And America is funding these activities, and preparing to attack Iraq, in order to bring PEACE to the Middle East?

We wish someone could explain this.
 
 
 

Robert Anthony -  All Planet Network

AS John Lennon would have liked to say:   GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.

 YES, Saddam Hussein is evil and should be removed. Yes, bin Ladin is
   a nut case radical, not representative of Muslims, and should be stopped.
       But should America do this by becoming just as evil, more deliberate, at killing innocents than they?
        What is similar in THAT picture?

Work to not let America become the same as them.

    We should not lower ourselves to their level 
   in actions that cause innocents to be killed.
  When we do this, we become as bad as they.

We must draw the line.

Nowhere in the Koran does it say to kill. 
   As bin Ladin and his bands of terrorists 
     fight their "holy war against the infidels", 
     he is betraying his Allah. 

Mohammed, Buddha,
Christians own monotheistic God 
(how is he different again from "their" God?)
would not, does not, agree with him.

We need to Wage Peace

   And so, as we ask ourselves, as a world  - what would Allah really say
     about suicide bombers, with retaliation in kind 
       by killing and more death.
     He would say "Stop".

     Crushing each other's homes with bulldozers and explosives?
    Peace of Mind -- lost in the viscious circles of violence and revenge.
  "Stop." 

   What would he say to stealing a plane, and everyone's life on it, 
  and ramming it into The World Trade Center.
These Terrorists were told they will be welcomed to their
Nirvana with open arms? Would "Their God" really do that?
Is Muslim God really wanting war with Christianity God?
Do they really hate each other?

Maybe, they are going to start throwing lightning bolts 
at each other and we are going to have to have to have NASA
or somebody save our whole planets ass from all the earth quakes and ...
well, you know - 
God War Stuff
lightning bolts, fires, maybe insects, volcanos, comets... - 

Are we really allowing it to become such a 
"religion versus religion war" just because 
bin Ladin wants to provoke such a war? 

     America should work to be careful not to play into
      these radical fundimentalists Muslim hands.
 

Our Guys say "Stop" too
    The unfortunate message in all this is
   Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Allah, Krishna, ...
. and all the people who feel there is
"Something" in their religion...
would not, can not, agree with violence involving innocents.

We must draw the line.

Support Intelligence Units, going in on strategic and specific strikes
and continue to chip away at, with 'World Support', an eradication
of terrorist cells that threaten peace. Yes.
But the World is assured that this is maintained:
No more open wars with civilian casualties,
innocent women and children
dying at the hands of soldiers.
   Not our soldiers. 
     Not theirs.
 
 

Yes, fight fire with fire.

But only with world support. The world is supporting the US in
the War on Terrorism.  These actions, in Iraq, are clearly fragmenting the 
reputation of the US., polarizing it.

We should want to make friends, not multiply enemies.

The innocents, the Mosques and ancient holy places, civilian life,
must be preserved at all cost.
 
 
 

Sincerely,
All Planet Network

   GF, LS, RC
 
 

We support peace.

We can support a war against terrorism,
if sanctioned by our allies.

We support our troops in any case.

We do not support deaths of civilians.
 

LETTER OF RESIGNATION BY JOHN BRADY KIESLING

                                 ______
 

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 4, 2003

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker I commend to the attention of
my colleagues the following letter of resignation written by
American diplomat John Brady Kiesling. Mr. Kiesling served in the U.S. State Department as 
Political Counselor at the American Embassy in Greece
before resigning 
his post on Thursday, February 27--ending twenty years
of public 
service. Mr. Kiesling's letter is an eloquent
expression of principal 
in opposition to war with Iraq and America's
heavy-handed approach to 
foreign policy under the leadership of President Bush.
 

