Exodus 21:22-23 says:
"22 If men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
"23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."
The most straightforward reading of these passages seems to mean that if a man causes a woman to lose the child she is carrying, then he must pay a penalty, but something short of the death penalty for taking a life. If the woman dies, then the death penalty applies. However, I see from looking around the Internet that the right to lifers interpret it to mean that if a man cause a woman to give birth prematurely, but the child survives, then there is no death penalty, but the child dies, then the death penalty applies.
I looked into this because the talking heads on TV are saying that "values" or "morality" were the most important factors in electing Bush, but that this really meant only two issues: abortion and gay marriage. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, has so much to say about loving your neighbor and caring for the poor that I would think loving your neighbor would be important to Christians of any type -- evangelical, born again, or traditional. If the abortion issue is so much more important than Jesus' sermon on the mount, it looks like it would have gotten more attention in the Bible, and that any mention of it would be clearer than Exodus 21.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The World Joins Me in Not Cheering Bush Victory
According to the Washington Post, most of the world, except for Russia, Israel, and a few other countries, was disappointed by President Bush's re-election. The disappointed Canadians are a poignant example, since they share a lot with us, but apparently not many of our "values," which are supposed to be one of the main reasons for Bush's re-election. Most Canadians -- as well as the French and Germans -- come from Christan backgrounds. Martin Luther was German. But I guess they don't have the right kind of Christian morals for Bush and company.
One test for me will be what happens in Fallujah. If Bush is going to be the strong, brave leader that he was apparently elected to be, then he has to work out the future of Iraq, which in large part depends on what happens in Fallujah and other cities in the Sunni triangle. Iraqi elections scheduled for January will be virtually worthless if the Sunni triangle does not participate meaningfully.
If the Marines can't break the rebellion quickly by winning the Sunnis' hearts and minds, then they need to break it quickly with an iron fist, which may mean significant casualties. The question is whether Bush is willing to accept the casualties. The casualties may not come, because our other attacks, in the first Iraq war as in this one, have often been met by a stealthy melting away of the enemy, but you have to prepare for resistance if you attack.
The problem is highlighted by the headline of an article in the San Jose Mercury about the impending attack on Fallujah: "Marines' center symbolic of failed plans in Iraq." It says, "When the Marines arrived in Fallujah last March, they planned to win hearts and minds by learning Iraqi customs, sipping tea with local leaders and handing out candy and soccer balls while on foot patrol. But the liaison office is now more an outpost in enemy territory than the outreach center it was intended to be."
One test for me will be what happens in Fallujah. If Bush is going to be the strong, brave leader that he was apparently elected to be, then he has to work out the future of Iraq, which in large part depends on what happens in Fallujah and other cities in the Sunni triangle. Iraqi elections scheduled for January will be virtually worthless if the Sunni triangle does not participate meaningfully.
If the Marines can't break the rebellion quickly by winning the Sunnis' hearts and minds, then they need to break it quickly with an iron fist, which may mean significant casualties. The question is whether Bush is willing to accept the casualties. The casualties may not come, because our other attacks, in the first Iraq war as in this one, have often been met by a stealthy melting away of the enemy, but you have to prepare for resistance if you attack.
The problem is highlighted by the headline of an article in the San Jose Mercury about the impending attack on Fallujah: "Marines' center symbolic of failed plans in Iraq." It says, "When the Marines arrived in Fallujah last March, they planned to win hearts and minds by learning Iraqi customs, sipping tea with local leaders and handing out candy and soccer balls while on foot patrol. But the liaison office is now more an outpost in enemy territory than the outreach center it was intended to be."
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Richard Perle Being Sued for Millions
Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, is being sued for $22.6 million for his unscrupulous behavior as a director of Hollinger International, which owned the Jerusalem Post among other newspapers, according to the Washington Post. It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
Israeli's Set Record in Killing Palestinians
The New York Times reports that the Israeli army killed 165 Palestinians in October, 159 of them in the Gaza Strip. Fifty of the dead, about 30%, were civilians, including women, children, the elderly and males under 16.
Monday, November 01, 2004
Kerry and Bush Compete to Be Israel's Best Friend
One reason I am for Ralph Nader is that both Kerry and Bush are slavishly devoted to Ariel Sharon. The New York Times published an article headlined, "Kerry and Bush Compete for the Role of Israel's Best Friend." The article says, "One striking example of the consistency of views between the candidates is their responses to the plan by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel to withdraw troops and settlements from Gaza...." It adds that campaign surrogates Condi Rice and Richard Holbrooke both addressed AIPAC in Florida a week ago.
