (traditional) British army captives to thwart the Gestapo political officer imposed upon them by the party. I believe this was the first dramatized presentation of "sympathetic" Germans. Incidentally, I sometimes watched this programme as a guest of the English-Jewish wife of the German director of the Dutch institute where I was studying! The first time I walked into a bar in Germany (while still a teenager) the inhabitants were all watching an American war film on TV...... One wonders if Americans will ever realize that much anti-Americanism is a direct result of so many Americans' simplistic attitudes to the world around them. War on Arabs? by Sophia Barkat It's not a war on Iraqis. It is a war on Arabs. If not, why are there no Arab Charities operating in the US? Why were they confiscated? Is it illegal to support Palestine? Even if it's aiding Hammas? Who else defends Palestine than it's terrorist bombers? If it is illegal to aid Palestine with money for arms, why is the US supporting Israel with military aid - rerouted from Latin America? Did you know that the US gives military aid to countries like Guatemala that in turn Guatemala gives to Israel? Lovely set of examples, right there. And to accuse fundraisers in Arab-American communities of aiding terrorists?! Clearly the war is on Arabs and Muslims. And no one should have any doubts about that. From the words of pro-war supporters - Q) "Why do you support the war?" A) "Cause they did it to us." To what you see on TV: 1) racist jokes on Arabs and Muslims 2) racist anchors on MSNBC and FOX 3) the lack of crucial war reporting - don't show the faces of Iraqi civilians and block all access to al-Jazeera for doing so. Ever since Sept 11th, - mind you 60 countries had people who dies but you wouldn't know it from the way the media has turned it into a US tragedy - Muslims, Arabs and South Asians in America have been walking some walk of Shame. We get confused for murderers in every street. Our jobs are being taken away - see http://www.aclu.org for details - and we need to be "fingerprinted and phottographed" by the new Gestapo of Ashcroft. You think America is good because 10% of it's people feel like second class citizens? The interesting thing about Islam is the religion. It's a religion like any other religion on Earth that wants peace but teaches people never to sit quietly in the face of oppression. So far you've only heard the voices of those like Osama and the Hammas - good for TV, bad-boys of Islam - but now you will see a lot more moderate Muslims who feel maligned by the US. And unfortunately they will have nothing good to say about the US. I am beginning to think the US Constitution, a beautiful and sacred piece of work, has no meaning in the lives of the American Majority - 70% support Bush Jr. apparently. The citizens do not vote. They do not educate themselves to know the simple differences between Arab and Muslim when the US must be the peacekeeper in the world. They don't travel outside of the US. They think the corporate Media in the US is God. They pander to power by accepting a Plutocracy in Washington that is bought by Corporations who pay for campaign finance. They do not challenge their elected officials on policies that affect their lives and rather sit tight-lipped to avoid being spotted out as a traitor. They endorse materialism to the extent it pollutes their own land and the Earth instead of asking their national officials where alternative sources of energy are. It is an ignorance, stubbornness and greed parallel to the Romans and the Nazis. Having said so, I should inform you, I always attend anti-war rallies in the small town of Flagstaff Arizona. Thousands assemble for the small town that it is. The demonstrations are peaceful but carry strong messages to Bush Jr. And they represent the moral backbone of what is a crumbling democracy. by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post Sophia wrote: "I am beginning to think the US Constitution, a beautiful and sacred piece of work, has no meaning in the lives of the American Majority - 70% support Bush Jr. apparently." I would call this: The little picture (the details, the law, the practicality) losing against the big picture (the idea of terrorism, democracy, freedom)...... This is something fundamental to European culture -which prefers abstract ideas over concrete relationships. In principle, it is also sexist -because men are less involved with changes of physical state than women are. |
Encourage Political Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org We Support: Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign & The EFF.org |