From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Aug 4 10:27:51 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:27:51 -0400 Subject: {news} Please support Props 478 (Puerto Rican Independence) and 502 (IC Mission statement); voting ends 8/8 at midnight PDT Message-ID: Dear CT delegates to the NC, There are two proposals being voted on now by the GPUS National Committee (NC) that are relevant to the International Committee, one of which is sponsored by the GPCT: 1) Platform proposal 478 drafted by our own IC member Hector Lopez/GPCT, which supports self-determination and independence for Puerto Rico. http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=478 ; http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propresult?pid=478 2) The other is the IC's slightly modified Mission Statement which we passed last year and has yet to be approved. Once this is passed, we can submit the remainder of our RP&P's, also endorsed by the IC last year. http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=502 ;http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/propresult?pid=502 VOTING FOR BOTH ends Sunday, August 8 at midnight PDT PLEASE vote YES on both Prop 478 and 502 Many thanks, Justine Co-Chair, International Committee, GPUS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Aug 4 10:29:40 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:29:40 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Obama Warned Israel May Bomb Iran Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Global Network To: GN List Serve Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:53 PM Subject: Obama Warned Israel May Bomb Iran Obama Warned Israel May Bomb Iran MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) SUBJECT: War With Iran We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war. Israel's leaders would calculate that once the battle is joined, it will be politically untenable for you to give anything less than unstinting support to Israel, no matter how the war started, and that U.S. troops and weaponry would flow freely. Wider war could eventually result in destruction of the state of Israel. This can be stopped, but only if you move quickly to pre-empt an Israeli attack by publicly condemning such a move before it happens. We believe that comments by senior American officials, you included, reflect misplaced trust in Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu. Actually, the phrasing itself can be revealing, as when CIA Director Panetta implied cavalierly that Washington leaves it up to the Israelis to decide whether and when to attack Iran, and how much "room" to give to the diplomatic effort. On June 27, Panetta casually told ABC's Jake Tapper, "I think they are willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically . as opposed to changing them militarily." Similarly, the tone you struck referring to Netanyahu and yourself in your July 7 interview with Israeli TV was distinctly out of tune with decades of unfortunate history with Israeli leaders. "Neither of us try to surprise each other," you said, "and that approach is one that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to." You may wish to ask Vice President Biden to remind you of the kind of surprises he has encountered in Israel. Blindsiding has long been an arrow in Israel's quiver. During the emerging Middle East crisis in the spring of 1967, some of us witnessed closely a flood of Israeli surprises and deception, as Netanyahu's predecessors feigned fear of an imminent Arab attack as justification for starting a war to seize and occupy Arab territories. We had long since concluded that Israel had been exaggerating the Arab "threat" - well before 1982 when former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin publicly confessed: "In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and also mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify expansion of its borders. Given this record, one would be well advised to greet with appropriate skepticism any private assurances Netanyahu may have given you that Israel would not surprise you with an attack on Iran. Netanyahu's Calculations Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your reluctance even to mention in controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship. During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene. This prime minister learned well from Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu's attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them. The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward - and wonderment at - an America so easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says: "America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. . They won't get in our way . Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd." Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be "a con artist . who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes," adding that such behavior "does not change over the years." As mentioned above, Netanyahu has had instructive role models. None other than Gen. Brent Scowcroft told the Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush "mesmerized;" that "Sharon just has him "wrapped around his little finger." (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and told never again to darken the White House doorstep.) If further proof of American political support for Netanyahu were needed, it was manifest when Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham visited Israel during the second week of July. Lieberman asserted that there is wide support in Congress for using all means to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including "through military actions if we must." Graham was equally explicit: "The Congress has Israel's back," he said. More recently, 47 House Republicans have signed onto H.R. 1553 declaring "support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran . including the use of military force." The power of the Likud Lobby, especially in an election year, facilitates Netanyahu's attempts to convince those few of his colleagues who need convincing that there may never be a more auspicious time to bring about "regime change" in Tehran. And, as we hope your advisers have told you, regime change, not