Everyone loves U.S.

[antoine]

US Troops Set Kuwait Oil Fires Say Gulf War Vets Group
Feb 26, 2003
Source: Stratiawire

The American Gulf War Veterans Association, led by Joyce Riley, has issued a press release that accuses US forces of setting huge oil fires in Kuwait at the end of Gulf War One. At the time, those fires---blamed on Saddam---burned a billion barrels of oil over a seven-month period and raised a poisonous lingering cloud over the Persian Gulf nations.

From Riley’s release: “One [US] veteran has now stepped forward and given a detailed account of how he and others in special teams moved forward of the front…and then set charges on the [Kuwait oil] well heads.”

This veteran, as yet unnamed, states, “We were mustered into the briefing tent at which point a gentleman who I first had thought to be an American began to brief us on the operation [to burn the oil fields]. I was concerned because he was not wearing a US uniform and insignias.”

The Gulf Wart Veterans’ release continues: “The information provided over a series of meetings with this veteran corroborates reports from other veterans who are totally unconnected with this individual. This testimony brings into serious question the integrity of the US government, as it [the government] provided information to the American public and military during the last Gulf War.”

There could be several motives behind a secret US special ops venture to burn the Kuwaiti oil fields. To further slam Saddam---blaming the disaster on him. To create the appearance of an oil shortage. To keep certain recalcitrant leaders in Kuwait in line---“see what we can do if you try to dump ‘US support?’”

However, the US veteran who spoke with Riley may also be implying that the operation to burn the oil fields was not, at the highest levels, a US government plot, although it used small groups of US soldiers. The briefer may have represented more shadowy power players.

[antoine]

The Secret Behind the Sanctions
How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply

By Thomas J. Nagy

18/12/2002
Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.

Prior Knowledge

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January22 ,1991 . It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."

The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."

Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.

Possible Iraqi Countermeasures to Obtain Potable Water

The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain drinkable water despite sanctions.

"Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited," the document states. "The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs."

The document also discounted the possibility of Iraqis using rainwater. "Precipitation occurs in Iraq during the winter and spring, but it falls primarily in the northern mountains," it says. "Sporadic rains, sometimes heavy, fall over the lower plains. But Iraq could not rely on rain to provide adequate pure water."

As an alternative, "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," the document says. "It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

Consequences: The Cold Truth
In cold language, the document spells out what is in store: "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water."

The document gives a timetable for the destruction of Iraq's water supplies. "Iraq's overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt," it says. "Although Iraq is already experiencing a loss of water treatment capability, it probably will take at least six months (to June1991 ) before the system is fully degraded."

This document, which was partially declassified but unpublicized in1995 , can be found on the Pentagon's web site at www.gulflink.osd.mil.  (I disclosed this document last fall. But the news media showed little interest in it. The only reporters I know of who wrote lengthy stories on it were Felicity Arbuthnot in the Sunday Herald of Scotland, who broke the story, and Charlie Reese of the Orlando Sentinel, who did a follow-up.)

Recently, I have come across other DIA documents that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the degradation of Iraq's water supply. These documents have not been publicized until now.

The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also dated January22 ,1991 . At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

The document proceeds to itemize the likely outbreaks. It mentions "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which will also affect "particularly children," a phrase it puts in parentheses. And it cites the possibilities of typhoid and cholera outbreaks.

The document warns that the Iraqi government may "blame the United States for public health problems created by the military conflict."

Disease Outbreaks in Iraq
The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February21 ,1990 , but the year is clearly a typo and should be1991 . It states: "Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing." It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."

This document lists the "most likely diseases during next60 - 90days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."

Like the previous document, this one warns that the Iraqi government might "propagandize increases of endemic diseases."

The third document in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is dated March15 ,1991 . It says: "Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."

Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document states, "There are indications that the situation is improving and that the population is coping with the degraded conditions." But it adds: "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."

Disease Outbreaks in Refugee Camps

The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee Camps," is dated May1991 . The summary says, "Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation."

The reason for this outbreak is clearly stated again. "The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children."

The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq, June1991 ," is still heavily censored. All I can make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess health conditions and determine the most critical medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi medical system was in considerable disarray, medical facilities had been extensively looted, and almost all medicines were in critically short supply."

In one refugee camp, the document says, "at least 80 percent of the population" has diarrhea. At this same camp, named Cukurca, "cholera, hepatitis type B, and measles have broken out."

The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor was observed in Iraq "for the first time," the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing children . . . . In the south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were children)."

Contradictions
The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated November 15,1991 . This one has a distinct damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins: "Restoration of Iraq's public health services and shortages of major medical material remain dominant international concerns. Both issues apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein in an effort to keep public opinion firmly against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and to direct blame away from the Iraqi government."

