War Without End

Guest · Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:14 pm Post subject: Let us see AIPAC's work

AIPAC (Jewish lobbying group composed of American Zionist Jews who for for pro-Israeli US policies) is the forth most influential lobby in the US, yet the ones above it are irrelevent as far as foreign policy goes:
http://www.fortune.com/lists/power25/index.html

Let us see AIPAC's work:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm

Let us look at the resultant support the US gives to Israel:
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/aidchart.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
http://www.sustaincampaign.org/FASchart.html
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html

Of course this is the premise accepted by many Muslims and open-minded people:
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/question.htm

So after all this, see the results in an article by Richard Curtiss as to the cost of Israel to the American people:
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/cost.htm

The real fifth column who brought this mess upon the US are all the organisations under AIPAC and it's supporters who follow it's ideology, you should be blaming them, not Arabs/Muslims who acted as a natural conduit for the naturally expected retaliation which followed, i.e. 9-11 (if Muslims did it).

When you look at those pictures of the collapsing towers, and the people jumping out before they collapsed, think first about the US' biased support for this most unjust of states which was created violating the rights of the natives and which stole the people's lands. Then think about exactly who drives the US to gives it's support for this, as shown above. You shall see that they are amongst you, not the much demonised Arabs or Muslims but the Zionists who work against your national interests.

http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/reap.htm

Question: Before the US support of the Jewish state which started in 1947 when the US arm-twisted nations like Greece to support the creation of Israel, was the USA hated by Arabs and Muslims?

This is why the USA did what it did when it supported Israel in 1947 when it's President was Truman:

"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” - President Harry Truman, quoted in “Anti-Zionism”

Think about those Jewish-Zionist organisations all around the USA conspiring to help support and maintain US foreign policy which invites terrorism on the US civilians.

Global Gloom and Growing Anti-Americanism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Gloom and Growing Anti-Americanism

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2002/12/30/global-gloom-and-growing-anti-americanism.php

America's Popularity Plunging Worldwide:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/05/america-s-popularity-plunges-worldwide.php

Guest · Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:18 pm Post subject: Lest We Forget

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/14/lest-we-forget.php

Guest

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/18/projection-on-fall-of-hussein-disputed.php

Guest

The following is from the "Nachman" national television program on MSNBC in the USA (http://www.msnbc.com):