Iranian nuclear weapons, is Israel's primary concern. If Israel's professed fear that one or two nuclear weapons in Iran's arsenal would be a game changer, one would have expected Israeli leaders to jump up and down with glee at the possibility of seeing half of Iran's low enriched uranium shipped abroad. Instead, they dismissed as a "trick" the tripartite deal, brokered by Turkey and Brazil with your personal encouragement, that would ship half of Iran's low enriched uranium outside Tehran's control. The National Intelligence Estimate The Israelis have been looking on intently as the U.S. intelligence community attempts to update, in a "Memorandum to Holders," the NIE of November 2007 on Iran's nuclear program. It is worth recalling a couple of that Estimate's key judgments: "We judge with high confidence that in fall of 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. . We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons ." Earlier this year, public congressional testimony by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (February 1 & 2) and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Gen. Ronald Burgess with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James Cartwright (April 14) did not alter those key judgments. Blair and others continued to underscore the intelligence community's agnosticism on one key point: as Blair put it earlier this year, "We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build a nuclear weapon." The media have reported off-the-cuff comments by Panetta and by you, with a darker appraisal - with you telling Israeli TV ". all indicators are that they [the Iranians] are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon;" and Panetta telling ABC, "I think they continue to work on designs in that area [of weaponization]." Panetta hastened to add, though, that in Tehran, "There is a continuing debate right now as to whether or not they ought to proceed with the bomb." Israel probably believes it must give more weight to the official testimony of Blair, Burgess, and Cartwright, which dovetail with the earlier NIE, and the Israelis are afraid that the long-delayed Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE will essentially affirm that Estimate's key judgments. Our sources tell us that an honest Memorandum to Holders is likely to do precisely that, and that they suspect that the several-months-long delay means intelligence judgments are being "fixed" around the policy - as was the case before the attack on Iraq. One War Prevented The key judgments of the November 2007 NIE shoved an iron rod into the wheel spokes of the Dick Cheney-led juggernaut rolling toward war on Iran. The NIE infuriated Israel leaders eager to attack before President Bush and Vice President Cheney left office. This time, Netanyahu fears that issuance of an honest Memorandum might have similar effect. Bottom line: more incentive for Israel to pre-empt such an Estimate by striking Iran sooner rather than later. Last week's announcement that U.S. officials will meet next month with Iranian counterparts to resume talks on ways to arrange higher enrichment of Iranian low enriched uranium for Tehran's medical research reactor was welcome news to all but the Israeli leaders. In addition, Iran reportedly has said it would be prepared to halt enrichment to 20 percent (the level needed for the medical research reactor), and has made it clear that it looks forward to the resumption of talks. Again, an agreement that would send a large portion of Iran's LEU abroad would, at a minimum, hinder progress toward nuclear weapons, should Iran decide to develop them. But it would also greatly weaken Israel's scariest rationale for an attack on Iran. Bottom line: with the talks on what Israel's leaders earlier labeled a "trick" now scheduled to resume in September, incentive builds in Tel Aviv for the Israelis to attack before any such agreement can be reached. We'll say it again: the objective is regime change. Creating synthetic fear of Iranian nuclear weapons is simply the best way to "justify" bringing about regime change. Worked well for Iraq, no? Another War in Need of Prevention A strong public statement by you, personally warning Israel not to attack Iran would most probably head off such an Israeli move. Follow-up might include dispatching Adm. Mullen to Tel Aviv with military-to-military instructions to Israel: Don't Even Think of It. In the wake of the 2007 NIE, President Bush overruled Vice President Cheney and sent Adm. Mullen to Israel to impart that hard message. A much-relieved Mullen arrived home that spring sure of step and grateful that he had dodged the likelihood of being on the end of a Cheney-inspired order for him to send U.S. forces into war with Iran. This time around, Mullen returned with sweaty palms from a visit to Israel in February 2010. Ever since, he has been worrying aloud that Israel might mousetrap the U.S. into war with Iran, while adding the obligatory assurance that the Pentagon does have an attack plan for Iran, if needed. In contrast to his experience in 2008, though, Mullen seemed troubled that Israel's leaders did not take his warnings seriously. While in Israel, Mullen insisted publicly that an attack on Iran would be "a big, big, big problem for all of us, and I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences." After his return, at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22 Mullen drove home the same point. After reciting the usual boilerplate about Iran being "on the path to achieve nuclear weaponization" and its "desire to dominate its neighbors," he included the following in his prepared remarks: "For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive." Unlike younger generals - David Petraeus, for example - Adm. Mullen served in the Vietnam War. That experience is probably what prompts asides like this: "I would remind everyone of an essential truth: War is bloody and uneven. It's messy and ugly and incredibly wasteful ." Although the immediate context for that remark was Afghanistan, Mullen has underscored time and again that war with Iran would be a far larger disaster. Those with a modicum of familiarity with the military, strategic and economic equities at stake know he is right. Other Steps In 2008, after Mullen read the Israelis the riot