President Bush has sent Congress a request for $74.7bn (£47.5bn) to pay for the first six months of the war.

Paying for the Iraq war
Military operations: $44bn
Call up of reserves: $10bn
Munitions: $6.5bn
Reconstruction: $1.7bn
Humanitarian aid: $500m
FBI: $500m
Coast Guard: $1.5bn
Afghanistan aid: $400m
Aid to Israel: $10bn
Aid to Jordan, Egypt: $1bn each

source: OMB, Congress

Για να δειτε ποσο πολυ 'ανθρωπιστες' ειναι οι φιλοι μας οι Αμερικανοι, προσεξτε ποσα λεφτα θα δωσουν για 'Humanitarian aid', σε σχεση παντα με τα υπολοιπα. Τους καταστρεφουμε τη χωρα, τους σκοτωνουμε, και αφου τους παρουμε τα πετρελαια τους δινουμε και $500m για 'ανθρωπιστικους' λογους.

Ανεπαναληπτοι!!!

Costs of occupation

But the war bill is unlikely to spell out the future costs of reconstruction and occupation over several years.

That is partly because it is not yet clear how much damage will need to be repaired in Iraq.

The US government is also hoping that some of the $25bn in annual oil revenue could be used in reconstruction.

And it would like other countries, for example Japan and South Korea, contribute to rebuilding costs, in return for their firms receiving construction contracts.

A Pentagon official said that the $62bn war cost was made up of four phases:

$30.3bn for the build-up, or 'coercive diplomacy'
$13bn for the war or 'major conflict phase'
$12bn for establishing order in the 'stability phase'
$7.2bn for the 'reconstruction phase'
These costs only cover the US fiscal year 2003, which ends 1 October 2003.

Ο χρήστης spiros έγραψε:

Α Π Α Ι Χ Τ Ο Σ !!!!
Οπως γραφω και πιο πανω, του εχω μια 'αδυναμια'...

Και εγώ το ίδιο----->

Ο χρήστης gavriil1 έγραψε:
Προς ολους (τους οχι και τοσο εξυπνους σαν τον/την ttcq)

ΟΚ εξυπνε? Καλυτερα τωρα? Ελπιζω να νιωθεις εστω και λιγο ντροπη που τολμας να αποκαλεις τα ΜΜΕ των ΗΠΑ σοβαρα και αξιοπιστα μεσα σε εισαγωγικα.

Κάτι λέγαμε για προσωπικές επιθέσεις νομίζω...

Ο χρήστης gavriil1 έγραψε:

Ο πολεμος ειναι ο φυλακας της ειρηνης, δημοκρατιας, ελευθεριας και του καπιταλισμου.

Καλά, αυτό είναι ΌΛΑ ΤΑ ΛΕΦΤΑ!

Και ακόμα πιο εντυπωσιακό είναι ότι πάντα οι άκαπνοι όσοι έκαναν τα αδύνατα δυνατά για να αποφύγουν το στρατό (είτε γιατί θα 'έβλαπτε την καριέρα τους' είτε γιατί θα σπάγανε καμιά ζαρτιέρα) είναι οι πιο φιλοπόλεμοι. Όσοι υπηρέτησαν στο στρατό ή ξέρουν ότι δεν έχουν το γλείψιμο για να τον αποφύγουν, είναι πάντα εναντίον του πολέμου. Μήπως δε θα'πρεπε να μιλάνε για πόλεμο οι άκαπνοι;

Ο χρήστης skullone έγραψε:

Ο πολεμος ειναι ο φυλακας της ειρηνης, δημοκρατιας, ελευθεριας και του καπιταλισμου.

Καλά, αυτό είναι ΌΛΑ ΤΑ ΛΕΦΤΑ!

Και ακόμα πιο εντυπωσιακό είναι ότι πάντα οι άκαπνοι λουφαδόροι και οι λιποτάκτες είναι οι πιο φιλοπόλεμοι. Όσοι υπηρέτησαν στο στρατό ή ξέρουν ότι δεν έχουν το γλείψιμο για να τον αποφύγουν, είναι πάντα εναντίον του πολέμου. Μήπως δε θα'πρεπε να μιλάνε για πόλεμο οι άκαπνοι;

Καλε πως δε ξερουν οι ακαπνοι απο πολεμο??? Τοσες ταινιες του Ραμπο εχουνε δει!!!!

Ο χρήστης apostolis έγραψε:

Εγώ περίμενα μιά σοβαρή απάντηση στην ερώτησή μου. Αλλά η αντίδρασή σου είναι αν μη τι άλλο χαζή.

Οι απαντησεις που δινω ειναι αναλογες των ερωτησεων.

Dear mr Gabriel ( or should we call you Γαβριήλ ?)

The freedom of speach has been established by the 4th amendment of the U.S Constitution , as well as by equal arrangements of most of the Democratic Constitutions around the globe , αλλά , IF YOU GET THE MEANNING , η ελευθερία κάποιου σταματάει εκεί όπου αρχίζει η ελευθερία κάποιου ΑΛΛΟΥ.
Please, DON'T you ever again address ΑΝΥΟΝΕ like ' Οι απαντήσεις μου είναι ανάλογες των ερωτήσεων ' , because by doing so you sound like a
dictator , who answers to what he likes ONLY, and treats the persons asked the 'wrong' question .... HIS OWN WAY !!!.