The U.N. continues examining the 12,000 pages that Saddam dumped over the weekend. Even Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is calling for patience, saying it’s going to take time to see what’s in those volumes.
Meantime, in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors made house calls at several locations in the largest one-day operation since they resumed work last month.
In the U.S., there were some anti-war rallies. And, in Hollywood, 100 celebrities released a letter telling President Bush to turn down the rhetoric and choose peace.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE FARRELL, ACTOR: A presumptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests. Such a war will increase human suffering, arouse animosity toward our country, increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy, and undermine our moral standing in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NACHMAN: The celebrities call their group Artists United to Win Without War.
And among the people who signed the letter are Kim Basinger, Uma Thurman, Samuel Jackson and comedienne/actress Janeane Garofalo.
Janeane, and I know how to pronounce your name.
(LAUGHTER)
NACHMAN: It’s the anesthesia wearing off.
I don’t want to debate Iraq very much with you. And I do want to hear what you have to say. But one of the things that I’ve always been interested in, going back to our respective days on “Politically Incorrect,” is celebrities whose knowledge of the subject seems to be informed by a bumper sticker and not much else.
I’m not including you in that category, but you know some of your colleagues are guilty of that.
JANEANE GAROFALO, ACTRESS: I would say most people are guilty of that. I would say that-I take issue with that. I would say infantilizing celebrities is sort of ridiculous. Most people are not well-informed. And that is just as much the fault of the mainstream media as, you know, any administration that wants to be secretive or any White House propaganda machine.
NACHMAN: I’m going to agree with you on that.
GAROFALO: So why are celebrities somehow less informed? And, also, I want to say...
NACHMAN: Here’s what I want you to respond to, when we get around to it.
GAROFALO: Sure.
NACHMAN: It was said today by one of the sponsors that celebrities use their celebrity and their access to get media coverage of their political views. I’m claiming that, as a quid pro quo for that, they have a responsibility to be well-informed.
GAROFALO: OK, and why are you accusing people that you don’t even know of being ill-informed? I would say some of your supposed experts and authorities that you have on any myriad of topics are possibly ill-informed or not well-informed.
I just want to say something. The word celebrity is not a dirty word. Actually, it’s an annoying word. People in the anti-war movement or in the Win Without War movement are from all walks of life. We have military people and people from the diplomatic community. It’s just that your shows — these shows don’t book other people. They book people that have been on television.
And you could even go back that Ronald Reagan was an actor. You don’t want to condemn him, that somehow he was ill-informed because he was in the field of entertainment. I’m not some kind of a baby or an uninformed boob because I’ve chosen entertainment. And, again, let me say, if people are using-people from all walks of life, if they’re ill-informed, I blame the mainstream media. And I blame apathy and feeling alienated from the political process and from the news in general.
NACHMAN: Janeane, we cover congressional hearings at which personalities, celebrities speak on behalf of pet causes, legitimate causes: orphans, drugs, diseases.
And someone comes up afterwards and says, “Who is your member of Congress?” And the celebrity frequently turns in a very bad imitation of Ralph Kramden. I’ve seen it happen. You’ve seen it happen.
GAROFALO: They threaten to punch Alice to the moon?
NACHMAN: No, in terms of humana, humana, humana, humana.
GAROFALO: Well, I feel like I’m at a bit of a deficit here. I feel like you, basically, your basic tenet here is, celebrities have no right to be human beings or to have opinions or to say anything.
NACHMAN: Obviously, I’m a serious First Amendment guy. And I believe that anybody has the right to say anything. But I believe, when it comes to serious causes, they should do a little bit of homework.
(CROSSTALK)
GAROFALO: And who are you referring to? And why do people have to do lots of homework to feel that diplomacy is a wonderful avenue? All we’re asking is to let the U.N. weapons inspectors do their job. This constant drumbeat for war is incredibly dangerous. It actually makes Americans at home and abroad less secure.
NACHMAN: OK, Janeane, let’s talk shop. Let’s talk about what you came out to say today.
GAROFALO: Sure. OK.
Well, actually, I feel like, no matter what, I’m undermined just because of my chosen profession.
NACHMAN: No, I’m asking you to defend some of your colleagues who I think are much less serious about studying up on these issues than you are.
GAROFALO: Well, how would you know that?
NACHMAN: Because I’ve spent the last five years in Hollywood, because I was the executive producer of “Politically Incorrect,” because I sat in the room saying to them things like, “Well, now, you remember that Al Gore is the vice president.” And they said, “Like, I’m not sure. Could you do that again?”
GAROFALO: Oh, stop it. Oh, stop it.
NACHMAN: You know I’m right on this. You’ve spent your life in movies...
GAROFALO: I do not know you’re right. If I knew you were right, I’d say you’re right.
But, also, you’re talking about-the people that are involved with this movement obviously chose to because-this is not like: “Hey, I’m going to get my mug out there. I wanna get ratings or I want people”-you know what I mean. It sounds ridiculous.
NACHMAN: I’m going to get off the celebrity page and we’re going to talk business here, some politics.
GAROFALO: OK, let’s do it.
NACHMAN: The accusation was, we’re being preemptive.
Well, we had two votes in Congress, one in the House, one in the Senate. Both sides passed a war resolution. Bush had an election, which was clearly in part a referendum. He did very well. This government did go to the United Nations and got a 15-to-zip Security Council resolution. And we haven’t done a thing yet and the inspectors are on the ground. So what’s the problem?