One reason I am for Ralph Nader is that both Kerry and Bush are slavishly devoted to Ariel Sharon. The New York Times published an article headlined, "Kerry and Bush Compete for the Role of Israel's Best Friend." The article says, "One striking example of the consistency of views between the candidates is their responses to the plan by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel to withdraw troops and settlements from Gaza...." It adds that campaign surrogates Condi Rice and Richard Holbrooke both addressed AIPAC in Florida a week ago.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
America's Relations with Pakistan Deteriorating
Pakistan is an important country to the US because it is an important ally in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan (who may live part-time in Pakistan), and it has nuclear weapons, the technology for which it has been willing in the past to sell to the highest bidder.
Despite the Bush administration's efforts to build lines of communication and friendship with Pakistan, the Los Angeles Times reports as a headline that "In Pakistan, U.S. Policies Foster Suspicion and Hatred." The article quotes several Pakistanis who used to be favorable to the US. About one, who enjoyed living in New York, the article says that now, "...With each passing day, Hamid's empathy is eroding. He believes that the Bush administration, by pursuing a foreign policy fixated on security, is turning a legitimate battle against terrorism into a campaign of hatred against Muslims.... Hamid said that in a country squeezed between Musharraf, a general who seized power in 1999, and Islamic extremists, there is little room for Western-educated moderates."
According to another source, "'I personally feel Americans are losing friends in Pakistan very, very rapidly,' said Shah Mahmood Qureshi, deputy parliamentary leader of the Pakistan People's Party, whose exiled leader, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was a close U.S. ally. 'When the realization finally comes, it'll be too late.'"
Pakistan is an important country to the US because it is an important ally in fighting terrorists in Afghanistan (who may live part-time in Pakistan), and it has nuclear weapons, the technology for which it has been willing in the past to sell to the highest bidder.
Despite the Bush administration's efforts to build lines of communication and friendship with Pakistan, the Los Angeles Times reports as a headline that "In Pakistan, U.S. Policies Foster Suspicion and Hatred." The article quotes several Pakistanis who used to be favorable to the US. About one, who enjoyed living in New York, the article says that now, "...With each passing day, Hamid's empathy is eroding. He believes that the Bush administration, by pursuing a foreign policy fixated on security, is turning a legitimate battle against terrorism into a campaign of hatred against Muslims.... Hamid said that in a country squeezed between Musharraf, a general who seized power in 1999, and Islamic extremists, there is little room for Western-educated moderates."
According to another source, "'I personally feel Americans are losing friends in Pakistan very, very rapidly,' said Shah Mahmood Qureshi, deputy parliamentary leader of the Pakistan People's Party, whose exiled leader, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, was a close U.S. ally. 'When the realization finally comes, it'll be too late.'"
New Marine Offensive in Falluja
All the main news outlets are predicting a new Marine offensive in Falluja soon. This goes back to my earlier posting on September 13, about orders that came from Washington telling the Marines to back off during their first offensive, making them look cowardly. The first offensive started after American security contractors were killed in Falluja and strung up for all to see.
The new offensive seems as politically controlled as the first, which is tough for the Marines who have to carry it out. It seems pretty clear that it is being delayed until too late to influence the US election, or perhaps the threat of the offensive is being used to win the votes of hawks who were disappointed with the failure of the first offensive. If that's the case, the second offensive may be more bark than bite. A New York Times article warns that the situation in Ramadi, near Falluja, is rapidly deteriorating and that guerrillas who are run out of Falluja (population 300,000) might simply move to Ramadi (population 400,000).
The problem whether there is an offensive or not, is the January elections. If there is no offensive placing Falluja under US control, elections will be less meaningful in the Sunni triangle, and a significant Iraqi constituency will be under represented. If there is an offensive, it may turn the hearts and minds of the Sunni Iraqis against the US, again with unfavorable implications for the elections.
All the main news outlets are predicting a new Marine offensive in Falluja soon. This goes back to my earlier posting on September 13, about orders that came from Washington telling the Marines to back off during their first offensive, making them look cowardly. The first offensive started after American security contractors were killed in Falluja and strung up for all to see.
The new offensive seems as politically controlled as the first, which is tough for the Marines who have to carry it out. It seems pretty clear that it is being delayed until too late to influence the US election, or perhaps the threat of the offensive is being used to win the votes of hawks who were disappointed with the failure of the first offensive. If that's the case, the second offensive may be more bark than bite. A New York Times article warns that the situation in Ramadi, near Falluja, is rapidly deteriorating and that guerrillas who are run out of Falluja (population 300,000) might simply move to Ramadi (population 400,000).