act, they put their pre-emptive plans for Iran aside. With that mission accomplished, Mullen gave serious thought to ways to prevent any unintended (or, for that matter, deliberately provoked) incidents in the crowded Persian Gulf that could lead to wider hostilities. Mullen sent up an interesting trial balloon at a July 2, 2008, press conference, when he indicated that military-to-military dialogue could "add to a better understanding" between the U.S. and Iran. But nothing more was heard of this overture, probably because Cheney ordered him to drop it. It was a good idea - still is. The danger of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation in the crowded Persian Gulf has not been addressed, and should be. Establishment of a direct communications link between top military officials in Washington and Tehran would reduce the danger of an accident, miscalculation, or covert, false-flag attack. In our view, that should be done immediately - particularly since recently introduced sanctions assert a right to inspect Iranian ships. The naval commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards reportedly has threatened "a response in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," if anyone tries to inspect Iranian ships in international waters. Another safety valve would result from successful negotiation of the kind of bilateral "incidents-at-sea" protocol that was concluded with the Russians in 1972 during a period of relatively high tension. With only interim nobodies at the helm of the intelligence community, you may wish to consider knocking some heads together yourself and insisting that it finish an honest Memorandum to Holders of the 2007 NIE by mid-August - recording any dissents, as necessary. Sadly, our former colleagues tell us that politicization of intelligence analysis did not end with the departure of Bush and Cheney.and that the problem is acute even at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which in the past has done some of the best professional, objective, tell-it-like-it-is analysis. Pundits, Think Tanks: Missing the Point As you may have noticed, most of page one of Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section was given to an article titled, "A Nuclear Iran: Would America Strike to Prevent It? - Imagining Obama's Response to an Iranian Missile Crisis." Page five was dominated by the rest of the article, under the title "Who will blink first when Iran is on the brink?" A page-wide photo of a missile rolling past Iranian dignitaries on a reviewing stand (reminiscent of the familiar parades on Red Square) is aimed at the centerfold of the Outlook section, as if poised to blow it to smithereens. Typically, the authors address the Iranian "threat" as though it endangers the U.S., even though Secretary Clinton has stated publicly that this is not the case. They write that one option for the U.S. is "the lonely, unpopular path of taking military action lacking allied consensus." O Tempora, O Mores! In less than a decade, wars of aggression have become nothing more than lonely, unpopular paths. What is perhaps most remarkable, though, is that the word Israel is nowhere to be found in this very long article. Similar think pieces, including some from relatively progressive think tanks, also address these issues as though they were simply bilateral U.S.-Iranian problems, with little or no attention to Israel. Guns of August? The stakes could hardly be higher. Letting slip the dogs of war would have immense repercussions. Again, we hope that Adm. Mullen and others have given you comprehensive briefings on them. Netanyahu would be taking a fateful gamble by attacking Iran, with high risk to everyone involved. The worst, but conceivable case, has Netanyahu playing - unintentionally - Dr. Kevorkian to the state of Israel. Even if the U.S. were to be sucked into a war provoked by Israel, there is absolutely no guarantee that the war would come out well. Were the U.S. to suffer significant casualties, and were Americans to become aware that such losses came about because of exaggerated Israeli claims of a nuclear threat from Iran, Israel could lose much of its high standing in the United States. There could even be an upsurge in anti-Semitism, as Americans conclude that officials with dual loyalties in Congress and the executive branch threw our troops into a war provoked, on false pretenses, by Likudniks for their own narrow purposes. We do not have a sense that major players in Tel Aviv or in Washington are sufficiently sensitive to these critical factors. You are in position to prevent this unfortunate, but likely chain reaction. We allow for the possibility that Israeli military action might not lead to a major regional war, but we consider the chances of that much less than even. Footnote: VIPS Experience We VIPS have found ourselves in this position before. We prepared our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of February 5, 2003 after Colin Powell's speech at the UN. We had been watching how our profession was being corrupted into serving up faux intelligence that was later criticized (correctly) as "uncorroborated, contradicted, and nonexistent" - adjectives used by former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller after a five-year investigation by his committee. As Powell spoke, we decided collectively that the responsible thing to do was to try to warn the President before he acted on misguided advice to attack Iraq. Unlike Powell, we did not claim that our analysis was "irrefutable and undeniable." We did conclude with this warning: "After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion . beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic." (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/vipstwelve.pdf) We take no satisfaction at having gotten it right on Iraq. Others with claim to more immediate expertise on Iraq were issuing similar warnings. But we were kept well away from the wagons circled by Bush and Cheney. Sadly, your own Vice President, who was then chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, was among the most assiduous in blocking opportunities for dissenting voices to be heard. This is part of what brought on the worst foreign policy disaster in our nation's history. We now believe that we may also be right on (and right on the cusp of) another impending catastrophe of even wider scope - Iran - on which another President, you, are not getting good advice from your closed circle of advisers. They are probably telling you that, since you have privately counseled Prime Minister Netanyahu against attacking Iran, he will not do it. This could simply be the familiar syndrome of telling the President what they believe he wants to hear. Quiz them; tell them others believe them to be dead wrong on Netanyahu. The only positive here is that you - only you - can prevent an Israeli attack on Iran. Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) a.. Phil Giraldi, Directorate of Operations, CIA (20 years) b.. Larry Johnson, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years) c.. W. Patrick Lang, Col., USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: Defense Intelligence Officer for Middle East/South Asia, Director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years) d.. Ray McGovern, US Army Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA (30 years) e.. Coleen Rowley, Special Agent and Minneapolis Division Counsel, FBI (24 years) f.. Ann Wright, Col., US Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service Officer, Department of State (16 years) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 443-9502 globalnet at mindspring.com www.space4peace.org http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chapillsbury at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 20:42:49 2010 From: chapillsbury at gmail.com (Charlie Pillsbury) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:42:49 -0400 Subject: {news} Purpose: Nominate the Green Party Candidate for U.S. Representative from the Third Congressional District. Message-ID: August 10, 2010 Subject: Statutory Notice of Meeting to Nominate Minor Party Candidate To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to CT General Statutes *Sec. 9-452a*, as Co-Chair of the New Haven Green Party and as the presiding officer of this nominating meeting, I hereby provide statutory notice of a Green Party nominating meeting to be held: *Date*: *Monday, August 30, 2010* *Time*: *7:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. * *Location*: *Westside Bar & Grille, 883 Whalley Avenue, New Haven** * *Purpose*: *Nominate the Green Party Candidate for U.S. Representative from the Third Congressional District*. Nominations shall be accepted from the floor. Only registered Greens who are residents of the Third Congressional District and are present at the meeting may be nominated. Only registered Greens who are residents of the Third Congressional District and are present at the meeting are eligible to vote. The nominee must receive support from a simple majority of those who actually vote. If there is more than one person nominated, instant runoff voting will be used and abstentions will not be counted as votes. Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Pillsbury, Co-Chair, New Haven Green Party 247 Saint Ronan Street New Haven CT 06511 203-865-6575 chapillsbury at igc.org -- Charlie Pillsbury, CTGP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Aug 16 12:07:36 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:07:36 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Vivek Ananthan To: usgp-int at gp-us.org ; gppa-delegates-discuss at gpofpa.org Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 8:10 AM Subject: USGP-INT Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima The consequences of a US war crime Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima By Tom Eley 23 July 2010 The Iraqi city of Fallujah continues to suffer the ghastly consequences of a US military onslaught in late 2004. According to the authors of a new study, "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009," the people of Fallujah are experiencing higher rates of cancer, leukemia, infant mortality, and sexual mutations than those recorded among survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the years after those Japanese cities were incinerated by US atomic bomb strikes in 1945. The epidemiological study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Studies and Public Health (IJERPH), also finds the prevalence of these conditions in Fallujah to be many times greater than in nearby nations. The assault on Fallujah, a city located 43 miles west of Baghdad, was one of the most horrific war crimes of our time. After the population resisted the US-led occupation of Iraq-a war of neo-colonial plunder launched on the basis of lies-Washington determined to make an example of the largely Sunni city. This is called "exemplary" or "collective" punishment and is, according to the laws of war, illegal. The new public health study of the city now all but proves what has long been suspected: that a high proportion of the weaponry used in the assault contained depleted uranium, a radioactive substance used in shells to increase their effectiveness. In a study of 711 houses and 4,843 individuals carried out in January and February 2010, authors Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan, Entesar Ariabi and a team of researchers found that the cancer rate had increased fourfold since before the US attack five years ago, and that the forms of cancer in Fallujah are similar to those found among the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors, who were exposed to intense fallout radiation. In Fallujah the rate of leukemia is 38 times higher, the childhood cancer rate is 12 times higher, and breast cancer is 10 times more common than in populations in Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait. Heightened levels of adult lymphoma and brain tumors were also reported. At 80 deaths out of every 1,000 births, the infant mortality rate in Fallujah is more than five times higher than in Egypt and Jordan, and eight times higher than in Kuwait. Strikingly, after 2005 the proportion of girls born in Fallujah has increased sharply. In normal populations, 1050 boys are born for every 1000 girls. But among those born in Fallujah in the four years after the US assault, the ratio was reduced to 860 boys for every 1000 female births. This alteration is similar to gender ratios found in Hiroshima after the US atomic attack of 