Subject: Re: [DU-WATCH] US policy of nuclear proliferation
From: Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers �.S.�. <nospam@newsranger.com>
Date: 01/03/2004, 07:30
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.alien.research,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.paranet.abduct

In article <c1um5h$2o1l$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, nasf_reachout says...

quote from the Parenti interview below:

"That's right. After attacking Iraq, Michael Ledeen 
and Paul Wolfowitz immediately made similar noises about Iran and 
Syria, declaring that Iran may have weapons of mass destruction and 
harbors terrorists, and the same with Syria. Now they are saying this 
about North Korea. But the North Koreans have responded: Hey, we were 
cooperating with you. We were going to proceed with nuclear 
disarmament, but now we see what happens. You use the United Nations 
to disarm a targeted country. The country cooperates with the U.N., 
hoping to avoid being attacked by you. But then you ignore the U.N. 
resolutions and unilaterally attack the country anyway. And we notice 
that the countries you attack are countries that are the most 
helpless, the ones that cannot retaliate. We notice that for 30 years 
you never attacked the Soviet Union, and the reason you didn't was 
because they had nuclear weapons and could retaliate. So we're going 
to have to do the same-develop a nuclear deterrence."

this applies across the board with the US, is irrefutable. so do read
it all right down to the punchline:

<desocimr@y...> wrote:
February 19, 2004 

Empires, Old and New
An Interview with Michael Parenti 

Michael Parenti received a PhD in Political Science at Yale 
University. He is one of the nation's leading progressive thinkers, 
an uncompromising advocate for political, economic, and social 
justice. He has written seventeen books, including: Democracy for the 
Few, Dirty Truths, Against Empire, and The Terrorism Trap. His latest 
book is titled, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: The People's 
History of Ancient Rome. His website is www.michaelparenti.org.

David Ross (D.R.): What are the similarities and differences between 
the Roman Empire and the U.S. Empire?

Michael Parenti: Both empires are directed by a ruling class that 
wants it all, a ruling class that gives less and less to the people, 
making them pay all the taxes, while those at the top pocket all the 
wealth; a ruling class that prefers maximizing its wealth rather than 
protecting or serving the needs of the common people. We see that in 
the United States today, where there is a basic antagonism between 
democracy and multinational corporate, finance capital. The 
plutocracy treats everything we have-the land, labor, natural 
resources, markets, and technology for one primary purpose-the 
maximization of profit, as opposed to the democratic idea that all 
those things are for the use and welfare of the people and for 
maintaining a sustainable environment.

D.R: What is the scope of the U.S. Empire?

Michael Parenti: Militarily, it is the most powerful empire that has 
ever existed on the face of the earth in its striking power and 
destructive force. It has an unanswerable military superiority over 
every other country. Every year, we now hand over $400 billion 
dollars of our tax money, including money we don't even have to the 
military-industrial complex. George Bush has gone back to deficit 
spending, which means, in effect, borrowing money on the future-on 
future taxes, and future services. It's an empire that has over 300 
major military bases all over the world. It has giant fleets making 
port in about 30 or 40 different countries. In recent years, it has 
attacked and invaded Grenada, Panama, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq twice, 
Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. It's got troops now stationed in 
Kyrgyzstan, Turkistan, Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia, South 
Korea, Japan, Iraq, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere. Currently, it's 
got troops fighting in Colombia, the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and various other places. Its purpose is to make the world safe for 
the giant multinational companies. And it targets any country that 
tries to use its land, labor, and resources for its own self-
development. The imperial goal is to transform the entire world into 
a free-market New World Order.

That's not my analysis; they have been saying it themselves for 
years. They say: We now have an unprecedented opportunity to 
transform the entire world, to rule the entire planet, to make the 
United States the only superpower, to prevent any other superpower or 
regional power from arising, and to make sure that subordinate 
countries will be compliant states.

We ordinary Americans don't gain from it. We pay the costs of empire, 
but we don't get the benefit. The profits go to a few, while the 
costs are sustained by the general populace, and that's been true of 
every empire, by the way.