The problem whether there is an offensive or not, is the January elections. If there is no offensive placing Falluja under US control, elections will be less meaningful in the Sunni triangle, and a significant Iraqi constituency will be under represented. If there is an offensive, it may turn the hearts and minds of the Sunni Iraqis against the US, again with unfavorable implications for the elections.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Indian Says Bush Was Soft on Non-Proliferation
An article on Rediff.com says that India should support President Bush's re-election because he has been so soft on India's nuclear program. While this attitude may have been good for US-Indian relations, which have needed improvement, it has not been good for the global non-proliferation regime. The problem is that if India proliferates and gets away with it, then every other country will think that it has a right to do so, including Iran and North Korea.
After criticizing Kerry for his strong non-proliferation stand, the article by Colonel Dr Anil A Athale (retd) says, "President Bush on the other hand has been responsible for stalling and virtually killing the CTBT and stressed that he is concerned about the spread of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) to 'terrorist' groups. Bush also stressed his resolve to build the anti-missile defence shield." In other words, Bush opposes some non-proliferation efforts (the CTBT, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), and has limited other non-proliferation efforts to terrorist groups only (not countries in general). Presumably, he thinks that the anti-missile shield means that the US can live with proliferation.
The writer says, "Thanks to President Bush's pragmatic approach, the issue of Indian nuclear weapons got pushed to the background over the last four years and Indo-US relations flourished."
An article on Rediff.com says that India should support President Bush's re-election because he has been so soft on India's nuclear program. While this attitude may have been good for US-Indian relations, which have needed improvement, it has not been good for the global non-proliferation regime. The problem is that if India proliferates and gets away with it, then every other country will think that it has a right to do so, including Iran and North Korea.
After criticizing Kerry for his strong non-proliferation stand, the article by Colonel Dr Anil A Athale (retd) says, "President Bush on the other hand has been responsible for stalling and virtually killing the CTBT and stressed that he is concerned about the spread of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) to 'terrorist' groups. Bush also stressed his resolve to build the anti-missile defence shield." In other words, Bush opposes some non-proliferation efforts (the CTBT, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty), and has limited other non-proliferation efforts to terrorist groups only (not countries in general). Presumably, he thinks that the anti-missile shield means that the US can live with proliferation.
The writer says, "Thanks to President Bush's pragmatic approach, the issue of Indian nuclear weapons got pushed to the background over the last four years and Indo-US relations flourished."
Why Did the US Ignore the IAEA?
The debate between Bush and Kerry over the missing explosives in al-Qaqaa ignores an important issue: why did the administration ignore the IAEA's designation of these explosives as important to a nuclear weapons program? Bush has said that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was because Saddam had or was about to get weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear. Remember the mushroom cloud smoking gun?
Under those circumstances, the administration should have requested a list of designated nuclear-related sites from the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) and then specifically assigned US troops to check on and secure those sites. The fact that the ABC News video shows US troops breaking an IAEA seal, having no idea what it was, indicates the poor training the troops got for their primary mission of protecting the US and the rest of the world from WMD.
The explosives were not WMD, but they are an important ingredient in making a nuclear weapon go bang, once you have the really important ingredient, fissile uranium or plutonium. Why weren't the troops briefed on this aspect of the invasion, and why was the IAEA's list of nuclear sites ignored? Partly because of the ill will between the Bush administration and the UN, and the UN's IAEA in particular. Bush singled out Hans Blix, who was heading up the UN's inspection effort, for particular personal insults, and apparently the US spied on Blix in the run up to the war. When you burn your bridges, as the US did before the war, you had better be right. It turns out that we were not right.
The debate between Bush and Kerry over the missing explosives in al-Qaqaa ignores an important issue: why did the administration ignore the IAEA's designation of these explosives as important to a nuclear weapons program? Bush has said that the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was because Saddam had or was about to get weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear. Remember the mushroom cloud smoking gun?
Under those circumstances, the administration should have requested a list of designated nuclear-related sites from the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) and then specifically assigned US troops to check on and secure those sites. The fact that the ABC News video shows US troops breaking an IAEA seal, having no idea what it was, indicates the poor training the troops got for their primary mission of protecting the US and the rest of the world from WMD.
The explosives were not WMD, but they are an important ingredient in making a nuclear weapon go bang, once you have the really important ingredient, fissile uranium or plutonium. Why weren't the troops briefed on this aspect of the invasion, and why was the IAEA's list of nuclear sites ignored? Partly because of the ill will between the Bush administration and the UN, and the UN's IAEA in particular. Bush singled out Hans Blix, who was heading up the UN's inspection effort, for particular personal insults, and apparently the US spied on Blix in the run up to the war. When you burn your bridges, as the US did before the war, you had better be right. It turns out that we were not right.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
American War Crimes
The Washington Post broke a story about the CIA's removal of prisoners from Iraq, although this appears to violate the Geneva Conventions. According to the Post, the Justice Department wrote a memo in defense of the practice. Although the memo was stamped "draft" and apparently never finalized, it was circulated to other agencies, and the CIA relied on it in undertaking the removals or "renditions."
