BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


"Axis of Evil"

 
 
pacha perplexa
11:36 / 17.08.02
This is so ridiculous it shouldn't deserve a post. But I'm very upset, and wish to know from you: should I laugh madly, cry in despair, become a guerrillera at the Sendero Luminoso or kill Evan Dando?

This is how the "Washington Times" article starts: A new terrorist and nuclear weapons/ballistic missile threat may well come from an axis including Cuba's Fidel Castro, the Chavez regime in Venezuela and a newly elected radical president of Brazil, all with links to Iraq, Iran and China.

I mean, jaisis! Cuba, Venezuela, Brasil, Iraq, Iran and China?

The ennervating part is not so much the article (kind of thing you would expect from this kinda newspaper), but the fact that the person who sent it (a brazilian journalist, former friend and college classmate, who works for a disgusting rightist mainstream magazine) wrote in the e-mail: "I received this today... It's really scary.. I'm really afraid."
And I'm so disappointed with you, my dear twat.


Here's the rest of it:


Blocking a new axis of evil

Constantine C. Menges

"A new terrorist and nuclear weapons/ballistic missile threat may well come from an axis including Cuba's Fidel Castro, the Chavez regime in Venezuela and a newly elected radical president of Brazil, all with links to Iraq, Iran and China. Visiting Iran last year. Mr. Castro said: "Iran and Cuba can bring America to its knees," while Chavez expressed his admiration for Saddam Hussein during a visit to Iraq.
The new axis is still preventable, but if the pro-Castro candidate is elected president of Brazil, the results could include a radical regime in Brazil re-establishing its nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs, developing close links to state sponsors of terrorism such as Cuba, Iraq and Iran, and participating in the destabilization of fragile neighboring democracies. This could lead to 300 million people in six countries coming under the control of radical anti-U.S. regimes and the possibility that thousands of newly indoctrinated terrorists might try to attack the United States from Latin America. Yet, the administration in Washington seems to be paying little attention.
Brazilians will hold presidential elections in October, and if current polling is any guide the winner could be a pro-Castro radical with extensive ties to international terrorism. His name is Luis Inacio da Silva, the presidential candidate of the Workers Party who is currently at about 40 percent in the polls. The Communist candidate is second with 25 percent and the pro-democratic contender is at about 14 percent.
Mr. da Silva makes no secret of his sympathies. He has been an ally of Mr. Castro for more than 25 years. With Mr. Castro's support, Mr.da Silva founded the Sao Paulo Forum in 1990 as an annual meeting of communist and other radical terrorist and political organizations from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. This has been used to coordinate and plan terrorist and political activities around the world and against the United States. The last meeting was held in Havana, Cuba in December 2001. It involved terrorists from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East, and sharply condemned the Bush administration and its actions against international terrorism.
Like Mr. Castro, Mr. da Silva blames the United States and "neo-liberalism" for all the real social and economic problems still facing Brazil and Latin America. Mr. Da Silva has called the Free Trade Area of the Americas a plot by the United States to "annex" Brazil, and he has said that the international lenders who seek repayment of their $250 billion in loans are "economic terrorists." He has also said that those who are moving their money out of Brazil because they fear his regime are "economic terrorists." This gives a hint about the kind of "war against terrorism" his regime will conduct.
Brazil is a vast, richly endowed country, nearly the size of the United States with a population of about 180 million and the world's eighth largest economy (with a GDP of more than $1.1 trillion). It could soon become one of the world's nuclear armed powers as well. Between 1965 and 1994, the military actively worked to develop nuclear weapons, it successfully designed two atomic bombs and was reportedly on the verge of testing one nuclear device when a newly elected democratic government and a Brazilian congressional investigation caused the program to be shut down.
That investigation revealed, however, that the military had sold eight tons of uranium to Iraq in 1981. It is also reported that after Brazil's successful ballistic missile program was ended, the general and 24 of the scientists working on it went to work for Iraq. There are reports that with financing from Iraq, a nuclear weapons capability has been covertly maintained contrary to directives from the civilian democratic leaders.
Mr. da Silva has said Brazil should have nuclear weapons and move closer to China, which has been actively courting the Brazilian military. China has sold Brazil enriched uranium and has invested in the Brazilian aerospace industry, resulting in a joint imagery/reconnaissance satellite.
Brazil shares common borders with 10 other countries in South America. This would help da Silva to emulate — as he has said he would — the foreign policy of the pro-Castro and pro-Iraq Chavez regime in Venezuela, which has provided support to the communist narco-terrorist FARC in Colombia as well as other anti-democratic groups in other South American countries. Hugo Chavez worked with Mr. Castro to temporarily destabilize the fragile democracy in Ecuador two years ago. Now both support the radical socialist leader of the cocaine growers, Evo Morales, who hopes to become president of Bolivia this August.
Along with helping the communist guerrillas take power in the embattled democracy in Colombia, a da Silva regime in Brazil would be well situated to aide communists, narco-terrorists and other anti-democratic groups in destabilizing the fragile democracies of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, as well as to exploit the deep economic crisis in Argentina and Paraguay.
Further, a da Silva regime is likely to default on its debt, causing a sharp economic downturn in all of Latin America, thereby increasing the vulnerability of its democracies. This could also trigger a second phase of economic downturn in the United Staes as export markets contracted.
A Castro-Chavez-da Silva axis would mean linking 43 years of Fidel Castro's political warfare against the United States with the oil wealth of Venezuela and the nuclear weapons/ ballistic missile and economic potential of Brazil.
Come our own elections in November 2004, Americans may ask: Who lost South America? The United States was politically passive during the Clinton administration, when it ignored the pleas of Venezuela's democratic leaders for help in opposing the anti-constitutional and illegal actions of Mr. Chavez and also ignored his public alliances with state sponsors of terrorism. Why can't the Bush administration act before 20 years of democratic gains in Latin America were allowed to be reversed? Why can't anything be done before a vast new southern flank is opened up in the terrorist threat and our nation menaced by one more radical anti-American regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?
This disaster for U.S. national security and for the people of Latin America must and can be averted if our policy makers act quickly and decisively, but they must do so now. Timely political attention and actions by the United States and other democracies should include encouragement for the pro-democratic parties in Brazil to unify behind an honest, capable political leader who can represent the hopes of the majority of Brazilians for genuine democracy and who has the resources to mount an effective national campaign.