GAROFALO: What accusation are you referring to?
(CROSSTALK)
GAROFALO: What we’re saying is, let the weapons inspectors on the ground do their job. Let them do their job.
You know this. Why are you being so naive as if there isn’t this
constant drumbeat for war, as if though the Wolfowitz-Perle-Rumsfeld
hawkish mentality isn’t pervasive here? If you watch Fox News, they make
going to war seem like an exciting rating
(CROSSTALK)
NACHMAN: But we’re not on Fox News now. We’re on MSNBC.
GAROFALO: Yes, I know we’re on MSNBC.
NACHMAN: And your neighbors in New Jersey and New York voted for legislators who approved of this war resolution. What’s the problem?
GAROFALO: I don’t understand what you’re asking me. What is the problem with...
NACHMAN: I’m saying, what has the administration done, as of today-it’s Tuesday-as of late afternoon on the East Coast?
GAROFALO: I would say the administration has not been really great with its cooperation with the United Nations. And I feel that the White House propaganda machine is trying to convince the media and the American public it doesn’t have to consult with the United Nations.
NACHMAN: But the U.S. didn’t pass that resolution; 15 members of the Security Council, of which the United States represented only one co-equal member, did. Why aren’t we demonstrating at the U.N. against the U.N.?
GAROFALO: You know, the demonstration at the U.N. today is for peace. Why would you ask that the people at the U.N. today demonstrate against the U.N.?
NACHMAN: Because the resolution, the instrument of a possible incursion by the United States, belongs in part to the United Nations’ authorizations. So why is the United States portrayed as the only would-be aggressor here?
GAROFALO: The United States isn’t portrayed as the only would-be aggressor. But, actually, in a way, the United States is the aggressor right here. A lot of people believe that Iraq is not a threat to us. If they are a threat to us, let the inspectors go through the paperwork and find out if they are or if they aren’t.
NACHMAN: But nothing from the names you’ve dropped, Wolfowitz or the rest of them, implies that we’re not going to wait for the inspectors to finish their work and report what they do or don’t find.
GAROFALO: It seems to be-just my opinion, it seems like there’s a great eagerness to find some type of breach.
It seems that, if you listen to the propaganda or if you watch the mainstream news, that we’re going to war no matter what. And it seems like the administration is very eager to find any and all breaches. It seems also unwise. Why push Saddam Hussein into a position where he’s got nothing left to lose or he feels that military force is going to be used whether he does or doesn’t comply?
NACHMAN: Janeane, let me ask you this. What if history repeats itself and it turns out...
GAROFALO: I’m sure it will.
NACHMAN: ... that the inspectors, using legitimate methods, find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What do you do then?
GAROFALO: If they find weapons of mass destruction, then there should be steps taken. That isn’t the case yet.
I wish I actually-I wish I wasn’t the one here talking to you. I wish there was somebody who’s better informed than me, like Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, who is on board with Winning Without War. I wish that Lawrence Korb was here. I wish that Ed Peck was here, because I’m sure that they could be much more articulate and make much more substantive points than I can.
NACHMAN: Janeane, you did fine. I want to thank you for being confident enough of your beliefs to defend them publicly. I’m grateful. I hope you will come back and do it some more.
GAROFALO: Sure. I would love to come back.
NACHMAN: Next, we’re going to continue to look at why the doves are quiet as we continue what appears to be a buildup toward war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NACHMAN: Well, while President Bush maintains that war may be necessary to disarm Iraq, an ex-president received the world’s highest honor in the service of peace, Jimmy Carter, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. His speech today included some tough words for Iraq, but he also urged the United States to apply caution.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Ladies and gentlemen, war may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NACHMAN: In this country, last month’s elections suggested it might be politically dangerous to question the president on war policy. But Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas remains part of the loyal opposition. She is sitting alongside Republican Mark Foley of Florida. He supports the president’s Iraq policy.
Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, I want to start with you.
You heard me talking to Janeane Garofalo before about my experiences on “Politically Incorrect” and celebrities not quite knowing what they were talking about. You were one of the celebrities I never had a problem in terms of homework. You do a lot of homework. You read and you ask questions and you go to hearing meetings.
I’m going to ask you, though, the same question I asked the actress.
And that is, what is the president doing wrong? He went to the Congress. He got a resolution in both houses of Congress. He went to the voters. He got significant mandates throughout most of the country. His people went to the U.N. and got a 15-0 resolution in the Security Council. What’s he doing that’s wrong?
REP. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE (D), TEXAS: Well, Jerry, first of all, it’s good to be with you. And I want to applaud your prior guest. I think she held her own.
I believe what the president is doing wrong is that he is not annunciating the true direction and the true policy of which he is advocating at this point. Plainly, the administration is behind one theory and one action. That is regime change, not a war against weapons of mass destruction, because, if that was the case, then we would hear the same kind of talk against North Korea. We’ve heard not a single word since North Korea acknowledged, openly and boldly...
NACHMAN: Let me grant your point.
What’s wrong with a regime change in Iraq? I know you’re not a Saddam lover.