On Sunday, the New York Times had a long article on the rewriting of military law after 9/11 to allow sending prisoners to Guantanamo, where the administration expected them to be beyond the reach of the US judicial system. The article says that the White House proponents of this system kept lawyers from other agencies -- including uniformed military lawyers and State Department lawyers -- out of the process because the White House considered them too soft.
The Washington Post broke a story about the CIA's removal of prisoners from Iraq, although this appears to violate the Geneva Conventions. According to the Post, the Justice Department wrote a memo in defense of the practice. Although the memo was stamped "draft" and apparently never finalized, it was circulated to other agencies, and the CIA relied on it in undertaking the removals or "renditions."
On Sunday, the New York Times had a long article on the rewriting of military law after 9/11 to allow sending prisoners to Guantanamo, where the administration expected them to be beyond the reach of the US judicial system. The article says that the White House proponents of this system kept lawyers from other agencies -- including uniformed military lawyers and State Department lawyers -- out of the process because the White House considered them too soft.
Bush Failures on Non-Proliferation
The Washington Post has a major article on the failures of Bush's non-proliferation policy, involving most of the biggies, but with relatively little focus on Iraq. After all, it turned out that Iraq wasn't really a non-proliferation threat. It also doesn't mention India, since India is sort of doing its own thing, except that the unmentioned free pass for India complicates enforcing the entire non-proliferation regime, such as it is, against anyone.
The article, however, has in depth information on Pakistan (and the free pass given to A.Q. Khan), North Korea (and the absence of a policy -- "no carrot, no stick and no talk"), Iran (where the US turned down several opportunities to negotiate), Libya (about which the UK was much more concerned than the US), and finally Russia. According to the article, "'The big gorilla in the basement is the material from Russia and Pakistan,' said Robert L. Gallucci, dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and a classified consultant to the CIA and Energy Department laboratories. 'This is the principal, major national security threat to the United States in the next decade or more. I don't know what's in second place.'" Regarding Nunn-Lugar, the article continues, "Securing the [Russian nuclear] materials is laborious, expensive and dangerous work. Bush decided to let two of the major programs lapse because Russia declined to accept a change in the agreement that would shield U.S. firms from liability for worker safety."
The other disturbing fact was that intelligence types are almost certain that A.Q. Khan was doing nuclear business with another country, but nobody knows which one, and Khan is not talking. Bush continues to coddle Khan and Pakistan because we need their help in the war on conventional terror. Apparently nuclear terror is not so important.
The Washington Post has a major article on the failures of Bush's non-proliferation policy, involving most of the biggies, but with relatively little focus on Iraq. After all, it turned out that Iraq wasn't really a non-proliferation threat. It also doesn't mention India, since India is sort of doing its own thing, except that the unmentioned free pass for India complicates enforcing the entire non-proliferation regime, such as it is, against anyone.
The article, however, has in depth information on Pakistan (and the free pass given to A.Q. Khan), North Korea (and the absence of a policy -- "no carrot, no stick and no talk"), Iran (where the US turned down several opportunities to negotiate), Libya (about which the UK was much more concerned than the US), and finally Russia. According to the article, "'The big gorilla in the basement is the material from Russia and Pakistan,' said Robert L. Gallucci, dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and a classified consultant to the CIA and Energy Department laboratories. 'This is the principal, major national security threat to the United States in the next decade or more. I don't know what's in second place.'" Regarding Nunn-Lugar, the article continues, "Securing the [Russian nuclear] materials is laborious, expensive and dangerous work. Bush decided to let two of the major programs lapse because Russia declined to accept a change in the agreement that would shield U.S. firms from liability for worker safety."
The other disturbing fact was that intelligence types are almost certain that A.Q. Khan was doing nuclear business with another country, but nobody knows which one, and Khan is not talking. Bush continues to coddle Khan and Pakistan because we need their help in the war on conventional terror. Apparently nuclear terror is not so important.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
What Happens to Saddam?
The New York Times reported Friday that a weeklong training session for Iraqi judges and prosecutors who are supposed to try Saddam Hussein did not go well. Western experts said the Iraqis were not acquainted with the complexities of international law used to deal with mass killing and genocide.
