Richard isn't interested in this disussion other than that of the 60s period. I did make a careless mistake earlier when I said the US dems, the gov, sided with India....I meant the new left, not the gov. Off hand I don't remember the details of the US admins doings at any precise point of time as events came and went. One thing I seem to recall is Pak attacking Kashmir which the US gov objected to and cut off arms for a time but China armed the country as the US became increasingly enmeshed in Vietnam. But, individual events apart, the US and Pak had a long standing military alliance. Quote: Pakistan is a vital U.S. ally in the global war on terrorism. This is not the first time the United States has relied on Islamabad for its defense needs: Pakistan provided crucial support in the Cold War struggle against communism, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s.... http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Oct/lavoyOct05.asp If you want to argue from the Pak/muslim pov, fine, that's politics. But there's nothing in my statement that's anything other that true. The new left supported the left in India. And recall there was the US vs Soviet cold war going on. /R -----Original Message----- From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of L. Mirza Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:45 PM To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] FW: [LAAMN] Neither U.S. Aggression Nor Theocratic Repression Doesn't matter which period you refer to. Now Richard, Pakistan IS my place of expertise since I spent half my adult life living there and since the 1965 war with India took place in the 60's I can refer to that decade as easily any other decade you can name. Though if my memory serves me, the US president at the time was Johnson and though a democrat and this was the one war between India & Pakistan with a democratic president, congress with a majority republican at the time voted to suspend all arms as well as other aid to Pakistan and the bill was signed by Johnson. The US also refused to ship jets ordered and paid for, and the US not only never shipped them later but never reimbersed Pakistan for the payments. They knew they had now put Pakistan at an even stronger disadvantage as if by its size wasn't already at a disadvantage. It was only because Pakistan's airforce had blown up most of India's military jets in a raid in Delhi that India didn't the war ended in a stalmate. --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I referred to the 60s period only and then the US > dems did side with India. > > My statement stands re that period. India was > leader of the Non-aligned > Nations Movement and while nominally independent the > country received much > aid and influence from the Soviet Union. In those > days Ghandi-ism, Nehruism > (left, anti-American) and certain far left mvts were > predominent in the > country. The new left in the US was much influenced > thereby....the existing > relationship was reciprocal. > > India even forbid entry of US corporations within > its borders. > > Pak was dependent on US aid, especially military. > The fact it didn't obtain > all it was promised is true but that changes > nothing, it was in the US > orbit. > > Loraine, again, the topic was the Sixties. The > democratic new left did > support India as it was left. The repubs took the > opposing role by > supporting the Pak gov. (As usual it doesn't send > top of the line military > equipment to third world rulers.) > > I'm not going to get into all the detailed stuff, > the yeahs and buts, or > I'll never get off this comp. Anyone can go online > and find the POLITICAL > alignments of the era including that of the > Naxalites re the birth of > Bangla: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite /R > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > Behalf Of L. Mirza > Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 7:00 AM > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] FW: [LAAMN] Neither U.S. > Aggression Nor > Theocratic Repression > > > This shows how little you know about what goes on > between the US Pakistan and India. You only look on > the service which is a fraud. > > US has always really and deeply supported India. It > has exploited and used Pakistan but indeed has > sabbatoged Pakistan every chance it has gotten. That > many Pakistan governments fall for this charade > doesn't make it the actual reality. During every war > between India and Pakistan, while the US puts up a > front of sympathy with Pakistan, it has provided air > surveilence