top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

What Is Socialism, and Why We Oppose The Invasion of Iraq

by Steve Argue (steveargue2 [at] yahoo.com)
Resist the war in the streets, workplaces, schools, and in the barracks! Organize to end all imperial bloodshed through socialist revolution!
What Is Socialism, and Why We Oppose The Invasion of Iraq

By Steve Argue
Capitalism is a system of legalized exploitation, discrimination, war, oppression, and environmental degradation. In this capitalist world enough food is produced but people go hungry. We work if we are lucky, but the riches produced by our labor go into the pockets of the wealthy. Yet it is the working class youth that are sent to go fight and die so that U.S. oil monopolies can get direct control of 84 billion dollars worth of oil under the Iraqi sand. Meanwhile those same capitalists use their control of the government and the economy to keep the U.S. economy dependent on detrimental fossil fuels. In doing so the capitalists have brought on global warming, an environmental and human catastrophe that has only just begun.

Capitalism is guilty of many crimes, from the murder of 3 million Vietnamese with the U.S. war in Vietnam, to hunger, as well as the degradation of the planet itself. For many of us who recognize capitalism is the problem we see socialism as the solution, but what is socialism?

As I see it there are four main currents of socialist thought. There are those who are of the social democratic type who usually reject socialist revolution as impossible or counter-productive. Instead their leaders use toned down socialist rhetoric to fool workers and other progressive minded people into supporting them while the leaders get cushy jobs in the unions or capitalist government offices. In these offices they promote an agenda of class collaboration, masking the fact that they are betraying the interests of the working class with false arguments about the common interests of workers and exploiters and arguments about what the situation is rather than struggling for what the situation should be. Examples of these types of “socialists” are Prime Minister Schroeder in Germany, Former President Francois Mitterrand in France, and Mike Rotkin on the Santa Cruz California City Council.

The second kind of socialists are those who are uncritically inspired by the real gains of the socialist revolutions that created the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, and the revolution in Cuba that ended the U.S. backed Batista dictatorship. They point to how these revolutions freed their countries from foreign imperialist control; defeated Nazi Germany; eliminated barbaric practices such as the foot binding of women in China and racial segregation in Cuba; and overturned the capitalist system of exploitation making sure that everyone had work, housing, was fed, had healthcare, and free education. Yet these socialists (or communists as they are often called) often ignore the inequalities and repression faced by the working class from a privileged ruling bureaucracy that are real components of these systems.

The third type of socialist completely rejects both the pro-capitalist social democrats and the dictatorial communists and argues that the socialism they struggle for has nothing in common with either. In this respect part of their philosophy is very similar to that of the anarchists. It is a philosophy that is easily understood, but over-simplifies more complex realities.

There is a fourth type of socialist that I represent here. We recognize the gains made by the Soviet people in overthrowing the Czar and later smashing Hitler, but we do not forget the crimes of Stalin. Likewise we recognize the fundamental flaw made in that “communist” model in every subsequent socialist revolution since. That fundamental flaw is the lack of real workers democracy. To counter this flaw we struggle for socialism on a different model, socialism without capitalism yes, but also socialism with democracy.

For many this flies in the face of their simple concepts of the world where everything is either good or bad. When socialists point to the break down of the Russian economy with emergence of unemployment, homelessness, and a 10 year drop in life expectancy since the capitalist counter-revolution led by Yeltsin it does not mean that we supported everything under Soviet Communist rule, only that for the average person things were better than under capitalism.

Today in Russia where most Soviet youth once dreamed of being astronauts or doctors, they now dream of being a hitman for the mob or a greedy oil tycoon.

In opposition to the Russian model (that being the capitalist program of counter-revolution, privatization, and austerity against the working class being carried out now) we call for the preservation of the planned economy coupled with a political revolution that replaces the bureaucratic caste in power in Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam. In doing so we recognize that this kind of political-revolution will only come from the people of those countries themselves and that the intervention of the governments of the U.S., Britain or any other imperialist country will only bring death, destruction, and all the miseries of capitalist counter-revolution. The American capitalist class has already murdered around 6 million people in its wars against the people these four countries, so the socialist movement stands uncompromisingly in total opposition to any continued intervention in these countries as well as standing in support of their right to defend themselves militarily.

Just as the main classes of the capitalist countries are divided between the interests of the capitalist class and its drive for profits at the expense of the working class, the interests of the world are divided between those of the weak, poor, and subjugated nations on the one hand and the interests of the capitalist classes of the rich imperialist countries on the other.

While the working class of the capitalist countries around the world often face clubs, tear gas, and even bullets and torture chambers for organizing to assert our interests against those of the capitalists; So to do the leaders of the weaker capitalist countries face the wrath of the imperialist capitalist class when they try to assert their power to control their own resources. This is the essence of the Anglo-American war against Iraq.

In the 1970s Iraq nationalized its oil fields. This helped the Iraqi people by taking a chunk of the profits made off of oil out of the hands of the international oil monopolies and instead keeping them in Iraq. This money helped pay for free healthcare and education. As such this was a socialist measure carried out by Saddam Hussein’s capitalist government. It was also a measure that stood up to the interests of the rich and powerful nations. For both reasons socialists supported the nationalization of Iraqi oil while those measures infuriated the imperialists.

The world was very different in the 1970s. The strength of the Soviet Union and its value as a trading partner alongside the defeat of the U.S. in its imperialist war of aggression in Southeast Asia helped Iraq in developing its own independent course in dealing with its own internal affairs and resources.

