In Search of Peace and Flowers

from The Guardian:

We Are the People
Saturday`s march was a protest with no leaders and little to say. The `little` it had to say was `No`. Simple as that

by Madeleine Bunting

There will be millions of people who will never forget Saturday February 15 2003. It was an extraordinary combination of the utterly prosaic and the deeply moving: a bursting bladder and the nearest toilets several hours` walk away in Hyde Park, an aching back and blisters, and then the remarkable sight of a heaving mass of people along the Embankment converging with crowds pouring across Waterloo bridge. Everywhere there were astonishing juxtapositions: the body-pierced peaceniks alongside the dignified Pakistani elder with white beard; the homemade placard ``The only bush I trust is my own`` drawing surreptitious giggles from a group of veiled Muslim women.

This was a day which confounded dozens of assumptions about our age. How much harder it is today than a week ago to speak of the apathy and selfish individualism of consumer society. Saturday brought the entire business of a capital city to a glorious full-stop. Not a car or bus moved in central London, the frenetic activities of shopping and spending halted across a wide swathe of the city; the streets became one vast vibrant civic space for an expression of national solidarity. Furthermore, unlike previous occasions when crowds have gathered, this was not to mark some royal pageantry, but to articulate an unfamiliar British sentiment - one of democratic entitlement: we are the people.

That is why Saturday was a defining moment in contemporary political culture - whatever it achieves in the debate on the war with Iraq. First, it shifted the tone of what Britain believes itself to be. Are we to be cowed by security threats and fear of our neighbors, our political culture crippled by suspicion into campaigns of ugly persecution? Saturday`s march was a defiant no. The very best of Britain was on the city`s streets (and for every person marching, there were more in sympathy at home): we showed ourselves to be a nation that is at ease with itself, compassionate, multicultural and tolerant. One of the day`s many ironies was that this was the Britain which is so frequently exhorted in ministers` speeches. Among Saturday`s demonstrators were New Labour`s natural allies - fair-minded, decent people, the kind who don`t walk on the other side of the street. They were beautifully British - patiently waiting when the march ground to a halt, politely apologetic if they bumped into you, and not overly friendly, the reserve only cracking briefly and occasionally.

Second, Saturday proved that the decline of democracy has been overstated. What has changed is the pattern of participation; political parties and turnouts may be declining, but intense episodic political engagement is on the increase. In recent years we have seen both the lowest turnouts and the biggest demonstrations in British political history - there`s a conundrum to keep hundreds of political scientists busy.

Third, there was another intriguing characteristic of this protest. As we shuffled along the Embankment, someone yelled through a loudspeaker that we were too quiet, he urged us to shout. In reply, came a roar of noise which could be heard slowly rippling along the length of the march. No words, no slogans, just a roar which quickly subsided. For the next five hours, there were no loudspeakers until we finally arrived at Hyde Park just as the speeches finished - and we weren`t even the last, the streets were packed behind us. Thousands of people on Saturday never heard a speech. Did it matter? Did we miss anything? No, because if truth be told, the speakers were a B-list of political has-beens and celebrities, and their speeches were pretty dreadful. This was a protest with no leaders and with little to say; it was not interested in debate. The ``little`` it had to say, was NO. It was as simple as that.

This was the most important aspect of all. The demonstration was driven by one very powerful and very accessible emotion: a deeply felt revulsion against modern warfare. Over the course of the 20th century, as our technological ingenuity made war ever more brutal, we discovered that it was the weakest civilians who suffer the most - the old, the young and the sick. As the sophistication of the weapons developed - cluster bombs, landmines - we learned that the killing goes on long after the peace treaties are signed. And when images are relayed all over the world within minutes, we have understood how violence in one part of the globe can destabilize and radicalize another, setting off uncontrollable chain reactions of more violence.

All of this knowledge is underpinned by something much more visceral. It is a sensibility formed by scores of war films such as Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, and thousands of TV images of the suffering of war`s victims. How can we endure the suffering of Iraqi civilians on our television screens in two months` time? The tears which have embarrassed us in our cinema seats and in our armchairs may have been manipulated by Hollywood or newsmen, but they have enlarged our emotional imagination. We can now imagine, in a way that no previous generation has done, the families - just like our own - in a Baghdad suburb whose lives are now hanging in the balance. And we can imagine the suffering of those who prosecute the war, the sons and lovers - just like our own - bracing themselves to kill, and to die.

