"What's New? Just World War, Killings of Innocents, New Diseases..."
Following September 11, 2001
All Planet's web site has taken to silence.
Now, March 18, 2003, we still have little that is positive to say about
the directions the world is going.
However, there are a few "News Items" we feel compelled to publish
here on this eve before
America starting the 3rd World War as aggressor.
June 3 rd 1989 Beijing's Tiananmen Square
March 16, 2003
Israel and America claim to fame.
A clearly marked Rachel Corey, holding a megaphone, confronts an Israeli
attempting to demolish a Palestinian home, Rafah, Occupied Gaza (ISM
The bulldozer driver killed her.
And America is funding these activities, and preparing to attack Iraq,
in order to bring PEACE to the Middle East?
We wish someone could explain this.
Robert Anthony - All Planet Network
AS John Lennon would have liked to say: GIVE
PEACE A CHANCE.
YES, Saddam Hussein is evil and should be removed.
Yes, bin Ladin is
a nut case radical, not representative of
Muslims, and should be stopped.
But should America do this by
becoming just as evil, more deliberate, at killing innocents than they?
What is similar in THAT
Work to not let America become the
same as them.
We should not lower ourselves to their
in actions that cause innocents
to be killed.
When we do this, we become as bad as they.
We must draw the line.
Nowhere in the Koran does it say to kill.
As bin Ladin and his bands of terrorists
fight their "holy war against
he is betraying his Allah.
Christians own monotheistic God
(how is he different again from "their" God?)
would not, does not, agree with him.
We need to Wage Peace
And so, as we ask ourselves, as a world
- what would Allah really say
about suicide bombers, with
retaliation in kind
by killing and more
He would say "Stop".
Crushing each other's homes with
bulldozers and explosives?
Peace of Mind -- lost in the viscious
circles of violence and revenge.
What would he say to stealing a plane, and
everyone's life on it,
and ramming it into The World Trade Center.
These Terrorists were told they will be welcomed to their
Nirvana with open arms? Would "Their God" really do that?
Is Muslim God really wanting war with Christianity God?
Do they really hate each other?
Maybe, they are going to start throwing lightning bolts
at each other and we are going to have to have to have
or somebody save our whole planets ass from all the earth
quakes and ...
well, you know -
God War Stuff
lightning bolts, fires, maybe insects, volcanos, comets...
Are we really allowing it to become such a
"religion versus religion war"
bin Ladin wants to provoke such a war?
America should work to be careful
not to play into
these radical fundimentalists
Our Guys say "Stop"
The unfortunate message in all this
Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Allah, Krishna,
. and all the people who feel there is
"Something" in their religion...
would not, can not, agree with violence involving innocents.
We must draw the line.
Support Intelligence Units, going in on strategic and
and continue to chip away at, with 'World Support', an
of terrorist cells that threaten peace. Yes.
But the World is assured that this is maintained:
No more open wars with civilian casualties,
innocent women and children
dying at the hands of soldiers.
Not our soldiers.
Yes, fight fire with fire.
But only with world support. The world is supporting the
the War on Terrorism. These actions, in Iraq, are
clearly fragmenting the
reputation of the US., polarizing it.
We should want to make friends,
not multiply enemies.
The innocents, the Mosques and ancient holy places, civilian
must be preserved at all cost.
All Planet Network
GF, LS, RC
We support peace.
We can support a war against terrorism,
if sanctioned by our allies.
We support our troops in any case.
We do not support deaths of civilians.
Additionally, this letter of resignation says, much more clearly and
correctly than we ever could,
WHY FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IS IN PERIL
||Congressional Record: March
4, 2003 (Extensions)
LETTER OF RESIGNATION BY JOHN BRADY KIESLING
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker I commend to the
my colleagues the following letter of resignation
American diplomat John Brady Kiesling. Mr. Kiesling
served in the U.S. State Department as
Political Counselor at the American Embassy in
his post on Thursday, February 27--ending twenty
service. Mr. Kiesling's letter is an eloquent
expression of principal
in opposition to war with Iraq and America's
heavy-handed approach to
foreign policy under the leadership of President
US Diplomat John Brady
February 27, 2003.Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell,Letter of Resignation.
ATHENS Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing
you to submit
my resignation from the Foreign Service of the
United States and from my position as Political
Counselor in U.S.
Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with
heart. The baggage of my upbringing included
obligation to give something back to my country.
Service as a U.S.
diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand
languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats,
scholars and journalists, and to persuade them
interests and theirs fundamentally coincided.