It minimizes the extent of the damage. "Although current countrywide infectious disease incidence in Iraq is higher than it was before the Gulf War, it is not at the catastrophic levels that some groups predicted. The Iraqi regime will continue to exploit disease incidence data for its own political purposes."

And it places the blame squarely on Saddam Hussein. "Iraq's medical supply shortages are the result of the central government's stockpiling, selective distribution, and exploitation of domestic and international relief medical resources." It adds: "Resumption of public health programs . . . depends completely on the Iraqi government."

As these documents illustrate, the United States knew sanctions had the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq. It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks of disease and high rates of child mortality. And it was more concerned about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.

Destroying Water Installations: International Law

The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the "protection of victims of international armed conflicts," Article54 , it states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

But that is precisely what the U.S. government did, with malice aforethought. It "destroyed, removed, or rendered useless" Iraq's "drinking water installations and supplies." The sanctions, imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA's own words, "fully degrade" Iraq's water sources.

At a House hearing on June 7, Representative Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred to the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations."

Over the last decade, Washington extended the toll by continuing to withhold approval for Iraq to import the few chemicals and items of equipment it needed in order to clean up its water supply.

Last summer, Representative Tony Hall, Democrat of Ohio, wrote to then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "about the profound effects of the increasing deterioration of Iraq's water supply and sanitation systems on its children's health." Hall wrote, "The prime killer of children under five years of age--diarrheal diseases--has reached epidemic proportions, and they now strike four times more often than they did in1990 . . . . Holds on contracts for the water and sanitation sector are a prime reason for the increases in sickness and death. Of the eighteen contracts, all but one hold was placed by the U.S. government. The contracts are for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing pumps, water tankers, and other equipment. . . . I urge you to weigh your decision against the disease and death that are the unavoidable result of not having safe drinking water and minimum levels of sanitation."

For more than ten years, the United States has deliberately pursued a policy of destroying the water treatment system of Iraq, knowing full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The United Nations has estimated that more than500 , 000Iraqi children have died as a result of sanctions, and that5 , 000Iraqi children continue to die every month for this reason.

No one can say that the United States didn't know what it was doing.

[antoine]

CounterPunch

February14 ,2003
He'll Be Remembered as an Asshole

Peaceniks Win War!

By BEN TRIPP

Hey, gang! We won, if you don't mind Pyrrhic victories. I feel like the guy at Hiroshima who was in a fart-lighting contest just as the A-bomb went off. His last words were "beat that". In a topsy-turvy way that would baffle the Cheshire Cat, we who desire peace will triumph in the event of war. You see, if there's a clear loser in the pending savagery, it's George W. Bush and his administration of barking scrotum monsters.

Right now it doesn't look like they've lost. They'll have their war on Iraq; they will rain bombs down on that godforsaken patch of petroleum-soaked dirt and before you know it instead of the Iraqi population being50 % children, it will be20 % children, because kids can't run as fast as adults. After a few days of hand-to-hand combat through the streets of once-legendary Baghdad it will all be over. But George never read the Arabian Nights- too long and too dirty. So he doesn't know that Baghdad is infested with genies, and we're not talking about the cute blue ones with ADD who talk like Robin Williams. The ones in Baghdad are the djinn, ancient magical spirits that inevitably trick their masters into self-destruction. Voila! Or if you're Mozart, viola. But the effect is the same. George W. Bush has already lost the most important battle of all: the battle for the future.

Setting aside money and power for a moment (sometimes I do), what really matters to a guy like George is that he should someday join the pantheon of Great Americans whose marble busts inhabit the halls of our nation's capitol. He's got all the power and money he could ever misuse in a thousand lifetimes. What he needs now is to be honored by posterity. This is where he loses and we win. One could argue that George is a marble-headed bust already: that's as close as he'll come to being pals with posterity. Posteriority, yes. Posterity, no. He will not be remembered as a brave warrior, a noble patriot, a statesman, a father to his country, a son of God, or even a well-meaning delusional psychotic. He will be remembered as an asshole- and that's exactly how it will read in the history textbooks, although they'll spell it a**hole so as to avoid mantling the kiddies' cheeks with blushes.

In the future, assuming we can still hope for one, George XLIII's reign will be derided, scorned, mocked, and other words to that effect. jeered and disparaged at the very least, maybe even subject to opprobrium. We-- the unlikely alliance acting against his lunatic regime, we Liberals and Conservatives, Libertarians and Progressives and Pentagon generals and disenfranchised veterans, mothers, fathers, mimes, entomologists, podiatrists and transsexuals, all sons and daughters of a government that has turned its back on the principles upon which we were nurtured from cradle to shallow grave-- we will bask in the hallowed light of kind remembrance, not George. A fat lot of good it will do us, but there we are. I didn't say victory would be sweet. Those kids who took a bullet at Kent State? Martin Luther King? The Kennedy brothers? King Kong? They had to die at the hands of The Man to get immortal- it's a mug's game. George W. Bush, how will we loathe thee? Let me count the ways.