So , think about it.

Ασυναρτησιες.
Μαλιστα σε δυο γλωσσες.

Ναι, βέβαια... Ξέρουν ΠΑΑΑΑΑΑΑΑΑΑΡΑ πολύ καλά οι άκαπνοι τι εστί πόλεμος... Τους μάθανε ότι είναι video game ή υπερθέαμα κι ότι υπάρχει ένας 'ΚΑΛΟΣ', ένας 'ΚΑΚΟΣ' και ένα αφιέρωμα 'making of'.

Δε μπορεις να φανταστεις ποσα καινουργια δημιουργικα ηλεκτρονικα παιχνιδια θα βγουν οπου 'ναναι με την ευκαιρια 'απελευθερωσης του Ιρακ'...

Ναι... Μην ξεράσογλου.

Μα τι αλητες που ειμαστε, με το πιο απλο πραγμα και εμεις να τους κακολογησουμε!!!

Τι κανουν οι ανθρωποι στο κατω κατω??? Εναν Απελευθερωτικο Αγωνα!!!!

Περί 'αντικειμενικότητας' και 'εγκυρότητας' των μέσων μαζικής εξημέρωσης του Τετάρτου Ράιχ...

http://www.fair.org/activism/scuds.html

ACTION ALERT:
Lack of Skepticism Leads to Poor Reporting on Iraq Weapons Claims

March 25, 2003

A lack of skepticism toward official U.S. sources has already led prominent American journalists into embarrassing errors in their coverage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly in relation to claims that proof had been found that Iraq possesses banned weapons.

On March 20, the second day of the invasion, U.S. military sources initially described missiles launched by Iraq as 'Scuds'-- the U.S. name for a Soviet-made missile used by Iraq during the Gulf War. They exceed the range limits imposed on Iraqi weapons by the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

While some reporters appropriately sourced the Scud reports to military officials, and cautioned their audience about the uncertainty of the identification, others rushed to report claims as facts. NBC's Matt Lauer's report was definitive: 'We understand they have fired three missiles. One of those was a Scud missile. It was destroyed by a Patriot missile battery as it headed toward Kuwait.'

His colleague Tim Russert was similarly certain, saying, 'Because of last night's activity, clearly the Iraqis are now trying to respond with at least one Scud fired at the troops mapped on the border of Kuwait and Iraq.' Fellow NBC anchor Brian Williams added, 'We learned one Scud had been intercepted, but two missiles had made it to Kuwaiti soil.'

On NPR that day, anchor Bob Edwards was equally sure about what happened: 'Iraq this morning launched Scud missiles at Kuwait in retaliation for the American strike on Baghdad a few hours earlier.' Correspondent Mike Shuster helpfully pointed out that 'these Scuds are banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions and have a range of up to 400 miles.'

ABC's Ted Koppel, 'embedded' with an infantry division, reported matter-of-factly that 'there were two Scud missiles that came in. One was intercepted by a patriot missile.' ABC anchor Derek McGinty had earlier explained that 'there was a Scud attack, one Scud fired from Basra into Kuwait. It was intercepted by an American patriot battery, and apparently knocked out of the sky. There is still no word exactly what was on that Scud, whether or not there might have been any sort of unconventional weaponry onboard.'

Fox News Channel's William La Jeunesse was not only asserting that a Scud had been launched, but was drawing conclusions about its significance: 'Now, Iraq is not supposed to have Scuds because they have a range of 175 up to 400 miles. The limit by the U.N., of course, is like 95 miles. So, we already know they have something they're not supposed to have.'

As the day went on, however, the Pentagon was less definitive about what kind of missile Iraq was using, prompting some journalists to back off the story. Associated Press reported on March 22 that 'Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference that the Iraqis have not fired any Scuds and that U.S. forces searching airfields in the far western desert of Iraq have uncovered no missiles or launchers.'

Even so, the next day, columnist Peter Bronson (Cincinnati Enquirer, 3/23/03) was still writing, 'The Scuds he swore he did not have were fired at Kuwait, and Iraq was launching lame denials while the craters still smoked.' Apparently the corrections of the earlier, incorrect reports had not reached even all of those whose job it is to follow the news.

Reporters were also embarrassed on March 23 by an evaporating story about a 'chemical facility' near the town of Najaf, Iraq, that was touted by U.S. military officials as a possible smoking gun to prove disputed claims about Saddam Hussein possessing banned chemical weapons. While journalists were not typically as credulous of this claim as they were with the Scud story, and generally remembered to attribute it to military sources, accounts still tended to be breathless and to extrapolate wildly from an unconfirmed report.

ABC's John McWethy promoted the story with this report: 'Amidst all the fighting, one important new discovery: U.S. officials say, up the road from Nasarijah, in a town called Najaf, they believe that they have captured a chemical weapons plant and perhaps more important, the commanding general of that facility. One U.S. official said he is a potential 'gold mine' about the weapons Saddam Hussein says he doesn't have.'