     US Diplomat John Brady Kiesling,
 

February 27, 2003.Secretary of State Colin L. Powell,Letter of Resignation.
ATHENS  Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit
my resignation from the Foreign Service of the
United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S.
Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy
heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt
obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S.
diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign
languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians,
scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S.
interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my
country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my
diplomatic arsenal.  It is inevitable that during twenty years with
the State Department I would become more sophisticated and
cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives
that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is
what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding
human nature. But until this Administration it had been
possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my
president I was also upholding the interests of the American
people and the world. I believe it no longer.  The policies we are 
now asked to advance are
incompatible not only with American values but also with
American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq
is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has
been America's most potent weapon of both offense and
defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun
to dismantle the largest and most effective web of
international relationships the world has ever known. Our
current course will bring instability and danger, not security. 
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic
politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and
it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still,
we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence,
such systematic manipulation of American opinion,
since the war in Vietnam.  The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than
before, rallying around us a vast international coalition
to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way
against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit
for those successes and build on them, this Administration
has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool,
enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its
bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and
confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated
problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the
motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public
wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that
protect American citizens from the heavy hand of
government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the
fabric of American society as we seem determined to do to
ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model,
a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward
self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo? 
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to
persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary.
We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our
world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests
override the cherished values of our partners. Even where
our aims were not in question, our consistency is at
issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies
wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in
whoseimage and interests. Have we indeed become blind,
as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the
Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming
military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the
shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and
Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with
Micronesia to follow where we lead.  We have a coalition still, a good one. The
loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to
American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest
allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it
would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete
solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our
President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our
friends and allies this Administration is fostering,
including among its most senior officials? Has "oderint dum metuant"
really become our motto?  I urge you to listen to America's friends
around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European
anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than
the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine.
Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks
know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and
they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU
in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us
rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are
afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United
States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice
for the planet?  Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your
character and ability. You have preserved more
international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and
salvaged something positive from the excesses of an
ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to
the President goes too far. We are straining beyond
its limits an international system we built with such toil and
treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared
values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than
it ever constrained America's ability to defend its
interests.  I am resigning because I have tried and failed
to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the
current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our
democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a
small way our democratic process is ultimately
self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from
outside to shaping policies that better serve the security
and prosperity of the American people and the world
we share.

Presented by John Brady Kiesling
U.S. State Department 
Political Counselor, American Embassy of  Greece
Tuesday, March 4, 2003

Verification: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h030403.html

                          ____________________
 

"Please open your heart and consider how you can turn away from violence 
in your own life, and spread the word in powerful ways. 

There is not much time left.

EM

Dear Mr. Mandela,
I have admired you for a long time; you have been one of my 
models, and I have long agreed that you have been, as the "London 
Mirror" describes you, "the most admired statesman in the world," 
and "for countless millions a symbol of honor, principle and 
commitment to justice." I read, however, the speech that has 
recently been attributed to you, and I must say that my heart sank.

(Mandela Calls Bush Shortsighted on Iraq
Thursday, 30-Jan-2003 11:20AM PST ????
 Story from AP / JAPAN MATHEBULA, Associated Press Writer
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press (via ClariNet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP) -- Former President Nelson 
Mandela called President Bush arrogant and shortsighted and 
implied that he was racist for ignoring the United Nations in his zeal 
to attack Iraq.

In a speech Thursday, Mandela urged the people of the United States 
to join massive protests against Bush. Mandela called on world 
leaders, especially those with vetoes in the U.N. Security Council, to 
oppose him.

"One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think 
properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust," 
Mandela told the International Women's Forum.

Mandela also criticized Iraq for not cooperating fully with the 
weapons inspectors and said South Africa would support any action 
against Iraq that was supported by the United Nations.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded to Mandela's 
criticism by pointing to a letter by eight European leaders reiterating 
their support of Bush.

"The president expresses his gratitude to the many leaders of Europe 
who obviously feel differently" than Mandela, Fleischer said. "He 
understands there are going to be people who are more comfortable 
doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a 
holocaust."

A Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mandela has repeatedly condemned U.S. 
behavior toward Iraq in recent months and demanded Bush respect 
the authority of the United Nations. His comments Thursday, 
though, were far more critical and his attack on Bush far more 
personal than in the past.

"Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?" he asked. "All 
that (Bush) wants is Iraqi oil," he said.

He accused Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of 
undermining the United Nations and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi 
Annan, who is from Ghana.

"Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a 
black man? They never did that when secretary-generals were 
white," he said.

Mandela said the United Nations was the main reason there has been 
no World War III and it should make the decisions on how to deal 
with Iraq.

He said that the United States, which callously dropped atomic 
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has no moral authority to police
the world.

"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in 
the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for 
human beings," he said.

"Who are they now to pretend that they are the policemen of the 
world, the ones that should decide for the people of Iraq what 
should be done with their government and their leadership?" he 
said.

He said Bush was "trying to bring about carnage" and appealed to 
the American people to vote him out of office and demonstrate 
against his policies.

He also condemned Blair for his strong support of the United States.

"He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer 
prime minister of Britain," he said.)
When you quoted Maryann Williamson in your inauguration 
address, I was touched on so many levels, and especially moved by 
the spirit I felt flowing through you at that time. But when I read the 
text of your recent speech, I must say that my heart sank.
I completely agree with you that there is a great "evil" about, and itís 
time the people of the earth took care of it. What was unfortunate, 
however, is that you strayed from, or seemed to stray from, what I 
saw as being your positive, loving orientation.

In your words, "If there is a country that has committed 
unspeakable
atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America." This 
speech, there was blame and accusation. It really seemed as if you 
thought that the United States was somehow "evil" or that Mr. Bush 
was somehow "evil." This concerns me, for it seems the same old 
game of who is "good," who is "evil," who really has God on their 
side.
In attacking the other person, I fear actually becoming that which 
weíre trying to get rid of. Having attacked in the way that you did, 
the reaction of the right was to counter-attack by bringing up highly 
tuned, specific details that are not really relevant to what weíre all 
talking about, but have the potential to diminish your standing, and 
by association, hurts all those who want to see an end to the 
violence. Mr Buckleyís response 
( HYPERLINK 
"http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley013103.asp" 
is a good example. 

It is important for all of us to discover how we are being deluded, 
and attacks on lies and misunderstandings are crucial. Blaming and 
attacks on individuals, as well as groups (like the US), is likely to 
draw counterattacks and feed the monster we are all fighting. 

My hope is that you return to the incredible peacemaking work you 
have done, and help all of us rid ourselves of the burden of violence 
the human race has borne. The respect you have earned will then 
have a better chance of bringing over to the side of peace those who 
are still on the fence.

Thank you,
Emmett Miller

  "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.  Our deepest fear 
is that we are powerful beyond measure.  It is our light, not our 
darkness, that most frightens us.  We ask ourselves, who am I to be 
brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?  Actually, who are you 
not to be?  You are a child of God.  Your playing small doesnít serve 
the world.  There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that 
other people wonít feel insecure around you.  We are born to make 
manifest the Glory of God that is within us.  Itís not just in some of 
us, itís in everyone, and as we let our own light shine, we 
consciously give other people permission to do the same.  As we are 
liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates 
others."

 ©2003 Emmett  Miller
 

SANE Views 

Vol.3, No.3, 30 January 2003 

The information below is based on material sent to SANE by Richard 
Douthwaite's organisation FEASTA in Ireland which in turn obtained 
it from insights posted at the website: 

http://www.praesentia.us/archives/2003_01.html 

It presents a devastating insight into President Bush's belligerent 
stance towards Iraq, one which would appear to be based totally on 
the economic self interest of the US. 

(editor - SANE Views) 

THE DOLLAR, THE EURO AND WAR IN IRAQ 

The dollar is the world reserve currency. This gives a huge subsidy 
to the US economy because if a country wants to hold lots of dollars 
in reserve they must supply the US with goods and services in return 
for those dollars. In return the US just prints a few notes. The more 
dollars there are circulating outside the US, the more goods and 
services the US has imported virtually for free. This is how the US 
manages to run a huge trade deficit year after year without 
apparently any major economic consequences. No other country can 
run such a large trade deficit with impunity. It is in effect getting a 
massive interest-free loan from the rest of the world. 