Foremost among his epic buggerations, history will record that Bush precipitated modern America's first utterly unprovoked war and rekindled the arms race. Saddam's not even a communist. A war of opportunity, possibly World War III: this is what Bush will be remembered for, not the inevitable victory over some whiskery homunculus in Baghdad. And that's not all.

Another first: George will be remembered for reversing the outcome of both the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement. He will be remembered for mixing Church and State: his invisible cloud superhero and your tax dollars, together at last. He will be remembered for nose-diving the economy from a great height. For record deficits and massive bureaucratic expansion- he'll knock Reagan off the charts. For 50 bankrupt states. He will be remembered for turning his back on treaties. For insulting great nations. For calling the leader of Russia 'Pooty Poot'. For oppressing the weak and unleashing the mighty upon them. For eviscerating the Bill of Rights, and for secret detentions. For ignoring the desperate environmental crisis which grips the globe like a gut-spasming case of Montezuma's Revenge. For slipping the government's unclean fingers back into the womb of every woman in America. For stealing the election of2000 . For rigging the election of2002 , and probably for canceling the election of2004 . Need more? You can't spin the history of the future, which will read something like this:

Bush, G.W.43 d American President (locum tenens)

In private life an unsuccessful oil executive, George W. Bush was installed as president of the United States by the Supreme Court in the year2000 . At first an ineffectual president both at home and abroad, he was invested following the terrorist acts of September11 , 2001 (see sidebar) with enormous political authority. Seizing opportunity in the name of fighting terrorism, Bush advanced an aggressive agenda to secure the world's natural resources for private interests, especially the petroleum industry. After initiating a disastrous program of economic, military and diplomatic actions coupled with severe domestic security measures, Bush's administration collapsed under a wave of scandals. The impact of his presidency on America's international standing is still felt today. According to an obscure satirist of the period, "George W. Bush was the a**hole that ate the world."

See also Stalin, J. and Hitler, A.

Just you wait and see. The genie is out of the bottle, and this is one bottle George won't put down. Us real patriots, the dissidents, have already won- and we'll get our country back someday. What's left of it. Hell, in ten years we'll be able to travel overseas again. History will smile on us. Meanwhile, buckle up your poniards, because we may have won the war, but the battle has only just begun.

Ben Tripp can be reached at: credel@earthlink.net

[antoine]

USA on the Record
Land of the _rave, no home of the free

So what if I love your country and what you stand for, yet you do not want my country to get anywhere.....

Extract
Begin Item

Resolution36 /12. Anti–racism condemns apartheid in South Africa and Namibia.
Voting: 145 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution34 /199. Safeguarding rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
Voting: 112 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution35 /57. Establishment of a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic cooperation.
Voting: 134 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution35 /174. Emphasising that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
Voting: 120 to 1(US voted against).

Resolution36 /13. Condemns collaboration of certain states and transnational corporations with the apartheid South African government.
Voting: 124 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution36 /18. To promote cooperative movements in the developing countries includes; (agricultural, savings and credits, housing, consumer protection, and social services, etc).
Voting: 123 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution36 /87B. Establishment of a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle East.
Voting: 107 to 2 (US and Israel voted against).

Resolution36 /133. Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc, are human rights.
Voting: 135 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution36 /172. To encourage various international actions against apartheid South Africa.
Voting: 126 to 2 (US and UK voted against).

Resolution36 /172N. Support of sanctions and other measures against apartheid South Africa.
Voting: 139 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution37 /69G. Promoting international mobilisation against apartheid.
Voting: 141 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution37 /94B. Support of UNESCO’s efforts to promote a new world information and communications order.
Voting: 131 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution37 /98A. Necessity of a convention on the prohibition of chemical and bacterological weapons.
Voting: 95 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution37 /199. Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc, are human rights.
Voting: 131 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution37 /251. Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
Voting: 146 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution38 /25. The right of every state to choose its economics and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
Voting: 131 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution41 /128. Declaration of the right to development.
Voting: 146 to 1 (US voted against).

Resolution42 /159. Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people for national liberation.    
Voting: 152to 2 (US, Israel  voted against).

End Item

Never mind we still (sob, sob! boo hoo, wah!!!!) love, sob you, waaaahhhhhh!

Sniff sniff....