This groundswell of emotion doesn`t generate anger - there wasn`t much in evidence on Saturday - so much as stubborn resistance. That makes Tony Blair`s battle to convince the British public all the harder. You can argue with people who are angry - there`s a debate to be had, but you can`t argue with ``No``. This is the politics of emotion which is fed, inspired and manipulated by mass communications. Blair is fighting against the images of war`s victims which we hold in our heads - such as the one the Daily Mirror published of a sick child on its front cover on Saturday.

You can`t use arguments about international law against such an emotional opposition, as Blair now appreciates - in his speech on Saturday, he switched to the moral ground. This is where debates about war end up, even if it isn`t where they start.

But this is the hardest ground of all for Blair to win on; the onus lies with him to prove that war will cause less suffering than Saddam Hussein will, an impossible task given the huge uncertainties of the war`s conduct, let alone its impact on the Middle East and relations between Islam and the west.

Not one bomb has been dropped on Iraq, not one shot fired and already there has been the biggest global protest movement ever seen. What happens once the orphans, the widowed and the killed appear on our screens? Then, the stubbornness will become anger. We said No, Not in our Names and we meant it. Blair will never be forgiven. A tragic end to a good prime minister who was swept to power on a promise that ``things will only get better``.

South Asian Literary Evening on Sat, Feb 22, 4 pm, Gates 104, Stanford U.
FOSA (Friends of South Asia)
Invites you to a memorable and first-of-its-kind
South Asian Literary Evening
On
Saturday, February 22, 2003
4:00 pm
Room 104
Gates Computer Science Bldg
Stanford University
(http://campus-map.stanford.edu/campus_map/results.jsp?bldg=Gates&dept=&addr=)
The following poets and writers will read their work:

Deepak Goel (Hindi poetry)
Sardar Piara Singh (Punjabi poetry)
Nofil Fawad (Urdu humor)
Bukhshee Sindhu (Punjabi prose-poetry)
Usha Gupta (Hindi poetry)
Ravi Rajan (English story)
Ghulam Qadir Khan (Urdu poetry)
Bhashwati Sengupta (Hindi prose)
Nilu Gupta (Hindi prose-poetry)
Ali Hasan Cemendtaur (Urdu short story)
Farook Taraz (Punjabi poetry)
Nikhil Krishnan (English songs)

FOSA
http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/

Good reportage Ras

Anti-War Rallies Held Around the Globe
By Robert Barr, The Associated Press

LONDON (Feb. 15) - Millions of protesters - many of them marching in the capitals of America`s traditional allies - demonstrated Saturday against possible U.S. plans to attack Iraq.

In a global outpouring of anti-war sentiment, Rome claimed the biggest turnout - 1 million according to police, while organizers claimed three times that figure.

In London, at least 750,000 people demonstrated in what police called the city`s largest demonstration ever. In Spain, several million people turned out at anti-war rallies in about 55 cities and towns across the country, with more than 500,000 each attending rallies in Madrid and Barcelona.

Spanish police gauged the Madrid turnout at 660,000. Organizers claimed nearly 2 million people gathered across the nation in one of the biggest demonstrations since the 1975 death of dictator Gen. Francisco Franco.

More than 70,000 people marched in Amsterdam in the largest Netherlands demonstration since anti-nuclear rallies of the 1980s.

Berlin had up to half-a-million people on the streets, and Paris was estimated to have had about 100,000.

In New York, rally organizers estimated the crowd at up to 500,000 people. City police provided no estimate of the crowd, which stretched 20 blocks deep and two blocks wide.

``Peace! Peace! Peace!`` Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa said while leading an ecumenical service near U.N. headquarters. ``Let America listen to the rest of the world - and the rest of the world is saying, `Give the inspectors time.```

In Los Angeles, thousands of chanting marchers filled Hollywood Boulevard from curb to curb for four blocks. Organizers estimated the crowd at 100,000, although police put it at 30,000.

London`s marchers hoped - in the words of keynote speaker the Rev. Jesse Jackson - to ``turn up the heat`` on Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush`s staunchest European ally for his tough Iraq policy.