JACKSON-LEE: Absolutely not. In fact, let me do this right now. He’s a thug. And I voted enthusiastically with the president right after 9/11 to fight terrorism wherever we might find it.
But the idea of a regime change, Jerry, for me, is a totally foreign foreign policy for the United States. We have always been the stronger, as the most singular remaining world power, when we’ve had the high moral ground, along with mighty force.
(CROSSTALK)
NACHMAN: Congressman Foley, do you want to take the gentlewoman from Texas to school on this one?
JACKSON-LEE: As you yield to Congressman Foley, let me just simply say, regime change will mean bloodshed in the streets, not only for Iraqi, but for our young men and women.
NACHMAN: Over to you, Mr. Foley.
REP. MARK FOLEY ®, FLORIDA: Well, Jerry, no question, Mr. Saddam Hussein is a menace. He’s proven himself, having invaded his neighboring countries, killing millions of his own citizens, hurting and maiming his own family members, that he’s not somebody who you should say should still be in charge.
And I have to say to the actors in America who are protesting this engagement, they want to play one on TV and they want to get paid millions to act in movies. Mike Farrell was B.J. on “M.A.S.H.” Matt Damon was “Saving Private Ryan.” These actors may want to have it both ways, where they get paid to look like they’re warriors and then talk peace.
NACHMAN: Well, they will tell you, Congressman-in their defense, they will tell you that they don’t want to see any young Americans dying on beaches the way they did in “Saving Private Ryan” or along the 38th Parallel, like they did in the real “MASH.”
FOLEY: And I wholeheartedly agree, Jerry. I don’t want to see a young man die in the cause of war.
But if President Bush hadn’t been so firm and so resolute-in fact, the Democrats urged hearings on Iraq, so we gave them the vote and we gave them the hearings. Had he not been strong to the U.N., he would not have won the global community support on this issue. Had he not been solid with the facts and the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, we would not have had a 15-0 vote by the Security Council.
So, President Bush has played it exactly right. You only get peace through strength. You only can force the hand of a menacing dictator through forcing the community to recognize the threat.
JACKSON-LEE: I might counter that.
NACHMAN: OK, as they say on another show, discuss among yourselves.
Congressman and Congresswoman, we are coming back. I’ve got questions for both of you on whether the anti-war movement is flourishing in this post-September 11 environment.
That’s after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NACHMAN: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Democrat from Houston, is very public in her opposition to this war. Republican Mark Foley represents West Palm Beach, Florida, and favors how the administration is proceeding.
Congresswoman, it was your turn when I pulled away.
I want to ask you a political question. You saw what happened to Max Cleland, a war hero, an amputee. And when he was tarred, however unfairly, with the peacenik brush, it cost him his Senate career. Are you worried about that at all?
JACKSON-LEE: Jerry, isn’t that the most tragic example of, if you will, mass following of the wrong direction that you’ve ever seen: a triple amputee, someone who served in the Vietnam War, who lost this race on innuendo, insult and untruth?
First of all, I’m not afraid of it to the extent that, if you stand up for what is right, you’re better than falling down for not having any principle at all. What I believe is, if we can only get very articulate, forceful voices out heard across the nation-and thank you, Jerry, for having me on.
Has anybody listened to the former secretary of the Navy, Secretary Webb, who has clearly said this is wrong directed, that he believes only a few sharp and loud voices in the White House are promoting this war?
NACHMAN: Congresswoman, let me ask you a follow-up question.
(CROSSTALK)
JACKSON-LEE: What is the purpose of it, when we can contain Iraq?
NACHMAN: Hang on, please.
JACKSON-LEE: Yes.
NACHMAN: Don’t you think part of what you call American principle is our willingness even to go it alone to get rid of a monster like Saddam? Isn’t that the American way, too?
JACKSON-LEE: Well, I think, if you look at all the wars that we’ve been engaged in, we’ve been most successful when they’ve been multilateral, even though, tragically, we suffered the attack in Pearl Harbor which caused us to go into World War II.
We suffered experiences with North Korea which caused us to go into North Korea. And we suffered experiences that caused us to go into Bosnia and Kosovo, but they were multilateral. Where we were singular by ourselves, we cannot win. And Vietnam is the main example.
(CROSSTALK)
NACHMAN: What do you want to tell your colleague from Texas, Mr.
Foley?
FOLEY: Well, if I had to replay the tape during Clinton’s administration when it came to going into Bosnia to rid ourselves of Milosevic, it seemed like everybody in this chamber that were Democrats were wholly supportive of the president going in with armed forces. So, it seems to be who is the president, who you support, and at what time.
Let me just suggest to you that it was interesting to see the piece with Jimmy Carter, former president, talking about the evil of war. Well, it was when they attacked Iran and held our hostages that he sent helicopters into that desert that crashed and killed our young soldiers on their way to free our hostages. So, at times, even former President Carter recognized the need to use military deployment to save our innocent citizens from harm’s way.
So, if we’re going to have a global community of protecting each other, we’re going to have to recognize, yes, leadership is required. This president is providing it. I’m certain, as I sit here, I pray that, through the inspections and through the international community, we can solve this puzzle and remove the threat against humanity. But we aren’t going to sit still and wait for it to happen.
NACHMAN: Mark Foley, Sheila Jackson-Lee...
JACKSON-LEE: We are better when we do this with diplomacy and not with war. We can still do it and save lives.
NACHMAN: I’m going to have to cut it off right there.
Very good to see you both again.
FOLEY: Thank you, Jerry.