D.R: Last time we talked, the Bush administration had just invaded 
Afghanistan, and you talked about a "very repetitive, rather obvious, 
and predictable formula" Now the Bush administration has attacked 
Iraq and it appears like another "very repetitive, rather obvious, 
and predictable formula."

Michael Parenti: That's right. After attacking Iraq, Michael Ledeen 
and Paul Wolfowitz immediately made similar noises about Iran and 
Syria, declaring that Iran may have weapons of mass destruction and 
harbors terrorists, and the same with Syria. Now they are saying this 
about North Korea. But the North Koreans have responded: Hey, we were 
cooperating with you. We were going to proceed with nuclear 
disarmament, but now we see what happens. You use the United Nations 
to disarm a targeted country. The country cooperates with the U.N., 
hoping to avoid being attacked by you. But then you ignore the U.N. 
resolutions and unilaterally attack the country anyway. And we notice 
that the countries you attack are countries that are the most 
helpless, the ones that cannot retaliate. We notice that for 30 years 
you never attacked the Soviet Union, and the reason you didn't was 
because they had nuclear weapons and could retaliate. So we're going 
to have to do the same-develop a nuclear deterrence.

People all over the world opposed the attack on Iraq with record-
breaking, unprecedented, demonstrations. They were demonstrating, 
partly out of sympathy for the people of Iraq, but also because they 
were opposed to the idea that one country, one leader-the president 
of the United States-can appoint himself world monarch and rule over 
the entire planet, with the power to decide who shall live and who 
shall die. And if he can attack any country, unilaterally, without 
any regard for international law, then no one is safe.

International law states that you cannot attack another country 
unless that country is committing acts of aggression against you or a 
very close ally, or endangering you in some way. But there was no 
evidence of such endangerment or imminent threat. Iraq was a battered 
country. It had already been pulverized and destroyed by the 1991 
Gulf War and the dozen years of sanctions. It was vastly weaker in 
2003 than it was in 1991. But George W. Bush found it necessary to 
attack. And the first thing the American forces secured and protected 
were the oil well heads, while bombing just about everything else.

D.R: The right contends that if the U.S. government doesn't rule the 
world, a more totalitarian government will-a social Darwinistic 
ideology of sorts between nation states. How would you respond to 
this?

Michael Parenti: What gives George Bush-a draft dodger, who went into 
the Air Force National Guard, but didn't even show up for two years 
(and is still legally AWOL), who had a drug and drinking problem most 
of his life, and is now a born-again Christian-what gives this 
character the right to decide to bomb and kill people in other 
countries? And what gives him the right to lie to the American people 
and not tell them that, in fact, it was the United States that put 
Saddam Hussein in power. It was the United States who backed him when 
he killed every democrat, progressive, and communist who was trying 
to make reforms in Iraq after the Iraqi revolution of 1958. Saddam 
Hussein's party came into power in the late 1960's, and started 
killing these people. He even exterminated the left wing of his own 
Ba'ath Party. But he was Washington's poster boy in those days. The 
United States gave him the chemical weapons that he used against 
Iran. The United States also gave weapons to Iran, which they used 
against Iraq. But we are not told this in our "free and independent 
press."

It was only when Saddam Hussein and his cohorts took control of 
Iraq's oil, and when they started using their oil resources, not to 
fatten the capital accumulation of global free market multinational 
corporations, but for the development of their own country-only then 
was he marked as an enemy of America. The Iraqis sold the oil on the 
world market. They sold it to us at as reasonable a price as Exxon 
would sell it to us. We could get oil from them. We would get enough 
gasoline for our cars. The Bush administration is not fighting to 
protect the American consumer like they sometimes say. Oil-rich 
countries are happy to sell their oil to us, and they sell it at a 
more reasonable price, usually, than the big corporations do.