Rome protesters showed their disagreement with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi`s support for Bush, while demonstrators in Paris and Berlin backed the skeptical stances of their governments.

``What I would say to Mr. Blair is stop toadying up to the Americans and listen to your own people, us, for once,`` said Elsie Hinks, 77, who marched in London with her husband, Sidney, a retired Church of England priest.

Tommaso Palladini, 56, who traveled from Milan to Rome, said, ``You don`t fight terrorism with a preventive war. You fight terrorism by creating more justice in the world.``

Several dozen marchers from Genoa held up pictures of Iraqi artists.

``We`re carrying these photos to show the other face of the Iraqi people that the TV doesn`t show,`` said Giovanna Marenzana, 38.

Some leaders in German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder`s government participated in the Berlin protest, which turned the tree-lined boulevard between the Brandenburg Gate and the 19th-century Victory Column into a sea of banners, balloons emblazoned with ``No war in Iraq`` and demonstrators swaying to live music. Police estimated the crowd at between 300,000 and 500,000.

``We Germans in particular have a duty to do everything to ensure that war - above all a war of aggression - never again becomes a legitimate means of policy,`` shouted Friedrich Schorlemmer, a Lutheran pastor and former East German pro-democracy activist.

In the Paris crowd at the Place Denfert-Rochereau, a large American flag bore the black inscription, ``Leave us alone.``

Gerald Lenoir, 41, of Berkeley, Calif., came to Paris to support demonstrators.

``I am here to protest my government`s aggression against Iraq,`` he said. ``Iraq does not pose a security threat to the United States and there are no links with al-Qaida.``

In southern France, about 10,000 people demonstrated in Toulouse against the United States, chanting: ``They bomb, they exploit, they pollute, enough of this barbarity.``

Police estimated that 60,000 turned out in Oslo, Norway; 50,000 in bitter cold in Brussels, Belgium; and about 35,000 in frigid Stockholm, Sweden.

About 80,000 marched in Dublin, Irish police said. Crowds were estimated at 60,000 in Seville, Spain; 40,000 in Bern, Switzerland; 30,000 in Glasgow, Scotland; 25,000 in Copenhagen, Denmark; 15,000 in Vienna, Austria; more than 20,000 in Montreal and 15,000 in Toronto; 5,000 in Cape Town and 4,000 in Johannesburg in South Africa; 5,000 in Tokyo; and 2,000 in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

``War is not a solution, war is a problem,`` Czech philosopher Erazim Kohak told about 500 people in Prague, the Czech Republic.

In Mexico City, as many as 10,000 people - including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberta Menchu - snarled traffic for blocks before rallying near the heavily guarded U.S. Embassy. Demonstrators beat drums, clutched white balloons and waved handmade signs saying, ``War No, Peace Yes.``

In Baghdad, tens of thousands of Iraqis, many carrying Kalashnikov assault rifles, demonstrated to support leader Saddam Hussein and denounce the United States.

``Our swords are out of their sheaths, ready for battle,`` read one of hundreds of banners carried by marchers along Palestine Street, a broad Baghdad avenue.

In Damascus, the capital of neighboring Syria, an estimated 200,000 protesters chanted anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans while marching to the People`s Assembly.

Najjah Attar, a former Syrian cabinet minister, accused Washington of attempting to change the region`s map.

``The U.S. wants to encroach upon our own norms, concepts and principles,`` she said in Damascus. ``They are reminding us of the Nazi and fascist times.``

An estimated 2,000 Israelis and Palestinians marched together against war in Tel Aviv on Saturday night.

In Ukraine, some 2,000 people rallied in snowy Kiev`s central square. Anti-globalists led a peaceful ``Rock Against War`` protest joined by communists, socialists, Kurds and pacifists.

In divided Cyprus, about 500 Greeks and Turks braved heavy rain to briefly block a British air base runway.

Several thousand protesters in Athens, Greece, unfurled a giant banner across the wall of the Acropolis - ``NATO, U.S. and EU equals War`` - before heading toward the U.S. Embassy.

U.S. Ambassador Thomas Miller said the Greek protesters` indignation was misplaced.