[This message has been edited by antoine (edited 27-02-2003).]

[PhilM]

Antoine - Re your last post I believe it is called Isolationism, only doing what is best for the top 1% of your country. An Amercian friend drew my attention to this:-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20030226/cx_po_uc/po20030226

Trouble is he is dragging us all along behind him. Now who was it I heard had just started up their Nuclear Power station yesterday with an avowed intent to produce Nuclear weapons. Can't have been North Korea can it Bush is sending them food and fuel oil again!

[antoine]

PhilM
Thanx for the link.

I would be happy, were it not a true depiction of the unbelievable reality.

Not everyone follows, however...and he has successfully ditched his friends...made more enemies for simple Americans, who want no part of his antics. No one trusts him...

His reckless and wanton abandonment of personal credibility is astonishing.
.
Look at this Turkish Situation recently.
Not many really knew why Turkey objected to the use of it soil...

They wanted cash up front...ALL of it, not cheque or credit card or guarantees.

That was what the delay was all about...
They received every cent of it.

Look what American credibility has gone to, that Turkey, does not trust its word.
And they have a reason to...

Historically America has shafted and backstabbed everyone.

1. He screwed his best friend Vicente Fox, of Mexico on the undocumented Mexican issue(I have personal knowledge of that).

2.Even in America remember: A  Promise of  of $3. 5billion for "first responders "to  Firefighters and policemen after 9-11 was made by Mr. Bush.
To date no money has been  given.

How does he do it...he is thrashing America, and he was not even elected.

See the next post for a direct response,  using my cut and paste for a view of his Isolationism, which I share.

Thanx for you post.
Peace

[antoine]

More on his Isolationism and its effects...

I am sure, they never thought of this...
Begin Item

Out of the wreckage

By tearing up the global rulebook, the US is in fact undermining its own imperial rule

George Monbiot
Tuesday February25 ,2003
The Guardian

The men who run the world are democrats at home and dictators abroad. They came to power by means of national elections which possess, at least, the potential to represent the will of their people. Their citizens can dismiss them without bloodshed, and challenge their policies in the expectation that, if enough people join in, they will be obliged to listen.

Internationally, they rule by brute force. They and the global institutions they run exercise greater economic and political control over the people of the poor world than its own governments do. But those people can no sooner challenge or replace them than the citizens of the Soviet Union could vote Stalin out of office. Their global governance is, by all the classic political definitions, tyrannical.

But while citizens' means of overthrowing this tyranny are limited, it seems to be creating some of the conditions for its own destruction. Over the past week, the US government has threatened to dismantle two of the institutions which have, until recently, best served its global interests.

On Saturday, President Bush warned the UN security council that accepting a new resolution authorising a war with Iraq was its "last chance" to prove "its relevance". Four days before, a leaked document from the Pentagon showed that this final opportunity might already have passed. The US is planning to build a new generation of nuclear weapons in order to enhance its ability to launch a pre-emptive attack. This policy threatens both the comprehensive test ban treaty and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - two of the principal instruments of global security - while endangering the international compact that the UN exists to sustain. The security council, which, despite constant disruption, survived the cold war, is beginning to look brittle in its aftermath.

On Wednesday, the US took a decisive step towards the destruction of the World Trade Organisation. The WTO's current trade round collapsed in Seattle in 1999 because the poor nations perceived that it offered them nothing, while granting new rights to the rich world's corporations. It was relaunched in Qatar in 2001 only because those nations were promised two concessions: they could override the patents on expensive drugs and import cheaper copies when public health was threatened, and they could expect a major reduction in the rich world's agricultural subsidies. At the WTO meeting in Geneva last week, the US flatly reneged on both promises.

The Republicans' victory in the mid-term elections last November was secured with the help of $60m from America's big drug firms. This appears to have been a straightforward deal: we will buy the elections for you if you abandon the concession you made in Qatar. The agri-business lobbies in both the US and Europe appear to have been almost as successful: the poor nations have been forced to discuss a draft document which effectively permits the rich world to continue dumping its subsidised products in their markets.

If the US does not back down, the world trade talks will collapse at the next ministerial meeting in Mexico in September, just as they did in Seattle. If so, then the WTO, as its former director-general has warned, will fall apart. Nations will instead resolve their trade disputes individually or through regional agreements. Already, by means of the free trade agreement of the Americas and the harsh concessions it is extracting from other nations as a condition of receiving aid, the US appears to be preparing for this possibility.

The US, in other words, seems to be ripping up the global rulebook. As it does so, those of us who have campaigned against the grotesque injustices of the existing world order will quickly discover that a world with no institutions is even nastier than a world run by the wrong ones. Multilateralism, however inequitable it may be, requires certain concessions to other nations. Unilateralism means piracy: the armed robbery of the poor by the rich. The difference between today's world order and the one for which the US may be preparing is the difference between mediated and unmediated force.

