soc.culture.usa
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* there are no jewish terrorists. only zionist terrorists... jews have
scruples. - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/edc3b0051a6c40fc
* is president Bush preparing to use Nuclear bombs to destroy Iran ? - 3
messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/4394913e837521f4
* GENIE HAS THE ANSWER - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c53109850ba806e2
* THE IRAN PLANS (by SEYMOUR HERSH) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/39517243e766db2
* World War III NEWS, Monday, April 3rd, 2006 AD..... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/dbe2af83561f091e
* IRAN IN PICTURES - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/34f3bd2a4b9eb851
* Sing Along With BITCH ("Itz Hard Out Here For A Pimp") - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/d050999ea1771c53
* MISAGH2 MISSILE - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f2f706e49847de45
* IRANIAN MADE SUBMARINE NAHANG - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/3f20c06c361283f2
* Comparan a Hugo Chávez con el ministro de propaganda de Adolf Hitler - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/b279e7b8cef3a8bd
* PERSIAN GULF MANOUVERS - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8d94b28b97a3fc41
* FBI Spies on US Peace Activists, Vegetarians - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/24190cfa59f6b447
* Some say Iran's weapons come from Russia - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/938d3d0d2a6b5e90
* AID TO ISRAEL MAY BE CANCELLED! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/9126bc5d0bc244ca
* Thank you, India admirer ! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/3823423d92d0c592
* $10,000 Reward for Thai Air Force Commander Akkavibul - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/416ef42277b367dc
* Chavez Tells US Ambassador: Behave or Leave - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/34f91167d2024aca
* Latest US Maneuver to Protect Posada - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/51f92dead19bab5d
* Humala Wins Most Peru Votes; Heads for May Runoff - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/cdd1f354fe748612
* Humala: I am One of Those from Below (Granma Intvw) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/a9a38faf5f88a3c1
==============================================================================
TOPIC: there are no jewish terrorists. only zionist terrorists... jews have
scruples.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/edc3b0051a6c40fc
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 7:40 pm
From: "NefeshBarYochai"
>serwad wrote:
>IN THE PASDT TWO DAYS JEWISH TERRORISTS HAVE MURDERED 16-17 PALESTINIANS IN
>COLD BLOOD, AND ZIONAZI BASTARDS STILL JUSTIFY THAT BY CALLING PALESTINIANS
>"TERRORISTS"
Of course the Palestinins launching attacks on Israel are terrorists.
And your a terrorist too you dirty bastard. You are a fucking serwad
that should be shit out daily and flushed down the toilet by any decent
person.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 3:06 am
From: " torresD"
"NefeshBarYochai" <tachnan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144636832.582521.153220@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >serwad wrote:
>
>>IN THE PASDT TWO DAYS JEWISH TERRORISTS HAVE MURDERED 16-17 PALESTINIANS
>>IN
>>COLD BLOOD, AND ZIONAZI BASTARDS STILL JUSTIFY THAT BY CALLING
>>PALESTINIANS
>>"TERRORISTS"
>
> Of course the Palestinins launching attacks on Israel are terrorists.
> And your a terrorist too you dirty bastard. You are a fucking serwad
> that should be shit out daily and flushed down the toilet by any decent
> person.
The Palestinians only defend themselves, their land, their lives.
The Zionist are the attackers, have always been the attackers.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 8:53 pm
From: "NefeshBarYochai"
>torresD
>The Palestinians only defend themselves, their land, their lives.
>The Zionist are the attackers, have always been the attackers.
The Palestinian terrorists only defend themselves aye? When they
murder innocent children, women and men that's defending themselves.
When they walk into a nursery on a kibbutz and murder the children
that's defending themselves aye?
Torres put your face in your pussy and take a wiff, then fart in a
bottle and mail it to your lover serwad.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: is president Bush preparing to use Nuclear bombs to destroy Iran ?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/4394913e837521f4
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 7:42 pm
From: "Komin"
Denny
will the US want to pull every one into a Recession in the coming 2
years ?
please explain
what is your explaination for this trend ?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 7:51 pm
From: max.esson@caramail.com
Komin, that's good, so US can print more greenback,,,and I can spend
even more,,,
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 7:53 pm
From: "Ashok"
Komin wrote:
> in an Interview last night on the CNN ,
> Mr. Seymour Hersh explained to Mr. Wolf Blitzer that president Bush
> might be preparing to use the US new Mini nuclear bomb , called the
> Robust Nuclear Earth Buster bombs,
> to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities inside Iran .
>
> should president Bush use this new Mini Nuclear bombs on Iran ?
>
> the Chinese military hopes to delay the Iran War until 2008 when the
> Taiwanese president hopes to declare Taiwan 's Independence just
> before Beijing 's Olympic..
Yes as I predicted correctly, China would want to delay the Iran War,
more precisely the beginning of what could be WWIII until after 2008.
In the same sense, President Bush should use the mini nuclear bombs to
threaten Iraqi insurgents. I'd say blow their arses.
Ashok Patel
==============================================================================
TOPIC: GENIE HAS THE ANSWER
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/c53109850ba806e2
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 7:42 pm
From: "NefeshBarYochai"
That's pretty fucking good serwad. Now get back on the other side of
that river you fucking varmit.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: THE IRAN PLANS (by SEYMOUR HERSH)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/39517243e766db2
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 7:46 pm
From: "The Last 2446 Days™ ♥"
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
THE IRAN PLANS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-10
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order
to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine
activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major
air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence
officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of
targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into
Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact
with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that
President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity
to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
American and European intelligence agencies, and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on
developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are
widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether
diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it.
Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be
delayed or deterred.
There is a growing conviction among members of the United States
military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s
ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change.
Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of
the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.”
Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf
Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the
name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and
threaten another world war?’ ”
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in
the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is
going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the
President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican,
if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that
saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for
the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was
premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will
humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and
overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard
it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by
Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research
at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a
supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic
republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least
clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the
present Iranian regime last?”
When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is
putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had
no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a
military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees
the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be
ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that
he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities,
such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent
to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting.
This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”
One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and
the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a
campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to
go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have
to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He
added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since
9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his
focus all the way along, it was Iran.” (In response to detailed
requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on
military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are
pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said
that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but
wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were
“inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.)
“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat
told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is
still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be
fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue
is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten
years.”
A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar
view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the
problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means
war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces
the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to
have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the
region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into
play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is
considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a
Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al
Qaeda.”
In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks
on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress,
including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House
Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has
discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had
been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief
the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”
The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really
objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are
the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are
raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you
going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.)
“There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action,
the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys
who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member
said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic
vision.”
Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are
already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from
carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons
delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the
shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said,
within range of Iranian coastal radars.
Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in
Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the
National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987,
provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s
nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known
facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would
have to be hit. He added:
I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran
probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We
would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just
recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with
sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We
would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf
shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian
diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to
target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special
Operations units.
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White
House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster
tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground
nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz,
nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer
under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to
hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried
approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of
centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty
nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept
the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A.
inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by
the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a
major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional
weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of
facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if
they are reinforced with concrete.
There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers
with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American
intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a
huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the
underground facility was designed for “continuity of
government”—for the political and military leadership to survive a
nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and
Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still
exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified.
“The ‘tell’ ”—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts,
some of which were disguised,” the former senior intelligence
official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only
nukes” could destroy the bunker. He added that some American
intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians
design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,”
specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.
A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his
view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and
do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s
feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t
have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep
knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like
we’re ready to go.” He added, “We don’t have to knock down all
of their air defenses. Our stealth bombers and standoff missiles really
work, and we can blow fixed things up. We can do things on the ground,
too, but it’s difficult and very dangerous—put bad stuff in
ventilator shafts and put them to sleep.”
But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the
former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got
to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or
diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we
don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military
planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice
but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other
option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,”
the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the
key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we
made it in Japan.”
He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn
the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about
mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over
years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is
the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue,
and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear
option—“they’re shouted down.”
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious
misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added,
and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the
evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence
official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging
this? The option came from you.’ ”
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the
Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked
to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon
civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has
to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and
officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very
strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear
weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes
to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said,
because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal
recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering
the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has
hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior
Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive
nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear
weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science
Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can
build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.
The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an
Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January,
2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an
ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for
Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report
recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of
the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions
when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is
essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” Several
signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush
Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security
adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security.
The Pentagon adviser questioned the value of air strikes. “The
Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have
no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the
country,” he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran
could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities
and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims
think the day we attack Iran?”
With or without the nuclear option, the list of targets may inevitably
expand. One recently retired high-level Bush Administration official,
who is also an expert on war planning, told me that he would have
vigorously argued against an air attack on Iran, because “Iran is a
much tougher target” than Iraq. But, he added, “If you’re going
to do any bombing to stop the nukes, you might as well improve your lie
across the board. Maybe hit some training camps, and clear up a lot of
other problems.”
The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air
Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that
“ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation.
There are people who believe it’s the way to operate”—that the
Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing
campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.
If the order were to be given for an attack, the American combat troops
now operating in Iran would be in position to mark the critical targets
with laser beams, to insure bombing accuracy and to minimize civilian
casualties. As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant
with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also
working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the
north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast.
The troops “are studying the terrain, and giving away walking-around
money to ethnic tribes, and recruiting scouts from local tribes and
shepherds,” the consultant said. One goal is to get “eyes on the
ground”—quoting a line from “Othello,” he said, “Give me the
ocular proof.” The broader aim, the consultant said, is to
“encourage ethnic tensions” and undermine the regime.
The new mission for the combat troops is a product of Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld’s long-standing interest in expanding the role of the
military in covert operations, which was made official policy in the
Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, published in February. Such
activities, if conducted by C.I.A. operatives, would need a
Presidential Finding and would have to be reported to key members of
Congress.
“ ‘Force protection’ is the new buzzword,” the former senior
intelligence official told me. He was referring to the Pentagon’s
position that clandestine activities that can be broadly classified as
preparing the battlefield or protecting troops are military, not
intelligence, operations, and are therefore not subject to
congressional oversight. “The guys in the Joint Chiefs of Staff say
there are a lot of uncertainties in Iran,” he said. “We need to
have more than what we had in Iraq. Now we have the green light to do
everything we want.”
The President’s deep distrust of Ahmadinejad has strengthened his
determination to confront Iran. This view has been reinforced by
allegations that Ahmadinejad, who joined a special-forces brigade of
the Revolutionary Guards in 1986, may have been involved in terrorist
activities in the late eighties. (There are gaps in Ahmadinejad’s
official biography in this period.) Ahmadinejad has reportedly been
connected to Imad Mughniyeh, a terrorist who has been implicated in the
deadly bombings of the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks in
Beirut, in 1983. Mughniyeh was then the security chief of Hezbollah; he
remains on the F.B.I.’s list of most-wanted terrorists.
Robert Baer, who was a C.I.A. officer in the Middle East and elsewhere
for two decades, told me that Ahmadinejad and his Revolutionary Guard
colleagues in the Iranian government “are capable of making a bomb,
hiding it, and launching it at Israel. They’re apocalyptic Shiites.
If you’re sitting in Tel Aviv and you believe they’ve got nukes and
missiles—you’ve got to take them out. These guys are nuts, and
there’s no reason to back off.”
Under Ahmadinejad, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their power
base throughout the Iranian bureaucracy; by the end of January, they
had replaced thousands of civil servants with their own members. One
former senior United Nations official, who has extensive experience
with Iran, depicted the turnover as “a white coup,” with ominous
implications for the West. “Professionals in the Foreign Ministry are
out; others are waiting to be kicked out,” he said. “We may be too
late. These guys now believe that they are stronger than ever since the
revolution.” He said that, particularly in consideration of China’s
emergence as a superpower, Iran’s attitude was “To hell with the
West. You can do as much as you like.”
Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is considered by
many experts to be in a stronger position than Ahmadinejad.
“Ahmadinejad is not in control,” one European diplomat told me.
“Power is diffuse in Iran. The Revolutionary Guards are among the key
backers of the nuclear program, but, ultimately, I don’t think they
are in charge of it. The Supreme Leader has the casting vote on the
nuclear program, and the Guards will not take action without his
approval.”
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said that “allowing Iran to
have the bomb is not on the table. We cannot have nukes being sent
downstream to a terror network. It’s just too dangerous.” He added,
“The whole internal debate is on which way to go”—in terms of
stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that
Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans—and forestall the
American action. “God may smile on us, but I don’t think so. The
bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The
problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear
state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is
going to happen.”
While almost no one disputes Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there is
intense debate over how soon it could get the bomb, and what to do
about that. Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on
nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service
at Georgetown, told me, “Based on what I know, Iran could be eight to
ten years away” from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Gallucci added, “If they had a covert nuclear program and we could
prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the
threat of sanctions, I’d be in favor of taking it out. But if you do
it”—bomb Iran—“without being able to show there’s a secret
program, you’re in trouble.”
Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, told
the Knesset last December that “Iran is one to two years away, at the
latest, from having enriched uranium. From that point, the completion
of their nuclear weapon is simply a technical matter.” In a
conversation with me, a senior Israeli intelligence official talked
about what he said was Iran’s duplicity: “There are two parallel
nuclear programs” inside Iran—the program declared to the I.A.E.A.
and a separate operation, run by the military and the Revolutionary
Guards. Israeli officials have repeatedly made this argument, but
Israel has not produced public evidence to support it. Richard
Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term, told
me, “I think Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program—I believe
it, but I don’t know it.”
In recent months, the Pakistani government has given the U.S. new
access to A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani atomic
bomb. Khan, who is now living under house arrest in Islamabad, is
accused of setting up a black market in nuclear materials; he made at
least one clandestine visit to Tehran in the late nineteen-eighties. In
the most recent interrogations, Khan has provided information on
Iran’s weapons design and its time line for building a bomb. “The
picture is of ‘unquestionable danger,’ ” the former senior
intelligence official said. (The Pentagon adviser also confirmed that
Khan has been “singing like a canary.”) The concern, the former
senior official said, is that “Khan has credibility problems. He is
suggestible, and he’s telling the neoconservatives what they want to
hear”—or what might be useful to Pakistan’s President, Pervez
Musharraf, who is under pressure to assist Washington in the war on
terror.
“I think Khan’s leading us on,” the former intelligence official
said. “I don’t know anybody who says, ‘Here’s the smoking
gun.’ But lights are beginning to blink. He’s feeding us
information on the time line, and targeting information is coming in
from our own sources— sensors and the covert teams. The C.I.A., which
was so burned by Iraqi W.M.D., is going to the Pentagon and the
Vice-President’s office saying, ‘It’s all new stuff.’ People in
the Administration are saying, ‘We’ve got enough.’ ”
The Administration’s case against Iran is compromised by its history
of promoting false intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction. In a recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled
“Fool Me Twice,” Joseph Cirincione, the director for
nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
wrote, “The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort
to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war.” He noted several
parallels:
The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on
the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S.
Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most
serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation
the leading supporter of global terrorism.
Cirincione called some of the Administration’s claims about Iran
“questionable” or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he
asked, “What do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How
urgent is all this?” The answer, he said, “is in the intelligence
community and the I.A.E.A.” (In August, the Washington Post reported
that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate
predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.)
Last year, the Bush Administration briefed I.A.E.A. officials on what
it said was new and alarming information about Iran’s weapons program
which had been retrieved from an Iranian’s laptop. The new data
included more than a thousand pages of technical drawings of weapons
systems. The Washington Post reported that there were also designs for
a small facility that could be used in the uranium-enrichment process.
Leaks about the laptop became the focal point of stories in the Times
and elsewhere. The stories were generally careful to note that the
materials could have been fabricated, but also quoted senior American
officials as saying that they appeared to be legitimate. The headline
in the Times’ account read, “RELYING ON COMPUTER, U.S. SEEKS TO
PROVE IRAN’S NUCLEAR AIMS.”
I was told in interviews with American and European intelligence
officials, however, that the laptop was more suspect and less
revelatory than it had been depicted. The Iranian who owned the laptop
had initially been recruited by German and American intelligence
operatives, working together. The Americans eventually lost interest in
him. The Germans kept on, but the Iranian was seized by the Iranian
counter-intelligence force. It is not known where he is today. Some
family members managed to leave Iran with his laptop and handed it over
at a U.S. embassy, apparently in Europe. It was a classic
“walk-in.”
A European intelligence official said, “There was some hesitation on
our side” about what the materials really proved, “and we are still
not convinced.” The drawings were not meticulous, as newspaper
accounts suggested, “but had the character of sketches,” the
European official said. “It was not a slam-dunk smoking gun.”
The threat of American military action has created dismay at the
headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency’s officials
believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but
“nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel
nuclear-weapons program in Iran,” the high-ranking diplomat told me.
The I.A.E.A.’s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years away
from building a nuclear bomb. “But, if the United States does
anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter
of Iranian national pride,” the diplomat said. “The whole issue is
America’s risk assessment of Iran’s future intentions, and they
don’t trust the regime. Iran is a menace to American policy.”
In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year
between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.’s director-general, who won
the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary
of State for Arms Control. Joseph’s message was blunt, one diplomat
recalled: “We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran
is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and
our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an
understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will
undermine us. ”
Joseph’s heavy-handedness was unnecessary, the diplomat said, since
the I.A.E.A. already had been inclined to take a hard stand against
Iran. “All of the inspectors are angry at being misled by the
Iranians, and some think the Iranian leadership are nutcases—one
hundred per cent totally certified nuts,” the diplomat said. He added
that ElBaradei’s overriding concern is that the Iranian leaders
“want confrontation, just like the neocons on the other side”—in
Washington. “At the end of the day, it will work only if the United
States agrees to talk to the Iranians.”
The central question—whether Iran will be able to proceed with its
plans to enrich uranium—is now before the United Nations, with the
Russians and the Chinese reluctant to impose sanctions on Tehran. A
discouraged former I.A.E.A. official told me in late March that, at
this point, “there’s nothing the Iranians could do that would
result in a positive outcome. American diplomacy does not allow for it.
Even if they announce a stoppage of enrichment, nobody will believe
them. It’s a dead end.”
Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, “Why would the West take the
risk of going to war against that kind of target without giving it to
the I.A.E.A. to verify? We’re low-cost, and we can create a program
that will force Iran to put its cards on the table.” A Western
Ambassador in Vienna expressed similar distress at the White House’s
dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, “If you don’t believe that the
I.A.E.A. can establish an inspection system—if you don’t trust
them—you can only bomb.”
There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or
among its European allies. “We’re quite frustrated with the
director-general,” the European diplomat told me. “His basic
approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with
equal weight. It’s not. We’re the good guys! ElBaradei has been
pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment
program, which is ludicrous. It’s not his job to push ideas that pose
a serious proliferation risk.”
The Europeans are rattled, however, by their growing perception that
President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney believe a bombing
campaign will be needed, and that their real goal is regime change.
“Everyone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United
States wants regime change,” a European diplomatic adviser told me.
He added, “The Europeans have a role to play as long as they don’t
have to choose between going along with the Russians and the Chinese or
going along with Washington on something they don’t want. Their
policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can
live with. It may be untenable.”
“The Brits think this is a very bad idea,” Flynt Leverett, a former
National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, told me, “but they’re
really worried we’re going to do it.” The European diplomatic
adviser acknowledged that the British Foreign Office was aware of war
planning in Washington but that, “short of a smoking gun, it’s
going to be very difficult to line up the Europeans on Iran.” He said
that the British “are jumpy about the Americans going full bore on
the Iranians, with no compromise.”