On the other hand, the UN said that Secretary General Kofi Annan had expressed "serious doubts" that the Iraqi court could meet "relevant international standards," worried that its ability to apply the death penalty went against UN policies, and therefore Annan had concluded that UN legal experts should not assist the Iraqis. According to the article, an Iraqi said he would welcome UN participation because, "It would stop the impression that the whole thing is run by Americans."
The Washington Post described the UN decision as "a blow to the United States and Iraq's interim government." The Post added, "A senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing diplomacy, said the Iraqi tribunals would proceed without U.N. support, with the first trials against Hussein's associates starting in the new year."
The articles do not mention the role of Ahmad Chalabi's cousin, Salem Chalabi. Salem was initially named to head the war crimes tribunal, but has recently been removed from that position because of accusations of his involvement in criminal activity, according to CNN.
The New York Times reported Friday that a weeklong training session for Iraqi judges and prosecutors who are supposed to try Saddam Hussein did not go well. Western experts said the Iraqis were not acquainted with the complexities of international law used to deal with mass killing and genocide.
On the other hand, the UN said that Secretary General Kofi Annan had expressed "serious doubts" that the Iraqi court could meet "relevant international standards," worried that its ability to apply the death penalty went against UN policies, and therefore Annan had concluded that UN legal experts should not assist the Iraqis. According to the article, an Iraqi said he would welcome UN participation because, "It would stop the impression that the whole thing is run by Americans."
The Washington Post described the UN decision as "a blow to the United States and Iraq's interim government." The Post added, "A senior U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing diplomacy, said the Iraqi tribunals would proceed without U.N. support, with the first trials against Hussein's associates starting in the new year."
The articles do not mention the role of Ahmad Chalabi's cousin, Salem Chalabi. Salem was initially named to head the war crimes tribunal, but has recently been removed from that position because of accusations of his involvement in criminal activity, according to CNN.
Are We at War with Terrorism?
An article in today's Washington Post questioning whether there will be a terrorist attack to disrupt US elections raises the question of whether we are really in a war against terrorism comparable to the war in Iraq, or whether the real war on terrorism is more akin to the war on organized crime or drugs. The first question is what we mean by war. In America, the word war has been applied to wars on poverty, wars against crime, other types of "war" which are not one nation fighting another. Therein lies the problem, the war on terror is not a war against another nation, or an alliance of nations, but against people from many nations who share certain beliefs and hatreds. The nations don't share these dangerous values -- a relatively small percentage of the their populations do.
It's very possible that the 9/11 attacks were a fluke. If airport security had just been a little tighter, they never would have happened. If the FBI and CIA had just worked a little harder, they never would have happened. We were fighting 20-30 people who were intent on destroying thousands of Americans, but nevertheless, wars usually involve tens or hundreds of thousands of people fighting as many on the other side, perhaps millions. That's certainly not the case here, and Bush has never defined how his war on terrorism will be fought, unlike the conventional war on Iraq, which was fought in a relatively conventional way.
Can Bush really defend America if he is fighting the wrong war? I think there is a good chance that Bush is fighting the wrong war and that what he is doing is decreasing, not increasing, America's security.
An article in today's Washington Post questioning whether there will be a terrorist attack to disrupt US elections raises the question of whether we are really in a war against terrorism comparable to the war in Iraq, or whether the real war on terrorism is more akin to the war on organized crime or drugs. The first question is what we mean by war. In America, the word war has been applied to wars on poverty, wars against crime, other types of "war" which are not one nation fighting another. Therein lies the problem, the war on terror is not a war against another nation, or an alliance of nations, but against people from many nations who share certain beliefs and hatreds. The nations don't share these dangerous values -- a relatively small percentage of the their populations do.
It's very possible that the 9/11 attacks were a fluke. If airport security had just been a little tighter, they never would have happened. If the FBI and CIA had just worked a little harder, they never would have happened. We were fighting 20-30 people who were intent on destroying thousands of Americans, but nevertheless, wars usually involve tens or hundreds of thousands of people fighting as many on the other side, perhaps millions. That's certainly not the case here, and Bush has never defined how his war on terrorism will be fought, unlike the conventional war on Iraq, which was fought in a relatively conventional way.
Can Bush really defend America if he is fighting the wrong war? I think there is a good chance that Bush is fighting the wrong war and that what he is doing is decreasing, not increasing, America's security.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Background on Unrest in Pakistan
The August 28 Economist article on whether Musharraf will retire from the military for the remainder of his rule as President, had some interesting comments on continuing instability in Pakistan. The article said, "Despite ... protestations of friendship to Harmid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, who was visiting Islamabad this week, there are still suspicions that Pakistan is less than zealous in pursuing remnants of the Taliban on its Afghan borders. Curbing Al-Qaeda-linked terror at home, however, is a matter, quite literally, of life and death for Pakistan's leaders. General Musharraf has narrowly escaped two assassination attempts. And nine people died in an attack last month on Mr Aziz," the new prime minister.
Given that Pakistan seems to be our most important ally against terrorism in the region, and that it possesses nuclear weapons, its commitment to anti-terrorism and its allegiance to the West, particularly the US, is crucial to our continuing our current policies in the region.
The August 28 Economist article on whether Musharraf will retire from the military for the remainder of his rule as President, had some interesting comments on continuing instability in Pakistan. The article said, "Despite ... protestations of friendship to Harmid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, who was visiting Islamabad this week, there are still suspicions that Pakistan is less than zealous in pursuing remnants of the Taliban on its Afghan borders. Curbing Al-Qaeda-linked terror at home, however, is a matter, quite literally, of life and death for Pakistan's leaders. General Musharraf has narrowly escaped two assassination attempts. And nine people died in an attack last month on Mr Aziz," the new prime minister.
Given that Pakistan seems to be our most important ally against terrorism in the region, and that it possesses nuclear weapons, its commitment to anti-terrorism and its allegiance to the West, particularly the US, is crucial to our continuing our current policies in the region.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
US Acceptance of Israeli Abuses
Two recent articles highlight US acceptance of Israeli abuses of Palestinians, most recently in Gaza. The Washington Post reported today on the Human Rights Watch's criticism of Israel's demolishing houses in Gaza. "The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law," Human Rights Watch said in its 133-page report, adding that in most of the cases "the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity."
On October 16, the Post reported that in an interview with the Financial Times, Brent Scowcroft said that President Bush is "mesmerized" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Post said that Scowcroft further told the Financial Times, "Sharon just has him [Bush] wrapped around his little finger." Broadening his view, Scowcroft said that relations with Europe are "in general bad."
President Bush must be unhappy when his Daddy's old associates pull out the long knives. More and more, however, it is looking like Daddy was right not to march to Baghdad following his victory in the 1991 Iraq war.
Two recent articles highlight US acceptance of Israeli abuses of Palestinians, most recently in Gaza. The Washington Post reported today on the Human Rights Watch's criticism of Israel's demolishing houses in Gaza. "The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law," Human Rights Watch said in its 133-page report, adding that in most of the cases "the destruction was carried out in the absence of military necessity."
On October 16, the Post reported that in an interview with the Financial Times, Brent Scowcroft said that President Bush is "mesmerized" by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Post said that Scowcroft further told the Financial Times, "Sharon just has him [Bush] wrapped around his little finger." Broadening his view, Scowcroft said that relations with Europe are "in general bad."
President Bush must be unhappy when his Daddy's old associates pull out the long knives. More and more, however, it is looking like Daddy was right not to march to Baghdad following his victory in the 1991 Iraq war.
Brazil and Russia to Cooperate on Space Launch Vehicles
Brazil and Russia will sign a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on space launch matters when Putin visits Brazil in November, according to Space Daily. According to the article, the MOU calls for the joint development and production of launch vehicles, the launch of geostationary satellites and the joint development and utilization of Brazil's Alcantara Launch Center.
According to the article, "Russia's direct involvement in Brazil's space program accelerated following the explosion of Brazil's VLS rocket at Alcantara in August 2003. At that time, Russian space officials were invited to participate in the investigation to determine the cause of the explosion, which killed 21." Last September, Brazil awarded a contract to a Russian firm for technical assistance in rebuilding the launch tower destroyed in the VLS explosion, according the Brazilian newspaper, Gazeta Mercantil. The newspaper reported the new VLS launch tower is being built for to include the use of liquid-fuel rocket propellants, a technology, which Brazil does not yet possess, but which is being studied with the Russians to be incorporated into one of the future versions of the Brazilian VLS rocket.
Brazil's determination to proceed with its indigenous space launch vehicle is another example of its desire to be a first-rate world power, along with the US, India, China, Russia, etc. If space and nuclear technology are considered indicators of such first-rate power, then Brazil wants it regardless of the implications for the NPT and the MTCR. That does not necessarily mean that Brazil wants ICBMs with nuclear warheads; Brazil is a peaceful country. To the extent that the US uses its nuclear ICBMs to intimidate other countries around the world, however, Brazil could at some point follow in its footsteps by developing them. If the US turns its back on disarmament, then it may at some time have to invade Brazil, as it did Iraq, to eliminate the space and nuclear programs by force, if it is unwilling to accept them, as it has accepted them in India.