NBC's Tom Brokaw described the story thusly: 'Word tonight that U.S. forces may have found what U.N. inspectors spent months searching for, a facility suspected to be a chemical weapons plant, uncovered by ground troops on the way north to Baghdad.' NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski added what seemed to be corroborating details: 'This huge chemical complex... was constructed of sand-casted walls, in other words, meant to camouflage its appearance to blend in with the desert. Once inside, the soldiers found huge amounts of chemicals, stored chemicals. They apparently found no chemical weapons themselves, and now military officials here at the Pentagon say they have yet to determine exactly what these chemicals are or how they could have been used in weapons.'

Fox News Channel, less cautious than some of its competitors, treated the report of a chemical weapons factory as fact in a series of onscreen banners like 'Huge Chemical Weapons Factory Found in So. Iraq.'

Some print outlets also hyped the story the next day, as when the Philadelphia Daily News (10/24/03) reported it as the 'biggest find of the Iraq war' and 'a reversal of fortune for American and British forces at the end of the war's most discouraging day.'

As it turned out, however, the 'discovery' seemed to be neither a big find nor a reversal of fortune, but simply a false alarm, and TV reporters began changing their stories. The Dow Jones news service reported (3/24/03), 'U.S. officials said Monday that no chemical weapons were found at a suspected site at Najaf in central Iraq, U.S. television networks reported. NBC News reported from the Pentagon that no chemicals at all were found at the site. CNN, also reporting from the Pentagon, said officials now believe the plant there was abandoned long ago by the Iraqis.' On March 25, the New York Times reported that 'suggestions on Sunday that a chemical plant in Najaf might be a weapons site have turned out to be false.'

U.S.-based journalists are generally quick to caution readers, when describing an allegation made by Iraq, that the information 'could not be independently confirmed.' The fact is that information provided by any government should be treated with skepticism; reporters might try extending their critical approach to the U.S. military's statements.

ACTION: Write to the leading broadcast and cable TV news outlets and urge them to be skeptical when relaying information from either side in this war.

CONTACT:

Bob Wright, NBC President
nightly@nbc.com

Phone: 212-664-4971

Fox News Channel
comments@foxnews.com

Phone: 1-888-369-4762

As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org with your correspondence.

Συνέχεια...

http://www.fair.org/media-woes/official-agenda.html

Official Agendas
Despite the claims that the press has an adversarial relationship with the government, in truth U.S. media generally follow Washington's official line. This is particularly obvious in wartime and in foreign policy coverage, but even with domestic controversies, the spectrum of debate usually falls in the relatively narrow range between the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties.

The owners and managers of dominant media outlets generally share the background, worldview and income bracket of political elites. Top news executives and celebrity reporters frequently socialize with government officials. The most powerful media companies routinely make large contributions to both major political parties, while receiving millions of dollars in return in the form of payments for running political ads.

In this incestuous culture, 'news' is defined chiefly as the actions and statements of people in power. Reporters, dependent on 'access' and leaks provided by official sources, are too often unwilling to risk alienating these sources with truly critical coverage. Nor are corporate media outlets interested in angering the elected and bureaucratic officials who have the power to regulate their businesses.

Next: Telecommunications Policy

Extra! articles:

Afghan Famine On and Off the Screen: Aid workers mostly quoted when U.S. likes their message, by Seth Ackerman (5-6/02)
Take No Prisoners: U.S. reporters failed to probe Pentagon's 'unlawful combatants' label, by Steve Rendall (3-4/02)
Power Sources: On party, gender, race and class, TV news looks at the most powerful groups (5-6/02)
New York Times on Iraq Sanctions: A case of journalistic malpractice, by Seth Ackerman (3-4/00)
Rescued from the Memory Hole: The Forgotten Background of the Serb/Albanian Conflict, by Jim Naureckas (5-6/99)
Withholding the News: The Washington Post and the UNSCOM Spying Scandal, by Seth Ackerman (3-4/99)
Happy Birthday, CIA (11-12/97)
Pot Boiler: Why Are Media Enlisting in the Government's Crusade Against Marijuana?, by Mike Males (7-8/97)
Snow Job, by Norman Solomon (1-2/97)
Gulf War Coverage: The Worst Censorship Was at Home - Operation Desert Scam (Special Gulf War Issue 1991)
Iraqi Dupes or Pentagon Promoters? CNN Covers the Gulf War, by Robin Andersen and Paolo Carpignano (Special Gulf War Issue 1991)
Media Avisories / Action Alerts:
Connie Chung: Skeptical of Skepticism (10/10/02)
PBS Fails to Hold Rumsfeld Accountable (9/20/02)
Newsweek: Hail to the Chief (11/30/01)
CounterSpin broadcasts:
Steven Zunes on Weapons Inspections (9/20/02)
Norman Solomon on 9/11 Anniversary (9/6/02)
Martin Lee & Chris Simpson on pre-9/11 Terror Warnings, May 28, 2002
April Oliver on CNN/Tailwind, April 5, 2002
Nicholas Confessore on White House blacklist, February 15, 2002
Jeff Cohen on Civilian Casualties, November 2, 2001
Laura Flanders on Smart Bombs, October 12, 2001
Washington Post and UNSCOM, February 26, 1999
Documents:
Who's on the News?: Study shows network news sources skew white, male & elite, June 2002
Fear & Favor 2001: Government and Other 'Official' Pressure
Fear & Favor 2000: Government and Other 'Official' Pressure
FAIR Issues New Study On PBS's MacNeil/Lehrer and ABC's Nightline, May 1990
Are You On the Nightline Guest List?, February 1989
Media Beat columns:
Polls: When Measuring is Manipulating, Oct. 17, 2002
'Monomedia' and the First Amendment, June 27, 2002
Three Decades Later, Watergate is a Cautionary Tale, June 13, 2002
No Media Interest in A Basic Matter of Democracy, May 9, 2002
Let Us Now Praise 'Unfamous' Journalists, April 29, 1999
American Journalists Have No Reason to Be Smug, April 9, 1999
TV Screens Offer Us Illusions of War, April 1, 1999
Building a Media Agenda for War, March 26, 1999
Media and Memory: The Arrest of a Dictator, October 22, 1998
Retractions of Reporting Are Quite Selective, July 9, 1998
30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War, July 27, 1994