The European diplomat said that he was skeptical that Iran, given its
record, had admitted to everything it was doing, but “to the best of
our knowledge the Iranian capability is not at the point where they
could successfully run centrifuges” to enrich uranium in quantity.
One reason for pursuing diplomacy was, he said, Iran’s essential
pragmatism. “The regime acts in its best interests,” he said.
Iran’s leaders “take a hard-line approach on the nuclear issue and
they want to call the American bluff,” believing that “the tougher
they are the more likely the West will fold.” But, he said, “From
what we’ve seen with Iran, they will appear superconfident until the
moment they back off.”
The diplomat went on, “You never reward bad behavior, and this is not
the time to offer concessions. We need to find ways to impose
sufficient costs to bring the regime to its senses. It’s going to be
a close call, but I think if there is unity in opposition and the price
imposed”—in sanctions—“is sufficient, they may back down.
It’s too early to give up on the U.N. route.” He added, “If the
diplomatic process doesn’t work, there is no military ‘solution.’
There may be a military option, but the impact could be
catastrophic.”
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was George Bush’s most
dependable ally in the year leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
But he and his party have been racked by a series of financial
scandals, and his popularity is at a low point. Jack Straw, the Foreign
Secretary, said last year that military action against Iran was
“inconceivable.” Blair has been more circumspect, saying publicly
that one should never take options off the table.
Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value
of an American bombing campaign. “The Iranian economy is in bad
shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically,” the European
intelligence official told me. “He will benefit politically from
American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse.” An
American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including
those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. “Iran is no longer living
in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies
and books, and they love it,” he said. “If there was a charm
offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long
run.”
Another European official told me that he was aware that many in
Washington wanted action. “It’s always the same guys,” he said,
with a resigned shrug. “There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to
fail. The timetable is short.”
A key ally with an important voice in the debate is Israel, whose
leadership has warned for years that it viewed any attempt by Iran to
begin enriching uranium as a point of no return. I was told by several
officials that the White House’s interest in preventing an Israeli
attack on a Muslim country, which would provoke a backlash across the
region, was a factor in its decision to begin the current operational
planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, President Bush
depicted Ahmadinejad’s hostility toward Israel as a “serious
threat. It’s a threat to world peace.” He added, “I made it
clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to
protect our ally Israel.”
Any American bombing attack, Richard Armitage told me, would have to
consider the following questions: “What will happen in the other
Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us
globally—that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure
on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished
international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and
the U.N. Security Council?”
Iran, which now produces nearly four million barrels of oil a day,
would not have to cut off production to disrupt the world’s oil
markets. It could blockade or mine the Strait of Hormuz, the
thirty-four-mile-wide passage through which Middle Eastern oil reaches
the Indian Ocean. Nonetheless, the recently retired defense official
dismissed the strategic consequences of such actions. He told me that
the U.S. Navy could keep shipping open by conducting salvage missions
and putting mine- sweepers to work. “It’s impossible to block
passage,” he said. The government consultant with ties to the
Pentagon also said he believed that the oil problem could be managed,
pointing out that the U.S. has enough in its strategic reserves to keep
America running for sixty days. However, those in the oil business I
spoke to were less optimistic; one industry expert estimated that the
price per barrel would immediately spike, to anywhere from ninety to a
hundred dollars per barrel, and could go higher, depending on the
duration and scope of the conflict.
Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former
cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might
be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he
said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West.
You will have a messy world.”
Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and
elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah. On April 2nd, the Washington
Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks “is consuming
a lot of time” at U.S. intelligence agencies. “The best terror
network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the
past several years,” the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said
of Hezbollah. “This will mobilize them and put us up against the
group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against
Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take
them out, they will mobilize against us.” (When I asked the
government consultant about that possibility, he said that, if
Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, “Israel and the new
Lebanese government will finish them off.”)
The adviser went on, “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light
up like a candle.” The American, British, and other coalition forces
in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from
Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran. (Iran, which is
predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in
Iraq.) A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight
thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra
with ten mullahs and one sound truck.”
“If you attack,” the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna,
“Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but
with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit
down with the Iranians.”
The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be
unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and
regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He added, “The window of
opportunity is now.”
---0---
==============================================================================
TOPIC: World War III NEWS, Monday, April 3rd, 2006 AD.....
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/dbe2af83561f091e
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 7:57 pm
From: "The Last 2445 Days™ ♥"
I'm sure glad Norway won, Little Buddy !!!
I love the cold, frigid weather !!!
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
---0---
==============================================================================
TOPIC: IRAN IN PICTURES
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/34f3bd2a4b9eb851
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 11:12 pm
From: "serwad"
http://conflictiran.blogspot.com/2006/04/inside-iran-city-life.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sing Along With BITCH ("Itz Hard Out Here For A Pimp")
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/d050999ea1771c53
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 11:12 pm
From: Voice Of Reason <>
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:41:44 -0700, Von Bailey
<ovbailey@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 22:47:23 -0400, in soc.culture.african.american
>you wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Can anyone please explain WHY this "song" is nominated for an award??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At least someone had enough common sense to ensure a 5-second *delay*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is in effect during the show.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because it does a good job of representing the movie that it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>scored for, which would be the reason any song is nominated in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>oscars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Can ya show us where it says THAT is the main criteria for nomination?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Where did I say it was the 'main reason'? Again you misiterpret my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>words and ask me to explain your misinterpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes you're right. You did say it was "the" reason for its nomination,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not the main reason. So my question is even more relevant now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.oscars.org/78academyawards/rules/rule16.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Read the rules and get informed before you get into discussions you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>know little about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Where in the rules does it justify voting for a piece of trash.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I see. Everyone was supposed to start with the premise that YOUR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>opinion is the only one that matters. Well, sorry to disappoint you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but the people who voted obviously couldn't care less about your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>opinion on the matter. Try to live with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I can live with it just fine, because I realized many, many years ago
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that the Oscar awards committee was packed with folks who are way out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the mainstream. Of course, I do keep hoping for a pleasant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>surprise now and then, but it looks like I've got more waiting to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's interesting that you consider yourself the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>'mainstream' while the real thing moves further and further from you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As I have said in the past, you will die off, just like all the old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>people who ranted about how rock and roll, jazz and any other kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>music that moved into the mainstream was destroying something and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>never did. And Rap Music will still be here...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cRap music will be still be here for a small group of knuckleheads,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but just because the super-liberal Hollywood types saw fit to give it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ONE award doesn't mean that it is now "accepted" by the mainstream,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>because it isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's right. Stay in denial you serve a purpose there. An example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>of a dying breed. First step, they deny the world is changing around
>>>>>>>>>>>>>them, fail to adapt and die off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong, wrong and wrong. Now quit dreaming, get out of bed and go do
>>>>>>>>>>>>something constructive. Like chase the pimps off your block.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>My neighborhood apprently doesn't share the same type of people as
>>>>>>>>>>>yours. There are no pimps to worry about around here that I am aware
>>>>>>>>>>>of.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Did you open your eyes after hitting the street?. But I can assure
>>>>>>>>>>you there are NO pimps, gangs, etc, on my block.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, you're the one bringing them up so I guess we are again subject
>>>>>>>>>to you speaking on a subject of which you are totally ignorant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, I plead guilty to having first-person experience with them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well then I stand corrected. Given that you say that pimps aren't in
>>>>>>>your neighborhood I guess you traveled somewhere to have this
>>>>>>>'experience' with pimps. A new side of you comes out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong, you stand incorrect as usual. I was talking about the
>>>>>>assurance that there are no pimps, gangs, etc, on my block. Because I
>>>>>>have a very good ongoing first-person experience with what goes on
>>>>>>around here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You didn't say you had a first person experience with "what goes on
>>>>>around here" you said you had a first person experience with the
>>>>>subject that was at hand, pimps and hoes. Now that you've been
>>>>>discovered you're running from your words.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, you're just taking my words out of context. Something that's
>>>>always given you problems.