Does this mean that socialists support Saddam Hussein. No. We merely defend the right of Iraq as a weaker nation to run its affairs as it sees fit without US and British imperialist intervention and we support the nationalization of the oil industry. We also understand that a defeat of U.S. imperialism in Iraq would strengthen the entire world against the seemingly invincible might of U.S. imperialism making other countries better able to shape their own destinies and independent courses as well as taking other countries out of the sights of the imperialists as the next target for war. A defeat for the imperialist governments would also strengthen the revolutionary working class movements within the imperialist countries themselves.

While defending Iraq against imperialist attack and supporting their right to defend themselves socialists also recognize that Saddam Hussein is a capitalist leader and that the Iraqi people have their own scores to settle with him. Yet any government set up by a US occupation army will not be democratic and will only lead to the privatization of the resources that American oil monopolies intend to steal.

America’s so-called concern for human rights can be seen in the past US interventions in Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party first came to power in 1963. Immediately after taking power, based on lists provided by the CIA, they rounded up 5,000 leftists and trade-union leaders and murdered them. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait we were shown pictures of Iraqi Kurds killed by poison gas in the U.S. media. What we were not told is why the US was silent when this was happening and the fact that the US supplied the gas to kill the Kurds and to kill Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. While we are now told of the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people we are not told of how the Turkish government is carrying out the same policies of genocide against the Turkish Kurds, and doing it with U.S. weaponry.

Many of the Kurds know that their national interest to self-determination, without the genocidal repression they currently face throughout their homeland, will never be established by the “liberating” forces of Turkey, Iran, or US imperialism. British imperialism divided Kurdistan, a country with its own unique language and culture, into a minority inside the nations of Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Today the Kurds are the largest nation without a homeland in the world. Yet while the U.S. government supplies the military hardware to kill Turkish Kurds they cry crocodile tears for Iraqi Kurds. Imperialism, with its motto of divide and conquer, never has and never will solve the Kurdish question. A free and united Kurdistan will only be born through a sweeping socialist revolution that overthrows the capitalist regimes of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria while challenging the dictates and military of the United States.

Just as U.S. imperialism will never solve the Kurdish question, nor will it ever solve the question of women’s liberation in the Middle East. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Over 50% of Iraqi doctors are women. Iraqi women are allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They are allowed to drive. Iraqi women can even freely criticize men. In addition Iraqi women have the right to work and control their own funds. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive U.S. backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where women have no rights what-so-ever.

The U.S. ruling class hates governments like Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela who use the profits of their oil resources partly to benefit the people with social programs. Likewise they love governments like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that strip the people of all their rights and keep the oil profits in the hands of the international oil monopolies and their corrupt local servants. Today in the United States we face unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of health care. The billions of dollars the U.S. is squandering on killing Iraqis to steal their resources should be spent to benefit the working class and poor of the United States.

The Peace and Freedom Party is a socialist party with 80,000 registrants in the state of California. As a political party that calls for a democratic and socialist change in American society we’ve opposed all U.S. wars since we were founded in 1967 and call for sweeping changes in American society to feed, house, employ, and provide health care for every person.

Register to vote with the Peace and Freedom Party! Resist the war in the streets, workplaces, schools, and in the barracks! Organize to end all imperial bloodshed through socialist revolution!

The homepage for Liberation News can be found at
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

People may subscribe to the list by sending email to
liberation_news-subscribe [at] lists.riseup.net
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Anthony
Forms of socialism:
1. Government controlled economy without private ownership.
2. Government controlled economy with private ownership.
3. 1 or 2 above based in a nationalist context.
4. 1 or 2 above based in a global context.

Facism and Communism are examples of socialistic systems. The USA is currently a government controlled economy with private ownership. But it seems the USA is now stepping away from placing this in a national context and is attempting to take it global, imho.
by well
Germany wasnt really a state run economy. The Nazi control of industry was comparable to the US during WWI and WWII, so unless you are prepared to call the US Socialist I wouldnt compare fascism to socialism. It's also good to note that major US "capitalists" (from Ford to IBM) before WWII supported Hitler since free market ideas of Social Darwinism were similar to Nazi ideas.
by Anthony
America is a socialist country.
by Anthony
The capitalist system of america is not really free as corporate capitalists rely on the american government to aid in it's business deals. Let's face it the US Army is merely an arm of the global corporate cabal.
by Realist
I guess the United States is as evil as you guys say it is. After all, it allows you morons to live here.

Capitalism is nothing more than free people buying and selling their own property and labor. The corporations you deride as evil are actually only the free associations of free people and their property for legitimate purposes. Average, working class people invest their money in corporations, so they can supply the material needs of themselves and others, including many charitable organizations.

As far as socialism is concerned, the Nazis were socialists. That's why they signed a treaty with the Russians in WW II. They were the National Socialist party in Germany. The Nazis controlled the economy.

That's why you people get along so well with totalitarian thugs like Saddam Hussein, and other Islamofascists. He hates freedom, and so do you. He manipulates and distorts truth to serve his own ends, and so do you. You have a lot in common.
by Anthony
"Capitalism is nothing more than free people buying and selling their own property and labor. The corporations you deride as evil are actually only the free associations of free people and their property for legitimate purposes." Rubbish, when legislation is created which strips wealth from the citizen in forms of taxation and transfers that wealth to certain free associations of free people, they are called thieves and it is NOT legitimate. Ever hear of the military industrial complex? They say capitalism runs of the theory of demand and supply. The government is in a unique position to "create" demand that they and their cronies can then supply. War is just on of these means to create demand and strip the common citizens pockets. Wise up sucker!
by Realist
Anthony is seriously confused. The transfer of wealth by means of taxation is not capitalism, and no one says it is. Capitalism implies freedom; taxation implies lack thereof.

