»This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense.« [Daypop Top News Stories]
»The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in the latest budget.«
So much about “bringing peace to the world”…
It was obvious that the Iraqi officials are going to be delighted by the anti-war protests. But they should be aware that there is a difference between »anti-war« and »pro Iraq«. These millions of people spoke out to Saddam Hussein as well: »The world doesn’t want a war – so disarm!«.
John Robb tries to think through why people may oppose a war. He lists some:
- Opposition to all war.
- Frustration with the US, as the sole superpower in the world, exercising its military power without considering the desires of the rest of the world. This is tied to the hope, that global activism in combination with strict fealty to the UN, can contain US power.
- Opposition to the US across the board (anti everything the US does).
- The US is the #1 source of global evil (this is a stronger version of the above).
- Belief that UN inspections and sanctions can work to prevent Iraq from ever becoming a threat -or- that Iraq has already been disarmed.
- Belief that war is more of a threat to the Iraqi people than living under Saddam for another couple of decades.
In fact neither of these reasons apply and at the same time all of these reasons (and some more) are applicable. That is the contradiction most people feel and potentially the reason why unfortunatly many Americans don’t understand why people call friendship with US while opposing the war.
I think what people really are opposing is the obvious ambition of the Bush administration towards a »pax americana« that is described in the National Security Strategy and which sketches layout of the political world solely determined by national interests of the USA. I found this brilliant article from Jay Bookman that is a good introduction to the subject.
Everyone can draw own conclusions. I have drawn mine and I think USA should not implement this strategy. It is overestimating todays effectivness of military force for long term goals and underestimating the possible counter reactions. It is also ignoring the social, cultural and religious issues in favour for political and economical advantages that will be benefitial only for few. It will just escalate the current situation and we are seeing the first signs for this already.
Dave Winer seems to suggest that 9/11 equals the war experience in France and Germany:
»A common response from across the ocean. Unlike the US, France and Germany know what war is like. There’s the disconnect. Click here. Clue: That’s not Germany or France.«
Clue to Dave: This is how many European cities looked like after WW2. Can you spot the difference?
400.000 more than expected. That’s the biggest peace demonstration in Germany ever.
Ok – here is a scenario: Japan launches a preventive attack on North Korea, Pakistan launches a preventive attack on India, Russia launches a preventive attack on Cechnia, China launches a preventive attack on Taiwan, Israel launches (another) preventive attack on Palestine. In this scenario I think a preventive attack on Iraq from U.S. is fair and just.
I admit this scenario is very unlikely: Russia doesn’t need to launch a preventive attack on Cechnia anymore. I also forgot to include these nasty terrorists somewhere…
»I’m certain I’ve just as much justification for killing Mr. Johnson’s wife and children as Mr. Bush has for bombing Iraq. […]
Mr. Bush’s long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating ‘rogue states’ and ‘terrorism’. It’s such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you’ve achieved it?«
NY Times: »In a two-hour interview in his United Nations offices overlooking Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Blix, the chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the administration’s campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. “There are other states where there appear to be stronger links,” such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. “It’s bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction.”«
Norman Schwarzkopf: »”The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?” he says. “Now, having said that, I don’t know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, ‘Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,’ I guess I would like to have better information.”«
“Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.” —Pres. Bush addressing the nation from Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002
This PDF map shows all (?) production facilities and arsenal storages for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in the USA.
»Military officials have been focusing their planning on the use of nuclear arms in retaliation for a strike by the Iraqis with chemical or biological weapons, or to pre-empt one, Arkin says.«
“The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America’s Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.”
Since they were enacted in 1998, the “anti-circumvention” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), codified in section 1201 of the Copyright Act, have not been used as Congress envisioned. Congress meant to stop copyright pirates from defeating anti-piracy protections added to copyrighted works, and to ban “black box” devices intended for that purpose.
In practice, the anti-circumvention provisions have been used to stifle a wide array of legitimate activities, rather than to stop copyright piracy. As a result, the DMCA has developed into a serious threat to important public policy priorities: free expression, scientific research, fair use, competition and innovation.
Creative Commons has an own weblog now.