Συνεχίζεται...

http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/afghan-famine.html

Afghan Famine On and Off the Screen

Aid workers mostly quoted when U.S. likes their message

By Seth Ackerman

During the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan, international aid workers were among the few non-governmental sources with access to real-time information about how the attacks were affecting the population. In their statements, they often painted a bleak view of civilian suffering. But their ability to garner coverage for their comments seemed to depend on how their message fit with the Bush administration’s propaganda efforts.

To keep a lid on dissent, Washington pressured U.N. agencies in the region to keep quiet about the impact of the bombing. 'Whenever we spoke out--anytime we did comment on the way the war was impacting adversely on civilians--we tended to get into hot water,' says a senior U.N. official in Islamabad. 'Like, ‘How did you know about this?’ Or sometimes Washington denied it or contradicted us.'

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that it wasn’t only U.N. workers who were afraid to speak out. 'Colleagues from other war zones have said that one of the more remarkable features of this crisis was the extent to which field staff--whether they were from NGOs [non-governmental organizations] or the U.N.--had arguments with and were in trouble with their headquarters. Because basically, the line was: The Taliban are bad, we’re getting rid of them. And any [information] which produced a different perspective was unacceptable.'

Yet on occasions when humanitarian officials did manage to defy Washington’s pressure to remain silent, the U.S. media tended to ignore what they had to say. One week into the bombing, the U.N.'s special rapporteur for food, Jean Ziegler, condemned 'with the last ounce of energy' the Pentagon’s widely-criticized food drops (10/15/01). 'It is totally catastrophic for humanitarian aid,' Ziegler said. These comments were largely ignored in U.S. news media; one of the few mentions of them was in a sarcastic Philadelphia Daily News item (10/16/01) headlined 'The Pie Is Falling!'

Meanwhile on TV, the food drops won mostly rave reviews. CBS’s Tom Fenton reported on them (10/8/01) from a U.S. air base in Germany, where an enthusiastic serviceman told him: 'Your adrenaline starts pumping, and you know you're doing a good thing for your country--and you're doing a good thing for the people down below you.' NBC‘s Kerry Sanders (10/13/01) was in Northern Afghanistan to witness a drop: 'A welcome meal, says this man. And for this boy, the crackers much appreciated.' (ABC was alone among the networks in running a brief critical story on the drops--10/10/01.)

When Taliban soldiers seized a food warehouse in Kandahar, NBC’s Dana Lewis (9/25/01), reporting from Pakistan, announced that 'food aid deliveries have been cut off by the Taliban. Now, sacks of wheat sent from America sit in a Pakistani warehouse while Afghan people go hungry.' In fact, the U.N. had halted deliveries from Pakistan two weeks earlier due to the threat of bombing.

A day after a carefully worded U.N. statement blamed drought, war, Taliban and Northern Alliance human rights abuses and 'the present geopolitical crisis'--i.e., U.S. bombing threats--for leaving 5 million Afghan civilians with 'a fragile grip on survival,' Lewis reported (9/25/01): 'The U.N. is warning: The world will hold the Taliban responsible.'

On October 12, U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson urged Washington to halt the bombing to allow food aid into Afghanistan. With the exception of two passing mentions (e.g., San Francisco Chronicle, 10/18/01; New York Times, 10/16/01), her comments were ignored in the U.S. (When Robinson’s term as commissioner expired in March, it was reported that her decision not to run for a new term followed threats that Washington would block her renomination--Irish Times, 3/19/02).

But when the messages coming from U.N. officials were helpful to the public relations effort, they had little trouble getting heard. A few days after World Food Program chief Catherine Bertini declared last December that there was no longer a threat of famine in Afghanistan, the Washington Post (12/31/01) ran a front-page article--sourced mostly to World Food Program and USAID officials--headlined, 'Massive Food Delivery Averts Afghan Famine.'