William F. Buckley Jr once said the difference between between the old USSR and the USA is the difference between 100% taxation and 20% taxation.He was right.

There is no "military-industrial complex". It does not exist, except in the imaginations of the paranoid. (Eisenhower used the phrase, but he should've stuck to being a general.) The government is simply a consumer (albeit a very large one) of goods and services voluntarily supplied by free people.
by Anthony
Those who benefit from the transfer of wealth from the people to the corporations are some of those in the position to effect the transfer. See something wrong there? Saying something doesn't exist doesn't always make it so. Who aims to benefit from this war? And the war before that? And the war before that? America's rules of engagement in Vietnam were designed to drag the war on, why? Who pays for these wars? This is a scam. Wonder why the USA funded the USSR? It is a joke. Wake up fool. Money makes the world go around. Your sending your children off to die so some internationalist fat cats who have complete contempt for you can line their pockets and feel powerful (and don't under estimate that reason). It's all a scam and your just a mark.
by Mr Consistency
If you have it all figured out and are able to see how wealth is transfered from taxpayer dupes to fat cats in big corporations, then why don't you just invest in said big corporations and take the money back? Nearly all are publicly traded corporations.
by Diogenes
I’m nauseated by the traitorous bands of self-righteous protest pansies and peace posses who have surfaced amid the Iraq debate. On the brink of global unrest, our fighting forces are about to demonstrate to the world why fist-fucking violates decency laws. Semper fi, you filthy bastards. The only reason half of L.A. is able to sit on its collective ass all day nursing $5 coffee Slurpees while I fix toilets is that America already rules the world. The only reason bubble-headed Hollywood pill poppers are able to complete a yoga session without having their chakras suicide-bombed by some terrorist scumbag is because the United States has been doing shit right for two and a quarter centuries. Amen.

While many see Iraq as nothing more than a wasteland of mud huts and concertina wire, I see a posh desert oasis in the embryonic stage. In five years’ time, I hope to be sitting poolside while Sean Penn serves me mai-tais and Martin Sheen adjusts my chaise longue and rubs Coppertone on my back. Of course, I’d prefer Jessica Lange, but she’ll be too busy doing my laundry.

War is not the answer. It is the question. Yes is the answer. And to all of the Islamic extremists planning the Big One, you can run your jihad up my fucking ass. I’ll leave the light on for you.

—Everett “Jack” Falconer
Santa Monica
by David
Compare the number of people immigrating to capitalist vs socialist societies.
by Anthony
One, I don't want to make money off of death, plus how much of the money is actually returned to the shareholder and how many of the shares are held in the hands of the few? Take for example getting a couple of million for putting together a deal to sell nuclear reactors to north korea. Nice pickings if you can get them. Or how about a couple of million as a consultant to get fast track acceptance of a new chemical food additive from the FDA? Cool.
by Anthony
The business needs some money (not really but lets expand anyway, screw the shareholders) you know someone who can lend you the money. You borrow and pay it back with interest. The sucking sound of money being syphoned. There is a thousand tricks, and the money keeps on circulating around the same grubby hands.
by Mr Consistency
Another kid pretending he knows how things work.
by Anthony
Alittle document there are far more like this one. Some of us know how things go, you little punk.

Secretive Bilderberg group to meet in Sweden

Reuters 05/23/01: Peter Starck

Original Saved Copy: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/reuters_bilderberg.html

EU enlargement and the bloc's military role, NATO's future and developments in Russia and China will top the agenda when senior Western business leaders, politicians and a sprinkle of royalty meet in Sweden this week.

The Bilderberg group, a semi-secret discussion forum for the Western world's power elite, will hold its annual meeting in the town of Stenungsund on the Swedish west coast on May 24-28, Swedish newspapers reported on Wednesday.

A 900-metre long metal fence has been erected around Hotel Stenungsbaden, the meeting venue, to keep intruders away, regional daily Goteborgs-Posten said, publishing a picture of the fenced-in hotel.

Anti-globalisation demonstrators are expected to protest outside and local police see the event as a useful training exercise ahead of the mid-June European Union summit in the city of Gothenburg 50 km (30 miles) to the south.

The Bilderberg group, named after the hotel where it first met in 1954, was formed early in the Cold War era in reaction to a growing Communist threat. Today, many critics see it as a conspiracy and an agent of a new capitalist world order.

Bilderberg member Jacob Wallenberg, chairman of the board of commercial bank SEB and head of Sweden's influential Wallenberg family whose empire has a finger in most big Swedish industries, played down the group's importance.

"This is one of many meetings all over the world where decision-makers get together," he told the daily Dagens Nyheter, which earlier published the main agenda topics.

Invited as speakers, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were groomed at Bilderberg meetings before rising to fame as U.S. President and British Prime Minister respectively.

EU Commission President Romano Prodi, NATO Secretary-General George Robertson and European Central Bank Governor Wim Duisenberg all have a past as Bilderbergers.