``They should be demonstrating outside the Iraqi embassy,`` he said before the march.

About 900 Puerto Ricans chanted anti-war slogans against the possible invasion of Iraq. One man waved a U.S. flag on which the stars were replaced with skulls.

In Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva began efforts to unite South American nations against a possible U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Police estimated 1,500 marchers.



My fav. Feb. 15th moments?
Running across some Pakistani friends on 65th and 3rd ave (we were a mile from the stage because of all the people who came), seeing some witty signs that said: ``Got Diplomacy?`` ``Empty Warheads`` (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield pictured), ``Got Duct Tape?`` with a pic of Curious George with some across his mouth, several people lifting a huge cloth white dove, a Latino contingent marching and playing drums, the two pretty young women in front of us sharing a revolutionary kiss...

Dear Soldotna,

I regret to inform you that the letter you chose to post is symbolic of the closed ended and anti debate corporate media agenda that IS the apparatus of our lone and spluttering Bush administration. Unfortunately, we`ve all been forced to become witnesses to the kinds of DISinformation that streams out of supposedly ``mainstream`` press. In fact the situation has become so bad that to even point out that ``mainstream`` sources do not force govt. officials to provide conclusive and unquestionable evidence of say, those blurry sites where weapons of mass destruction are being built, or academic research from grad students conducted more recently than 10 years ago, or even two Arabic guys from anywhere who could be discussing anything, renders any reasonable and intelligent person a ``radical`` or a ``communist``. Its a sad and badly manipulated state of affairs when to ask is to be forced into some hawkish definition. Your columnists, who grow even shriller and more hateful as we get our US identity cards, as corporations get tax breaks while social services makes up the balance, as CNN/FOX news trots out another celebrity who says-``I`m here because you wont book Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn or Norman Finkelstein or Edward Said`` and is dismissed with the patently FALSE answer of ``yes we do`` when records show that these shows have NOT booked these historians, political scientists, intellectuals who have the scholarship to back their interpretations up-your columnists are wetting their Depends diapers because a GROWING NUMBER OF AMERICANS are opposing the Bush Administrations bay for war. WE ARE NOT ACCEPTING THE BUSH NARRATIVE. So, throw out whatever bs of so and so is a commie-and even compare the last two consecutive articles in the New York Times Mag in which the RSS and teenage Jewish extremist vigilante settlers in Isreal are stealing land from Palestinians-and check out the barely surpressed fawning tone of the writer of that article-your columnist`s definitions will not hold. The people are speaking-and they seem to know a hell of a lot more than your columnists...
Toodles!

Letter to a War Protester
By Michael P. Tremoglie
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 17, 2003

Dear Kathie,

Last week you sent me an email asking me to join you in marching for peace on the 15th in Center City Philadelphia. I explained to you about the leadership of these protests. I explained that these people were communists and anti-Americans who have an axe to grind. I explained that my research about them leads me to believe that their cause has more to do with discrediting and destroying capitalism, democracy, and the United States than peace.

I told you I would be more than happy to express my desire for peace. However, peace is not what these leaders want. You started spouting specious arguments comparing Iraq to North Korea and about oil-the usual canards and fallacies that this crowd spouts. You replied that the leadership did not matter. It did not make a difference they were communists. The ultimate objective was peace.

You told me that you were at a forum the week before at the White Dog Café. Medea Benjamin was the guest speaker. You said Medea fascinated you. You remarked about how compassionate her speech was. You told me that she went to Iraq and met nice Iraqis.

My reply was that I did not think she was invited to Iraq to meet members of the secret police and the Republican Guard. Of course, there are nice Iraqis, I said. I know some Iraqis. They are the salt of the earth. So what? Saddam Hussein has murdered many nice Iraqis lately. Then again, a lot Iraqis have been murdering other people.

Once again, I reiterated that these pacifists were really Communists. You said that Communism was no longer a threat and reiterated that the leadership of the rallies did not matter only what their objective was. You proffered a sort of ends “justifies the means” thesis.

My rejoinder was that the rally leadership did matter and that these rally leaders deceive. These rally leaders idolize those who kill and enslave.