Brazil and Russia will sign a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on space launch matters when Putin visits Brazil in November, according to Space Daily. According to the article, the MOU calls for the joint development and production of launch vehicles, the launch of geostationary satellites and the joint development and utilization of Brazil's Alcantara Launch Center.
According to the article, "Russia's direct involvement in Brazil's space program accelerated following the explosion of Brazil's VLS rocket at Alcantara in August 2003. At that time, Russian space officials were invited to participate in the investigation to determine the cause of the explosion, which killed 21." Last September, Brazil awarded a contract to a Russian firm for technical assistance in rebuilding the launch tower destroyed in the VLS explosion, according the Brazilian newspaper, Gazeta Mercantil. The newspaper reported the new VLS launch tower is being built for to include the use of liquid-fuel rocket propellants, a technology, which Brazil does not yet possess, but which is being studied with the Russians to be incorporated into one of the future versions of the Brazilian VLS rocket.
Brazil's determination to proceed with its indigenous space launch vehicle is another example of its desire to be a first-rate world power, along with the US, India, China, Russia, etc. If space and nuclear technology are considered indicators of such first-rate power, then Brazil wants it regardless of the implications for the NPT and the MTCR. That does not necessarily mean that Brazil wants ICBMs with nuclear warheads; Brazil is a peaceful country. To the extent that the US uses its nuclear ICBMs to intimidate other countries around the world, however, Brazil could at some point follow in its footsteps by developing them. If the US turns its back on disarmament, then it may at some time have to invade Brazil, as it did Iraq, to eliminate the space and nuclear programs by force, if it is unwilling to accept them, as it has accepted them in India.
Nader the Spoiler
On Friday the New York Times print edition for Colorado had a front page article on the possibility that Ralph Nader's campaign may constitute a threat to John Kerry and the Democrats. (I can't find it in the Times' on-line edition.) It says that Nader could influence the electoral outcome in nine states, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.
I suppose the Democrats say this is a reason not to vote for Nader. I say that if the Democrats wanted me not to vote for Nader, they should have nominated Dean. Presumably the Democrats will win Iowa and New Hampshire, since these were the primaries that gave Kerry the nomination. I suppose also that the Democrats wanted a typical colorless politician who tries to be all things to all people, and that's why they wanted Kerry. So, they got him and they have a chance to win the election, but not with my help.
On Friday the New York Times print edition for Colorado had a front page article on the possibility that Ralph Nader's campaign may constitute a threat to John Kerry and the Democrats. (I can't find it in the Times' on-line edition.) It says that Nader could influence the electoral outcome in nine states, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.
I suppose the Democrats say this is a reason not to vote for Nader. I say that if the Democrats wanted me not to vote for Nader, they should have nominated Dean. Presumably the Democrats will win Iowa and New Hampshire, since these were the primaries that gave Kerry the nomination. I suppose also that the Democrats wanted a typical colorless politician who tries to be all things to all people, and that's why they wanted Kerry. So, they got him and they have a chance to win the election, but not with my help.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Good Article on Israeli Influence on US Foreign Policy
In an earlier post, I said that one reason I support Ralph Nader is because John Kerry's position on Israel is almost indistinguishable from George Bush's. This article in the St. Petersburg Times (of Florida) describes the situation well. The article quotes Duncan Clarke, professor of international relations at American University as saying, "Both of them [Kerry and Bush] have repeatedly stated their undying commitment to Israel and Israel's interests...."This is an area where both candidates, at least in their declared policies, agree solidly.... Both of them have repeatedly stated their undying commitment to Israel and Israel's interests." Later the article says, "Publicly, there is little daylight between the candidates. Both support a Palestinian state but call Arafat a 'failed leader.' Both support Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Both appeared at AIPAC's annual conference."
The article goes on to say, "'President Bush adopted the Arab position of a Palestinian state despite the sustained and murderous execution of terrorism by the Palestinian Authority,' says Ariel Cohen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. 'Having said that, George W. Bush does have the reputation of being the most pro-Israel president" in two decades.' The administration's ardent support is widely presumed to be rooted in the influence of the 'neocons' or neoconservatives - a group of top officials and advisers with longtime ties to the Jewish state. Among them are Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board."
It adds, "Even before the neocons became a factor in U.S. foreign policy, Israel enjoyed almost unqualified support in Congress. One big reason is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC].... Those familiar with AIPAC say it enhances its aura of power by picking battles it knows it can win. It was credited with - or blamed for - the 2002 defeat of incumbents Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Earl Hilliard of Alabama, both seen as hostile to Israel."