But the possible collapse of the current world order, dangerous as it will be, also provides us with the best opportunities we have ever encountered for replacing the world's unjust and coercive institutions with a fairer and more democratic means of global governance.

By wrecking the multilateral system for the sake of a few short-term, corporate interests, the US is, paradoxically, threatening its own tyrannical control of other nations. The existing international agencies, fashioned by means of brutal power politics at the end of the second world war, have permitted the US to develop its international commercial and political interests more effectively than it could have done alone.

The institutions through which it has worked - the security council, the WTO, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank - have provided a semblance of legitimacy for what has become, in all but name, the construction of empire. The end of multilateralism would force the US, as it is already beginning to do, to drop this pretence and frankly admit to its imperial designs on the rest of the world. This admission, in turn, forces other nations to seek to resist it. Effective resistance would create the political space in which their citizens could begin to press for a new, more equitable multilateralism.

There are several means of contesting the unilateral power of the US, but perhaps the most immediate and effective one is to accelerate its economic crisis. Already, strategists in China are suggesting that the yuan should replace the dollar as east Asia's reserve currency. Over the past year, as the Observer revealed on Sunday, the euro has started to challenge the dollar's position as the international means of payment for oil. The dollar's dominance of world trade, particularly the oil market, is all that permits the US Treasury to sustain the nation's massive deficit, as it can print inflation-free money for global circulation. If the global demand for dollars falls, the value of the currency will fall with it, and speculators will shift their assets into euros or yen or even yuan, with the result that the US economy will begin to totter.

Of course an economically weakened nation in possession of overwhelming military force remains a very dangerous one. Already, as I suggested last week, the US appears to be using its military machine to extend its economic life. But it is not clear that the American people would permit their government to threaten or attack other nations without even a semblance of an international political process, which is, of course, what the Bush administration is currently destroying.

America's assertions of independence from the rest of the world force the rest of the world to assert its independence from America. They permit the people of the weaker nations to contemplate the global democratic revolution that is long overdue.

· The Age of Consent, George Monbiot's proposals for global democratic governance, will be published in June

End Item

I am one of those that have stopped transacting and storing, in US dollars...I use any other currency except US dollars.

Many websites that I purchased things from in US dollars, now have an alternative currency like pounds or euros.

At least five have euros only, and they previously accepted USD.

This is interesting....we should watch this snowball.

Peace.

[Fresh Mint]

Antoine

The great thing about the internet is that it provides millions of people the opportunity to access and provide alternative points of view outside the mainstream media.

The terrible thing is that it allows those same millions of people the opportunity to write (or cut and paste) a load of rubbish and pass it off as fact or intelligent comment.

With very little effort, any wacko in the world can produce a web page, register a domain name and appear to be a respectable organisation or source.

I’ll just use the example of your first post on this thread, the one that claims U.S. troops set fire to Kuwaiti oilfields in the first Gulf War and blamed it on Saddam Hussein.

Now, what are your motives for posting this? Do you believe it? Do you expect people who read it to believe it? Is it not irresponsible of you to post something like this without letting us know a little more about where it came from? Do you know where it came from? Are the sources credible?

No-one minds you posting your own opinions of things -- you are entitled to them -- but cutting and pasting other material suggests to me that you are asking us to accept them as somehow being legitimate because they came from somewhere else. But then I shouldn’t make assumptions…

Here is a paragraph from the biography of author of that article, Jon Rappoport, taken from his own webpage:

“Over the last 30 years, Jon's independent research has encompassed such areas as: deep politics, conspiracies, alternative health, the potential of the human imagination, mind control, the medical cartel, symbology, and solutions to the takeover of the planet by hidden elites.”

Now this is a personal opinion, but every one of those topics Mr Rappoport has done independent research on screams “wacko” to me. A read through his website (sourcing being all important, it is http://www.stratiawire.com)  shows he subscribes to the theory that the world is controlled by a handful of cartels who deliberately play games with countries and economies, that they have the power to control our minds, and that many television shows (he names “Law and Order” as one) are used to brainwash us. His best line, I thought, was that secret agents were roaming the world working for “still-more secretive and powerful groups, like the Vatican and the British Roundtable”.

Anyway, enough of Mr Rappoport. What about the article he wrote?

He quotes from a press release by the American Gulf War Veterans Association (AGWVA) in which one (yes one) unnamed veteran says American troops set fire to oil rigs in Kuwait following the Gulf War and blamed it on Saddam Hussein. The last two paragraphs are particularly disingenuous because they are passed off as coming from the AGWVA when in fact they are the author’s own comment.