Guest

new york times

April 21, 2002

America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace

By JIMMY CARTER

TLANTA — In January 1996, with full support from Israel and responding to the invitation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Carter Center helped to monitor a democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, which was well organized, open and fair. In that election, 88 members were elected to the Palestinian National Authority, with Yasir Arafat as president. Legally and practically, the Palestinian people were encouraged to form their own government, with the expectation that they would soon have full sovereignty as a state.

When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I relayed a message offering them full participation in the process of developing a permanent constitutional framework for the new political entity, but they refused to accept this proposal. Despite this rejection, it was a time of peace and hope, and there was no threat of violence or even peaceful demonstrations. The legal status of the Palestinian people has not changed since then, but their plight has grown desperate.

Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in his public declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open defiance of President George W. Bush's demand that he comply with international law have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence.

There is adequate blame on the other side. Even when he was free and enjoying the full trappings of political power, Yasir Arafat never exerted control over Hamas and other radical Palestinians who reject the concept of a peaceful Israeli existence and adopt any means to accomplish their goal. Mr. Arafat's all-too-rare denunciations of violence have been spasmodic, often expressed only in English and likely insincere. He may well see the suicide attacks as one of the few ways to retaliate against his tormentors, to dramatize the suffering of his people, or as a means for him, vicariously, to be a martyr.

Tragically, the policies of Mr. Sharon have greatly strengthened these criminal elements, enhanced their popular support, and encouraged misguided young men and women to sacrifice their own lives in attacking innocent Israeli citizens. The abhorrent suicide bombings are also counterproductive in that they discredit the Palestinian cause, help perpetuate the military occupation and destruction of villages, and obstruct efforts toward peace and justice.

The situation is not hopeless. There is an ultimate avenue to peace in the implementation of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 242, expressed most recently in the highly publicized proposal of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah. The basic premises of these resolutions are withdrawal of Israelis from Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel and Israel's right to live in peace. This is a reasonable solution for many Israelis, having been accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and ratified by the Israeli Knesset. Egypt, offering the greatest threat to Israel, responded by establishing full diplomatic relations and honoring Israeli rights, including unimpeded use of the Suez canal. This set a pattern for what can and must be done by all other Arab nations. Through constructive negotiations, both sides can consider some modifications of the 1967 boundary lines.

East Jerusalem can be jointly administered with unimpeded access to holy places, and the right of return can be addressed by permitting a limited number of displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland with fair compensation to others. It will be a good investment for the international community to pay this cost.

With the ready and potentially unanimous backing of the international community, the United States government can bring about such a solution to the existing imbroglio. Demands on both sides should be so patently fair and balanced that at least a majority of citizens in the affected area will respond with approval, and an international force can monitor compliance with agreed peace terms, as was approved for the Sinai region in 1979 following Israel's withdrawal from Egyptian territory.

There are two existing factors that offer success to United States persuasion. One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel only for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent destruction of Jenin and other villages. Richard Nixon imposed this requirement to stop Ariel Sharon and Israel's military advance into Egypt in the 1973 war, and I used the same demand to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full invasion was launched by Ariel Sharon after I left office). The other persuasive factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel. President George Bush Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the building of Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by international law.

The existing situation is tragic and likely to get worse. Normal diplomatic efforts have failed. It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace. The rest of the world will welcome this leadership.

Jimmy Carter, the former president, is chairman of the Carter Center, which works worldwide to advance peace and human health.

Guest · Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:38 pm Post subject: Carter urges Israel to withdraw

Nobel winner Carter urges Israel to withdraw from [the Palestinian
Occupied] territories

By Ha'aretz Service and Reuters
Haaretz (Israeli daily)
Tuesday, December 10, 2002

Jimmy Carter delivering his Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo on
Tuesday.

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter used his Nobel Peace Prize
acceptance speech Tuesday to call on Israel to comply with a United
Nations resolution to withdraw from the territories as a
fundamental
step towards peace in the Middle East.

"At Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993, Israelis, Egyptians,
and
Palestinians have endorsed the only reasonable prescription for
peace:
United Nations Resolution 242," he said.