Other aid agencies were unwilling to go along with Bertini’s declaration of victory--and privately, some relief officials mutter pointedly that Bertini, a Republican, had been nominated to the U.N. post by Bush senior. Throughout the war, statements from her WFP headquarters had consistently been more sanguine about the humanitarian impact of the bombing than those from other agencies. And in a rare note of dissent, New York Times agriculture reporter Elizabeth Becker (1/4/02) observed that Bertini’s declaration happened to coincide with 'a muscular propaganda campaign directed by the White House…focused on showing that the American air campaign has helped, not harmed, the Afghan people.' Nevertheless, most coverage echoed the Washington Post article: The Los Angeles Times editorial was 'A Win Over Famine, Too' (1/6/02); the Houston Chronicle (1/7/02) had 'New Year's Good Message Is That Famine Averted.'

These declarations of victory arrived just in time for George Bush’s State of the Union address, whose opening passages declared that America had 'saved a people from starvation' in Afghanistan Yet skeptical humanitarian experts viewed the 'famine averted' stories as products of White House spin abetted by the WFP. Although the word is sometimes used loosely, for the WFP 'famine' seemed to have a specific, rather limited meaning: 'You don't see Afghans in the major urban areas who are keeling over and dying,' explained Abby Spring, a WFP spokesperson (Montreal Gazette, 1/12/02).

Yet no one had been predicting such extreme conditions before September 11. The fear that hunger would spill over out of the countryside only arose with the threat of war. 'It‘s not like there was a famine and we averted it,' says Roger Normand of the Center for Economic and Social Rights, who recently led a U.N.-sponsored humanitarian assessment in Afghanistan. 'The only reason there was going to be a famine is if we were going to cause one. If the Taliban hadn‘t collapsed and if we had kept bombing and if the war went on through the winter, then there might have been a famine. But had we not bombed then there never would have been a famine in the first place.'

Thus the administration managed to present the military campaign as having reduced hunger in Afghanistan, when in reality the months of bombing--and, before that, threatened bombing--had severely hampered food deliveries. 'There‘s no question that the military campaign disrupted the food supply network,' Normand says. 'During the bombing, they weren’t even able to get food into the country, let alone distribute it into other areas. Once the Taliban collapsed they were able to start shipping large amounts--tons and tons--into Kabul and Heart and so on. But it hasn‘t gone out into the countryside. They don‘t have the networks that they used to have, and a lot of those areas are now insecure. There's much more looting and more problems with food supply than there were under the Taliban.'

It was only months later that private relief agencies began to reach isolated Afghan villages to assess the extent of the hunger. What they found ran counter to the prevailing news coverage--but attracted little attention. In April, humanitarian workers from Christian Aid reached the drought-stricken village of Khajagan in western Afghanistan, where they interviewed a woman whose three children were on the verge of dying from hunger (press release, 4/2/02). Her dwindling supply of 'rice and split peas came from a Red Cross distribution in the days after September 11, as international aid workers prepared to leave the country. There has been nothing since,' the group reported.

'The interruption of the bulk of humanitarian aid during the fourth quarter of 2001 caused a serious shortage situation for the most fragile individuals,' according to the French aid group Solidarites. Doctors with the group Action Against Hunger reached Afghanistan’s western Ghor province in March and found 40 people had died in one small district over the previous two weeks, mostly from scurvy caused by a lack of vitamin C. Doctors Without Borders reported a doubling of the mortality rate in northern Faryab province. And in the northern district of Zareh, Action by Churches Together found half the children under 5 were malnourished. 'It was a world away from official pronouncements about ‘famine averted’ in Afghanistan,' ACT reported.

'A merciful war'

In February, the administration’s humanitarian theme was taken up by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof (2/1/02), in a column titled 'A Merciful War.' Kristof argued that despite the war’s Afghan death toll--which the columnist estimated to be in the thousands--- it would end up saving more lives than it cost. He pointed to UNICEF’s new measles immunization campaign in Afghanistan, which began six weeks after the Taliban’s fall, and was expected to save tens of thousands of lives. 'There was no way to save those lives under the Taliban,' he wrote. 'Indeed, international organizations were retreating from Afghanistan even before 9/11 because of the arrests of Christian aid workers. But now aid is pouring in and lives are being saved on an enormous scale.'

Kristof failed to mention that in November, at the height of the U.S. bombing, 5 million Afghan children had been immunized against polio by UNICEF. The Taliban and Northern Alliance observed a three-day cease-fire and the Taliban mobilized 32,000 Afghan volunteers to help, winning praise from UNICEF for 'the continued commitment to polio eradication by Afghan health authorities and the Afghan people.' (Measles vaccines for measles had also been administered sporadically under the Taliban, but, due to a lack of funds, UNICEF had never been able to launch a nationwide campaign.)

The only party that declined to respect the November cease-fire was the United States, whose refusal to carry out a pause in the bombing reportedly led UNICEF to consider calling off the campaign. If Kristof was unaware of the polio campaign, perhaps it was because his paper never reported on it. With the exception of a few newspaper wire squibs and profiles of hometown UNICEF volunteers, the story was completely ignored in the U.S. press.

Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute.

Και υπάρχουν κι άλλα... Προερχόμενα από πηγές των Ηνωμένων Εθνών, από έντιμους ανθρώπους (μεταξύ αυτών και δημοσιογράφοι) και ΟΧΙ από ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΜΕΝΟΥΣ και ΑΚΑΠΝΟΥΣ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΚΑΠΗΛΟΥΣ.

Και κάτι ακόμα... Πάλι από προβληματισμένους, σοβαρούς ανθρώπους (όλως τυχαίως είναι Αμερικανοί - που αποδεικνύει ότι δεν οι γνήσιοι εξ αυτών δεν είναι γενίτσαροι) που δεν καταπίνουν ό,τι τους πει η κυβέρνηση αλλά το ψάχνουν παραπέρα..

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/030320.html

March 20, 2003
Casualties of War -- First Truth, Then Conscience
By Norman Solomon
The national media echo chamber is not receptive to conscience. On television, the voices are usually loud and facile. People often seem to be shouting. In contrast, the human conscience is close to a whisper. Easily unheard.

Now, the biggest media outlets are in a frenzy. The networks are at war. Every cable news channel has enlisted. At the bottom of FM radio dials, NPR has been morphing into National Pentagon Radio.

With American tax dollars financing the war on Iraq, the urgent need for us to get in touch with our consciences has never been more acute. The rationales for this war have been thoroughly shredded. (To see how the sordid deceptions and outright lies from the Bush team have been demolished by my colleagues at the Institute for Public Accuracy, take a look at the website.) The propaganda edifice of the war rests on a foundation no more substantial than voluminous hot air.

'Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices,' Voltaire wrote in 1767. The quotation is sometimes rendered with different wording: 'As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.'

Either way, a quarter of a millennium later, Voltaire's statement is all too relevant to this moment. The Bush administration is proud to turn urban areas of Iraq into hell -- defying most of the U.N. Security Council and violating the U.N. Charter -- all with the righteous claim that the United States is enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions.

As the apt cliche says, truth is the first casualty of war. But another early casualty is conscience.

Rarely explored in news media, the capacity for conscience is what makes us human. Out of all the differences between people and other animals, Darwin wrote, 'the moral sense of conscience is by far the most important.'

Voltaire contended that 'the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience' and added: 'With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear of death.' Franz Kafka was alluding to a similar truth when he wrote: 'You can hold back from the suffering of the world, you have free permission to do so and it is in accordance with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering that you could have avoided.'

Conscience is smaller than a single pixel, and much less visible. You can't see it on a TV screen. Or hear it. Or smell it. Or taste it. You can only feel it.

That's not a marketable sensation. The huge news outlets have swung behind slaughter in Iraq, and the dissent propelled by conscience is not deemed to be very newsworthy. The mass media are filled with bright lights and sizzle, with high production values and degraded human values, boosting the war effort while the U.S. government implements a massive crime against humanity.

In May 1952, the playwright Lillian Hellman wrote in a letter to the House Un-American Activities Committee: 'I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions.'

In 2003, this year's media fashions are increasingly adorning the conformist models of pseudo-patriotism. For many Americans, the gap between what they believe and what's on their TV sets is the distance between their truer selves and their fearful passivity.

In the domestic media siege being maintained by top-notch spinners and shrewd political advisers at the White House, conscience is in the cross hairs. They aim to intimidate, stampede and suppress the many millions of Americans who recognize the deranged and murderous character of the war makers in Washington.

Half a century ago, Albert Einstein urged: 'Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.' Today, one way or another, the mass media are going along with the Bush administration's demands that we not challenge the U.S. military actions now taking uncounted lives in Iraq.

Conscience is not on the military's radar screen, and it's not on our TV screen. But media messages do not define the limits and possibilities of conscience. We do.

Αμαν μετά απο 4 ημέρες αυτό που βλέπω είναι ότι 40 σελίδες post
δεν μπορώ να τις διαβάσω.

Βλέπω πολλά θέματα με Δημοκρατία - Τρομοκρατία - ο κακός Μπους
ο καλός Σαντάμ - ο Δικτάτορας Σαντάμ ο Ελευθερωτής Μπους και
ούτω καθ'εξής.

Ο καθένας το μακρύ του και το κοντό του. Για να προσφέρω και εγώ
κάτι.

Προς skullone. Εφόσον οι Αμερικάνοι είναι φονιάδες των Λαών κλπ.
πως μας έχεις βομβαρδίσει με δεκάδες αναφορές συνήθως για Αμερικα-
νικά δίκτυα που δείχνουν τις αισχρότητες του Μπους. Η Δημοκρατία
λειτουργεί εφόσον ακούγεται και η άλλη άποψη και δυστυχώς θα
σε δυσαρεστήσω ιδιαίτερα αν σου πω ότι η μόνη χώρα που αυτή τη
στιγμή δείχνει έστω και ψύγματα Δημοκρατίας αυτές είναι οι ΗΠΑ.

Σύντομα οι Αμερικάνοι θα έχουν φτάσει στην Βαγδάτη. Σύντομα
(το πόσο σύντομα θα εξαρτηθεί από την ξεροκεφαλιά του Σαντάμ) το
καθεστώς του Σαντάμ θα έχει πέσει. Σύντομα θα ακουστεί και η άλλη
άποψη από το ΙΡΑΚ και τα εγκλήματα του 'Λαοφιλούς' ηγέτη πρόγονου
των Βαβυλωνίων και του Χαμουραμπί (μη ξεράσω) θα βγουν στη φόρα.
Τότε όμως αυτά θα ανήκουν στη προπαγάνδα του Μπους και τον Αμερικά-
νων και όλες αυτές οι αξιόπιστες πηγές θα πάψουν να είναι αξιόπιστες
για μερικούς.

Προς Gavriil. Αμάν με το πόσο καλός είναι ο Μπους και πόσο κακός ο
Σαντάμ. Το ιστορικό των ΗΠΑ στην μέση Ανατολή δεν είναι και το καλύτε-
ρο δυνατό. Αν δεν απεμπλακούν από τους Εβραίους δεν θα δούμε
προκοπή στη περιοχή.

Ο χρήστης gavriil1 έγραψε:
Για οποιους που ακομη και κατα διανεια φοβουνται απο εισβολη των ΗΠΑ ή κατι τετοιο στην Ελλαδα, σημερα, δεν υπαρχει ουτε ΜΙΑ στο εκκατομυριο. Να στο πω αλλιως. Ενα γινοταν κατι τετοιο, εγω θα καταταγομουν στον Ελληνικο στρατο να πολεμησω τους ΗΠΑμερικανους. Αυτο ειναι η αποδηξη οτι πιστευω σε αρχες.

AXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA

Συγνώμη κύριοι, δεν είχα ξαναποστάρει σε σχετικό θέμα, αλλά αυτή η ατάκα είναι όλα τα λεφτά!!!!! Τώρα μπορούμε να αισθανόμαστε σίγουροι για το μέλλον μας και να κοιμόμαστε ήσυχοι.

Ωραία γιατί μόλις γύρισα από την εφορία πρωί-πρωί και ήμουν λίγο κακόκεφος, αλλά τώρα γέλασα με την ψυχή μου!

(P.S. A mind is a terrible thing to waste...)

Χρήστο Δήμου, πρέπει να καταλάβεις ότι κάποιος που στηλιτεύει μια κυβέρνηση δεν ασπάζεται αναγκαστικά και τη 'λογική' της συλλογικής ευθύνης, ήτοι της ταύτισης λαού και ηγεσίας.

Ο οργανισμός FAIR.org, καθώς και άλλοι φορείς που, μέσα στο κλίμα της προπαγάνδας, της φίμωσης των αντίθετων φωνών και της ηλιθιοποίησης των πάντων τολμούν και υψώνουν τη φωνή τους προσπαθώντας να κάνουν τις μάζες να σκεφθούν, είναι λαμπρά παραδείγματα, πλην όμως είναι βράχοι μέσα στη θάλασσα της βλακείας που έχουν δημιουργήσει τα Αμερικανικά 'ΜΜΕ'. Παρακολουθούσα χθες στη ΝΕΤ μια ανάλυση της πιο πρόσφατης δημοσκόπησης που έγινε για τον πόλεμο στις ΗΠΑ και είδα, από τα αποτελέσματα που δημοσιεύθηκαν, ότι τα πιο μορφωμένα και τα πιο ευαίσθητα σε θέματα ελευθεριών και δικαιωμάτων στρώματα του Αμερικανικού πληθυσμού, τάσσονται ΚΑΤΑ του πολέμου (γυναίκες, μεταπτυχιακοί, μαύροι).

Σχετικά με τον εναγκαλισμό ΗΠΑ-Εβραίων θα έλεγα ότι έχεις δίκιο. Πλην όμως, εδώ πρέπει να γίνει κατανοητό ότι αυτός έγινε διότι, ουσιαστικά, το ιδεολογικό-θρησκευτικό οικοδόμημά τους είναι όμοιο: σκληροπυρηνικό, πουριτανικό, μεσσιανικό και με γενναίες δόσεις μισαλλοδοξίας, άλλοτε συγκεκαλυμμένης και άλλοτε απροκάλυπτης.

Ο χρήστης skullone έγραψε:
Χρήστο Δήμου, πρέπει να καταλάβεις ότι κάποιος που στηλιτεύει μια κυβέρνηση δεν ασπάζεται αναγκαστικά και τη 'λογική' της συλλογικής ευθύνης, ήτοι της ταύτισης λαού και ηγεσίας.

Ο οργανισμός FAIR.org, καθώς και άλλοι φορείς που, μέσα στο κλίμα της προπαγάνδας, της φίμωσης των αντίθετων φωνών και της ηλιθιοποίησης των πάντων τολμούν και υψώνουν τη φωνή τους προσπαθώντας να κάνουν τις μάζες να σκεφθούν, είναι λαμπρά παραδείγματα, πλην όμως είναι βράχοι μέσα στη θάλασσα της βλακείας που έχουν δημιουργήσει τα Αμερικανικά 'ΜΜΕ'. Παρακολουθούσα χθες στη ΝΕΤ μια ανάλυση της πιο πρόσφατης δημοσκόπησης που έγινε για τον πόλεμο στις ΗΠΑ και είδα, από τα αποτελέσματα που δημοσιεύθηκαν, ότι τα πιο μορφωμένα και τα πιο ευαίσθητα σε θέματα ελευθεριών και δικαιωμάτων στρώματα του Αμερικανικού πληθυσμού, τάσσονται ΚΑΤΑ του πολέμου (γυναίκες, μεταπτυχιακοί, μαύροι).