1945. The most likely reason for the change in the sex ratio, according to the researchers, is the impact of a major mutagenic event-likely the use of depleted uranium in US weapons. While boys have one X-chromosome, girls have a redundant X-chromosome and can therefore absorb the loss of one chromosome through genetic damage. "This is an extraordinary and alarming result," said Busby, a professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Ulster and director of scientific research for Green Audit, an independent environmental research group. "To produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened. We need urgently to find out what the agent was. Although many suspect uranium, we cannot be certain without further research and independent analysis of samples from the area." Busby told an Italian television news station, RAI 24, that the "extraordinary" increase in radiation-related maladies in Fallujah is higher than that found in the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the US atomic strikes of 1945. "My guess is that this was caused by depleted uranium," he said. "They must be connected." The US military uses depleted uranium, also known as spent nuclear fuel, in armor-piercing shells and bullets because it is twice as dense as lead. Once these shells hit their target, however, as much as 40 percent of the uranium is released in the form of tiny particles in the area of the explosion. It can remain there for years, easily entering the human bloodstream, where it lodges itself in lymph glands and attacks the DNA produced in the sperm and eggs of affected adults, causing, in turn, serious birth defects in the next generation. The research is the first systematic scientific substantiation of a body of evidence showing a sharp increase in infant mortality, birth defects, and cancer in Fallujah. In October of 2009, several Iraqi and British doctors wrote a letter to the United Nations demanding an inquiry into the proliferation of radiation-related sickness in the city: "Young women in Fallujah in Iraq are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukemias.. "In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital had 170 newborn babies, 24 percent of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75 percent of the dead babies were classified as deformed.. "Doctors in Fallujah have specifically pointed out that not only are they witnessing unprecedented numbers of birth defects, but premature births have also considerably increased after 2003. But what is more alarming is that doctors in Fallujah have said, 'a significant number of babies that do survive begin to develop severe disabilities at a later stage.'" (See: "Sharp rise in birth defects in Iraqi city destroyed by US military") The Pentagon responded to this report by asserting that there were no studies to prove any proliferation of deformities or other maladies associated with US military actions. "No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues," a Defense Department spokesman told the BBC in March. There have been no studies, however, in large part because Washington and its puppet Baghdad regime have blocked them. According to the authors of "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah," the Iraqi authorities attempted to scuttle their survey. "[S]hortly after the questionnaire survey was completed, Iraqi TV reportedly broadcast that a questionnaire survey was being carried out by terrorists and that anyone who was answering or administering the questionnaire could be arrested," the study reports. The history of the atrocity committed by American imperialism against the people of Fallujah began on April 28, 2003, when US Army soldiers fired indiscriminately into a crowd of about 200 residents protesting the conversion of a local school into a US military base. Seventeen were killed in the unprovoked attack, and two days later American soldiers fired on a protest against the murders, killing two more. This intensified popular anger, and Fallujah became a center of the Sunni resistance against the occupation-and US reprisals. On March 31, 2004, an angry crowd stopped a convoy of the private security firm Blackwater USA, responsible for its own share of war crimes. Four Blackwater mercenaries were dragged from their vehicles, beaten, burned, and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River. The US military then promised it would pacify the city, with one unnamed officer saying it would be turned into "a killing field," but Operation Vigilant Resolve, involving thousands of Marines, ended in the abandonment of the siege by the US military in May, 2004. The victory of Fallujah's residents against overwhelming military superiority was celebrated throughout Iraq and watched all over the world. The Pentagon delivered its response in November 2004. The city was surrounded, and all those left inside were declared to be enemy combatants and fair game for the most heavily equipped killing machine in world history. The Associated Press reported that men attempting to flee the city with their families were turned back into the slaughterhouse. In the attack, the US made heavy use of the chemical agent white phosphorus. Ostensibly used only for illuminating battlefields, white phosphorus causes terrible and often fatal wounds, burning its way through building material and clothing before eating away skin and then bone. The chemical was also used to suck the oxygen out of buildings where civilians were hiding. Washington's desire for revenge against the population is indicated by the fact that the US military reported about the same number of "gunmen" killed (1,400) as those taken alive as prisoners (1,300-1,500). In one instance, NBC News captured video footage of a US soldier executing a wounded and helpless Iraqi man. A Navy investigation later found the Marine had been acting in self-defense. Fifty-one US soldiers died in 10 days of combat. The true number of city residents who were killed is not known. The city's population before the attack was estimated to be between 425,000 and 600,000. The current population is believed to be between 250,000 and 300,000. Tens of thousands, mostly women and children, fled in advance of the attack. Half of the city's building were destroyed, most of these reduced to rubble. Like