(As an aside, oil rig firefighters frequently use explosives to put out fires. The explosion temporarily uses up all the oxygen in the immediate vicinity, depriving the fire of a vital ingredient to survive, thus extinguishing it. Could the one (yes one) unnamed veteran perhaps be confusing this action).

Anyway, a very quick trawl on the internet shows the American Gulf War Veterans Association listed like this by the Open Directory, which (again, sourcing being all important) describes itself as “the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors”.

“American Gulf War Veterans Association - The AGWVA provides resources for veterans of the Persian Gulf War. Discusses the variety of conspiracy theories surrounding the Persian Gulf War.”

A trawl of their website (www.gulfwarvets.com) shows that among other things, they claim over 15,000 U.S. servicemen have died in the last 10 years as a direct result of Gulf War Syndrome. It says the mainstream media and government have deliberately covered this up. I sent them an email asking how many members they had. They replied that information was “confidential”.

So, in effect, you have posted an article written by self-confessed conspiracy theorist writing on an organisation that involves itself in conspiracy theories, without any balance or rebuttal.

Again, why did you post this without telling us a bit about the motivation and source? Have you accepted it as fact? Did you bother doing any research on it or is what I have written the first you have found out about both Rappoport and the AGWCA? If so, would you now agree that given the above, the posting should be given no credibility whatsoever?

If you wish to post your own opinions – much as I and others sometimes disagree with them -- fine. But please try to be a bit more careful on your cut and paste jobs. Try to do a little bit of work on the sourcing before letting them loose on an unsuspecting public. Remember, there are some innocents out there who may be inclined to accept everything you post as fact.

Donate the dollar to a charity of your choice.

Peace and cool runnings.

[PhilM]

Fresh Mint - Excellent Post, after a while you come to realise much of what Antoine cuts and pastes is simply done in an attempt to make people think for themselves. On a recent post I joked about Manc Man being my “Devils Advocate”; well I feel Antoine fills that position for the whole of Talking Point.

For those who may not know the phrase “Devils Advocate” although originally used by the Catholic Church for the individual tasked with proving why an individual should not be Beatified, it is now regularly used to mean making an argument for something you don't necessarily believe in. Instead, you are making the argument to ensure that all sides of a position are heard and also to ensure that the idea you are arguing against is as sound and strong as possible.

In other words Antoine deliberately cuts and pastes articles diametrically opposed to many of the posts placed in Talking Point. He can then sit back and see what response the cut and pastes draw out. Frankly yours is one of the few that have argued against his cut and pastes after using due diligence and formatting a logical rebuttal. Most responses tend to be of the yah boo you suck type!

As you say when Antoine makes it clear he is posting his own view then it is up to us to agree or disagree with him plus of course show good reasoning in our  own position. When he simply cuts and pastes as he has done in the last couple of days personal attacks on him as an individual are frankly meaningless – far better to debunk the cut and pastes as you have done very lucidly in your last post.

Of course there are always those who enjoy a good bun fight on the board and attack Antoine no matter what he posts. He usually responds in kind but also tends to point the individual towards his real reason in making the post in the first place.

[antoine]

getting Fresh-er Mint

You seem to have grown by leaps and bounds.

I commend your new approach as well as the tone in which it is written, and very importantly  what I would like to believe is the general intent.

Please take a look at my own comments re my cut and paste posts.

Note this
"What passes for arguments and opinions on this board on these issues, are largely canned output. One does not have to think to engage most of the posts. Consequently I post opinions from either the same can or another can, which opposes your canned position."

Note this very well.
"Whether I believe what I post is neither here nor there, suffice it to say that these other opinions and articles, are available from the same mills that make your cans, and shape your opinions. "

"However many are reckless and lazy to even ask why they think what they think, and whether the maker or owner of the can has their interest at heart."

"Now either my positions and postings are correct or yours are…many cannot believe that what they believe is wrong, or can be wrong, and are not mature enough to deal with it…the only thing then is to hide behind a pseudonym and insult an opinion, or post."

"So I post an opposing position, all the time….from a can to match your wisdom from a can…and your wisdom and what you would like others to think is your own seminal thoughts still does not approach my canned position..."

-------end that-------

You will never know what I believe from what I post, or my level of personal knowledge in many of these things unless, I provide it.

I continue.
I am happy that you are able to cut and paste an opposing scenario...
That is how it should be.

I post what I wish and you post what you wish both requiring readers to see an alternative viewpoint. That is all I ever wish for, and expect.

Unlike some, I do not live on a board, I read and post only when I am here, and abide by my own rules.
Here I do not seek or need credibility...and I do not wish that anyone believes either me or anything that I  post...