"It condemns the acquisition of territory by force, calls for
withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, and provides
for
Israelis to live securely and in harmony with their neighbors.
There
is no other mandate whose implementation could more profoundly
improve
international relationships."

Saying that war is always evil, Carter, calling himself a "citizen
of
a troubled world", also made veiled criticisms of U.S. President
George W. Bush for opposing UN-led schemes to protect the
environment
or to create an international criminal court, and urged the world
to
accept UN leadership in tackling challenges from the Middle East to
global poverty.

"Global challenges must be met with an emphasis on peace, in
harmony
with others, with strong alliances and international consensus,"
Carter told a ceremony in Oslo City Hall after collecting a Nobel
gold
medal and diploma to a standing ovation.

"Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can best be
done
through the United Nations," said the 78-year-old Democrat, who was
U.S. president from 1977-81.

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil," Carter told an audience of
about 1,000 people including his wife Rosalynn and Norway's King
Harald and Queen Sonja.

"But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good.
We
will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each
other's
children," he said.

Carter, who almost won the prize in 1978 for brokering an
Israeli-Egyptian peace deal, also said "the world is, in many ways,
a
more dangerous place" in the new millennium because of civil wars
and
"appalling acts of terrorism."

The head of the Nobel Committee, Gunnar Berge, said Carter was
honoured for decades working for peace, democracy and human rights.
Berge did not mention that he had said two months ago, in
announcing
the prize, that he also reckoned it was a "kick in the leg" to
Bush's
policy on Iraq.

"Jimmy Carter will probably not go down in history as the most
effective president. But he is certainly the best ex-president the
country ever had," he said.

Carter reiterated calls on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to comply
fully with UN weapons inspectors and warned powerful nations
against
launching wars in a bid to prevent bigger
conflicts.

Carter told CNN in a later interview that the UN Security Council
should have the final word in deciding if there should be a war
against Iraq - even though nations including China and Russia a
veto
on the Council.

He said he "hoped and expected" that Bush would submit to UN
decisions. Asked if he would have risked UN vetoes for key U.S.
policies when he was president, he said: "'Welcome' is maybe not
the
right word. I would have accepted it."

Carter also made a plea for acceptance of global standards on
issues
including a ban on landmines, creation of an international criminal
court to try war crimes and schemes to combat global warming mainly
caused by burning fossil fuels.

"Those agreements already adopted must be fully implemented, and
others should be pursued aggressively," Carter said. Bush has
declined
to sign up to several key global pacts.

Carter also praised the United States, saying it had used its power
with restraint in the past. "We have not assumed that super
strength
guarantees super wisdom," he said.

Carter said he had previously pointed to "the growing chasm between
the richest and poorest people on earth" as the main challenge of
the
millennium.

"The results of this disparity are root causes of most of the
world's
unresolved problems, including starvation, illiteracy,
environmental
degradation, violent conflict and unnecessary illnesses that range
from Guinea worm to HIV/AIDS," he said.

Carter later waved to a crowd of several hundred people in a
traditional torchlit march past his hotel in freezing cold. He was
to
attend a Nobel banquet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Remote Hilltops, Israelis Broaden Settlements

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/12/on-remote-hilltops-israelis-broaden-settlements.php

*Mutt American · Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 4:00 pm Post subject:

Cartere was going to attend a Nobel banquet. Was another winner - Yasser Arafat - going to be there?

Guest

Guest

RANGEL CALLS FOR REINSTATING THE DRAFT

NEW YORK (Dec. 31) - Rep. Charles Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War, says he plans to introduce legislation to resume the military draft in the event of a war against Iraq.

In an opinion piece published in Tuesday's editions of The New York Times, the Democrat from New York said he would ask Congress next week to support his proposal.

Rangel said the prospect of a draft would make Congress less likely to support a war.

``I believe that if those calling for war knew their children were more likely to be required to serve - and to be placed in harm's way - there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq,'' Rangel wrote.

Military service should be a ``shared sacrifice'' asked of all able young Americans, he said, noting that minorities make up a ``disproportionate number'' of enlisted members of the military.

``Service in our nation's armed forces is no longer a common experience,'' said Rangel, who voted against the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq.

Rangel said his legislation would require ``alternative national service'' for people who are physically unable to serve and for those who refuse to serve for ``reasons of conscience.''

President Bush has said he doesn't intend to revive the draft, which ended in 1973.

12/31/02 07:15 EST

Guest · Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:12 pm Post subject:

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President - page 4