>>>>
>>>So now you deny that you have personal experience with them. Your
>>>going back on your word is not unusual but expected so feel free.
>>
>>Nothing to go back on. You quoted me out of context. Nothing more.
>>
>How is you saying you have first person experience with pimps and hoes
>taking your words out of context when in response to a question about
>them you responded, "Yes, I plead guilty to having first-person
>experience with them."? It's not. You're just to disingenuous to
>even admit to your own words.
Still taking things out-of-context, I see.
>>>>>>>> Nor does
>>>>>>>>it change my conviction that under no circumstances do I want a pimp
>>>>>>>>and his entourage of hos EVER to show up in my neighborhood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yet you claim 'first-person experience'. Where'd the 'experience'
>>>>>>>come from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now I know you are confused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So you didn't have the experience you claim above?
>>>>
>>>>I have what I claimed -- knowledge about what goes on in the streets
>>>>around my house. Or in the case of pimps, hos, drugs, etc, what
>>>>doesn't go on.
>>>>
>>>Really? What is this "knowledge" based on? How did you come about to
>>>*know* this as factual?
>>
>>Getting out and about in the immediate vicinity where I live, day and
>>night. Guess what, no sign of hos, pimps, dope dealers, etc. No
>>graffiti, no nothing.
>
>What makes you think that finding them would be as easy as "getting
>out and about in the immediate vicinity"? Are you under the
>assumption that they would be walking the streets? Don't you think
>that they would be acting a bit less conspicuous than that?
I guess you haven't seen how pimpz dress and drive these days. Or
maybe they just don't stand out in your part of the world. But I can
assure you, they would stick out like a sore-thumb in my area.
>>Boring? Yes. Which suits me just fine, as I
>>wouldn't want to try to go to sleep every night to sounds of gunfire,
>>stabbings, police sirens, cRap "music" blaring, drunkards and
>>dopeheads screaming and pissing on the streets, etc.
>>
>Whose neighborhood do you think you're discribing?
Not mine of course, since I don't live in the `hood, nor do I live
anywhere near where the "projects" are located.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that the song has nothing to do with the movie it was scored for? Are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you claiming that such a criteria has nothing to do with it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nomination?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Virutally every movie made over the past 40 years has a soundtrack, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the fact that this putrid film has a song that "represents" it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>meaningless. I still have no idea, upon reviewing the lyrics, why on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>earth *this* song is worthy of an award.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's because, as you have already admitted, you haven't seen the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>film and you are a poor judge of whether or not it effectively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>represents the film for just that reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Since nearly every movie made has at least one song that "represents"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it at least as well as this one, I still don't see why *this* one has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to win the award.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You haven't seen the movie so you have no legitmate metric to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your judgement from. Until then it's just you ranting your usual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>uninformed opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong, I DO have a "legitmate metric" -- it's called the lyrics, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I and others around here have referred to, including right here on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this thread. Now grab some coffee, then open yer eyes, and yer mind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your "legitmate metric" is not the one that the oscars use so as far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as the "oscar winners" your metric is useless. Go find someone who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cares about the songs of old white men wishing for the past.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You missed the point as usual. Of course the Oscar folks didn't take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the lyrics into account when selecting the award -- if they did, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would have had to give the award to someone else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>According to you who was not part of the process and as such has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>nothing except your bigotted notiions to draw from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Nothing except the words of the lyrics themselves, which were freely
>>>>>>>>>>>>available to any interested party before the awards were decided, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>thus could have (and should have) been reviewed by the members of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>committee before the vote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Well, if the words won by themselves you might have a point. But
>>>>>>>>>>>unlike you, the people who voted have the ability not only to read the
>>>>>>>>>>>words but listen to them with music and then associate them to the
>>>>>>>>>>>movie in which it was written for. Thus, not suffering your apparent
>>>>>>>>>>>ignorance they had the ability to vote in a way you couldn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Wrong. The association was clear enough, and it was all garbage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Your ability to make the association to a movie you didn't see would
>>>>>>>>>be miraculous if it was true. But since it isn't we have another
>>>>>>>>>demonstration of you speaking of things of which you are ignorant,
>>>>>>>>>again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong, because I know to read, and thus having read the lyrics of the
>>>>>>>>"song" that was deemed worthy of an Oscar, I found out all I needed to
>>>>>>>>know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No doubt. An ignorant superficial person such as yourself wouldn't
>>>>>>>want to take into account the entire scope of criteria to judge the
>>>>>>>song. Prejudging something without all the evidence is one of your
>>>>>>>specialties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The lyrics are all the evidence I need, and you should read them too.
>>>>>
>>>>>True, you are of course the psuedo-great white man. Why should you
>>>>>actually use the criteria for the award to judge the song? You, in
>>>>>your infinate fake powers *believe* you know better.
>>>>
>>>>Guess what silly one, *I* didn't write those lyrics, some black guy
>>>>did.
>>>>
>>>Guess what stupid one, *I* didn't say you did write them.
>>
>>But you said I believe I know better. Well, no, I don't have to
>>"know", I just need to be able to read the lyrics.
>
>Which is the most superficial way to judge a song writen for a movie
>being judged on how it represents the movie. But then superficial is
>your specialty.