It is sufficient that they read, or eat from a different can from time to time.
It is good for all concerned, and much more mentally nutritious and stimulating than the regular fare.

Additionally, many post from their armchair and and very safe Singapore, where it is so safe. you are not likely to be disturbed by persons voicing objection to anything.

Many have never ventured beyond the security that is their world, and have half baked opinions based on a paid editor, who values his salary, and serves the interest of someone, who serves the interest of someone, who either owes another a favour, or has had his  mental and intellectual clarity compromised by the amount of skeletons in his closet, his debts, concern for family, or indeed his fear.

Now, there is your source of general news, and spin on the facts.

I put it to you, gone are the days when, news was reported.
We now create the news for income and audience, and opinions. (largely led by US.)

Out of all of this, many still believe that  ONLY what they read, and is comfortable with are the facts...therefore no one else can have the facts...especially if it is uncomfortable, or runs contrary to their version.

That is the general character of this board, indeed most *** of this nature, where proof and accountability is not a requirement...

There are however enough posters of sincerity on this board, which makes it worthwhile to post in this community, even if it is only to let them be aware that something is also said on a particular subject of their interest or posting.

Having said that, you will notice that I have not treated with the contents of your post.

There is method in that.
I have used the fact that you posted, the tone that you posted in, the spirit of the post, and the seemingly clear intention of the post to clear the air between you and I because we now have history, for what it is worth.

Now I respond to what you posted, briefly, by a similitude.

Begin similitude
There are usually a few persons that know the truth of any situations.

Usually the conceptualiser, and the executor, and the executor only knows the 'how to' very close to his hands....he usually does not know why.

When I tell you to do anything unless I tell you why and am being true in telling you why, you have no clue.

However you would have formed your own opinions as to why, and because you did it, you may also be convinced of your reason.

You could be very wrong...and after you ask me for confirmation, you could also be very wrong if you thought I told you the truth of it.
You may think that is a single action which started and ended with you.
Rarely will you think that it may be serial, that  it is continuing with you, and will end somewhere else, with someone else etc.

You would not even know that I may have just wanted you out of the way and your act has no other importance to me,  however grave you may think it is.

And, I could insincerely confirm whatever you believe, by letting you think you are correct, thereby further confounding you, and even giving you a false belief in your capabilities regarding your ability to be correct, and believe in yourself.

It may suit my other purposes, and indeed my other plans in which you are again needed to to be executor, or simply out of the way.

End similitude
There is benefit in that for those who care to reflect.

There are two many wheels within wheels, and boxes within boxes in this world, many have no clue, why they even are selected for a prize....or a job...never mind the explanations offered as reasons.

There are some who know why.

The internet will make gulls of more than it will make wisemen of, and earthly gods of even less.
My God(Great and Mighty is He) protect us from the evil of it and benefit  us from the good of it.

Fact is stranger than fiction, fact is also the substance of much fiction...
Wanna read that again...

Fact is also the substance of much fiction.

There is benefit in even the slightest reflection on that statement.

Sometimes we do not even know to whom we are rude, or where the "bad luck" came from.

Let me reiterate this: do not CHOOSE to be misled by my posts, despite your better judgement, there is method to my madness.

Finally, I am not sure what your cryptic message about donation to charity is for.

I can only think that either :
1. you are the "dollar earning witness" of some post past, and need another dollar;
2. you own all the charities in the world, and would personally benefit...;
3. you think you have proven me wrong...in that case you would not have earned a dollar.(read that any way you can);
4. or there is a philantrophe somewhere dying to come to the fore.

Let me indulge your post some more yet.
It is easy to prove me wrong...simply:

1.  find something in my post that I said was fact;
2. say it is wrong, and prove beyond a "canned" opinion that it is wrong.

That is going to be tough, because against the background of all I said above, what I say is fact, is from personal knowledge, not any report, but few woud like to believe that much more  know that...and as a rule I do what I know.

3. Out of sincerity, and admiration for your last effort, I will add a third; that you ONLY prove on a "balance of probabilities", that I could be wrong in what I say is fact.

Even that still would not say that I am wrong, but it would engage brain, and we may see information on this board as a result...There is much to be known, and no interest or space to put it.

Indeed if the cup is already filled, wherein shall we put the truth!!!?

Peace be unto you, for what it is worth, and notwithstanding the intention of your post, of which you could have many, (indeed, even in a wager for another dollar)you have grown some...

And I openly,graciously unstintingly commend your efforts in that regard...
Notwithstanding, you have not proven the allegation even incorrect, much more unlikely.
But your efforts commend capabilities that you denied in using baser methods, at an earlier instance.