I would add, many years ago it defeated Sen. Charles Percy of Illinois, when he was seen as a Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee who was not pro-Israel enough. The article goes on to point out that AIPAC has recently been accused of acting on behalf of Israeli intelligence and may have "crossed the line between lobbying and acting as an agent for a foreign government."
Finally, the article points out the role of evangelical Christians in molding the Bush administration's Israel policy: "The Bush administration's failure to push its 'road map for peace' stems in part from fear of alienating Jewish voters in an election year. But some experts say it is also because Bush doesn't want to anger a key Republican constituency: evangelical Christians.
Among them are the millennialists, who prophesy Israel's occupation of all of its 'biblical lands' and other scenarios that could lead to holy war with Islam. The Christian right 'has a very clear idea what it would like to see happen in the Mideast, and that's not based on Israel's pragmatic security but on theology - what could be called an apocalyptic foreign policy,' says Gorenberg of the Jerusalem Report.
In an earlier post, I said that one reason I support Ralph Nader is because John Kerry's position on Israel is almost indistinguishable from George Bush's. This article in the St. Petersburg Times (of Florida) describes the situation well. The article quotes Duncan Clarke, professor of international relations at American University as saying, "Both of them [Kerry and Bush] have repeatedly stated their undying commitment to Israel and Israel's interests...."This is an area where both candidates, at least in their declared policies, agree solidly.... Both of them have repeatedly stated their undying commitment to Israel and Israel's interests." Later the article says, "Publicly, there is little daylight between the candidates. Both support a Palestinian state but call Arafat a 'failed leader.' Both support Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Both appeared at AIPAC's annual conference."
The article goes on to say, "'President Bush adopted the Arab position of a Palestinian state despite the sustained and murderous execution of terrorism by the Palestinian Authority,' says Ariel Cohen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. 'Having said that, George W. Bush does have the reputation of being the most pro-Israel president" in two decades.' The administration's ardent support is widely presumed to be rooted in the influence of the 'neocons' or neoconservatives - a group of top officials and advisers with longtime ties to the Jewish state. Among them are Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board."
It adds, "Even before the neocons became a factor in U.S. foreign policy, Israel enjoyed almost unqualified support in Congress. One big reason is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC].... Those familiar with AIPAC say it enhances its aura of power by picking battles it knows it can win. It was credited with - or blamed for - the 2002 defeat of incumbents Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Earl Hilliard of Alabama, both seen as hostile to Israel."
I would add, many years ago it defeated Sen. Charles Percy of Illinois, when he was seen as a Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee who was not pro-Israel enough. The article goes on to point out that AIPAC has recently been accused of acting on behalf of Israeli intelligence and may have "crossed the line between lobbying and acting as an agent for a foreign government."
Finally, the article points out the role of evangelical Christians in molding the Bush administration's Israel policy: "The Bush administration's failure to push its 'road map for peace' stems in part from fear of alienating Jewish voters in an election year. But some experts say it is also because Bush doesn't want to anger a key Republican constituency: evangelical Christians.
Among them are the millennialists, who prophesy Israel's occupation of all of its 'biblical lands' and other scenarios that could lead to holy war with Islam. The Christian right 'has a very clear idea what it would like to see happen in the Mideast, and that's not based on Israel's pragmatic security but on theology - what could be called an apocalyptic foreign policy,' says Gorenberg of the Jerusalem Report.
Eight Candidates for Congress in Colorado Faced Draft. Only One Served.
Of the eight candidates for Congress in Colorado who faced the draft in the Vietnam era, only one served, John Salazar, according to the Denver Post. The most questionable escapes were by Pete Coors and Bob Beauprez, who got medical deferments for minor medical problems. The elite in this country do not fight for it, but they sing loudly the praises of defending and promoting democracy in war.
Of the eight candidates for Congress in Colorado who faced the draft in the Vietnam era, only one served, John Salazar, according to the Denver Post. The most questionable escapes were by Pete Coors and Bob Beauprez, who got medical deferments for minor medical problems. The elite in this country do not fight for it, but they sing loudly the praises of defending and promoting democracy in war.
New York Times Endorses Kerry, Points Out Bush Non-Proliferation Failure
In its editorial on Sunday endorsing John Kerry for president, the New York Times said, "Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves." This is in addition to the lesson for non-rogue, large states -- like Brazil and India -- that the way to great power status is to acquire nuclear weapons.
In its editorial on Sunday endorsing John Kerry for president, the New York Times said, "Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves." This is in addition to the lesson for non-rogue, large states -- like Brazil and India -- that the way to great power status is to acquire nuclear weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)