Oh, so the lyrics mean nothing? Just a collection of words tossed
together, almost at random?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: MISAGH2 MISSILE
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/f2f706e49847de45
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 11:15 pm
From: "serwad"
http://conflictiran.blogspot.com/2006/04/iran-made-misagh2-missile.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: IRANIAN MADE SUBMARINE NAHANG
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/3f20c06c361283f2
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 11:17 pm
From: "serwad"
http://conflictiran.blogspot.com/2006/04/iran-made-submarine-nahang-1.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Comparan a Hugo Chávez con el ministro de propaganda de Adolf Hitler
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/b279e7b8cef3a8bd
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 8:19 pm
From: "Dan Christensen"
Pedro,
Speaking of propanganda for Hitler, do you remember your infamous statement
of a few years ago?
"...Don't forget you ( jewish people) are no totally exempted of blame for
what happened in Germany in those days...."
Pedro Martori, "The question that terrifies Jews," 2002-09-07
Care to elaborate, Pedro???
Dan
Visit my CUBA: Issues & Answers website at
http://www.netcom.ca/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: PERSIAN GULF MANOUVERS
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/8d94b28b97a3fc41
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 11:20 pm
From: "serwad"
http://conflictiran.blogspot.com/2006/04/irgc-maneuver-persian-gulf.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: FBI Spies on US Peace Activists, Vegetarians
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/24190cfa59f6b447
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 8:22 pm
From: "gkdd"
the "Peace" activists here in portland are extremely violent. their
behavior warrants survelance.
go back to cuba and hate America on your own soil, deadbeat.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 8:26 pm
From: "Larry (Scratch)"
gkdd wrote:
> the "Peace" activists here in portland are extremely violent. their
> behavior warrants survelance.
>
> go back to cuba and hate America on your own soil, deadbeat.
>
>
Is peace activist an oxymoron :)
--
"Every concession leads to aggression"
Putin, 2005
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Some say Iran's weapons come from Russia
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/938d3d0d2a6b5e90
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 11:23 pm
From: Vladimir Makarenko
captain. wrote:
> "James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
> news:44396a1a$0$1008$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...
>
>>captain. <spammersmustdie@now.net> wrote in message
>>news:lc8_f.45580$Ph4.6131@edtnps90...
>>
>>>"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4438c81e$0$1018$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...
>>>
>>>>Andrzej Adam Filip <anfi@priv.onet.pl> wrote in message
>>>>news:87acaw6xfx.fsf@anfi.homeunix.net...
>>>
>>>>>Of course we all belive that these (potentially) "multipurpose
>>
>>cultures"
>>
>>>>>will never ever be used for other purposes that the one *currently*
>>>>>*officially* stated.
>>>>
>>>>So show us where the production facilities are located.
>>>>
>>>
>>>of course. if we can't easily find where they are located then they must
>>
>>not
>>
>>>exist.
>>
>>Prove they exist.
>>
>
>
> are you a communist? you're acting like one.
>
How do communists act?
VM.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: AID TO ISRAEL MAY BE CANCELLED!
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/9126bc5d0bc244ca
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 3:56 am
From: flaviaR@verizon.net
On 9-Apr-2006, "Jim E" <YD652126@sea.edu> wrote:
> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e1a7v4$18ce$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> > It's murder and it's terrorism.
> >
> >
>
> Oh poppycock, it is sound policy.
No, that's when the PLO snopes babies in strollers and shoves
wheelchair-bound men - who were NEVER terrorist masterminds
& therefore wanted criminals - into the ocean. Get it right!
Susan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thank you, India admirer !
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/3823423d92d0c592
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 8:57 pm
From: "Seeker" <4not_listed_due_to_spam_bots_121101@dont.reply>
<gunjan.ghai@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144634426.618287.202420@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Seeker
>
> Now that you are healthy, can you answer the question on shias,
> ahmedis, sindhis, baluchs, mohajirs etc etc ?
What question?
>
> You cant get away by trying to provoke the other person with abuses
> like you did....you are ducking the question, my friend.
I did not provoke you with any abuses. What the heck are you talking about.
You are the one who has been abusive towards me by being so stupid.
>
>
>
>
> Seeker wrote:
> > <gunjan.ghai@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1144604510.832192.200660@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Seeker
> > >
> > > We heard you had kidney trouble....all ok with you ?
> >
> > You heard wrong, bubba, I have never had any kidney problem, but thanks
for
> > asking.
> >
> > I don't know why you guys confuse me for someone else.
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: $10,000 Reward for Thai Air Force Commander Akkavibul
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/416ef42277b367dc
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 7 2006 10:15 am
From: Anonymous
Reward paid on conviction of Suchart and Yuwadee Akkavibul.
http://thailand.ahrchk.net/mainfile.php/general/29/
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2004/886/
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chavez Tells US Ambassador: Behave or Leave
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/34f91167d2024aca
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 9:01 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chavez Tells US Ambassador: Behave or Leave
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
AP - Apr 9, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060409/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us_ambassador_10
Chavez Threatens to Expel U.S. Ambassador
By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON
Associated Press Writer
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the U.S.
ambassador was "provoking the Venezuelan people" and threatened Sunday
to expel the American diplomat, whose convoy was chased by
pro-government protesters.
"I'm going to throw you out of Venezuela if you continue provoking the
Venezuelan people," Chavez said in a nationally televised speech
addressed to U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield.
Venezuela's acting foreign minister on Saturday condemned the crowd of
protesters for pelting Brownfield's car with eggs and tomatoes, but
suggested that Brownfield is partially responsible for failing to
advise authorities of his travel plans in order to avert such
problems.
Chavez's more incendiary comments came after Washington warned of
"severe diplomatic consequence" if a similar incident repeats itself.
"If the Washington government takes some measure against Venezuela
motivated by provocations, you will be responsible, you will have to
leave here, sir. I will declare you persona non grata in Venezuela,"
Chavez responded Sunday.
Chavez accused Washington of seeking to escalate tensions and "looking
for another incident."
Chavez said Brownfield was partially responsible for the incident for
failing to advise the local mayor's office or the foreign ministry of
his travel plans.
The U.S. embassy in Caracas had no immediate response to the
president's comments.
Brownfield had visited a ballpark in Caracas' Catia slums, a Chavez
stronghold, to donate baseball equipment to a youth league.
The response to his visit Friday was the third time in three weeks
that Brownfield has been met by protests. Earlier, demonstrators
burned tires and torched an American flag.
The State Department said the incident Friday "clearly was condoned by
the local government," with local officials handing out snacks to
perpetrators at the stadium. U.S. officials accused police of doing
nothing, saying a single city police car stayed well behind the convoy
while motorcyclists pounded and kicked the ambassador's car.
