[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: USA - An analysis - Where is the Bush administration taking



the
Sender: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
All nations have the habit of footdragging, Smartness that would suit
an old ASS.  America is justified in consistently giving a long rope to
people to hang themselves. Look at the disunited leadership of India,
who for a small gain give up National Interests. It is better to err
like
Uncle Sam then Err like an IFS led and wage packet driven 11 to 4PM
Govt of India. Look at Musharaf and Sonia rushing to China to Curry
and secure their future ! When the house is on fire, and the owner runs
to the barn, to feret the ground in Peking, it means where one's
treasure
is hidden. !  I am convinced that God alone saves India, certainly
not the greedy Politico-Bureacrat-Criminal Gangs elected into a chair!

God Save India ! He can turn around the most quixotic deceisons. Just
wait and when USA asks for help, the North Block will think, Oh the
problems are less with Terrorist gone, why now help !

When Gen. Musharaf orders the screeining of the Madarasas in Pakistan
would the elected idiots unite, and do the same in India. They will miss

the opportunity, because you cant get back the chair without siding with

anti-National elements. That is exactly the Loyal to India Congress
would
do it. Even if they clear matters with Rome they would decide better. !

God save India. Socialism in India lies only in only in the accounts @
Swiss
Banks, Cayman Isles, Rumania, and Now most reliable China ! ( Gaddafio,
Arafat,
Sultan of Maldives and Brunei having been downgraded )

Sai Ram Sathya kumar.

Sudhir Gandotra wrote:

> American
>  people?
> Sender: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> A cross posting on US situation
>
> ********************
> relayed via - world-friends
> Humanist Association of Hong Kong, email: tonyhen@Humanist.ORG.HK.
> See home page at http://home.pacific.net.hk/~tonyhen
> ********************************************
> Sender: owner-world-friends@smtp.hk.super.net
> Precedence: bulk
>
> World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
>
> Where is the Bush administration taking the American people?
>
> By the WSWS Editorial Board
> 22 September 2001
>
> One unmistakable message emerged from the speech delivered by
President
> George W. Bush to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night: the
> United States is being propelled onto a course of global violence and
> domestic repression unprecedented in the nation's history.
>
> In the name of a "war against terrorism," the Bush administration is
> demanding and being granted unspecified and unlimited powers to employ

> military force all over the world.
>
> The siege-like setting for Bush's speech with the Capitol ringed by
> troops and the sound of military helicopters seeping into the chamber
> was in keeping with the administration's posture since the terrorist
> attacks on New York and Washington. The government has gone out of its

> way, not to reassure the American people, but rather to create an
> atmosphere of panic. It is encouraging a mood of hysteria combined
with
> flag-waving chauvinism in order to stampede the public into accepting
> not only the unrestrained use of American military power, but also a
> far-reaching attack on basic democratic rights within the United
States
> itself.
>
> Hence the absence of Vice President Cheney and the announcement that
he
> had been taken to an undisclosed secure venue. The administration
wants
> the American people to
> believe that the immense power of the US military could not guarantee
> the safety of government leaders in the Capitol building. If Bush and
> company really believe this
> preposterous idea, then it must be said they have completely lost
their
> heads. The more likely explanation is that they want to fortify their
> incessant claim that America is at war, and accustom the population to

> war-time measures and a government that carries out its major
functions
> behind the backs of the public.
>
> In his speech Bush employed apocalyptic terms to convince the American

> people that they must acquiesce in a global war of indefinite
duration,
> against a host of as yet unnamed enemies, with no limit on the death
and
>
> destruction to be meted out to people outside the US, or the toll in
> body bags containing the remains of American soldiers.
>
> "Our response," he declared, "involves far more than instant
retaliation
>
> and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a
> lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen." It would not be
a
> short and decisive war against a single country, as in Iraq, he
> continued, or an air war with no US casualties, as in Yugoslavia. He
> called his war for the "defeat of the global terror network" a
> "task that does not end." Pointedly refusing to rule out the use of
> nuclear weapons, he added, "We will direct every resource at our
> command...and every necessary weapon of war."
>
> Laying down a rationale to attack any nation deemed now or in the
future
>
> to be an obstacle to the global ambitions of the United States, Bush
> declared, "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make:
> Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Any nation
that
>
> refuses to obey Washington's dictates "will be regarded by the United
> States as a hostile regime."
>
> At the heart of the scenario presented by Bush was an anomaly that he
> made no attempt to explain. On the one hand he described the enemy as
a
> "fringe" element of Islamic
> fundamentalists, amounting to some "thousands" of terrorists spread
out
> among 60 countries. Yet this relative handful of loosely connected
> terrorist groups posed a dire and direct threat to America and the
> entire "civilized world" of such dimensions that only the most massive

> and sustained use of military force would suffice to defeat it.
>
> The immediate purpose of Bush's speech was to take the country into
war
> against Afghanistan. Bush listed a set of demands he knew would mean
> political suicide for the Taliban regime, and which they could not
meet
> even if they wanted to. He demanded that the Taliban deliver into
> American hands "all the leaders" of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida
network,
> that they immediately close every al-Qaida installation, and
> that they give the US "full access to terrorist training camps."
>
> In effect, the Bush administration is demanding that the Taliban
regime
> accede to the transformation of Afghanistan into a military
protectorate
>
> of the United States. This
> ultimatum, Bush declared, is "not open to negotiation or discussion."
If
>
> the leaders of the regime do not surrender to US demands, Bush warned,

> they will share the terrorists' fate, i.e., they will be killed.
>
> There was no formal demand for Osama bin Laden's extradition. Indeed,
> there is no convention under international law for what Bush demanded.

> Washington's demands have been formulated to provide a pretext for a
war
>
> that had already been decided upon.
>
> Bush charged bin Laden and his Taliban protectors with direct
> responsibility for the September 11 atrocities. These are, without
> question, reactionary forces who may very well have played a role, but

> Bush provided no evidence to back up his indictment. Even the Wall
> Street Journal, whose editorial pages have been clamoring for war
> not only against Afghanistan, but also against Iraq, acknowledged in a

> news article on September 19 that US officials have been unable to
> assemble sufficient evidence
> to prove their case against bin Laden.
>
> "But by 21st-century Western standards of law and international
> relations,"the Journal wrote, "how much actual evidence do
investigators
>
> have of Mr. bin Laden's
> involvement? The answer so far based on what can be gleaned from
public
> statements and US officials willing to discuss the matter is not
> enough."
>
> Bush further sought to justify war on Afghanistan by pointing to the
> repressive and totalitarian character of the Taliban regime. But the
> Taliban regime is the direct product of earlier American policies, and

> its dictatorial methods of rule and religious intolerance are not all
> that different from the United States' closest allies in the Middle
> East, such as the oil sheikdoms in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other
> Persian Gulf states.
>
> As the Bush administration embarks upon war, it is giving little
thought
>
> to the far-reaching and even incalculable consequences of its actions.

> Intervening in the most unstable region in the world, where a host of
> great powers vie for control of strategic resources and geo-political
> influence amidst the unspeakable poverty of hundreds of millions of
> people, the United States is embarked upon a course of action whose
> outcome may prove catastrophic for the entire planet.
>
> It is worthwhile to compare the methods of the Bush administration to
> those employed by Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis. That was
> certainly one of the greatest
> confrontations of the Cold War, in which the US government faced, from

> its standpoint, a clear military threat. At that time the American
> government went to the United Nations and presented detailed evidence
> with documents and photographs to make its case. It proceeded,
moreover,
>
> with a degree of caution that stands in glaring contrast to the
actions
> of the Bush administration.
>
> Today the US government makes the most sweeping claims, but presents
no
> evidence, either to the world or to the American public, to back them
> up. The historical comparison demonstrates that the actions of the US
> government today are determined less by the magnitude of the threat
than
>
> by the magnitude of the opportunities it perceives for turning a
> disaster into a pretext for implementing a far-reaching, but
> unstated, military, political and economic agenda.
>
> This is confirmed by a New York Times report on a split within the
Bush
> administration between those, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell,
> who want to proceed with a modicum of caution for fear of
destabilizing
> the Middle East and other vast regions of the world, and those, led by

> Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who see the September 11
> tragedy as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
> overthrow the regime in Iraq and establish a whole series of puppet
> governments. The aim of this faction is to implement, in rapid order,
> plans long on the drawing boards for tightening America's grip on the
> oil-rich Persian Gulf and Caspian basin and extending America's
military
>
> presence across the Eurasian continent.
>
> In his speech, Bush provided no explanation of the political and
> historical background to the September 11 disaster. With the
complicity
> of the media, the administration is seeking to bury the fact that
those
> whom it has singled out as the
> perpetrators of the terrorist atrocity were trained and financed by
the
> United States. The Islamic fundamentalists excoriated by Bush,
including
>
> bin Laden, got their start as CIA "assets" in Washington's covert
> campaign to oust Soviet-backed regimes in Afghanistan in the 1980s an
> operation that was carried out while Bush the elder, formerly the CIA
> director, held the post of vice president under Ronald Reagan.
>
> Only a few years ago the US tacitly endorsed the accession to power of