much of Iraq, Fallujah remains in ruins. According to a recent report from IRIN, a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Fallujah still has no functioning sewage system six years after the attack. "Waste pours onto the streets and seeps into drinking water supplies," the report notes. "Abdul-Sattar Kadhum al-Nawaf, director of Fallujah general hospital, said the sewage problem had taken its toll on residents' health. They were increasingly affected by diarrhea, tuberculosis, typhoid and other communicable diseases." The savagery of the US assault shocked the world, and added the name Fallujah to an infamous list that includes My Lai, Sabra-Shatila, Gu?rnica, Nanking, Lidice, and Wounded Knee. But unlike those other massacres, the crime against Fallujah did not end when the bullets were no longer fired or the bombs stopped falling. The US military's decision to heavily deploy depleted uranium, all but proven by "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah," was a wanton act of brutality, poisoning an entire generation of children not yet born in 2004. The Fallujah study is timely, with the US now preparing a major escalation of the violence in Afghanistan. The former head of US Afghanistan operations, General Stanley McChrystal, was replaced last month after a media campaign, assisted by a Rolling Stone magazine feature, accused him, among other things, of tying the hands of US soldiers in their response to Afghan insurgents. McChrystal was replaced by General David Petraeus, formerly head of the US Central Command. Petraeus has outlined new rules of engagement designed to allow for the use of disproportionate force against suspected militants. Petraeus, in turn, was replaced at Central Command by General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, who played a key planning role in the US assault on Fallujah in 2004. Mattis revels in killing, telling a public gathering in 2005 "it's fun to shoot some people.... You know, it's a hell of a hoot." The author also reccommends: Fallujah and the laws of war [24 November 2004] Horrific scenes from the ashes of Fallujah [18 November 2004] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Aug 16 12:11:50 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:11:50 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT House Republicans Introduce Resolution Supporting Israel'sUse of Military Force against Iran Message-ID: <543205CD696B41EDA58591E56B2A5F25@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: Romi Elnagar To: Green Party International Committee Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 2:24 AM Subject: USGP-INT House Republicans Introduce Resolution Supporting Israel'sUse of Military Force against Iran --- On Sat, 7/24/10, Romi Elnagar wrote: From: Romi Elnagar Subject: House Republicans Introduce Resolution Supporting Israel's Use of Military Force against Iran To: Date: Saturday, July 24, 2010, 1:20 AM House Republicans Introduce Resolution Supporting Israel's Use of Military Force against Iran FYI, on 22 July 2010, the worst lunatics in the mad House introduced H.RES. 1553: Expressing support for the State of Israel's right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel. (emphasis added) The insane resolution has 46 co-sponsors. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cf. Jamal Abdi, "Resolution Green-Lighting Israeli Strikes on Iran Introduced by House Republicans" (National Iranian American Council, 23 July 2010); and National Iranian American Council, "Don't Let Congress Green-Light Attack on Iran" (23 July 2010). ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Full text at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/israel240710.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Aug 23 06:57:44 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:57:44 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Australian elections--good news Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Julia Willebrand To: usgp-int at gp-us.org Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 9:59 PM Subject: USGP-INT Australian elections Begin forwarded message: From: Miriam Solomon Date: August 22, 2010 8:43:34 PM EDT To: GGN Subject: [GGNetwork] FW: [GGCoord] Australian elections ------ Forwarded Message From: Margaret Blakers Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:31:03 +1000 To: Subject: [GGCoord] Australian elections Hi all -- what a great weekend for the Greens in Australia. We're calling it a 'greenslide'. It will still be a couple of weeks until all the votes are counted and we know exactly what the results are. But what's clear is this is a HUGE win for the Greens. Climate change was a key issue but it was much more than that. Here's what it looks like at the moment. Overall vote: in the House of Reps 11.4% and in the Senate 12.96%. These will go up a bit as the postal and absentee votes come in where we generally do better which means we're on 12--13% overall. This is the best result ever for a minor party in Australia. House of Representatives (lower house). The Greens have won their first ever seat in the House of Reps in a general election. Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne got 36% of the primary vote; the Liberals (conservatives) got 20% and Labor 39%. With preferences, Adam wins the seat by 56% to 44%. Senate (upper house). We will definitely have 8 Senators and probably 9. That will be two each in Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia and one in Victoria, Queensland, and probably NSW. There are still a couple of outside chances for additional seats but we won't know for up to two weeks. During that time postal and absentee votes come in and we won't get the final result until they are all counted. We will have a 'hung' parliament where neither of the major parties has a majority meaning that they will have to negotiate with independents and the Greens to determine who will form the government. That process will take days to weeks. In the Senate the Greens will hold the balance of power, whoever forms government in the House of Reps -- but not until July 2011! The Senate has fixed terms so existing Senators stay put for another 9 months. The voting system makes this a very unusual result, the first time since 1940 that we've had a hung parliament. It's going to be fascinating to see how it plays out and whether the old parties can bring themselves to share power. Margaret Margaret Blakers Green New Deal: Ecology, Economy, Democracy From ideas to action, help shape our green future http://greeninstitute.org.au/gnd/ Green Institute GPO Box 557 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia Ph. +(61) 0419 877 325 www.greeninstitute.org.au margaret.blakers at bigpond.