SHAPING CAPITALISM

"Even though no formal decisions are made...this group, together with many others, has contributed to shaping the kind of capitalism we have today and cemented the world's leading business elites together," Goran Greider, editor-in-chief of Dala-Demokraten, a regional Swedish daily, said in a live studio debate on Sweden's TV4 television.

Bilderberg participants abide by the so-called Chatham House rule, which forbids everyone present from disclosing what anybody else has said.

"The secrecy is regarded as very provocative. Men in power talk towards consensus behind closed doors on timely issues on the political agenda," Ulf Bjereld, a political science professor at Gothenburg University, said.

Bilderberg members include former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, U.S. Senators Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, World Bank chief James Wolfensohn, France's central bank governor Jean-Claude Trichet and former IMF heads Michel Camdessus and Stanley Fischer.

Also listed are the chairmen of car makers Fiat, Giovanni Agnelli, and DaimlerChrysler, Juergen Schrempp, former British finance minister Kenneth Clarke, Dutch Queen Beatrix and Xerox Corp CEO Paul Allaire.

by Anthony
BILDERBERG GROUP 2002 MEETING OFFICIAL BILDERBERG PRESS RELEASE AND PARTICIPANT LIST The 50th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Chantilly, Virginia, U.S.A., 30 May-2 June 2002. Among other subjects the Conference will discuss Terrorism, Trade, Post Crisis Reconstruction, Middle East, Civil Liberties, US Foreign Policy, Extreme Right, World Economy, Corporate Governance. Approximately 120 participants from North America and Europe will attend the discussions. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion.

Bilderberg takes its name from the hotel in Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working as closely as they should on common problems of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post war period. The cold war has now ended. But in practically all respects there are more, not fewer, common problems - from trade to jobs, from monetary policy to investment, from ecological challenges to the task of promoting international security. It is hard to think of any major issue in either Europe or North America whose unilateral solution would not have repercussions for the other. Thus the concept of a European-American forum has not been overtaken by time. The dialogue between these two regions is still - even increasingly - critical.

What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely. In short, Bilderberg is a small flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced.

Bilderberg's only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, forty-nine conferences have been held. The names of the participants are made available to the press. Participants are chosen for their experience, their knowledge, and their standing; all participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity. There are usually about 120 participants of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labor, education, communications.

Participants have agreed not to give interviews to the press during the meeting. In contacts with the news media after the conference it is an established rule [ref. Chatham House Rule] that no attribution should be made to individual participants of what was discussed during the meeting.

There will be no press conference. A list of participants is appended.

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL BILDERBERG MEETINGS Chantilly, Virginia, U.S.A. 30 May - 2 June 2002

FINAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Honorary Chairman Davignon, Etienne Vice Chairman, Société Générale de Belgique

USA Allaire, Paul A. - Former Chairman and CEO, Xerox Corporation

CDN Baillie, A. Charles - Chairman and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group

GB Balls, Edward - Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury

P Balsemão, Francisco Pinto - Professor of Communication Science, New University, Lisbon; Chairman of IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.

F Belot, Jean de - Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro

USA Bergsten, C. Fred - Director, Institute for International Economics

N Bernander, John G. - Director General, Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation

CDN Black, Conrad M. - Chairman, Telegraph Group Ltd.

INT Bolkestein, Frits - Commissioner, European Commission

P Borges, António - Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Goldman Sachs

USA Boyd, Charles G. - President and CEO, Business Executives for National Security

F Castries, Henri de - Chairman of the Board, AXA

E Cebrián, Juan Luis - CEO, Prisa (El Pais)

F Collomb, Bertrand - Chairman and CEO, Lafarge

CH Couchepin, Pascal - Federal Councillor; Head of the Federal Department of Economic Affairs

GB Dahrendorf, Ralf - Member, House of Lords; Former Warden, St. Antony's College, Oxford

USA Dam, Kenneth W. - Deputy Secretary, US Department of Treasury

GR David, George A. - Chairman of the Board, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A.

USA David-Weill, Michel A. - Chairman, Lazard Frères & Co.

TR Dervis, Kemal - Minister of Economic Affairs

USA Deutch, John M. - Institute Professor, MIT

USA Dinh, Viet D. Assistant Attorney General for Office of Policy Development

USA Donilon, Thomas E. - Executive Vice President, Fannie Mae

I Draghi, Mario - Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Goldman Sachs International

USA Eizenstat, Stuart - Covington & Burling

DK Eldrup, Anders - Chairman of the Board of Directors, Danish Oil & Gas Consortium

USA Feldstein, Martin S. - President and CEO, NAtional Bureau of Economic Research

P Ferreira, Elisa Guimarães - Member of Parliament, Former Minister of Planning

USA Foley, Thomas S. - Partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld

INT Fortescue, Adrian - Director General, Justice and Internal Affairs, European Commission

CDN Frum, David - American Enterprise Institute; Former Special Assistant to President Bush

F Gergorin, Jean-Louis - Executive Vice President, Strategic Coordination, EADS

USA Gigot, Paul A. - Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal

USA Greenspan, Alan - Chairman, Federal Reserve System

NL Groenink, Rijkman W.J. - Chairman of the Board, ABN AMRO Bank N.V.

A Gusenbauer, Alfred - Member of Parliament; Chairman, Social Democratic Party

NL Halberstadt, Victor - Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings

USA Hills, Carla A. - Chairman and CEO, Hills & Company, International Consultants

USA Hoagland, Jim - Associate Editor, The Washington Post

USA Hubbard, Allan B. - President, E&A Industries

USA Hutchison, Kay Bailey - Senator (Republican, Texas)

B Huyghebaert, Jan - Chairman, Almanij N.V.