Σχετικά με τον εναγκαλισμό ΗΠΑ-Εβραίων θα έλεγα ότι έχεις δίκιο. Πλην όμως, εδώ πρέπει να γίνει κατανοητό ότι αυτός έγινε διότι, ουσιαστικά, το ιδεολογικό-θρησκευτικό οικοδόμημά τους είναι όμοιο: σκληροπυρηνικό, πουριτανικό, μεσσιανικό και με γενναίες δόσεις μισαλλοδοξίας, άλλοτε συγκεκαλυμμένης και άλλοτε απροκάλυπτης.

Η πλειοψηφία των Αμερικανών τάσσονται υπέρ του πολέμου. Αν
σήμερα είχαμε εκλογές στην Αμερική ο Bush θα κέρδιζε με 60%
το λιγότερο. Άρα δεν είναι ο κακός Bush που σέρνει την Αμερική
σε πόλεμο είναι και οι Αμερικανοί που το θέλουν.

Για το γυναίκες - μεταπτυχιακοί και μαύροι... Δηλαδή το group που
ανήκει η σύμβουλος του Bush (Rise) κλπ. Το θέμα είναι ότι η πλειοψηφία
των Αμερικανών τάσσεται υπέρ του πολέμου. Αυτό και μόνον συντηρεί
τον πόλεμο και όσο θα ισχυεί τόσο και ο Bush θα έχει άκαμπτη στάση.

Ο εναγκαλίσμός ΗΠΑ-Ισραήλ είναι το αποτέλεσμα συμμαχιών στη
περιοχή. Θα πρέπει να γνωρίζεις ότι δύο μισαλλόδοξοι όπως αναφέρεις
είναι αδύνατο να συμβαδίζουν μαζί όταν και εφόσον οι αιτίες που τους
οδήγησαν σε αυτό τον τρυφερό 'εναγκαλισμό' πάψουν να υφίστανται.

Στο θέμα του κατά πόσον η ΗΠΑ ανήκουν στη παραπάνω κατηγορία
θα μου επιτρέψεις να διαφωνήσω. Οι ΗΠΑ όσο και να μην το δεχόμαστε
είναι δυτικό κράτος με μορφή Δημοκρατίας που επιτρέπει την συμβίωση
διαφορετικών φυλών κάτω από την ίδια στέγη. Ο Μπους ο Ραμσφελτ
και ο Τσέινυ είναι το ένα κομμάτι ο Ποουέλ η Ράις το άλλο κομμάτι.
Το τελικό αποτέλεσμα είναι πάντα προϊόν συμβιβασμών μεταξύ αντί-
ροπων τάσεων με βάσει το τι είναι πιο συμφέρον τη στιγμή εκείνη.

Το Ισραήλ από την άλλη είναι εθνικό κράτος όπου το έθνος ταυτίζεται
με τη θρησκεία (κατί σαν τους Μουλάδες του ΙΡΑΝ). Οτιδήποτε μη
ομόθρησκο αποκλείεται από την διαδικασία των αποφάσεων. Το τελικό
αποτέλεσμα της πολιτικής είναι προϊόν μίας παγιωμένης στάσης και
στόχος είναι η υλοποίηση ενός συγκεκριμένου σχεδίου.

Μεταξύ των δύο χωρών παρατηρούμε ότι οι διαφορές είναι ουσιώδεις.
Οι παλαιστίνιοι θα επιτύχουν να αποκτήσουν κράτος (όπως θα συμβεί
με τους Κούρδους και για αυτό έχουν σκυλιάσει οι Τούρκοι) όταν πεί-
σουν έναν ικανό αριθμό πολιτικών ότι η δημιουργία κράτος της Παλαιστί-
νης εξυπηρετεί καλύτερα τα συμφέροντα των ΗΠΑ στη περιοχή από το
ΙΣΡΑΗΛ.

Πέρα από αυτά μου αναφέρεις για τους Βράχους στη Θάλασσα της Βλα-
κείας. Τώρα δεν θέλω να αναφερθώ στο τρόπο παρουσίασης των ειδήσεων
στην Ελλάδα αλλά νομίζω ότι θα συμφωνήσεις ότι αν οι Αμερικανοί είναι
stupid εμείς είμαστε ten times as much.

Το fair.org είναι οργανισμός που στηρίζεται σε donations και
υφίσταται από το 1986 (εποχή Reagan στην Αμερική). Είναι εξαιρετικά
σημαντικό να σημειώσει κανείς το γεγονός ότι ο κύριος όγκος των
δηλώσεων κατά του πολέμου είναι προϊόν της ίδιας χώρας που
εμπλέκεται σε αυτόν. Τώρα αν αυτό δεν είναι ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ τότε
τη είναι....?????