The Caracas mayor's office denied involvement,
Chavez says the United States of plotting against him, an accusation
American officials deny. The United States, however, has said Chavez
is stifling democracy.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOdhjiz2i76ou9wQRAvQXAJwOw+N+sBtv0b+pB2r9YpreGwEPZgCgtw4O
33O12QPULNrxFY+J1ahxdQU=
=tMsF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Latest US Maneuver to Protect Posada
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/51f92dead19bab5d
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 9:02 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Latest US Maneuver to Protect Posada
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Granma International - Apr 7, 2006
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2006/abril/vier7/16maniobra.html
New maneuver to protect Posada Carriles
BY DEISY FRANCIS MEXIDOR
A new political maneuver is underway aimed at smoothing the road for
terrorist Luis Posada Carriles. On April 20, in El Paso, Texas,
immigration authorities and lawyers are to meet with the terrorist to
decide whether or not to grant him naturalization as a U.S. citizen.
Behind this interest, there is an obvious attempt to paralyze the
extradition process.
It is clear that Posada Carriles is a torturer and terrorist and the
U.S. government would be involved in an unprecedented scandal if it
were to accept citizenship being granted to an individual who it has
acknowledged is a danger to natural security.
At the same time, news has begun to circulate regarding the
presentation of a habeas corpus on behalf of the murderer, given that
if he is not put on trial, preventative detention has facilitated that
recourse.
All of these possibilities regarding double talk in the fight against
terrorism were discussed Thursday night (April 6) during the
"Roundtable" television program titled "Posada Carriles, Orlando
Bosch, anti-Cuban terrorism and the criminal policies of the White
House."
The Venezuelan Supreme Court submitted its application for Posada's
extradition in May 2005, basing it not only on his terrorist history
with respect to Cuba, but also to his links with the Venezuelan secret
police (DISIP).
Randy Alonso, the "Roundtable" moderator, confirmed that to date, the
only procedure taken against Posada is an administrative one regarding
immigration issues.
In a telephone call from Washington, attorney José Pertierra noted
that the attempt to grant naturalization is nothing more than a
maneuver that was probably set in motion "before Posada arrived in the
United States."
Pertierra also commented that the U.S. administration has been forced
by its own laws to acknowledge the terrorist's criminal history; if
not, it would have to end his detention, given that those same laws
prohibit the indefinite arrest of any citizen.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOdhjiz2i76ou9wQRArBNAJ96Y7qlYK9sOfpY9nDpmMSjuR+zyQCfTUkV
Rng+KcZ5utv38XSWftFHtkU=
=5sAb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Humala Wins Most Peru Votes; Heads for May Runoff
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/cdd1f354fe748612
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 9:02 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Humala Wins Most Peru Votes; Heads for May Runoff
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Bloomberg News - April 9, 2006 17:41 EDT
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aKiecSy6uVms&refer=news_index#
Peru's Humala Wins Most Votes, Exit Polls Show
by Alex Emery in Lima
April 9 (Bloomberg) -- Peruvian nationalist candidate Ollanta Humala, a
former army colonel who vows to redistribute the country's mineral wealth to
the poor, won the most votes in a first round presidential election, exit
polls showed.
Humala, 43, took 29.6 percent of the vote, followed by former President Alan
Garcia, 56, with 24.2 percent and Lourdes Flores, 46, a lawyer, with 24.2
percent, according to the exit polls by Apoyo Opinion y Mercado on America
Television. Peru plans a runoff election with the top two vote-getters in
May.
An ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Humala won support among Peru's
13 million poor for pledging to fight the multinational companies he says
are looting the nation's natural resources. His rise in the polls ahead of
today's vote concerned investors including Jaime Valdivia at Emerging
Sovereign Group, who said he worries Humala may squander five years of
economic growth and stability that have lured investment to Peru.
`Humala is an independent who won't ally with the rich and powerful,'' said
Fernando Ribero, 28, a beer distribution salesman who voted for Humala, a
member of the Union for Peru party. `Unlike the traditional politicians,
he's going to crack down on the multinational companies that don't pay
taxes.''
A Humala victory would put Peru in the camp of Venezuela's Chavez and
Bolivian President Evo Morales, who was elected in December, who both
advocate curbing company profits to help the poor benefit from the region's
oil and mineral wealth.
erious Challenge'
`The possibility we'll have another Chavez acolyte in Peru represents a
serious challenge to the economic model and a threat to democracy,'' said
Michael Shifter, vice president for policy at Washington research
organization Inter-American Dialogue.
Humala drew protests as he cast his ballot today at a university in Lima,
prompting President Alejandro Toledo to send riot police to escort the
candidate. About 100 police with riot shields protected Humala and former
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, head of an Organization of
American States delegation observing the election, after protesters chanting
`murderer'' threw stones and bottles at the candidate.
`Make use of the weapon of the ballot box, but don't attack the electoral
process itself,'' Toledo told Lima station Panamericana Television. `The
world is watching us -- this is democracy, not the authoritarian past.''
Economic Growth
Peru's $68 billion economy has expanded at an annual rate of 5 percent since
Toledo, 60, took office in 2001. His government trimmed Peru's deficit to
0.4 percent of gross domestic product from 2.5 percent in 2001. The
inflation rate is the lowest in the region at 2.5 percent in March.
Annual exports are forecast to triple to $21 billion this year. Peru is the
world's fourth-largest producer of copper, the fifth in gold, the third of
zinc and the largest of fish meal. The country has Latin America's
fifth-largest reserves of natural gas.
Humala's popularity prompted declines in Peru's markets the past three
months. In January, when he first led the polls, the nation's benchmark
stock index sank 6.3 percent between Jan. 4 and Jan. 13. The index jumped 30
percent the following month as he was overtaken again by Flores. The index
fell again March 20 when a fresh poll showed him back in the lead.
Peru's stock index rose 2 percent to 6192.89 on April 7, after the central
bank raised the benchmark lending rate to a three-year high of 5 percent.
The nation's currency climbed 0.6 percent to 3.3585 per dollar. The yield on
the government 9 7/8 percent bond due 2015 fell to 7.3 percent from 7.5
percent as the price rose 1.25 cents on the dollar to 116.25.
Valdivia said he is concerned about Humala's pledges to boost corporate
taxes and increase health and education spending.
orried'
`Investors are worried Humala will raise taxes on mining companies, take
them over or do something else equally radical,'' Valdivia, who manages $230
million of emerging market assets at Emerging Sovereign Group, said in a
telephone interview from New York. `He's not been articulate on what he
plans to do.''