D Ischinger, Wolfgang - Ambassador to the US

USA James, Charles A. - Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust

USA Johnson, James A. - Vice Chairman, Perseus, L.L.C.

USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. - Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC

USA Kissinger, Henry A. - Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.

NL Kist, Ewald - Chairman of the Board ING N.V.

NL Kleisterlee, Gerard J. - President and CEO, Royal Philips Elecronics

D Kopper, Hilmar - Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG

USA Krauthammer, Charles - Columnist, The Washington Post

USA Kravis, Henry R. - Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

USA Kravis, Marie-Josée - Senior Fellow - Hudson Institute Inc.

CH Kudelski, André - Chairman of the Board & CEO, Kudelski Group

USA LaFalce, John J. - Congressman (Democrat, New York)

USA Leschly, Jan - Chairman & CEO, Care Capital LLC

F Lévy-Lang, André - Former Chairman, Paribas

B Lippens, Maurice - Chairman, Fortis

USA Mathews, Jessica T. - President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

USA McAuliffe, Terry - Chairman, Democratic National Committee

USA McDonough, William J. - President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

E Miguel, Ramón de - Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

USA Mitchell, Andrea - Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondant, NBC News

F Moïsi, Dominique - Deputy Director, French Institute of International Relations

F Montbrial, Thierry de - Director, French Institute of International Relations

USA Moskow, Michael H. - President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

N Myklebust, Egil - Chairman, Norsk Hydro ASA

FIN Ollia, Jorma - Chairman of the Board and CEO, Nokia Corporation

TR Özaydinlí, Bulend - CEO, Koç Holding A.S.

INT Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso - Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank

GR Papahelas, Alexis - Foreign policy columnist. TO VIMA

USA Pearl, Frank H. - Chairman and CEO, Perseus, L.L.C.

USA Perle, Richard N. - Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

D Polenz, Ruprecht - Member of Parliament, CDU/CSU

USA Prestowitz, Jr., Clyde V. - President, Economic Strategy Institute

USA Racicot, Mark - Chairman, Republican National Committee

USA Raines, Franklin D. - Chairman and CEO, Fannie Mae

A Randa, Gerhard - Chairman and CEO, Bank Austria AG

USA Rattner, Steven - Managing Principal, Quadrangle Group LLC

CDN Reisman, Heather - President and CEO, Indigo Books and Music Inc.

USA Rockefeller, David - Member, JP Morgan International Council

E Rodriguez Inciarte, Matías - Executive Vice Chairman, Banco Santander Central Hispano

GB Roll, Eric - Senior Adviser, UBS Warburg Ltd.

USA Rose, Charlie - Producer, Rose Communications

F Roy, Olivier - University Professor and Researcher, CNRS

USA Rumsfeld, Donald H. - Secretary of Defense

TR Sanberk, Özdem - Director, Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation

D Schrempp, Jurgen E. - Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG

D Schulz, Ekkehard - Chairman, ThyssenKrupp AG

F Schweitzer, Louis - Chairman and CEO, Renault S.A.

DK Seidenfaden, Tøger - Editor-in-Chief, Politiken

F Seillière, Ernest-Antoine - Chairman and CEO, CGIP

RUS Shevtsova, Lilia - Senior Associate, Carnegie Moscow Center

USA Siegman, Henry - Council on Foreign Relations

USA Soros, George - Chairman, Soros Fund Management

USA Steinberg, James B. - Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies Program

N Stoltenberg, Jens - Leader of the Opposition (Social Democratic Party)

USA Summers, Lawrence H. - President, Harvard University

IRL Sutherland, Peter D. - Chairman and Managing Director, Goldman Sachs International; Chairman BP Amoco

FIN Taxell, Christoffer - President and CEO, Partek Oyj

USA Thoman, G. Richard - Senior Advisor, Evercore Partners Inc.

USA Thornton, John L. - President and co-CEO, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

FIN Tiilikainen, Teija H. - Director of Research, Centre for European Studies

S Treschow, Michael - Chairman, Ericsson

F Trichet, Jean-Claude - Governor, Banque de France

CH Vasella, Daniel L. - Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG

USA Vink, Lodewijk J. R. de - Chairman, Global Health Care Partners; Credit Suisse First

A Vranitzky, Franz - Former Federal Chancellor

S Wallenberg, Jacob - Chairman of the Board, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken

CDN Whyte, Kenneth - Editor, The National Post

GB Williams, Gareth - Leader, House of Lords; Member of the Cabinet

INT Wolfensohn, James D. - President, The World Bank

D Zumwinkel, Klaus - Chairman of the Board of Management, Deutsche Post AG

by Newton
Sounds like one helluva gathering. Lots of movers and shakers.

If it's so secret, how did you find out about it?
by Anthony
I shall walk you through it...

"So, if you're against imperialist bloodshed, oppression, the "riches of [your] labor going into the pockets of the wealthy," then why again are you against removing Hussein from power?"
Ah, because I'm against imperialist bloodshed and oppression.

"Why be against removing someone who thought nothing to deprive his people of food and medical care in order to build himself palaces? "
Why support the invaders who thought nothing of depriving the population of the country they invaded food and medical care for 12 yrs before they invaded?

"Why be against removing someone who massacred minority populations, and had dissidents & their families killed? "
The usa unfortunately is turning into this very thing. One of the reasons this war is taking place is to legitamize such acts in the minds of americans. Torture, detention without trial, threatening the children of political opponents, the usa does all these things now. Do you like this? Best to look at the log in your own eye first. The usa supplied the chemical weapons Saddam used. They called for an uprising and when they thought it was politically inexpedient for it to succeed removed their support and whola, slaughter. What are you going to do about these guilty americans? Ever hear of the medical experiments your own government conducted on your own citizens. The syphilis experiments for example? Look into it.

"Pictures are now available on several different media outlets of these palaces and you can see for yourself how he used all of the "oil for food" money. Instead of buying antibiotics and food for his people, instead of *any* of the aid Iraq received from the international community going towards humanitarian ends, he spent it on marble walls, gold-plated bathroom fixtures--in short, luxuries that remind one of Versailles or the Winter Palace. "
First, alot of the medical goods required were not permitted to enter the country because the usa put a block on them saying they could be used for other things. Drugs necessary for the treatment of cancer were denied for example, so thanks to the remains of the DU weapons and the lack of cancer drugs alot of young people died. The palaces are mainly concrete and made of material found in country and built with iraqi paid labour. I would try to explain economics to you but it is a big subject, but let us say that in a closed economy everything just goes around in a circle ok. There is a lot of money in the food for oil program over a billion I think that is on hold, you see the food for oil program is controlled by the UN. As a side note the USA in Gulf War 1 destroied alot of the water processing plants. When Iraq tried to get replacement parts guess what happened? Look it up.

"In your endeavors to represent the tragic situation of a civilian caught in the middle of a war, you've completely ignored the tragedy of a civilian caught in an oppressive dictatorship."
I never tried here to express the tragic situation of a civilian caught up in the middle of a war here. This is a straw man and very unbecoming.

Let me explain something to you. Individual liberty is assured by dividing power. The founders of the USA divided power in the hopes that each one would be jealous of its own estate and would be a brake on the power of the others. Didn't work because the people were not vigilent. Do you know America has been in a state of emergency since WW2 thus suspending certain parts of the constitution? Most probably you haven't in your entire life lived under the full unfeetered protection of the constitution. Strange don't you think? This war is a diversion for the american people as governmental power and interference in the lives of the people is increased. You are now begginning to live in a prison. They are talking about having internal passports in america between the states now. Strange no? The president has given himself the power to have american citizens executed without trial. Infact one american citizen was executed without trial in Yemen. Interesting no? Keep your eye on the ball.
You don't all of a sudden wake up one morning and find yourself living in a gulag. The gulag is built around you brick by brick slowly so that you think things have always been like that. They haven't. The war is against you. Your cheering for your own enslavement.
by Anthony
Along time ago people would have cared alot about this kind of perfidity so for quite awhile the bilderberg group keep itself hidden. It was just something conspiracy cranks went on about, but then finally it's existance could not be denied the evidence was to overwhelming and they couldn't stop up all the cracks but by then people where so divided, dumb-downed and herd like that the bilderberg group was no longer threatened and release the guest list (I doubt, and from conference watchers have heard, that the lists are actually not full and complete).
by Anthony
"In your endeavors to represent the tragic situation of a civilian caught in the middle of a war, you've completely ignored the tragedy of a civilian caught in an oppressive dictatorship."

Whose conscience should this be on? No one's I suppose, no one is reponsible these days are they? Shit happens. Forget about it. Someone did this to this young lad. Someone is responsible.
by Anthony
6.4.2.jpeg
And if it had been Saddams reigem then the guilt would be on their hands. As it is...
by William
Easy...
by Anthony Sunday April 06, 2003 at 11:30 PM

One, I don't want to make money off of death, plus how much of the money is actually returned to the shareholder and how many of the shares are held in the hands of the few?
----------
All profits are returned to the shareholder (via dividends and/or share appreciation). If you are certain that you have found a system, you could invest and donate your profits to a charity or NGO of your choice.
==========

Take for example getting a couple of million for putting together a deal to sell nuclear reactors to north korea. Nice pickings if you can get them. Or how about a couple of million as a consultant to get fast track acceptance of a new chemical food additive from the FDA? Cool.
----------------
Please elaborate. I have a graduate degree in FDA regulatory affairs and I'm not aware that one can purchase fast-track authority. Please provide evidence so I can report it to my contacts in Washington.
==========

Also....
by Anthony Sunday April 06, 2003 at 11:39 PM

The business needs some money (not really but lets expand anyway, screw the shareholders) you know someone who can lend you the money. You borrow and pay it back with interest. The sucking sound of money being syphoned. There is a thousand tricks, and the money keeps on circulating around the same grubby hands.
-----------------
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. A public corporation can generate capital by selling more shares or acquiring debt. Both have their advantages and disadvantages (again, I don't understand your point).

by Just a thought
Here's a repost of my original message, that I thought I would repost since Anthony went into in such great, yet flawed, detail:
So, if you're against imperialist bloodshed, oppression, the "riches of [your] labor going into the pockets of the wealthy," then why again are you against removing Hussein from power? Why be against removing someone who thought nothing to deprive his people of food and medical care in order to build himself palaces? Why be against removing someone who massacred minority populations, and had dissidents & their families killed?
Pictures are now available on several different media outlets of these palaces and you can see for yourself how he used all of the "oil for food" money. Instead of buying antibiotics and food for his people, instead of *any* of the aid Iraq received from the international community going towards humanitarian ends, he spent it on marble walls, gold-plated bathroom fixtures--in short, luxuries that remind one of Versailles or the Winter Palace.
In your endeavors to represent the tragic situation of a civilian caught in the middle of a war, you've completely ignored the tragedy of a civilian caught in an oppressive dictatorship.
by Just a thought
"Ah, because I'm against imperialist bloodshed and oppression."
That isn't an answer.

"Why support the invaders who thought nothing of depriving the population of the country they invaded food and medical care for 12 yrs before they invaded?"
What are you talking about? After the 1st Gulf War ended, the U.N. first set up sanctions, then set up the oil-for-food program to offset an impending humanitarian disaster. The U.N. (including the U.S.) made food and other humanitarian goods available for the Iraqi state to buy. See http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/index.html for a description of the program.

"The palaces are mainly concrete and made of material found in country and built with iraqi paid labour. I would try to explain economics to you but it is a big subject, but let us say that in a closed economy everything just goes around in a circle ok."
Sounds like I'm not the one who needs an explanation of economics, especially the economics of exploiting U.N. aid improperly. I have seen video of the palaces, and I'm telling you, they are NOT "mainly concrete". A) CNN shows around 50 presidential palaces that have been built since the first Gulf War; B) The palaces shown in video and pictures are beautiful, detailed and *huge*. Hussein even had a private lounge at the airport with marble floors and walls, chandeliers and gold-plated fixtures. Do you think he built all of this because his country was that rich? No, while his people were starving and dying from needed medicines, he took the oil-for-food money, built palaces and continued to buy materials for banned weapons.

"I never tried here to express the tragic situation of a civilian caught up in the middle of a war here. This is a straw man and very unbecoming."
Anti-war protests do put the emphasis on how civilians will be affected by this war. And then in a subsequent post you did as well, showing a young boy who has been maimed in, presumably, a bomb attack (although, you didn't describe when the photo was taken, where it came in from, so I'm only guessing what you'll claim). It isn't unbecoming to cite what you're doing and disagree. (This is the second time I've been accused of this sort of thing; funny how politesse is seeming to make such a big comeback on Indymedia, and funny how it's only applied to people who disagree with their basic tenets.)

"Do you know America has been in a state of emergency since WW2 thus suspending certain parts of the constitution? Most probably you haven't in your entire life lived under the full unfeetered protection of the constitution."
Actually, that's false. That's a conspiracy theory mostly espoused, as far as I can figure it out from doing some quick research, by types who feel the country went to hell in a handbasket under Roosevelt.
by Anthony
From the very first couple of sentences you prove you do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend my answers so don't bother me again.
by Anthony
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.pdf
by Anthony
Of course you don't understand boy, you have a graduate degree in FDA regulatory affairs. Lol.

Rumsfeld's conflict of interest and ASPARTAME: Rumsfeld was presidentof Serle corporation! part of Reagan transition team,and got aspartame 'legalized' by appointing a defense department contractor(Hayes) as head of FDA!
by Mark Douglas Whitaker
25 August 2002 01:45 UTC

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

summary:

Rumsfeld's conflict of interests and ASPARTAME: Rumsfeld was president of
Serle corporation in 1977, maker of aspartame, then, part of Reagan
transition team, and got aspartame 'legalized' by appointing a defense
department contractor [??] (Hayes) as head of FDA!

A book should be written about American corruption and aspartame.


The Aspartame/NutraSweet Fiasco
by
James S. Turner

Many health-conscious people believe that avoiding aspartame, found in over
5000 products under brand names such as Equal and NutraSweet, can improve
their quality of life. The history of this synthetic sweetener's approval
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including a long record of
consumer complaints and the agency's demonstrated insensitivity to public
concern, suggests they're right.

In October 1980 the Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) impaneled by the FDA to
evaluate aspartame safety found that the chemical caused an unacceptable
level of brain tumors in animal testing. Based on this fact, the PBOI ruled
that aspartame should not be added to the food supply.

This ruling capped 15 years of regulatory ineptitude, chicanery and
deception by the FDA and the Searle drug company, aspartame's discoverer
and manufacturer (acquired by Monsanto in 1985), and kicked off another two
decades of maneuvering, manipulating and dissembling by FDA, Searle and
Monsanto.

In 1965, a Searle scientist licked some of a new ulcer drug from his
fingers and discovered the sweet taste of aspartame. Eureka! Selling this
chemical as a food additive to hundreds of millions of healthy people every
day would mean many more dollars than limited sales to the much smaller
group of ulcer sufferers.

Searle, a drug company with little experience in food regulation, began
studies to comply with the law -- but which failed to do so. Its early
tests of the substance showed it produced microscopic holes and tumors in
the brains of experimental mice, epileptic seizures in monkeys, and was
converted by animals into dangerous substances, including formaldehyde.

In 1974, however, in spite of the information in its files, the FDA
approved aspartame as a dry-foods additive. But the agency also made public
for the first time the data supporting a food-additive decision. This data
was subsequently reviewed by renowned brain researcher John Olney from
Washington University in St. Louis, and other scientists.

Dr. Olney discovered two studies showing brain tumors in rats and
petitioned FDA for a public hearing. Consumer Action for Improved Foods and
Drugs (represented by the author of this piece) also petitioned for a
public hearing based on the approval process having been based on sloppy
science and the product's having reportedly caused epileptic seizures in
monkeys and possible eye damage.

Dr. Olney had already shown that aspartic acid (one aspartame component)
caused microscopic holes in the brains of rats after each feeding.
Aspartame also includes phenylalinine, which causes PKU in a small number
of susceptible children, and methyl, or wood, alcohol which is neurotoxic
in large amounts.

Faced with this array of possible health dangers, FDA granted the hearing
requests. In lieu of withdrawing its aspartame approval, the agency
prevailed on Searle to refrain from marketing the sweetener until after
completion of the hearing process. it then proposed that a Public Board of
Inquiry (PBOI) review the matter.

In July of 1975, as the FDA prepared for the PBOI, an FDA inspector
conducted a routine review of the Searle's Skokie Ill., testing facilities
and found many deviations from proper procedures. This report led the FDA
commissioner to empanel a Special Commissioner's Task Force to review
Searle's labs.

In December of 1975 the Task force reported serious problem with Searle
research on a wide range of products, including aspartame. It found 11
pivotal studies conducted in a manner so flawed as to raise doubts about
aspartame safety and create the possibility of serious criminal liability
for Searle.

The FDA then stayed aspartame's approval. It also contracted, over serious
internal objection, with a group of university pathologists (paid by
Searle) to review most of the studies, set up a task force to review three
studies and asked the U.S. Attorney for Chicago to seek a grand jury review
of the monkey seizure study.

The pathologists paid by Searle only reviewed failure to properly report
data and not the study's design or conduct. They found no serious problems.
The FDA task force found Searle's key tumor safety study unreliable, but
was ignored. The U.S. attorney let the statue of limitations run out, then
(along with two aides) proceeded to join Searle's law firm.

While these committees met, the FDA organized the PBOI. Searle, the
petitioners and the FDA Bureau of Foods each nominated three members for
the board and the FDA commissioner selected one member from each list. the
board, which convened in January of 1980, rejected petitioners' request to
include the commissioner's task force information in its deliberations.
Still, in October 1980, based on its limited review, the board blocked
aspartame marketing until the tumor studies could be explained. Unless the
commissioner overruled the board, the matter was closed.

In November 1980, however, the country elected Ronald Reagan President.
Donald Rumsfeld (former congressman from Skokie, former White House chief
of staff, former secretary of defense and since January 1977 president of
Searle) joined the Reagan transition team. A full court press against the
board decision began.

In January 1981 Rumsfeld told a sales meeting, according to one attendee,
that he would call in his chips and get aspartame approved by the end of
the year. On January 25th, the day the new president took office, the
previous FDA commissioner's authority was suspended, and the next month,
the commissioner's job went to Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes.

Transition records do not show why the administration chose ***Hayes, a
professor and Defense Department contract researcher.*** In July Hayes,
defying FDA advisors, approved aspartame for dry foods -- his first major
decision. In November 1983 the FDA approved aspartame for soft drinks --
Hayes' last decision.

In November 1983 Hayes, under fire for accepting corporate gifts, left the
agency and went to Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical
advisor. Later Searle lawyer Robert Shapiro named aspartame NutraSweet.
Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro
is now Monsanto president.

Shortly after the FDA soft-drink approval, Searle began test marketing, and
complaints began to arrive at the FDA -- of such reactions as dizziness,
blurred vision, headaches, and seizures. The complaints were more serious
than the agency had ever received on any food additive, At the same time,
scientists began looking more closely at this manufactured chemical sweeetner.

In 1985, the FDA asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to review the
first 650 complaints (there are now over 10,000). CDC found that the
symptoms in approximately 25% of the complainants had stopped and then
restarted, corresponding with their having stopped and then restarted,
either purposely or by accident, aspartame consumption.

The CDC also identified several specific subjects whose symptoms stopped
and started as they stopped and started consuming aspartame. The FDA
discounted the report. The day the FDA released the CDC report, Pepsi Cola
-- having obained an advance copy -- announced its switch to aspartame with
a worldwide media blitz.

Former White House Chief of Staff Rumsfeld owed a debt of gratitude to
former White House confidante and Rumsfeld friend Donald Kendal, Pepsi's
chairman. The Pepsi announcement and aggressive marketing (millions of
gumballs, a red and white swirl, tough contracts) made NutraSweet known in
every home.

At the same time, according to data released in 1995, human brain tumors
like those in the animal studies rose 10% and previously benign tumors
turned virulent. Searle and FDA's deputy commissioner said the data posed
no problem. Two years later this same FDA official became vice president of
clinical research for Searle.

From 1985 to 1995, researchers did about 400 aspartame studies. They were
divided almost evenly between those that gave assurances and those that
raised questions about the sweetener. Most instructively, Searle paid for
100% of those finding no problem. All studies paid for by non-industry
sources raised questions.

Given this record, it is little wonder that many health-conscious people
believe avoiding NutraSweet improves their quality of life. If and when a
scientific consensus concludes that aspartame puts some, if not all, of its
consumers at risk, it will be much too late. The point is to eat safely
now. Remember: the brain you save may be your own.


James S. Turner, Esq., is a partner in the 27-year-old Washington, D.C.
consumer-interest law firm of Swankin and Turner. He is the author of The
Chemical Feast: The Nader Report on the Food and Drug Administration,
Making Your Own Baby Food, and a number of law journal and popular media
articles.



We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$190.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network