Sorry Richard, but again you got it all wrong, this time about Kashmir. and it is more than a careless mistake. Pakistan did not attack Kashmir in 1965. What did occur was the Kashmiri insurgent movement had began to succeed in putting the Indian army occupation on the defensive, and even public opinion about this long time occupation and war against the majority of the Kashmiri people was wearing thin in India. "Elections" (and I use that term with hesitation) in Kashmir rejected the Indian government hand-picked candidates. (Sheikh Abdullah & family) At the same time, the UN passed another (of many since 1948)resolution calling for a Pleblicite to resolve the Kashmir "problem." So the Indian government orchestrated an airplane hijacking by an alleged "Kashmiri freedom fighter," who turned out to be from Indian intelligence. India, then using the hijacking as an excuse to start firing across the border to the Pakistani held side of Kashmir, when the fire was returned, India used it as an excuse to declare war and sent a bombing raid into West Pakistan territory. In addition, Mujibur Rahman (who later led a secessionist movement and became the head of Bangladesh after its creation) helped the Indian army slip inside East Pakistan with plans to created another front. This failed as the plan was discovered and Mujibur Rahman and the Indian special force troops were entrapped. (Called the Argatala Conspiracy) Gosh, I'm outta breath! --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > > > NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Loraine = = = = = = = = = = = 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 of 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 --------------------~--> Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/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/