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ coord mailing list coord at lists.globalgreens.org http://lists.globalgreens.org/listinfo.cgi/coord-globalgreens.org ------ End of Forwarded Message _______________________________________________ network mailing list network at globalgreens.org http://lists.globalgreens.org/listinfo.cgi/network-globalgreens.org Julia Willebrand, Ed.D Corporate Accountability Task Force julia.willebrand at verizon.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Mon Aug 23 11:59:44 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:59:44 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: Australian Parliament Goes Green - Congress is Next! Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Green Party of the United States To: justinemccabe at earthlink.net Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:44 AM Subject: Australian Parliament Goes Green - Congress is Next! Back to GP.org Donate to the Green Party Congratulations to the Australian Green Party! Last weekend the Green Party elected its first member of the Australian House of Representatives. The party also won 14% of the vote in the Australian Senate, winning the balance of power in that body. Because neither of the major parties hold a majority, each must come to the Greens to build coalitions for new legislation. Greens around the country celebrated this historic victory. We need your help to follow suit and elect Greens to Congress. Party Leader Bob Brown called the showing a "Greenslide". Greens won in each of the country's six states, taking a total of ten seats. Commentators in the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the win was "phenomenal" and that the Greens are taking the Senate on "quite a move to the left after years and years of being dominated by the right." Australian Greens can thank a proportional voting system for a small part of their success. Greens here continue working to break through exclusionary debates and media silence to elect Greens to office on the local and state level. With your support, we can elect Greens to Congress. The 300th Green candidate declared their run for office here in the United States earlier this month. Check out all of our 2010 candidates and find a candidate near you. Please support our Green Party candidates on the county, state, and federal levels by making a contribution to the Green Party of the United States. With your help, we can follow the Australian lead and elect a Green to Congress! P.S. If you have already shown your support for the Green Party of the United States recently, we thank you. Consider supporting the Green Senatorial Campaign Committee as well. This committee is devoted to collecting resources to support Green candidates for U.S. House and Senate. Support the Green Party! Donate today. A Greener future is within our reach. Your donation today can help us bring the vision we share a little closer to reality. Spread this message on Facebook and Twitter. You can sustain the Green Party by making a recurring donation on a monthly basis. Donate here. Unsubscribe from future mailings here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Tue Aug 24 21:28:50 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:28:50 -0400 Subject: {news} GP RELEASE: US Greens congratulate Australian Greens on election 'greenslide' in Parliament Message-ID: <9B7594D49C06472EA04A2310E9A040E5@JUSTINE> GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES http://www.gp.org For Immediate Release: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 Contacts: Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty at greens.org Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene at gp.org US Greens congratulate Australian Greens on election victories in Parliament . Australia's 'greenslide' is a result of Proportional Representation -- a reform promoted by Greens for fair elections in the US . "Hung Parliament" will give Australian Greens unprecedented power . Green Party Speakers Bureau: Greens available to speak on international issues, electoral reform, related topics: http://www.gp.org/speakers/subjects.php WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party of the United States congratulates Australian Greens (http://greens.org.au) on their 'greenslide' in Australia's parliamentary elections on Saturday, August 21. Preliminary results show the Greens will take ten seats in the Australian House of Representatives and Senate. "The Australian Greens' impressive totals follow on the election of Caroline Lucas, the first Green to Parliament in the UK, in May," said Julia Willebrand, candidate for New York State Comptroller (http://www.juliaforcomptroller.com) and member of the Green Party's International Committee (http://www.gp.org/committees/intl). "It's only a matter of time before the first Green is elected to the US Congress. We need a shock to the two-party status quo in America, the kind of shock we're seeing now in Australia." "When we get some Greens in Congress in the US, we'll see an enormous change in the direction of America -- a change for the better, since Democrats and Republicans will no longer take their exclusive control over US politics and government for granted. Like Australia and the UK, Americans will have legislators from a party dedicated to human needs, human rights, and the health of our planet," Ms. Willebrand added. US Greens noted that the Green wins in Australia were a result of Proportional Representation (PR), a democratic reform "whose major goal is to ensure that parties and political groups are allocated seats in legislative bodies in proportion to their share of the vote. For example, a party receiving 30% of the national vote should receive approximately 30% of the seats in the national legislature." (http://www.fairvote.org) Green Parties in the US, Australia, and other