Well Kathie, here is a concrete example of why the leadership is important. These are excerpts from a Sunday, February 16, 2003, Washington Post article written by Evelyn Nieves. Even you will believe the Washington Post Kathie. I know normally you do not believe me when I tell you something. You did not believe me when I told you that ANSWER was affiliated with a Stalininst/Kimist organization. You did not believe me when I told you that Not In Our Name was affiliated with a Maoist group. You learned I was correct. However, I do not believe that you will question the Washington Post.

In her article entitled Antiwar Organizer`s Politics Cause Rift, Nieves wrote, “. . . few of the tens of thousands of marchers had even heard of International ANSWER., one of the main organizers.. ANSWER`s politics seemed moot…(ANSWER) has defended dictators such as Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and North Korea`s Kim Jong Il and decried the state of Israel…the last several days, ANSWER`s politics have created a rift within the leadership of the antiwar movement…Rabbi Michael Lerner, one of the nation`s most prominent liberal Jewish leaders and editor of the San Francisco-based magazine Tikkun, went public to complain that he was ``banned`` from speaking at the Sunday rally here, because ANSWER objected to his positions on Israel.”

According to Nieves’ article, ANSWER and other rally organizers, said Lerner was not invited to speak because he had previously ``attacked`` ANSWER`s positions. Lerner had criticized ANSWER for allowing too many speakers who believe that the United States is threatening to attack Iraq because Israel wants the war. Nieves quoted Lerner as saying ``There are good reasons to oppose the war and Saddam. Still, it feels that we are being manipulated when subjected to mindless speeches and slogans whose knee-jerk anti-imperialism rarely articulates the deep reasons we should oppose corporate globalization.``

Nieves then quoted a news release by the four coalitions organizing the antiwar demonstrations -- Bay Area United Against War, Not In Our Name project, United for Peace and Justice and International ANSWER. The communication stated, ``When members of the Tikkun community, who have actively participated in the organizing meetings for Feb. 16, suggested to Bay Area United for Peace and Justice, that it propose Michael Lerner as a speaker, it was explained by members of UFPJ that since he had publicly attacked ANSWER in both the New York Times and Tikkun community e-mail newsletters, his inclusion in the program would violate the agreement among the Feb. 16 organizing groups.``

Then Nieves states what is the crux of the issue-why leadership matters. In one sentence Nieves expressed the Orwellian world of the organizers when she wrote, “In other words, dissent among dissenters was not allowed.”

See what I mean Kathie.

You and your colleagues say it does not matter who the leaders are. Yet it does. Here is a perfect example. The anti-war leadership who organized the February 15 rally would not permit a particular anti-war activist to speak because they do not like his politics and because he criticized them.
The people who believe in free speech really do not think speech is free.

These are your associates Kathie, deny it though you may. They are as every bit as ruthless, despotic, and deceitful as the genocidal totalitarians they admire. Remember Medea Benjamin was originally Susie Benjamin and chose the name of an infanticidal character of Greek mythology. These are not the people who will bring peace on earth.

You want peace Kathie? Join me in a rally. My march will be to protest the real villain in this drama -Saddam Hussein. Join me in telling him to destroy his WMD’s. Then there will be peace AND FREEDOM.

DISARM NOW SADDAM!

A NEW Superpower to take on the US Superpower

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.

In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand.

Mr. Bush`s advisers are telling him to ignore them and forge ahead, as are some leading pro-war Republicans. Senator John McCain, for one, said today that it was ``foolish`` for people to protest on behalf of the Iraqi people, because the Iraqis live under Saddam Hussein ``and they will be far, far better off when they are liberated from his brutal, incredibly oppressive rule.``

That may be true, but it fails to answer the question that France, Germany and other members of the Security Council have posed:

What is the urgent rationale for war now if there is a chance that continued inspections under military pressure might accomplish the disarmament of Iraq peacefully?

The fresh outpouring of antiwar sentiment may not be enough to dissuade Mr. Bush or his advisers from their resolute preparations for war.

But the sheer number of protesters offers a potent message that any rush to war may have political consequences for nations that support Mr. Bush`s march into the Tigris and Euphrates valleys.(NYT)

Ah -- poor Mr McCain -- he tried to ``liberate`` the people of Vietnam with Naplam and Agent Orange -- saying the same thing -- ``they will be far, far better off when they are liberated from his (uncle HO) brutal, incredibly oppressive rule.`` -- and then ended up signing a document denouncing his own US government -- as a POW of the Vietnamese.

Now the injury induced amnesiac Senator -- would again like to ``liberate`` the Iraqi people with laser bombs and daisy cutters -- from a safe chair of the US Senate -- it`s understandable.

finally an arab with some balls. and a smart one to boot. and the perfect solution to iraq crises:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=10&u=/ap/20030215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_iraq

Saudi Prince Calls Arab Troops in Iraq
Sat Feb 15,12:55 PM ET


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Arab states should send military troops to Iraq immediately to forestall a foreign invasion, a liberal Saudi prince said Saturday.

``We call on all the Arabs to make this demand, and we call on the noble Arab leaders to make this demand a reality,`` Prince Sultan bin Turki said in a statement issued in Geneva and faxed to The Associated Press in Dubai.

``_ _ _The Arabs should not wait. The Arab people should be the main player in resolving this case, rather than have the colonial solution be imposed on us,`` the prince said in his statement.
The prince said the Iraqi government and people should accept his proposal as to do otherwise would leave the country vulnerable to ``American or international`` intervention, he said.

_ _ _ Arabs must choose ``to be or not to be,`` he said. ``The good of the Arab nation and the Iraqi people demands that its destiny be placed in its own hands to save it from the catastrophe it has been in since the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) and to drive out foreign forces from the Arab region.``

He also called for lifting the U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq since its invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

#10 - couldnt agree more with Saminasha(#14)Ignorance is bliss as they say..
wonder what you thought of Secretary Powell`s plagiarised document?
The ``Jihadistan`` you refer to, why the ``istan`` may i ask? that seems to be a highly biased opinion..
The fact that ``moderate`` muslims want to participate in peace rallies just irks you rightwing people because you want the world to think we all believe in killing all nonmuslims and we`re just binladen`s with masks.. well I for one have an opinion and I love the west and tolerance and marches and democracy and right to voice my opinion and if people like you want to think that its all an act - well go right ahead! The rallies will continue and I will continue to participate. You know they were effective in the vietnam war and all these ppl making noise is bound to make you and yr precious president incomfortable.So be it!

Ras,
The potential Iraq war is one issue on which Indians and Pakistanis have a common perspective - we do not support this war. The Indian government will not be joining in any action, but I am rather disappointed in the Pakistani government. As a nuclear power with a strong military, I thought that Pakistan would be in the forefront of the anti-war movement. Instead I read in Dawn that Pakistan will actually be participating in this venture, in terms of sharing military advice. One continuously reads articles from retired Pakistani generals criticizing India and imploring Pakistan to be prepared. Why are they silent on this matter or is their passion only directed against India ?

``regime change begins at home``

``Significantly, the biggest demonstrations were in London, Rome and Madrid, whose national governments side with the White House.

The continent has not seen protests on that scale in memory.

The crowds were so vast in Barcelona and Madrid that they jammed the streets and were unable to march. Protest organizers usually exaggerate numbers, but from official accounts alone at least three million people marched across Europe.

Other nonpartisan accounts put the total at between four and six million.

Even in Italy, which has sought to qualify its support for the United States, at least 600,000 people and possibly many more thronged Rome.

The breadth and magnitude of the demonstrations opened a rift between ruler and the ruled, convincing many

that street protest had overtaken conventional democracy in expressing the popular will.

``The real question is not about intervention,`` said John Game, 38, a doctoral student at London University, gesturing to the crowd around him as he marched yesterday.

``It`s about why Tony Blair is not listening to the people of Britain. That`s not democracy; this is what democracy looks like.``

Among the demonstrators` posters were some that read, ``Regime change begins at home.``(NYT)

regime change in Washington DC -- in 2004

nasah #5: ``I came to this country in 1960``

Wow.

I didn`t realize you had been here for so long. Assuming you are from Pakistan (or from India for that matter), you must have been one of the eariliest post-independence South Asian immigrants here.

I hope what you state about the USA self-correcting itself is correct. For some reason, I have some doubts this time around. The USA has greatly self-corrected itself domestically, everytime it has faced a crisis. And in that sense, I am a great admirer also.