One of the primary objectives, if not the primary objective, of 
setting up the Euro was to try and get some of this free lunch for 
Europe. If the Euro became a major reserve currency, or better still 
replaced the dollar as the major reserve currency, then Europe too 
could get something for nothing. 

This would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose their 
subsidy, which has been increasing in size and in importance to 
American economic well being as the years have gone by, but 
countries switching to Euro reserves from dollar reserves would 
start spending their dollars in the US. ?In other words the US would 
have to start paying its debts to other countries. As countries 
converted their dollar assets into Euro assets the US property and 
stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst. The Federal 
Reserve would no longer be able to print more money to reflate the 
bubble as it is currently openly considering doing, 

There is, however, one major obstacle to this happening: OIL! Oil is 
of course by far the most important commodity traded 
internationally, and if you want to buy oil on the international 
markets you usually have to have dollars. 

Until recently all OPEC countries agreed to sell their oil for dollars 
only. This meant that oil importing countries, like Japan, needed to 
hold dollar reserves in order to be able to buy oil. So long as this 
remained the case, the Euro was unlikely to become the major 
reserve currency: there is not a lot of point to stockpiling Euros if 
every time you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars. 
But in November 2000 Iraq switched to the euro, with potentially 
perilous consequences for the US. Only one country has the right to 
print dollars: the US! If OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for 
its oil, then American economic dominance would be over. Not only 
would Europe not need dollars anymore, but Japan which imports 
over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would have to convert most 
of its dollar assets to Euro assets (Japan is of course the major 
subsidiser of the US). The US on the other hand, being the world's 
largest oil importer would have to acquire Euro reserves, i.e. it 
would have to run a trade surplus. The conversion from trade deficit 
to trade surplus would have to be done at a time when its property 
and stock market prices were collapsing and its own oil supplies 
were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion. 

The purely economic argument for OPEC converting to the Euro, at 
least for a while, seem very strong. The Eurozone does not run a 
huge trade deficit like the US, nor is it heavily indebted to the rest 
of the world like the US. Nearly everything you can buy for dollars 
you can also buy for Euros. Furthermore, if OPEC were to convert 
their dollar assets to Euro assets and then require payment for oil in 
euros, their assets would immediately increase in value. Also, since 
oil importing countries would be forced to convert their reserves 
into euros, whose price would therefore be driven up. OPEC could 
then at some later date back some other currency, maybe the dollar 
again, and again make huge profits. This would offer a virtually 
inexhaustible source of profit for OPEC. 

But of course it would not be a purely economic decision. The 
Eurozone countries do not threaten Middle Eastern countries 
militarily as the US does. At the site 

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp

there is an article, written at the time the decision was made, 
claiming the decision made no financial sense and would cost Iraq 
millions. According to one "expert" quoted in this article the 
decision to convert was made by people who "are not experts, they 
are not central bankers, they are not even oil men". At the time the 
article was written, the euro was worth 82 US cents. It is now worth 
about $1.05. So on economic grounds alone, the Iraqi decision has 
been a huge success (the $10 billion Iraqi fund at the UN, mentioned 
in the article, has apparently also since been converted). There may 
however be military consequences to it. The economic threat to the 
US may be influencing it in its belligerent stance towards Iraq. 

One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible 
conversion since 1999: Iran. And of course it has since been 
included in the "axis of evil". 

Further information about this matter can be found at: 

http://www.praesentia.us/archives/2003_01.html#000227

So, as Feasta sees it, this threatened war does not serve Irish or 
continental Europe's growth interests at all, when compared to the 
alternative of lifting sanctions. But a far better reason for opposing 
the war is that it is a blatant case of mass murder for profit. 
 

I will each day write my soul, debate my foe's position, tell a story, 
end a bit of suffering, and take a walk.
©Emmett Miller,  03/16/03