My faith in my
country and its values was the most powerful
weapon in my
diplomatic arsenal. It is inevitable that
during twenty years with
the State Department I would become more sophisticated
cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic
that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature
what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for
human nature. But until this Administration it
possible to believe that by upholding the policies
president I was also upholding the interests
of the American
people and the world. I believe it no longer.
The policies we are
now asked to advance are
incompatible not only with American values but
American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war
is driving us to squander the international legitimacy
been America's most potent weapon of both offense
defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We
to dismantle the largest and most effective web
international relationships the world has ever
current course will bring instability and danger,
The sacrifice of global interests to domestic
politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is
nothing new, and
it is certainly not a uniquely American problem.
we have not seen such systematic distortion of
such systematic manipulation of American opinion,
since the war in Vietnam. The September
11 tragedy left us stronger than
before, rallying around us a vast international
to cooperate for the first time in a systematic
against the threat of terrorism. But rather than
for those successes and build on them, this Administration
has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political
enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al
Qaeda as its
bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate
confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking
problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and
motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of
wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards
protect American citizens from the heavy hand
government. September 11 did not do as much damage
fabric of American society as we seem determined
to do to
ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs
really our model,
a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward
self-destruction in the name of a doomed status
We should ask ourselves why we have failed to
persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq
We have over the past two years done too much
to assert to our
world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S.
override the cherished values of our partners.
our aims were not in question, our consistency
issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort
wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the
Middle East, and in
whoseimage and interests. Have we indeed become
as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is
blind in the
Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that
military power is not the answer to terrorism?
shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles
in Grozny and
Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms
Micronesia to follow where we lead. We
have a coalition still, a good one. The
loyalty of many of our friends is impressive,
a tribute to
American moral capital built up over a century.
But our closest
allies are persuaded less that war is justified
than that it
would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift
solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why
President condone the swaggering and contemptuous
approach to our
friends and allies this Administration is fostering,
including among its most senior officials? Has
"oderint dum metuant"
really become our motto? I urge you to
listen to America's friends
around the world. Even here in Greece, purported
hotbed of European
anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends
the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine.
Even when they complain about American arrogance,
know that the world is a difficult and dangerous
they want a strong international system, with
the U.S. and EU
in close partnership. When our friends are afraid
rather than for us, it is time to worry. And
now they are
afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that
States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security,
for the planet? Mr. Secretary, I have enormous
respect for your
character and ability. You have preserved more
international credibility for us than our policy
salvaged something positive from the excesses
ideological and self-serving Administration.
But your loyalty to
the President goes too far. We are straining
its limits an international system we built with
such toil and
treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations,
values that sets limits on our foes far more
it ever constrained America's ability to defend
interests. I am resigning because I have
tried and failed
to reconcile my conscience with my ability to
current U.S. Administration. I have confidence
democratic process is ultimately self-correcting,
and hope that in a
small way our democratic process is ultimately
self-correcting, and hope that in a small way
I can contribute from
outside to shaping policies that better serve
and prosperity of the American people and the
Presented by John Brady Kiesling
U.S. State Department
Political Counselor, American Embassy of
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
||Our friend and associate, Dr
Emmett Miller recently wrote these words.
"Please open your heart and consider how you can
turn away from violence
in your own life, and spread the word in powerful
There is not much time left.
Open Letter to Nelson
Dear Mr. Mandela,
I have admired you for a long time; you have
been one of my
models, and I have long agreed that you have
been, as the "London
Mirror" describes you, "the most admired statesman
in the world,"
and "for countless millions a symbol of honor,
commitment to justice." I read, however, the
speech that has
recently been attributed to you, and I must say
that my heart sank.
(Mandela Calls Bush Shortsighted on Iraq
Thursday, 30-Jan-2003 11:20AM PST ????
Story from AP / JAPAN MATHEBULA, Associated
Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press (via ClariNet)
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP) -- Former President
Mandela called President Bush arrogant and shortsighted
implied that he was racist for ignoring the United
Nations in his zeal
to attack Iraq.
In a speech Thursday, Mandela urged the people
of the United States
to join massive protests against Bush. Mandela
called on world
leaders, especially those with vetoes in the
U.N. Security Council, to
"One power with a president who has no foresight
and cannot think
properly, is now wanting to plunge the world
into a holocaust,"
Mandela told the International Women's Forum.
Mandela also criticized Iraq for not cooperating
fully with the
weapons inspectors and said South Africa would
support any action
against Iraq that was supported by the United
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded
criticism by pointing to a letter by eight European
their support of Bush.
"The president expresses his gratitude to the
many leaders of Europe
who obviously feel differently" than Mandela,
Fleischer said. "He
understands there are going to be people who
are more comfortable
doing nothing about a growing menace that could
turn into a
A Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mandela has repeatedly
behavior toward Iraq in recent months and demanded
the authority of the United Nations. His comments
though, were far more critical and his attack
on Bush far more
personal than in the past.
"Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?"
he asked. "All
that (Bush) wants is Iraqi oil," he said.
He accused Bush and British Prime Minister Tony
undermining the United Nations and U.N. Secretary-General
Annan, who is from Ghana.
"Is it because the secretary-general of the United
Nations is now a
black man? They never did that when secretary-generals
white," he said.
Mandela said the United Nations was the main reason
there has been
no World War III and it should make the decisions
on how to deal
He said that the United States, which callously
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has no moral
authority to police
"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable
the world, it is the United States of America.
They don't care for
human beings," he said.
"Who are they now to pretend that they are the
policemen of the
world, the ones that should decide for the people
of Iraq what
should be done with their government and their
He said Bush was "trying to bring about carnage"
and appealed to
the American people to vote him out of office
against his policies.
He also condemned Blair for his strong support
of the United States.
"He is the foreign minister of the United States.
He is no longer
prime minister of Britain," he said.)
When you quoted Maryann Williamson in your inauguration
address, I was touched on so many levels, and
especially moved by
the spirit I felt flowing through you at that
time. But when I read the
text of your recent speech, I must say that my
I completely agree with you that there is a great
"evil" about, and itís
time the people of the earth took care of it.
What was unfortunate,
however, is that you strayed from, or seemed
to stray from, what I
saw as being your positive, loving orientation.
In your words, "If there is a country that has
atrocities in the world, it is the United States
of America." This
speech, there was blame and accusation. It really
seemed as if you
thought that the United States was somehow "evil"
or that Mr. Bush
was somehow "evil." This concerns me, for it
seems the same old
game of who is "good," who is "evil," who really
has God on their
In attacking the other person, I fear actually
becoming that which
weíre trying to get rid of. Having attacked
in the way that you did,
the reaction of the right was to counter-attack
by bringing up highly
tuned, specific details that are not really relevant
to what weíre all
talking about, but have the potential to diminish
your standing, and
by association, hurts all those who want to see
an end to the
violence. Mr Buckleyís response
is a good example.
It is important for all of us to discover how
we are being deluded,
and attacks on lies and misunderstandings are
crucial. Blaming and
attacks on individuals, as well as groups (like
the US), is likely to
draw counterattacks and feed the monster we are
My hope is that you return to the incredible peacemaking
have done, and help all of us rid ourselves of
the burden of violence
the human race has borne. The respect you have
earned will then
have a better chance of bringing over to the
side of peace those who
are still on the fence.
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear
is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our
darkness, that most frightens us. We ask
ourselves, who am I to be
brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?
Actually, who are you
not to be? You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesnít serve
the world. There is nothing enlightened
about shrinking so that
other people wonít feel insecure around
you. We are born to make
manifest the Glory of God that is within us.
Itís not just in some of
us, itís in everyone, and as we let our
own light shine, we
consciously give other people permission to do
the same. As we are
liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically
©2003 Emmett Miller
||War for Currency?
Vol.3, No.3, 30 January 2003
The information below is based on material sent
to SANE by Richard
Douthwaite's organisation FEASTA in Ireland which
in turn obtained
it from insights posted at the website:
It presents a devastating insight into President
stance towards Iraq, one which would appear to
be based totally on
the economic self interest of the US.
(editor - SANE Views)
THE DOLLAR, THE EURO AND WAR IN IRAQ
The dollar is the world reserve currency. This
gives a huge subsidy
to the US economy because if a country wants
to hold lots of dollars
in reserve they must supply the US with goods
and services in return
for those dollars. In return the US just prints
a few notes. The more
dollars there are circulating outside the US,
the more goods and
services the US has imported virtually for free.
This is how the US
manages to run a huge trade deficit year after
apparently any major economic consequences. No
other country can
run such a large trade deficit with impunity.
It is in effect getting a
massive interest-free loan from the rest of the
One of the primary objectives, if not the primary
setting up the Euro was to try and get some of
this free lunch for
Europe. If the Euro became a major reserve currency,
or better still
replaced the dollar as the major reserve currency,
then Europe too
could get something for nothing.