However, has it ever self-corrected itself in foreign policy? I would say, No. Self-corrections would have implied fighting wars for human rights and not for self-interests, in other countries. It was supporting self-interests in Vietnam and it is still doing this now. The only time it has changed tactics in this area, is when it has been defeated (as in the Vietnam war, and diplomatically in the current face-off with North Korea). Even after that, the overall foreign policy of interference hasn`t changed. A self-correction would have meant that after Vietnam, the USA would not be interfering anywhere. Just like after the Civil Rights Movement, the chances of anti-Black laws in the USA is next to nill.

All superpowers have something in common: The have strong and fair (for their time in history) domestic policies. But generally have brutal foreign policies. The British were very just inside England - towards the later years even to Indians who lived there. However, they were ruthless in their colonies. The French etc. were even more ruthless.

The USA is the same, for our times. If an Iraqi somehow makes it into the USA, he will be looked after better here than he would be in Iraq. However, if the same Iraqi is stuck in Iraq, he could be an innocent victim of a US missile. This was true in 1960 and it is still true today.

The concept of benevolent superpower is an oxymoron. A country can be one or the other. If the US becomes ethical in its foreign policy, accepts the International Court of Justice etc., it will slowly lose its superpower status to China or to someone else. Superpowers fight for the control of world`s resources. Whomever can control most of them remains a superpower. That is why they have $370 billion dollar military budgets (Canada, a county of similar size with similar threat perception only has a military budget of $12 Billion). If someone wants to be the toughest kid in the sandbox, he has to beat up on other innocent kids - even if he is a nice kid himself.

This is the US`s dilemma. Should it became ethical in foreign policies, or should in try to remain a superpower? If it follows the former path, the living standards of the Americans are bound to fall, as will those of allies like Canada. In result, the living standards of Nicaraguans, Saudis, Egyptians etc. will rise, since wealth, oil etc. will come under the control of its citizens and will be more evenly distributed. A sweatshop worker in Honduras will have to be paid a higher salary, making shirts in the USA more expensive for us.

The US has 6% of the world`s population but uses up 25% of its oil and other resources, eats the most meat per person of any country (far more Fluffy the Goats are killed in the USA than in Pakistan), makes by far the most money off selling armaments to other countries etc.

It will take more than a few peace marches for the US to give up all of the above. At best, the peace marches will deter the USA form attacking Iraq. But they will not self-correct the concept of superpowers. The only way for that to happen is if somehow or the other the other countries in the world become stronger to the point where the US has to treat them on an even basis.

The US is however unique in comparison to other superpowers that it gives the citizens of the countries it may have bombed, or controlled through multinationals, an opportunity to excel if they can make it into the USA. If they work hard enough, the USA also gives them access to its government, thereby allowing them to control US foreign policy from within. The later is both good and bad, as we can see in the Israel-Palestine situation.

The current WTC attacks are a unique phenomenon. This is the first time in the history of the USA that its foreign policy has met with the domestic situation. Since 1812, that has never happened. Even Pearl Harbor, was an attack on a military base in a US colony/protectorate, not on the US itself.

It will be interesting to see how Americans handle this situation, specially if one more terrorist attack occurs. Will Arabs and Muslims be forced to carry ID cards, if a second terrorist attack occurs? That is where the peace rallies will have an effect, i.e. on domestic issues. On foreign policy, I doubt the USA will self-correct (nor will any other superpowers of the future).

re #13
Yes indeed they are. I wrote my comments before I read yours. Sorry for the cross-post.
regards

Siddiqui Sahib,

In NYC, there were a lot more Pakistani/Indians present-among the 500,000 just yesterday. Power to the People!

Soldotna,
Gosh, where does one begin? You seem to have quite a unique perspective. Dont lose that innocence, sunshine!

shah # 6

Aren`t Cairo and Jakarta in Egypt and Indonesia respectively?

Peace March
dance,poetry reading,slogans of world peace and brotherhood, food eating, socializing etc ok but PEACE March to help Saddam By most non muslims is LAFANGEBAZI. Activist is never satisfied always in search of cause to make some innocent trouble.
What matters is MUSLIMS. And muslims govts have agreed to USA.