countries support PR and contrast such reforms with the winner-take-all/plurality voting system prevalent in the US, in which a party with a plurality or a 51% majority can sweep an election with a disproportionate number of wins and shut out other parties and the voters who vote for them. Greens in the US have argued that America is too diverse to be represented by only two parties -- especially two parties with many similar positions and a mutual addiction to corporate contributions and influence. Green leaders also noted that Australians take elections so seriously that voting is compulsory for state and federal elections. Margaret Blakers, director of The Green Institute in Australia (http://greeninstitute.org.au), provided a preliminary analysis of the election: "Here's what it looks like at the moment. Overall vote: in the House of Reps 11.4% and in the Senate 12.96%. These will go up a bit as the postal and absentee votes come in where we generally do better which means we're on 12--13% overall. This is the best result ever for a minor party in Australia. House of Representatives (lower house): the Greens have won their first ever seat in the House of Reps in a general election. Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne got 36% of the primary vote; the Liberals (conservatives) got 20% and Labor 39%. With preferences, Adam wins the seat by 56% to 44%. Senate (upper house): we will definitely have 8 Senators and probably nine. That will be two each in Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia and one in Victoria, Queensland, and probably NSW [New South Wales]. There are still a couple of outside chances for additional seats but we won't know for up to two weeks. During that time postal and absentee votes come in and we won't get the final result until they are all counted." Ms. Blakers, who is also member of the Global Greens Coordination (the body that connects Green Parties on the global level: http://www.globalgreens.org), said that the election will result in a "hung" Parliament "where neither of the major parties has a majority meaning that they will have to negotiate with independents and the Greens to determine who will form the government... It's going to be fascinating to see how it plays out and whether the old parties can bring themselves to share power." "What's clear is this is a huge win for the Greens. Climate change was a key issue but it was much more than that," added Ms. Blakers. MORE INFORMATION Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org 202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN . Green candidate database and campaign information: http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml . Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml . Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers . Green Party ballot access page http://www.gp.org/2008-elections . Green Party Livestream Channel http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus "There's a new light on the hill, and it's bright Green" The Sydney Morning Herald, August 23, 2010 http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/theres-a-new-light-on-the-hill-and-its-bright-green-20100822-13axg.html "Make History Melbourne. The Greens." Video clip featuring Adam Bandt, elected to the Australian House of Representatives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Us6LZ75z0A "Australian result shows advantage of MMP [Proportional Representation]" Metiria Turei, Member of Parliament, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, August 23, 2010 http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/australian-result-shows-advantage-mmp Video clips from the Green Party's 2010 Annual National Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, June 24-27 http://www.gp.org http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States http://gp.org/greenpages-blog ~ END ~ GP RELEASE: US Greens congratulate Australian Greens on election 'greenslide' in Parliament -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justinemccabe at earthlink.net Wed Aug 25 11:28:29 2010 From: justinemccabe at earthlink.net (Justine McCabe) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:28:29 -0400 Subject: {news} Fw: USGP-INT Interesting news re our sister party in Sweden Message-ID: <4CCF11903B30456EB11E363151A7FFA8@JUSTINE> ----- Original Message ----- From: Julia Willebrand To: usgp-int at gp-us.org Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:14 AM Subject: USGP-INT Interesting news re our sister party in Sweden http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=5845 Green party is growing fast in Stockholm Local News | 2010-08-24 A new survey in Stockholm shows that the centre-right alliance who is currently governing in Stockholm is ten percentage units ahead of the red-green opposition. But the remarcable about the survey is the explosive increase of the Green party. Slightly more than 1,000 Stockholmers answered last week to the survey made by Synovate institute. Compared with the last election result, the red-greens increase their support with three percentage units to 43.9. The centre-right alliance got 53.5 percent. The Green party in Stockholm is however the big winner. Compared with the 2006 elections the Greens have doubled their support, this means an increase with 100 percent.. In this survey they got 18.2 percent which means that they are almost as big as the Social Democrats' 20.2 percent. - The increase of the Green Party is astonishing. It is very unusual that a party succeeds to double their support during one single lenngth of office, says Nicklas K?llebring, analyst at Synovate to newspaper Dagens Nyheter. The Social Democrats' result is historically low but they have on the other hand decreased gradually in Stockholm since 2002. The Moderate party consolidates their position as Stockholm's strongest party. With 37.6 percent they have a statistically significant increase with 0,4 percent. They seem to have stabilised around 37 percent according to K?llebring. Mats ?hl?n mats.ohlen at stockholmnews.com Julia Willebrand, Ed.D GPNY 212 877-5088 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ usgp-int mailing list usgp-int at gp-us.org http://forum.greens.org/mailman/listinfo/usgp-int -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: