| Steve McAlexander on Sun, 4 Nov 2001 02:06:02 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] about oil and right's of way (we haven't been told this so far) have we? |
|
hey I head the war effort in 3 years would be up to 1.5 trillion dollars
hey on 6 trillion dollars and some American lives and blood with a few million
innocent lives for good measure it looks like we are once again in rare
form.
In regard to the oil connection, if anybody is not familiar with this point already, let the government tell you themselves. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspian.html Caspian Sea oil and natural gas could be valued at over $6 Trillion. The government site details possible pipeline routes, etc. They also list Chevron http://www.sfbg.com/news/33/07/worldview and Royal Dutch Shell as being signatory to contracts already. Unocal was planning a pipeline through Afganistan. I believe Unocal was tied to Halliburton, Dick Cheney's company, in another adventure--slavery and displacement of people in Myanmar www.unocal.com , www.irn.org/burma/unocal.html. Despite all this, I have recieved funny looks for yelling No Blood for Oil. Regarding the ongoing furor over our general points of unity: The first point could be expressed in several ways: Stop the War, No War, No U.S. War, No U.S. War in Afganistan I know we made a tactical error in using the latter two slogans in our promotional materials. There is no reason to use wording that is anti-american in tone and redundant yet no stronger or more clear than it would be otherwise. The choice of these slogans seems to be a reflex action that makes some of us feel good to say (No U.S...., U.S. out of...) but contradicts our mission statement, which is to be as inclusive as possible. The public is already polarized and reflexively nationalistic. Personally, I abhor nationalism but aknowledge that nationalism is the strongest political force. It is not necessary to use anti-american language to convey our message and if we do, our flyers will stay up about as long as it takes to put them up and piss off people who we might otherwise get to dialogue with in a way that they can hear us. Defend civil liberties!, No racist scapegoating! I think these are great solgans and great things. They are also very general and very good. Try to find somebody who will say 'I abhor civil liberties'. We need to give them more space on our flyers, and keep them more seperate. These points are not given equal space or time. A fourth point: If we are to have a 4th point, I think we would do well to have it be parallel, consistent with the first three, and generally appealing. U.S. out of the Middle East is anti-american in tone and therefore inconsistent with our inclusive message. Plus it is a more specific statement which is not inclusive of the golbal nature of the underlying problems of American presence in the Middle East, i.e. State sponsored terrorism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, neo-liberalism, imperialism, etc. These are the reasons we oppose the U.S. presence in the Middle East and elsewhere outside of the Middle East. If we are to have a 4th point it should be one which resonates with existing sentiment and moral tone, doesen't alienate well meaning citizens, and appeals to anti-globalization sentiments. Terrorism is what preoccupies the public. Terrorism is what people agree sucks. Terrorism is the achillies heel. If we are to have a 4th point it should be against terrorism in general, and the terrorism that North America can control (meaning the terrorism that we sponsor and the conditions we create which breed insurgent terrorism) specifically. I don't think I need to attempt to describe what that might include, your eyes would glaze over. The last 2 meetings were pretty much wasted on the issue of the 4th point, the rhetoric is getting pretty thick with dissenters getting labeled all kinds of ways. People are not listening to one another. What is happening is a tactical disagreement about achieving a mutual goal. I Don't see the anybody supporting Israeli agression and violation of international law in the THC. Strident language attempts to browbeat and polarize people into taking a position. We agreed with near consensus on the 1st three points, the nature of the debate and the division of the committee should be a clear indication to anybody paying attention that, for the good of a cohesive organization, it is not the time to include another point. At the last meeting, people were brought in to support the 4th point who had no intention of donating time or becoming a part of the process and the point was defeated anyway. People, the result is tied up in the process--watch your tactics. Unless you want to own a much smaller committee, or see the side which lost last week pack the committee this week, don't use manipulative tactics or characterize people unfairly because they don't support your tactical position. P.S. A note on the nature of COINTELPRO type operations: people and organizations are manipulated on the basis of their natural divisions and personality issues as a rule. Lets continue to be effective.
>From: Altaf Bhimji Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ..................................................................... This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list: |