The exit polls corresponded with polling results published just before the
election from both Apoyo and Lima-based Datum, which showed Humala winning
and the second-place finisher too close to call.
Garcia's support among voters has increased in the past several polls. The
former president served between 1985 and 1990 and ended his term amid
hyperinflation -- consumer prices doubled daily towards the end of his
presidency -- and an escalating guerrilla war that left at least 15,000 dead
during that time. He returned to Peru in 2001 after nine years in self-
exile in Paris.
Garcia lost a re-election bid against Toledo in a run-off in 2001 after
edging out Flores in the first round.
Garcia lost a re-election bid against Toledo in a run-off in 2001 after
edging out Flores in the first round.
`Garcia won't be as market-friendly as Flores, but he'll be less unfriendly
than Humala,'' said Franco Uccelli, an analyst at Bear Stearns Cos. in Boca
Raton, Florida.
Flores, seeking to become the Andean nation's first woman president,
campaigned on pledges to grant greater access to credit and training for
farmers and small businesses, while promising to respect contracts signed
between the government and investors.
Flores vowed to counter the influence of Chavez, who began an initiative for
a regional trade bloc to replace U.S. President George W. Bush's Free Trade
Agreement for the Americas.
Toledo pulled Peru's ambassador from Venezuela in January after Chavez, 51,
called Flores `the candidate of the oligarchy'' and publicly backed Humala's
candidacy.
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOdhjiz2i76ou9wQRApeLAKCbtu1izIdpyZbqU5KQmBHAYg12dACfQxIv
ULBHs5EzYH2MnViPdqoa13o=
=QKU5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Humala: I am One of Those from Below (Granma Intvw)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/browse_thread/thread/a9a38faf5f88a3c1
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 9 2006 9:02 pm
From: NY.Transfer.News@blythe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Humala: I am One of Those from Below (Granma Intvw)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Granma International On line - Apr 8, 2006
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2006/abril/sab8/16ollanta.html
"I am one of those from below and my idea is
to govern with them and with everyone"
>From Lima, presidential candidate Ollanta Humala talks to
Granma International
"We shall respect foreign investment although it must meet certain
requisites: the generation of employment - direct or indirect - the
transfer of technology for the country, respect its fiscal obligations
and protect the environment"
BY ALONSO DEL PRADO
MEDIUM height, an athletic constitution, close-cut black hair and a
measured way of speaking characterize this man of 44, who spent 23 of
those years in the Peruvian Army. When he was discharged, after an
argument with his superiors for exposing shady dealings and fraud
within the force, he was a commander and had been the chief of a
military unit, in which he won the respect of officers, NCO's and
soldiers.
Now he is aspiring to the Peruvian presidency and his government
program has provoked panic in the ranks of those who openly or from
the wings control this immensely rich country but in which the
majority of its 27 million inhabitants live in poverty or bordering on
it.
Ollanta rejects labels: "I am a nationalist because I support my
nation and my people. I am not a leftist or a rightist: I am one of
those from below and I propose to govern with them - and with
everyone."
Granma International approached Ollante in a Lima hotel where he had
met with the foreign press, eager to meet one of the most vilified men
in Peruvian national history, but who is leading the opinion polls for
the elections this April 9.
"I come from a family of bankrupted farmers who had to leave the
country for the city in a desperate search for survival," he affirms.
"Agriculture, Peru's principal economic and social base, has been
remorselessly attacked. In many cases the huge latifundia conceded on
false premises include entire villages of native peoples who have been
inhumanly enslaved."
A nationalist government will reactivate agriculture, will give value
to the land, protect its cultivators, offer them financial credits,
promote their cultural, scientific and technical development, create a
sound agrarian sector, care for and develop sources of water and
conditions so that rural people do not have to emigrate and live in
slum conditions in the cities or cross the border in search of
sustenance in other lands. Agriculture is the pillar of the country's
development," he affirms, adding: "We shall begin by respecting the
rights of the poorest."
The nationalist candidate emphasizes the protection of the environment
and adds: "We support the Kyoto Protocol and will give special
attention to the precarious situation of the environment in line with
the agreements and efforts of the United Nations.
"Education is another sector that demands particular attention from a
nationalist government. The situation of 20,000 schools in the
Altiplano region is tragic. We shall make an effort to give education
to everyone, to eliminate illiteracy and guarantee the country's
present and future.
"I am going to construct the dignity of the people and their pride at
being the owners of their country. The Peruvian people are the owners
of their homeland: workers have the right to receive a decent wage
that will allow them to maintain their families and with respect for
the 8-hour working day, which has been criminally abolished," he
states.
Ollanta Humala advises that, through the country's legal mechanisms, a
nationalist government will carefully review all the concessions
granted to national and foreign investors, will take action against
corruption and oblige those who have been evading the payment of taxes
to cover them.
"We will respect foreign investment although it must meet certain
requisites: the generation of employment - direct or indirect - the
transfer of technology to the country, respect for its fiscal
obligations and protection of the environment.
"Those that meet these requisites are not going to have any problems,"
stated the Peruvian nationalist candidate, adding: "We are going to
consolidate democracy, affirm the institutions and reaffirm the
concept of citizenship.
"I am against the neoliberal economic model. We want an economy at the
service of the people and have a sense of solidarity with other Latin
American countries that are trying to build a regional economic,
social, energetic agenda and one that protects the environment, all in
function of the well being of our peoples, without exception."
In this context, Ollanta Humala notes: "I am not going to accept
pressure from any country to discriminate against another country. We
are not anti: we are pro, and we want good relations with all nations,
including Chile and Ecuador, our neighbors, based on respect for our
rights and theirs. We will have a politics of agreement and dialogue.
"The Peruvian people are sick of corruption, of seeing how the law is
selectively applied, in favor of those who already have everything.
Moreover," he emphasizes, "there is currently a discrimination based
on language. Many indigenous people do not speak Spanish and can see
how their rights are being violated without even having the
possibility of defending themselves, because their culture belongs to
another of the seven languages spoken in the country."
And, in conclusion, Ollanta Humala leafs through a copy of Granma
International. "Sometimes," he confides with a smile, "I like to savor
a Havana cigar. Via this publication, I would like to send a very
fraternal greeting to the Cuban people."
*
================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOdhjiz2i76ou9wQRAoLHAKCThNfA2yxO0tpw6+UUL0WIyRfz9ACfSepp
PUFH+gnu7KGG58b9qkeXEXA=
=4CTl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soc.culture.usa"
group.
To post to this group, send email to soc.culture.usa@googlegroups.com or visit
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to soc.culture.usa-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/subscribe
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com