This would be a disaster for the US. Not only
would they lose their
subsidy, which has been increasing in size and
in importance to
American economic well being as the years have
gone by, but
countries switching to Euro reserves from dollar
start spending their dollars in the US. ?In other
words the US would
have to start paying its debts to other countries.
converted their dollar assets into Euro assets
the US property and
stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst.
Reserve would no longer be able to print more
money to reflate the
bubble as it is currently openly considering
There is, however, one major obstacle to this
happening: OIL! Oil is
of course by far the most important commodity
internationally, and if you want to buy oil on
markets you usually have to have dollars.
Until recently all OPEC countries agreed to sell
their oil for dollars
only. This meant that oil importing countries,
like Japan, needed to
hold dollar reserves in order to be able to buy
oil. So long as this
remained the case, the Euro was unlikely to become
reserve currency: there is not a lot of point
to stockpiling Euros if
every time you need to buy oil you have to change
them into dollars.
But in November 2000 Iraq switched to the euro,
perilous consequences for the US. Only one country
has the right to
print dollars: the US! If OPEC were to decide
to accept euros only for
its oil, then American economic dominance would
be over. Not only
would Europe not need dollars anymore, but Japan
over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would
have to convert most
of its dollar assets to Euro assets (Japan is
of course the major
subsidiser of the US). The US on the other hand,
being the world's
largest oil importer would have to acquire Euro
reserves, i.e. it
would have to run a trade surplus. The conversion
from trade deficit
to trade surplus would have to be done at a time
when its property
and stock market prices were collapsing and its
own oil supplies
were contracting. It would be a very painful
The purely economic argument for OPEC converting
to the Euro, at
least for a while, seem very strong. The Eurozone
does not run a
huge trade deficit like the US, nor is it heavily
indebted to the rest
of the world like the US. Nearly everything you
can buy for dollars
you can also buy for Euros. Furthermore, if OPEC
were to convert
their dollar assets to Euro assets and then require
payment for oil in
euros, their assets would immediately increase
in value. Also, since
oil importing countries would be forced to convert
into euros, whose price would therefore be driven
up. OPEC could
then at some later date back some other currency,
maybe the dollar
again, and again make huge profits. This would
offer a virtually
inexhaustible source of profit for OPEC.
But of course it would not be a purely economic
Eurozone countries do not threaten Middle Eastern
militarily as the US does. At the site
there is an article, written at the time the decision
claiming the decision made no financial sense
and would cost Iraq
millions. According to one "expert" quoted in
this article the
decision to convert was made by people who "are
not experts, they
are not central bankers, they are not even oil
men". At the time the
article was written, the euro was worth 82 US
cents. It is now worth
about $1.05. So on economic grounds alone, the
Iraqi decision has
been a huge success (the $10 billion Iraqi fund
at the UN, mentioned
in the article, has apparently also since been
converted). There may
however be military consequences to it. The economic
threat to the
US may be influencing it in its belligerent stance
One other OPEC country has been talking publicly
conversion since 1999: Iran. And of course it
has since been
included in the "axis of evil".
Further information about this matter can be found
So, as Feasta sees it, this threatened war does
not serve Irish or
continental Europe's growth interests at all,
when compared to the
alternative of lifting sanctions. But a far better
reason for opposing
the war is that it is a blatant case of mass
murder for profit.
I will each day write my soul, debate my foe's
position, tell a story,
end a bit of suffering, and take a walk.
©Emmett Miller, 03/16/03
If you have a project to suggest, or a comment to send along,
please send a message to the webmaster, and she will absolutely
get it to the right party. She lives for this.
Gabreal Franklin firstname.lastname@example.org
Robert Anthony email@example.com
Larry Seehorn firstname.lastname@example.org
producer/ board member
Timothy Lydgate email@example.com
producer/ board member
Jeremiah Jacobs firstname.lastname@example.org
Music and Sound Production/Composition
Robbie Coppola email@example.com
Support and Video Studio
Jeffery Mitchel firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeff Cavanough email@example.com
Coralee Cushman firstname.lastname@example.org
Bergen Franklin email@example.com
3-D visualization/models, interface
Marcus Franklin :firstname.lastname@example.org
3-D model action/design
... CH, Michael, and Francine (Webmistress) and other
All Planet employees or contractors can all be reached via the webmaster
All Planet Studios
535 Coast view Drive
(831) 476.4242 FAX (831) 476.1639
Motto May 2001:
"We've got a Web Site...and
We're not afraid to use it"