- Constantine C. Menges, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, is a former National Security Council member."



It's so full of shit.

Luis Inacio "Lula" da Silva may not be the best presidential on earth (he's been talking about "keeping agreements with the IMF when he gets to presindency"), but he was one of the politicians who resisted didctatorship - a situation financed and stimulated by US's "democratic" government. Besides, Lula struggled to form a party in agreement with the lower classes interests (the PT). This was back on the 80's. Now he's being called a terrorist.

And the idea of China "courting" Brasil, selling them weapons... Brasil would buy weapons from everyone, as long as they were cheap and looked scary. Besides, Brasil's nuclear program was a pathetic military attempt to make the country a world potence, and almost ended in a radioactive disaster. I don't think anyone wants to touch the subject again, even with a long stick. Who knows, though.

Aaaaaaaaarrrrghhh!!!!!!!!
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
21:36 / 17.08.02
A damn shame we got caught when we tried that coup in Venezuela.

But I agree this article is a bit paranoid...the T word is getting thrown around all too much these days.
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
00:39 / 18.08.02
One of the worst things to come out of the “war on terrorism” is the legitimising by certain states to carry out actions against dissenting groups, under the name of anti-terrorism, Israel, Turkey and Columbia spring to mind. It is lucky that East Timor won it’s independence before the war on terrorism got to its global stage.

Any states, which do not agree with the American way, are automatically a threat. America seems to have positioned itself on a moral high ground, a paragon of liberty and freedom. Any threat to these Americanised ideals, in whatever country can thus be exterminated in the name of American style freedom.
America can “buy” UN clearance for virtually any actions necessary to secure its interests. Democracy is only valid if it fits in with what the American government sees fit.

America can coexist with any state, which does not challenge the liberal market ideology, however oppressive the regime, such as China.

When I talk about America I do not mean the general public, but the corporate/political oligarchy. I believe governments can never truly represent the people, regardless of ideology. I think that western counties are becoming less relevant, they are becoming puppets of the new corporate/class overmasters. On a world scale I think that a state of us vs. them, rulers vs. ruled, rich vs. poor is becoming more apparent, however distracted we are by the media.

Despite the supposed triumphs of capitalism and the constant reassurances in the western media that capitalism is the best and only way (from left to right), cracks are beginning to show, the louder they shout, the more suspicious one feels.

Latin America seems to becoming more of a battleground against neo-liberal orthodoxy, along with the Arab/Muslim world, which seems to be expressing more doubts about western values/involvement. In the latter instance(from “our” revolutionary point of view) it may be a case of walking over the bridge with the devil in times of trouble (an old Bulgarian saying, which I think the Arab world may have applied to the west).

Lines are being drawn, the advance of globalisation seems inevitable, but the form it takes is still undecided, and worth fighting for.
 
 
Baz Auckland
03:33 / 18.08.02
The worst example I've heard so far is the new war on terror that Russia is conducting against the "al-queda backed chechnyans". Bloody hell. I took a course in 3rd world economics taught by a Brazillian professor a few years back, and so the course was full of examples of how we have screwed latin and south america over time and time again through the IMF and etc. What a horrible article.
 
 
Kase Taishuu
20:51 / 18.08.02
hmmm...

I posted earlier today a thread on the laboratory forum based on some news also from the washington times. now starting to make sense why it sounded so unlikely.

Probably Washington Times is just another sensationalist tabloid-like newspaper with far-right wing leanings, in the lines of japan's mainichi (my favourite weird-news source). I don't really think you should bother, pacha.
 
 
grant
18:00 / 19.08.02
No, actually the Washington Times is a somewhat well-respected paper. I prefer the Washington Post, which is better known and has a better rep (it was the Post that broke Watergate).
 
 
Persephone
18:14 / 19.08.02
Wasn't The Washington Times founded by Rev. Moon?
 
 
gridley
19:49 / 19.08.02
Yes. Moon started and still has a lot of influence in the Washington Times. And he has a very conservative agenda in his publication. To give him credit, he's doesn't try to hide it. He boasts, for example, that he and his paper are responsible for getting George Bush elected.
 
 
gridley
19:51 / 19.08.02
(And Pacha, please don't kill Evan Dando. He maketh the joyful noise.)
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
15:24 / 21.08.02
I mention this only because when it first happened he was supposedly an Al-Queda terrorist preparing for a reign of terror.
 
  
Add Your Reply