But what the U.S. leadership wants is not only to be able to buy that 
oil, but to own it; that is much more profitable. They want to be the 
people that are selling the oil, who own it as it's coming out of the 
ground. You see, you don't have to pay the earth for that oil. So if 
you own it, it's yours. It's your wealth, and then you get to sell it 
for beaucoup bucks. This is why they hated Iraq. It was becoming a 
self-developing, self-defining country. Even though Saddam Hussein 
killed most of the people on the left, he kept some of their 
programs. He trained cadres of engineers and built health clinics and 
schools in Iraq. And just about the entire economy was government 
run. He turned out to be not a puppet ruler in the way that Pinochet 
was in Chile, or Fujimora in Peru, or Batista in Cuba before Fidel 
Castro came in, or Marcos in the Philippines, or Suharto in Indonesia.

Such comprador rulers say: "Come on in boys. It's all yours. Anything 
you want. Bring in your corporations. There'll be no taxes on you. 
There are no minimum wage laws. There are no child labor laws. 
There's no environmental or occupational safety laws, no pension 
funds. Your profits will be terrific. And you can take our people, 
pay them whatever few pennies you want, and work them as hard as you 
want, just as long as you give me mine. It's all yours on terms that 
you want." That's the pure comprador leader, the puppet leader who 
throws his country wide open to the Western global investors and 
speculators, who throws opens the markets, land, natural resources, 
and labor.

Saddam Hussein didn't do that, and that is why he was demonized. It 
is a set formula: You demonize the leader. You start talking about 
how bad he is, how he hates us, how he's a threat to our security, to 
the security of his neighbors and to the peace, and what a tyrant he 
is. They said that Saddam was worse than Hitler. They said that about 
Noriega in Panama; he's an admirer of Hitler. They said that about 
Kaddafi of Libya, and President Aristide in Haiti. The minute any 
leader stands up to U.S. government, he is subjected to ad hominem 
attacks.

D.R: Are corporations forced to further exploit labor and the 
environment so they don't lose profits, and therefore, investors?

Michael Parenti: Every corporation has to maximize profits. 
Occupational safety does not maximize profits; you're spending money 
in the workplace to safeguard workers, and that cuts into your 
profit. And when you hoist your dis-economies onto the environment 
you save money and you increase your profits. That's why we need 
regulation, and need to force all corporations to abide by 
occupational and environmental standards. The environment cannot 
defend itself. It is reaching the point of no return with the ecology 
of the entire globe at risk. This is all the more reason why you need 
government to impose regulations in accordance with the democratic 
will.

D.R: Many anarchists believe that because of hierarchy, any state 
governing system will inherently be exploitive. How would you respond 
to this proposition?

Michael Parenti: Essentially, the anarchist position is that the 
state, itself, is the enemy. That's not my position. A state can be 
used for good things. In fact, given the realities of private economy 
and the power of private capital, a democratic state is about the 
only hope we have of reining in these kinds of moneyed powers. In 
Venezuela, for instance, the problem is not the power of the state; 
it's the power of the giant cartels, private capital, and the 
affluent class that doesn't want to see the slightest concession 
given to the poor. So that's where the struggle is: It's called class 
struggle, and the state is part of the arena in which class struggle 
takes place.

I feel our biggest enemies are the people who actually own most of 
the world and who are oppressing, killing, conquering, destroying, 
impoverishing and expropriating the peoples of the world. Our enemies 
are in the White House, the people who are expropriating the world's 
resources and the land, who are determining the quality of the air we 
breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink. They are setting up 
more and more police states, paramilitary forces, military forces, 
and police forces in countries all around the world. That's the 
enemy: those in the White House who are literally killing people, 
either by direct military force or by economic systems that exploit, 
impoverish, and sicken people, destroying the conditions that make 
life livable for them.

Our hope is that people are waking up to this global threat. In Iraq, 
a people's resistance has developed that has become politically 
costly for the empire-builders. Maybe we can start turning things 
around by organizing, educating, agitating, and resisting-it's called 
democracy.
--- End forwarded message ---

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/Sj.0lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/