I note your caution to be careful of what I cut and paste.
I offer in return, that you be careful of what you believe is true based only on what you read, and offer as the fact of a situation, not only on this board, but elsewhere...and  also what you summarily subscribe to and accept as final.

Even now I am sure you have not yet exercised the presence of mind to think of what you are a part.    

Further I expect adults to read, never mind I do not get adult responses all the time.

As adults who have been institutionally educated, and have vaunted paper to testifiy to brilliance, we do most institutions either justice or injustice by many of our posts, we do less for the testament of brilliance...

If I am sincere, I expect adults to be discriminating, and engage brain and so I prefer to present all...than censure any....even in articles which oppose my positions.

It is never what I post, it is what you do with what I post....the responsiblility is elsewhere.... I do not support the largely American held, and propagated through film and media opinion, that what I do is based on your leading me...or becuase you or my parents determined my genes, or your swaying my opinions, or indeed as the present case is my making something available....

If the general principle is not true...then guess which Being and Power, we would make responsible for our evil, that sits beside our good.

We would go one worse, than calling what is supposed to be bad/a calamity an "Act of (a) god"

The final responsibility is mine, and I am accounted for what I do, and for my intentions.

You for yours.

In the meantime, " I post an opposing position, all the time, from a can to match your wisdom from a can…whether I believe or not is neither here nor there"

For what you or other readers do, the responsibility is with you and them.
I return your caution to you.

I had forgotten this:
Here are possible reasons in my mind for your last post:
1. To prove me wrong, even when I never said the post was a fact, or that I believed it;
2. To save face/post after the last encounter;
3. Personal/public gratification rise again, in the eyes of those in whose esteem you had fallen, as a result of your instant posts;
4. To prove that you can do better than you did;
5. A vieled apology.

Whatever I commend either or all, and "have forgiven thee thy past trespass."    , and hold neither animosity or ill-will.

Peace be unto you, and thanx for your post.

Easy skanking.

[This message has been edited by antoine (edited 28-02-2003).]

[antoine]

.

[Dolemite]

You're arguing with a guy that believes in the Illuminati, and defends the veracity of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
Typical antoine behavior is to post some inflamatory nonsense, and then run away from it. He's a total coward.

[antoine]

Dolemite

I have time and can spare the effort for one who masquerades as another.

Here is a similitude that even you can understand.
How do I prove to you that you exist.?
How do I prove to you that you have a  pain.?
Can you prove to me that you have pain.?

For all you know, care or probably should fear, I may be the Illuminati, or I may have written the Protocols, or knew who wrote them, or be actively involved in their deinal or propagation...

On what proof or lack of it do you base your denial of either. Surely it is clear, that you have not thought this through.

And I am not being realistic in asking you for proof, because history and the instant post shows no indication, that you have the ability or propensity...I just want to lay your head bare.

Oh thee of little thinking, less reflection, and dubious knowledge....

Not even you know what you believe....I never indulge you...I know better.

And there is no gain in it for either of us.
I prithee, get something from this one, and arrest your unmitigated virulence, rather than just exist on trailing other's posts and acting like a scourge and resident terrorist of your peers.

Peace be unto you, and look after your mental health.

[This message has been edited by antoine (edited 28-02-2003).]

[Fresh Mint]

Antoine

My response, contrary to what you suggest, was no apology, attempt to save face, bid for personal or public gratification or effort to do better.

It served merely to show that you post rubbish -- factually innacurate conspiracy ramblings unworthy of forwarding.

Your attempt to justify it on the grounds you are trying to get people to think for themselves, or that you cannot be blamed for its accuracy, is both lame and disingenuous.

To use one of your favourite expresions "you have been weighed and found wanting".

[antoine]

getting Fresh Mint

Your information is reliable, your source infallible, and you post facts...

And you are brilliant, you use one statement that you cannot prove or disprove on the strength of your chosen source, to discredit another statement that you can neither disprove or prove, and posit on the strength (or indeed weakness of that ) that what I post is not true.

When nowhere did I say that what I post was true, or not true.

Your zealous logic has proven your undoing in this.

Your last three lines gives you the lie and absolves me, how can I be responsible for the fact or falsehood of what never originated with me.

And even after I give my reasons for what I do, it still suits you to disbelieve for the sole purpose of scoring a point that will not be awarded, in a game that does not exist, and in which your would-be participation, at best would leave much to be desired. methinks, thou confoundest thysel, and art now as clear as the"Eqyptians in their fog."

Perhaps you really need that donation(you requested it twice)  .

If not fresh, you are brilliant.

You are also alone in that which you seek to accomplish...I move on

Peace be unto you...be well, yonder horizon beckons, and I rid myself of thee.

[This message has been edited by antoine (edited 28-02-2003).]