intelligence to India all along. It has > also sold arms to Pakistan that were either > defective > or even worse, has taken Pakistani money for arms > but > has failed to deliver them. America failed to honor > its treaty and SEATO committments totally. > > The democrats have always favored India. The > republicans have said one thing, but look at the > facts. India has chosen to decleare war on Pakistan > only during republican administrations, in the same > way Israel has done. Don't you wonder why? > > There is too much about this to > > > > --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Too much to get into here. But in the 60s India > had > > a left gov....hinduism > > was pop in this country. The US supported the Pak, > > the old Pak gov, not > > India which opposed US policies and accepted USSR > > aid. /R > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > > Behalf Of L. Mirza > > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:59 PM > > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] FW: [LAAMN] Neither > U.S. > > Aggression Nor > > Theocratic Repression > > > > > > I don't know Richard, I was in college in the > early > > 60's and very actively pursuing those issues and > > when > > it came to the Kashmiris there was no left voice I > > can > > recall. In fact criticizing India to anyone on the > > left, especially KPFK in those days was an > absolute > > taboo!!!! Or pardon the punn, India was a sacred > > cow! > > > > In 1968 I got stranded in Ahmedabad during the > worst > > Hindu attacks against Muslims since Partition > > days.10,000 Muslims were butchered before it > ended. > > That was what started me on the road of > journalism, > > in > > fact. When I got back to the States I could not > find > > any takers for any stories anywhere on either the > > left, middle or right of a first hand account of > > those > > riots. Certainly not at KPFK that I did indeed > > approach. > > > > In the 70's KPFK totally supported India during > its > > invasion of East Pakistan, and swallowed India's > > very > > clever but outright lies hook line and sinker, and > > the > > secessionists and the creation of Bangladesh. I'm > > sure > > if you go back into archives you can hear for > > yourself > > the Ravi Shankar, John Lenon, and Joan Biaz > concerts > > to raise money for Bangladesh. (Even when there > was > > no > > Bangladesh, BTW) > > > > Then from 1990 to 1995 while I was at KPFK in the > > newsroom and as a programmer, I got called into > the > > office by Alan Fong every time I did something in > > the > > newsroom or on my program about Kashmir, Barbri > > Masjid > > distruction and subseqent widespread mob attacks > > against Muslims in India. I even got in "trouble" > > about a story I did about Dalits (Untouchables). > > > > You can imagine how wonderful it is now to see the > > change at KPFK. Thanks to Arundati Roy, becoming a > > popular voice on Pacifica and Sonali Kolhatkar and > > several others, we do now get critical stories > about > > India on KPFK. I guess now that some non-Muslims > > from > > India are speaking out against the injustices the > > treatment of the Muslim minorities is finally > coming > > out on our airwaves. And though I'm pleased it > > happened, I am purturbed that my Muslim voice was > > shut > > out, though I have reported the exact same things > > that > > Roy, Shiva or Kolhatkar are now at liberty to say. > > > > --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > The multicultural left isn't the new left. In > the > > > Sixties the then new left > > > strongly supported the Kashmiri muslims and LEFT > > > muslims everywhere > > > including Indonesia, South Yemen, and Israel. /R > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > > > Behalf Of L. Mirza > > > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 5:27 AM > > > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] FW: [LAAMN] Neither > > U.S. > > > Aggression Nor > > > Theocratic Repression > > > > > > > > > Deinately so, which explains why the > progressives > > > never stand up for movements for self > > determination > > > of > > > very oppressed Muslim people in Kashmir, > Chechnia > > > or > > > Aceh. I note the left also has shown more > sympathy > > > for > > > the Serbians, those in East Timor, and Christian > > > missionary inspired secessionists in Nigeria and > > > Sudan > > > and of course the prime example was Bangladesh. > > > > > > --- Altaf Bhimji <altafb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > this so-called "new left" however does wish for > > > regime > > > changes in areas of the world that it knows > > nothing > > > about - and as such is reactionary, > imperialist, > > > and > > > patriarchical (sure... it does not advocate > > military > > > intervention, but it ends up feeding the beast > > that > > > it > > > supposedly opposes ) ... because it does not > > believe > > > in self-determination --- or the notion that > > people > > > may decide to live in ways other than the > > "new-left" > > > ideology. And if a people do chose a form of > govt > > > other than "new-left", the new-left will > attribute > > > that to "theocratic repression" or just plain > > > backwardness of people (who then need to be > > > "educated" > > > on the virtues of the "new left"). > > > > > > Altaf > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richard > > > Sent: May 26, 2006 1:13 PM > > > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] FW: [LAAMN] Neither > > U.S. > > > Aggression Nor Theocratic Repression > > > > > > The new left opposes Bush (christian > conservative) > > > and > > > the aligned Iraqi gov (islamic conservative) and > > > they > > > don't adhere to the Pres's form of imperial > > > democracy > > > nor do they support christian Law (Old > Testament) > > > and, > > > finally, they don't approve of islamic Sharia. > > State > > > legal systems and movements based on the Law and > > > Sharia are traditional and patriarchal. The new > > left > > > everywhere and whatever its form is > > > anti-patriarchalism and its many manifestations. > > > > > > The new Iraqi Constitution, if I recall > correctly > > > via > > > Article 2....as well as elsewhere, establishes > > > islamic > > > Law (Sharia) as the high FOUNDATION and supreme > > > source > > > of national law. > > > > > > Since the renaissance a secular left has existed > > > throughout history having in our age spread over > > the > > > face of the earth. Then too, at times, deep > calls > > > to > > > deep. > > > > > > So it is in heaven, on earth, and in the sea. > /R > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > > > Behalf Of L. Mirza > > > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:31 AM > > > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] FW: [LAAMN] Neither > > U.S. > > > Aggression Nor > > > Theocratic Repression > > > > > > > > > Well then the secular left should stop being so > > > arragent and trying to impose their philosophy > on > > > others. What is the difference between them and > > > bush's > > > regime change policy? They want secular then > they > > > live > > > here and work on the areas needed of change and > > > correction here and not call for "regime" change > > in > > > countries they do not live or vote in or try to > > > interfer in those countries. Iran, BTW, IS a > > > DEMOCRACY! They have had elections > > > since the Islamic revolution, including two, not > > > just > > > one vote, on the type of government they wanted; > a > > > secular or religious. They have term limits as > > well > > > for the President, who can only serve for two > > terms, > > > then has to wait it out two terms before running > > > again. Even their constitution was put to a > > > referendom > > > before being finally adopted. I've been in Iran > > > during > > > the Iran and Iraq war when people dodged misiles > > > being > > > dropped on them in order to get to the poles and > > > votes. 83% of qualified voters turned out during > > the > > > elections during the Iraq imposed and U.S. > > sponsored > > > war. That was more than impressive, but amazing, > > > when > > > we see here, hardly 25-30% registered voters, > not > > > just > > > qualified voters, turn-out in many elections. > > > > > > It is indeed NOT thercratic oppression when the > > > popular votes decide the form of government is > to > > be > > > from a religious perspective. > > > > > > --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Regrets to those objecting to the LAAMN post's > > > > content but there was never > > > > any possibility of an American secular new > left > > > > supporting religious > > > > governments whether christian, j! ewish, > islamic > > > or > > > > whatnot. The separation > > > > of church/temple/mosque and state principle > > > > forestalls any such support. /R > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > > > > Behalf Of Altaf Bhimji > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:11 PM > > > > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] FW: [LAAMN] Neither > > > U.S. > > > > Aggression Nor > > > > Theocratic Repression > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree totally with Loraine. I got the > > same > > > > impression --- this is the > > > > same as the neo-con... you wish for > "elections" > > > but > > > > if people elect someone > > > > you don't like... well then you go about > wishing > > > for > > > > "regime change" --- How > > > > is that really , when it comes down to it, any > > > > different than the neo-con > > > > imperialists? Well the left better start get > > used > > > to > > > > seeing this happen all > > > > over the mid-east... or, remain totally > > irrelevant > > > > other than Saturday > > > > afternoon marches... > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > >From: "L. Mirza" <haq4u@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >Sent: May 25, 2006 11:31 AM > > > > >To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] FW: [LAAMN] > Neither > > > U.S. > > > > Aggression Nor > > > > Theocratic Repression > > > > > > > > > >This is bullshit, big time. How dare others > who > > > do > > > > not > > > > >live in Iran tell the Iranis what form of > > > > government > > > > >they should have. > > > > > > > > > >I applaud the majority of the Irani working > > > class, > > > > and > > > > >working poor for their good judgement in > > chosing > > > > the > > > > >government. I wonder how many on that list of > > > > >signatories has actually been in Iran, has > > > actually > > > > >met thousands of those "theocrats" label > them. > > > > > > > > > >Sure like the pr! iviliged classes in Cuba > and > > > > >Venueseula, the wealthy Iranians don't > support > > > the > > > > >Islamic government. But the working class and > > the > > > > poor > > > > >know exactly what they want! In the > elections > > > > before > > > > >this one they tried a so-called moderate > > > (Khatamie) > > > > >and after being neglected, burned and > watching > > > > their > > > > >society turn into greedy western style > > > consumerism, > > > > >70% of the people of Iran came out and voted, > > and > > > > the > > > > >majority voted for the most religious of the > > > > >candidates. > > > > > > > > > >You know the left/progressive intelligencia > is > > > not > > > > so > > > > >superior as they claim. They just as ignorant > > and > > > > >prejudice and the neo-cons. > > > > > > > > > >--- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: laamn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >> [mailto:laamn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > > > > >> Ed Pearl > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:03 AM > > > > >> To: Ed Pearl > > > > >> Subject: [LAAMN] Neither U.S. Aggression > Nor > > > > >> Theocratic Repression > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Iran: Neither U.S. Aggression Nor > Theocratic > > > > >> Repression > > > > >> - A call for a new, democratic U.S. foreign > > > > policy > > > > >> in > > > > >> the Middle East > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear Friend, > > > > >> > > > > >> As the Administration escalates its threats > > > > against > > > > >> Iran, we are writing to invite you to sign > > the > > > > >> Campaign > > > > >> for Peace and Democracy statement "Iran: > > > Neither > > > > >> U.S. > > > > >> Aggression Nor Theocratic Repression - A > call > > > for > > > > a > > > > >> new, democratic U.S. foreign policy in the > > > Middle > > > > >> Ea! st." The text is below. If you would > like > > > to > > > > add > > > > >> your > > > > >> name or donate to publicize the statement, > > > please > > > > go > > > > >> to > > > > >> our website www.cpdweb.org (if for any > reason > > > you > > > > >> have > > > > >> difficulty at the website, just send us an > > > email > > > > at > > > > >> cpd@xxxxxxx) > > > > >> > > > > >> Please join Michael Albert, Tom Ammiano, > > > Stanley > > > > >> Aronowitz, Rosalyn Baxandall, Eileen Boris, > > > > Jeremy > > > > >> Brecher, Noam Chomsky, Ariel Dorfman, > Martin > > > > >> Duberman, > > > > >> Rusti Eisenberg, Carlos R. Espinosa, Samuel > > > > Farber, > > > > >> Mansour Farhang, Barbara Garson, Larry > Gross, > > > > Mina > > > > >> Hamilton, Thomas Harrison, Howie Hawkins, > > Adam > > > > >> Hochschild, Nancy Holmstrom, Doug Ireland, > > Joy > > > > >> Kallio, > > > > >> Larry Kramer, Joanne Landy, Jesse Lemisch, > > John > > > > >> Leonard, Sue Leonard, Rabbi Michael Lerner, > > > > Nelson > > > > >> Lichtenstein, Norman MacAfee, Marvin & > Betty > > > > >> Mandell, > > > > >> David McReynolds, David Oakford, Barbara > > Watson > > > > >> Pillsbury, Henry Pillsbury, Frances Fox > > Piven, > > > > Nancy > > > > >> Romer, Ruth Rosen, Peter Rothberg, Matthew > > > > >> Rothschild, > > > > >> Jennifer Scarlott, Jay Schaffner, Sydney > > > > Schanberg, > > > > >> Stephen R. Shalom, Wallace Shawn, Meredith > > Tax, > > > > >> Cornel > > > > >> West, Cora Weiss, Peter Weiss, Edmund > White, > > > > >> Reginald > > > > >> Wilson, and Howard Zinn in signing this > > > > statement. > > > > >> > > > > >> Signers names and affiliations (for > > > > identification > > > > >> only) will be listed on the Campaign for > > Peace > > > > and > > > > >> Democracy website and in other public > venues. > > > > >> > > > > >> In peace and solidarity, > > > > >> > > > > >> ! Joanne Landy, Thomas Harrison, and > Jennifer > > > > Scarlott > > > > >> Co-Directors, Campaign for Peace and > > Democracy > > > > >> Please > > > > >> go to the CPD website at www.cpdweb.org to > > > sign, > > > > >> donate, or see the full list of signers. > > > > >> > > > > >> IRAN: NEITHER U.S. AGGRESSION NOR > THEOCRATIC > > > > >> REPRESSION > > > > >> > > > > >> Just as it did before its invasion of Iraq, > > the > > > > Bush > > > > >> administration is manufacturing a climate > of > > > fear > > > > in > > > > >> order to prepare public opinion for another > > act > > > > of > > > > >> aggression -- this time against Iran. Three > > > years > > > > >> ago > > > > >> it was the specter of Saddam Hussein's > > alleged > > > > >> weapons > > > > >> of mass destruction; today it's the threat > of > > a > > > > >> possible Iranian nuclear bomb. Washington's > > > > >> immediate > > > > >> goal is to get the U.N. Security Council to > > > > impose > > > > >> sanctions on Iran and, in all probability, > to > > > > >> justify a > > > > >> military attack on Tehran's nuclear > > facilities > > > -- > > > > a > > > > >> job > > > > >> that may be outsourced to Israel. The White > > > House > > > > >> even > > > > >> insists on keeping the catastrophic > "nuclear > > > > option" > > > > >> on > > > > >> the table -- that is, using tactical > nuclear > > > > weapons > > > > >> to > > > > >> strike Iranian nuclear facilities, many of > > > which > > > > are > > > > >> located in or near civilian population > > centers. > > > > >> Although a full-scale invasion of Iran is > > > highly > > > > >> unlikely at the moment, there can be little > > > doubt > > > > >> that > > > > >> the neoconservatives in the Bush > > administration > > > > have > > > > >> a > > > > >> grand strategy that includes, eventually, > > > "regime > > > > >> change" in Tehran as a way of further > > enlarging > > > > U.S.! > > > > >> imperial power. > > > > >> > > > > >> We strongly oppose the U.S. occupation of > > Iraq: > > > > it > > > > >> has > > > > >> brought appalling suffering to the Iraqi > > people > > > > with > > > > >> fatalities in the tens of thousands, > descent > > > into > > > > >> civil > > > > >> war and the strengthening of the most > > > > authoritarian > > > > >> elements in Iraqi society -- as well as > more > > > than > > > > >> 2,400 > > > > >> U.S. soldiers dead and thousands more > > wounded. > > > > >> Likewise, the U.S. government's attempts to > > > bully > > > > >> Iran > > > > >> are succeeding mainly in terrorizing the > > > Iranian > > > > >> people > > > > >> and weakening internal opposition to the > > > mullahs. > > > > >> The > > > > >> Bush administration's claim that it is > > > promoting > > > > >> democracy in these two countries is the > > > grossest > > > > >> hypocrisy; its only interest is power and > > > control > > > > of > > > > >> oil resources. We, on the other hand, care > > very > > > > much > > > > >> about the ability of the Iraqi and Iranian > > > people > > > > to > > > > >> control their own societies, about civil > > > > liberties > > > > >> and > > > > >> the rights of women, gays, workers, and > > ethnic > > > > >> minorities there. That is why we raise our > > > voices > > > > >> against the current threats to Iran and > call > > > for > > > > >> immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces > from > > > > Iraq. > > > > >> > > > > >> We too would like to see a regime change in > > > > Tehran, > > > > >> but > > > > >> one brought about by the Iranian people > > > > themselves, > > > > >> not > > > > >> by Washington. For 26 years Iran has been > > ruled > > > > by a > > > > >> repressive theocracy. Behind the formal > > > trappings > > > > of > > > > >> democracy, real power is held by an > > un-elected > > > > >> oligarchy of clerics; all electoral > > candidates> > > > must > > > > >> receive their approval, and their authority > > is > > > > >> enforced > > > > >> by gangs of religious thugs. President > > > > Ahmadinejad > > > > >> is a > > > > >> Holocaust denier who has called for the > > > > elimination > > > > >> of > > > > >> Israel. > > > > >> > > > > >> Iranian women lack some of the most basic > > human > > > > >> rights. > > > > >> They cannot dress, work, travel or choose > > > spouses > > > > >> freely. "Honor killing" is legal, and by > law > > > > women > > > > >> can > > > > >> be hanged or stoned to death for "unchaste > > > > >> behavior." > > > > >> Millions of Iranian women find ways to at > > least > > > > >> partly > > > > >> circumvent these restrictions, and > relatively > > > few > > > > >> suffer the most extreme penalties. Women > vote > > > and > > > > >> sit > > > > >> in parliament, and there are significant > > > numbers > > > > of > > > > >> women both in university and at the > > > workplace.But > > > > >> the > > > > >> fact remains that there are few countries > in > > > the > > > > >> world > > > > >> where women face legal handicaps as severe > as > > > > those > > > > >> in > > > > >> Iran. > > > > >> > > > > >> Workers who try to strike or form > independent > > > > trade > > > > >> unions are often violently put down. Large > > > > numbers > > > > >> of > > > > >> workers have not been paid for months and > in > > > some > > > > >> cases > > > > >> for years. Attempts to organize are > > frequently > > > > >> attacked > > > > >> by club- and knife-wielding mercenaries, > > > security > > > > >> forces and the military. Despite this > > > repression, > > > > >> workers are continuing to organize, > however, > > > and > > > > >> independent unions are gaining a foothold. > > > > >> > > > > >> As in many countries, homosexuality is > > > outlawed, > > > > but > > > > >> Tehra! n has gone further than most by > making > > > > >> homosexual > > > > >> conduct by men or women punishable by death > > and > > > > >> unleashing a vicious pogrom against Iranian > > > gays, > > > > >> many > > > > >> of whom have been tortured, beaten, and > > > publicly > > > > >> executed. The government is carrying on a > > > massive > > > > >> campaign of entrapment through the > Internet; > > > > victims > > > > >> are subjected to constant surveillance, > loss > > of > > > > >> employment, arrest, and violent blackmail > > that > > > > >> forces > > > > >> them to reveal the names of other > > homosexuals. > > > > >> Torture > > > > >> is used to make gay people confess to > crimes > > > they > > > > >> never > > > > >> committed. The basiji and other religious > > > > parapolice > > > > >> forces kidnap gay people, who are > sequestered > > > and > > > > >> tortured until they name names. Gays on the > > > > >> government's lists are forbidden to leave > the > > > > >> country. > > > > >> And now Iran has exported its violent > > anti-gay > > > > >> crusade > > > > >> to Iraq. > > > > >> > > > > >> In recent years there has been growing > > > resistance > > > > >> within Iranian society, particularly from > > > workers > > > > >> fighting privatization and unemployment and > > > young > > > > >> people chafing against social and political > > > > >> repression. > > > > >> This resistance holds the promise of > bringing > > > > >> grassroots democratic change to Iran. The > > > threat > > > > of > > > > >> military action or broader and harsher > > > sanctions > > > > >> from > > > > >> outside -- and especially the horrifying > > menace > > > > of > > > > >> nuclear strikes --only serve to rally > people > > > > around > > > > >> the > > > > >> regime and to give it another excuse to > clamp > > > > down > > > > >> on > > > > >> dissent, inhibiting a potentially > > revolutionary > > > > >> process > > > > >> and strengthening the right-wing clerics. > > U.S. > > > > >> threats > > > > >> have already served to legitimize nuclear > > > weapons > > > > to > > > > >> the Iranian people. > > > > >> > > > > >> Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, > > > Iran > > > > has > > > > >> the right to develop civilian nuclear > power, > > > > though > > > > >> the > > > > >> Bush administration has tried to obscure > this > > > > fact. > > > > >> Many of us oppose the use of nuclear power > by > > > any > > > > >> country, both for environmental reasons and > > > > because > > > > >> of > > > > >> its link to nuclear weapons -- but that is > > not > > > > the > > > > >> issue in the present U.S.-Iran > confrontation. > > > > While > > > > >> there is reason to doubt Tehran's > assurances > > > that > > > > it > > > > >> only wants to develop civilian nuclear > > energy, > > > > Iran > > > > >> is > > > > >> probably still several years away from > being > > > able > > > > to > > > > >> produce nuclear weapons. And if Tehran > > acquires > > > > the > > > > >> bomb, it is unlikely that the ayatollahs, > who > > > > hold > > > > >> decisive power, would use it since it would > > be > > > > >> suicidal > > > > >> to do so. Israel alone has between 200 and > > 300 > > > > >> nuclear > > > > >> warheads capable of striking Iran, and this > > is > > > > not > > > > >> counting the thousands of warheads the U.S. > > can > > > > >> launch > > > > >> at Iran. Nevertheless, there is no > guarantee > > > that > > > > >> Iran, > > > > >> or any other state armed with nuclear > > weapons, > > > > won't > > > > >> use them or make them available to others. > As > > > > long > > > > >> as > > > > >> these barbaric weapons exist, they can be > > used, > > > > and > > > > >> the > > > > >> more countries that possess them the more > > > likely > > > > it > > > > >> is > > > > >> over ti! me that they will be used. > > > > >> > > > > >> We therefore strongly oppose any effort by > > > Tehran > > > > to > > > > >> acquire nuclear weapons. But as long as a > > > handful > > > > of > > > > >> nations arrogate to themselves the > exclusive > > > > right > > > > >> to > > > > >> possess nuclear weapons, the have-nots will > > > > always > > > > >> be > > > > >> able to point to the threat posed by the > > > nuclear > > > > >> powers > > > > >> and will constantly seek to acquire such > > > weapons > > > > for > > > > >> themselves -- as North Korea has already > > done, > > > > >> withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation > Treaty > > > > >> regime. > > > > >> Likewise, Iran, which has been menaced by > the > > > > U.S. > > > > >> for > > > > >> more than two decades and was a charter > > member > > > of > > > > >> Bush's "axis of evil," may opt out of the > > NPT. > > > > >> > > > > >> An end to Washington's belligerence is a > > > crucial > > > > >> step > > > > >> in preventing Tehran from joining the > nuclear > > > > >> "club." > > > > >> Beyond that, the only way to stop > > proliferation > > > > is > > > > >> for > > > > >> those countries that have nuclear weapons > to > > > > begin > > > > >> disarming -- something the Bush > > administration > > > > and > > > > >> previous administrations of both parties > have > > > > >> refused > > > > >> to do, despite the fact that the U.S. is a > > > > signatory > > > > >> to > > > > >> the Non-Proliferation Treaty which commits > it > > > to > > > > >> "pursue negotiations in good faith on > > effective > > > > >> measures relating to cessation of the > nuclear > > > > arms > > > > >> race > > > > >> at an early date and to nuclear > disarmament." > > > At > > > > the > > > > >> same time the nuclear powers must work > toward > > > > >> nuclear- > > > > >> free zones around the world, but especially > > in > > > > the > > > >! >>; Middle East, a particularly volatile and > > > > dangerous > > > > >> region. > > > > >> > > > > >> We call for a new democratic U.S. foreign > > > policy > > > > >> that > > > > >> would deal with the threat posed to all of > us > > > by > > > > >> terrorist networks, and by weapons of mass > > > > >> destruction, > > > > >> and promote real democracy in the Middle > East > > > and > > > > >> elsewhere, by: > > > > >> > > > > >> Renouncing the use of military intervention > > to > > > > >> extend > > > > >> and consolidate U.S. imperial power, and > > > > withdrawing > > > > >> U.S. troops and bases from the Middle East. > > > > >> > > > > >> Ending U.S. support for authoritarian and > > > corrupt > > > > >> regimes, e.g. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states > > and > > > > >> Egypt. > > > > >> > > > > >> Opposing all forms of terrorism worldwide > -- > > by > > > > Al > > > > >> Qaeda, Iraqi death squads, and Palestinian > > > > suicide > > > > >> bombers, and by U.S.