> its old Taliban allies. The Taliban thus become the latest in a long
> line of one-time American allies who ran afoul of the US and found
> themselves being denounced as
> warlords and modern-day Hitlers and targeted for destruction, a list
> that includes Manuel Noriega of Panama, Farrah Aidid of Somalia,
Saddam
> Hussein of Iraq and Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia.
>
> The media establishment is well aware of this history.
> Indeed, some twenty years ago CBS news anchor Dan Rather traveled to
> Afghanistan and posed for the TV cameras in Mujahaddin robes in order
to
>
> build support for the Islamic fundamentalist forces.
>
> This history is being suppressed because it demonstrates that those
who
> are today leading the American people into war, with all of the
> disastrous consequences it will entail, are politically implicated in
> the tragedy that took the lives of thousands of Americans in New York
> and Washington.
>
> The ominous implications for democratic rights of the war drive were
> underscored by Bush's announcement of a new Cabinet-level position,
the
> Office of Homeland Security, to coordinate all domestic intelligence
and
>
> security operations.
>
> The operations of the CIA, previously limited by law to external
> targets, will now be coordinated under a top-level federal agency with

> those of the FBI and other police
> agencies to wire-tap and spy on people within the US. This alone
> constitutes a huge breach of civil liberties.
>
> But it is only one part of a broader assault on democratic rights,
which
>
> includes the indefinite detention of legal aliens, deportations
without
> judicial review and a vast expansion of the government's powers to tap

> phones and intercept electronic communications.
>
> No section of the political establishment has questioned Bush's demand

> for a blank check to wage war abroad and crack down on civil liberties

> at home. At the very outset of the military crusade, both parties have

> disavowed all expressions of dissent.
>
> The Democratic Party demonstrated its abandonment of any pretext of
> opposition by foregoing the traditional response of the minority party

> to a presidential address to Congress.
> Instead the Democratic Senate majority leader, Thomas Daschle, made a
> joint appearance with Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, in which the
> latter summed up the state of American politics with the remark,
"There
> is no opposition party."
>
> The media, which universally lauded Bush's address, was silent on the
> contradiction between the democratic rhetoric that filled the Capitol
> and the de facto establishment of a one-party state. Nor did the
pundits
>
> care to point out that Bush's explanation for the terrorists'
hostility
> toward the United States "They hate what they see right here in this
> chamber: a democratically elected government" was given
> by a man who was installed in the White House by anti-democratic and
> illegitimate means.
>
> It is both ironic and menacing that the launching of a war in the name

> of freedom is accompanied by the disintegration of the most elementary

> principles of democracy and the dismantling of basic constitutional
> safeguards. Bush's injunction, "Either you
> are with us, or you are with the terrorists," is not only a formula
for
> waging war and toppling governments overseas, it is a rallying cry for
a
>
> McCarthyite witch-hunt against political dissent within the US.
>
> The effective collapse of any opposition serves an additional
political
> function. It means there can be no examination of the staggering
> security failures that made the attacks on the World Trade Center and
> the Pentagon possible.
>
> The atmosphere of fear and panic allows the government to escape any
> accounting for what was, at the very least, a case of criminal
> negligence, and then turn around and insist that the people's security

> and well-being require that they accept the abrogation of their
> democratic rights.
>
> Bush's speech was also significant for what it lacked. Reflecting the
> extremely privileged and narrow class interests he represents, Bush
> called for a bail out of the airline companies at taxpayer expense,
but
> had nothing to say to the millions of workers, small businessmen and
> retirees whose livelihoods are threatened by the collapse of the stock

> market, the plunge in consumer spending and the mass layoffs that have

> followed the September 11 disaster.
>
> Neither Bush nor the Democrats are proposing any serious measures to
> provide for the families of air industry employees who are being
thrown
> onto the street in colossal
> numbers. Nor are they proposing a safety net for shop owners in New
York
>
> who have been wiped out by the destruction of an entire section of the

> city. As for small investors and retirees whose life savings and
> retirement nest eggs are being gutted, they can expect no help from
> Washington.
>
> The terrible loss of life on September 11 was, in the final analysis,
a
> product of the reckless, irresponsible and reactionary international
> policies pursued for decades by American governments that represent,
not
>
> the American people, but rather a financial and corporate elite. Now
> this same elite is seizing on the tragic events in New York and
> Washington to drag the population without democratic debate or
> discussion and in an environment characterized by hysteria and
political
>
> intimidation into a "war unlike any other" that can only produce new
> disasters and tragedies, both abroad and at home.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------