-backed forces like the > > > > >> Colombian > > > > >> paramilitaries and the Israeli military in > > the > > > > >> Occupied > > > > >> Territories -- as well as the brutality and > > > > >> humiliation > > > > >> inflicted on Iraqis every day by U.S. > > > occupation > > > > >> forces > > > > >> and Washington's ominous threats against > > Iran. > > > > >> > > > > >> Supporting the right of national > > > > self-determination > > > > >> for > > > > >> all peoples in the Middle East, including > the > > > > Kurds, > > > > >> Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Ending > support > > > for > > > > >> Israeli occupation of the West Bank and > > > > oppression > > > > >> of > > > > >> the Palestinian people. > > > > >> > > > > >> Taking unilateral steps toward renouncing > > > weapons > > > > of > > > > >> mass destruction, including nuclear > weapons, > > > and > > > > >> vigorously! promoting international > > > disarmament > > > > >> treaties, instead of obstructing even > minimal > > > > >> efforts > > > > >> to end the arms race. > > > > >> > > > > >> Abandoning the effort to impose, through > the > > > > >> IMF/World > > > > >> Bank or unilaterally, neoliberal economic > > > > policies > > > > >> of > > > > >> privatization and austerity that bring mass > > > > misery > > > > >> to > > > > >> people in large parts of the world. > > Initiating > > > a > > > > >> major > > > > >> foreign aid program directed at popular > > rather > > > > than > > > > >> corporate needs. > > > > >> > > > > >> The majority of people in this country now > > > > believe > > > > >> that > > > > >> the invasion of Iraq was disastrously wrong > > and > > > > that > > > > >> they were systematically lied to by the > Bush > > > > >> Administration about the reasons for going > to > > > > war, > > > > >> and > > > > >> they are wary of new U.S. military > > intervention > > > > in > > > > >> the > > > > >> Middle East. At the same time, the > > > > administration's > > > > >> scare tactics may succeed in generating > > popular > > > > >> support > > > > >> for aerial attacks on Iran. It is therefore > > > > >> imperative > > > > >> to speak out now against Washington's > > threats, > > > to > > > > >> educate public opinion, and to build > > organized > > > > >> opposition to aggression against Iran, as > > well > > > as > > > > >> support for immediate, complete withdrawal > > from > > > > >> Iraq. > > > > >> It is time to demand a new democratic U.S. > > > > foreign > > > > >> policy that genuinely expresses solidarity > > with > > > > the > > > > >> aspirations of people for liberty > everywhere, > > > > >> renounces > > > > >> once and for all imperial intervention, and > > is > > > > >> committed to real disarmament. > > > > >> > > > > >> [CPD'! s previous statements, including "We > > > Oppose > > > > >> Both > > > > >> Saddam Hussein and The War Against Iraq: A > > call > > > > for > > > > >> a > > > > >> new, democratic U.S. foreign policy," have > > > > appeared > > > > >> in > > > > >> The New York Times, The Nation, and The > > > > Progressive, > > > > >> as > > > > >> well as on many websites and listserves in > > this > > > > >> country > > > > >> and abroad. Your tax deductible donation > will > > > > enable > > > > >> us > > > > >> to publicize this declaration of opposition > > to > > > > war > > > > >> and > > > > >> repression in these dangerous times.] > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>_______________________________________________________ > > > > >> portside (the left side in nautical > parlance) > > > is > > > > a > > > > >> news, > > > > >> discussion and debate service of the > > Committees > > > > of > > > > >> Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. > > It > > > > aims > > > > >> to > > > > >> provide varied material of interest to > people > > > on > > > > the > > > > >> left. > > > > >> > > > > >> To subscribe: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside > > > > > > > > > >Read "Internment Camps of Bangladesh," by > > Loraine > > > > Mirza > > > > >Published by Crescent International > Newspapers, > > > > Inc. > > > > >300 Steelcase Road West, Unit 8, Markham, > > > Ontario, > > > > Canada L3R 2W2 > > > > >"The story of a long-suffering people told > with > > > > compassion and sensitivity. > > > > All who care for justice must read this book. > > > > Loraine Mirza, an American > > > > Muslim print and broadcast journalist, has > > written > > > > this remarkable account > > > > of the 'Stranded Pakistanis,' trapped in > > > internment > > > > camps in Bangladesh > > > > since 1972." (Zafar Bangash, Director of > > Institute > > > > o! f Contemporary Islamic > > > > Thought.) > > > > >For more information: > > > > >e-mail: haq_for_u@xxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > crescent@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > crescent.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >Visit web sites: > > > > www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net > > > > > www.strandedpakistanis.com > > > > > www.OBATHelpers.org > > > > > www.muslimedia.com > > > > > www.ihrc.org > > > > - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/