nettime's_embedded_controller on Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:29:56 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> [IRAQ] 030319 digest 2 [x10]

        Geoffrey Heard essay on the war situation and economics  
  Christine Palma <>    
        <nettime> [IRAQ] Corruption at the highest level   
  Oliver Grau <>  
        Re: <nettime> [IRAQ] Corruption at the highest level  
        US government official blind to US people protesting war against Iraq (Ronda Hauben)  
        Extopia: Hip-hoppin gegen den Krieg  
  anne-marie <>  
        No War! No War!  
        war time mix   
  "rick silva" <>  
        Lethal Cognition  
  "Konrad Becker" <>   
        ami-prop sources (philip pocock)  
        Not In My Name!   
  Seth <>   

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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:13:02 -0800
From: Christine Palma <>
Subject: Geoffrey Heard essay on the war situation and economics


*** It's not about oil or Iraq. It's about the US and Europe going
head-to-head on world economic dominance. ***

Summary: Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his
administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you
consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with
Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on
economic leadership of the world.

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross
exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of
paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters,
Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position
with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information,
deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with
billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading
Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act
in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to
invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the
biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used
to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in
the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a
monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but
Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and
profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and
its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant
economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times.

America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America
will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to
the US bandwagon.

France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia would
like to go European but possibly can still be bought off.

Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of
international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to
grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can
share the leadership rewards.


Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this issue,
although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the recent slide in the
value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are more likely to
be afraid there will not be war.

But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is
developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the many
articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a hot topic
on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics,
and W. Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A
Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been
published by the 'Sierra Times', '', and ''.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US
dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is about
exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying
the impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The USA could
collapse economically.


The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil.

Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971
(after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de
facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard
dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too.
This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the
dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's
economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in
international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro --
there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in
Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must
hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into
the dollar's dominance.

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to
trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had
just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on,
alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had
given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil
producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by
bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba.
Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros)
an obvious market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in
general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this
immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire
capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.


Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for
millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at
the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those
cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the
owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will
accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your
cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your
cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a
TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys
some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread,
the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but
never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the
bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting
a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge
subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has
printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is
an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's
cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this
spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come
flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover
all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy
who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse,
you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his
mates into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.


America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which the
euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell
large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs
to become a powerful force in general international trade. Other nations
would have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would start
to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's
real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most
debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single one of
it's 280 million men, women and children. It is worse than the position of
Indonesia when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently,
that of Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very
nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising the various
contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the US's difficulties
would build. Even if only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that
would do two things immediately:

* Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the 'eurozone', which
in turn would make the euro stronger and make it more attractive to oil
nations as a trading currency and to other nations as a general trading

* Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't enough
in the bank to cover them.

* The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's
value would be spiralling down.


America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come out

It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq:

* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in US
dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency.

* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what will happen
to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran has already received
one message -- remember how puzzled you were that in the midst of moderation
and secularization, Iran was named as a member of the axis of evil?

* Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct
American control.

* Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge force
(perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and Australia) to
dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would enable the US to
avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, the politically
impossible Israel and surely the next state in its sights, Saudi Arabia, the
birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.

* Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading bloc and
currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of world trade through
the dollar.

* Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the
democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an
America-friendly military supported junta -- and put Venezuala's oil into
American hands.

Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate America's
current position and make it all but impregnable as the dominant world
power -- economically and militarily. A splintered Europe (the US is working
hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but other Europeans have offered
support in terms of UN votes) and its euro would suffer a serious setback
and might take decades to recover.

It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in modern
times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible slaughter of a few
hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world domination.

President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This is what
he meant.


Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting around
for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one of increasing
desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq was a threat
because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed Iraq might supply
al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to its neighbours was
raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously
inhumane rule; finally there is the question of compliance with UN weapons

The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less impressive by
the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally without
UN support and in defiance of the UN make a total nonsense of any American
claim that it is concerned about the world body's strength and standing.

The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the UN
weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets which exceed the
range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of the so-called
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so confidently asserted are to
be found. Colin Powell named a certain north Iraqi village as a threat. It
was not. He later admitted it was the wrong village.

'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been
trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, told
the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and anthrax
(Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was just one example) they
neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the US that these weapons had
been destroyed.

Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have been
shown to come from a student's masters thesis.

America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and the
country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's history of
intervention in other states nor by its current actions. Think Guatemala,
the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much larger pool of US
actions to tear down legitimate, democratically elected governments and
replace them with war, disruption, starvation, poverty, corruption,
dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own economic ends. The most
recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in fact that reinstalled a
murderous group of warlords which America had earlier installed, then
deposed, in favour of the now hated Taliban.

Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years ago
when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the Kurds. The
current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so vehement against Iraq
now, was on hand personally to turn aside condemnation of Iraq and blame
Iran. At that time, of course, the US thought Saddam Hussein was their
man -- they were using him against the perceived threat of Iran's Islamic

Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the US's
efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming the military
which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape and murder
Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000 people have died,
and countless others been left maimed by the activities of these monsters.
What price the US's humanitarian concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French
are also wooing Algeria, their former north African territory, for all they
are worth, but at least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian

Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest Muslim
nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is regaining
strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror campaign and is
receiving promises of open and covert support -- including intelligence


While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly and
covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, which grabbed power
briefly in April last year before being intimidated by massive public
displays of support by the poor for democratically-elected President Chavez
Frias. The coup leaders continue to use their control of the private media,
much of industry and the ear of the American Government and its oily
intimates to cause disruption and disturbance.

Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for American
oil companies and provide the US with an important oil source in its own

Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged desire
to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively undermining
the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above the line, America
rushed to recognise the coup last April; more recently, President Bush has
called for "early elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias
has won three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early
elections would be unconstitutional.

One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the behaviour of
American transnational businesses, which have locked out employees in
support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing that in the USA!
There is no question that a covert operation is in process to overturn the
legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan congressman, Jose Nayardi, made
it public when he revealed that the Bush administration had asked for
Uruguay's support for Venezuelan white collar executives and trade union
activists "to break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias
administration". The process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's
1973 intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup
to take over President Allende's democratically elected government in a

President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but with the
might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he last?


Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so many
billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an action.

But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of the
entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the argument

Further, there are three other vital factors:

First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because it is
protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious
contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.

Second -- in reality, war will cost the USA very little -- or at least, very
little over and above normal expenditure. This war is already paid for! All
the munitions and equipment have been bought and paid for. The USA would
have to spend hardly a cent on new hardware to prosecute this war -- the
expenditure will come later when munitions and equipment have to be replaced
after the war. But munitions, hardware andso on are being replaced all the
time -- contracts are out. Some contracts will simply be brought forward and
some others will be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years, the cost
will not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at war
compared with maintaining the standing army around the world, running
exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively small sum.

Third -- lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars spent
outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how America will
pay for these? By printing dollars it is going to war to protect. The same
happens when production begins to replace hardware. components, minerals,
etc. are bought in with dollars that go overseas and exploit America's
trading advantage.

The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of
not going to war would be horrendous for the USA -- unless there were
another way of protecting the greenback's world trade dominance.


Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent Iraqi
war ploy?

Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades widely
in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US dollar would
reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing for the Australian
dollar's value against other currencies. John Howard, the Prime Minister,
has long cherished the dream of a free trade agreement with the USA in the
hope that Australia can jump on the back of the free ride America gets in
trade through the dollar's position as the major trading medium. That would
look much less attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the
oil trade.

Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and blocks the
euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have given his French and
German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained more room to manouevre on the
issue -- perhaps years more room. Britain would be in a position to demand a
better deal from its EU partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new
currency could not make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant
role in world oil trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from
Europe and link with America against continental Europe.

On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar monopoly,
the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and Britain could be
left begging to be allowed into the club.


Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious --
America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates world trade
through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil and a base for its
forces in the Middle East, it would not add to, but would multiply its

The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the writing
on the wall and are quaking in their boots.

France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent, united
Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its euro currency as
a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining some of the free ride the
United States enjoys now. They are the ones who initiated the euro oil trade
with Iraq.

Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the day
America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running a pipeline
southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian oil fields.
Currently, that oil is piped northwards -- where Russia has control.

Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the possibility
of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the US itself. Russia
already has enough problems with the fact that oil is traded in US dollars;
if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could distort the market to Russia's
enormous disadvantage. In addition, Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an
American take over could see them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could
be beggared before a mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.


The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and explains
its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions other than war
are possible.

Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe to have
a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just possible Europe can
stare down the USA and force such an outcome. Time will tell. What about
Europe taking the statesmanlike, humanitarian and long view, and
withdrawing, leaving the oil to the US, with appropriate safeguards for
ordinary Iraqis and democracy in Venezuela?

Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach -- perhaps
accelerating the development of alternative energy technologies which would
reduce the EU's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it could trade
for euros -- shifting the world trade balance.

Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.

. . . .

Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the environment,
sustainability and human rights. . . . .

Geoffrey Heard (c) 2003. Anyone is free to circulate this document provided it
is complete and in its current form with attribution and no payment is
asked. It is prohibited to reproduce this document or any part of it for
commercial gain without the prior permission of the author. For such
permission, contact the author at

'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth' by W. Clark, January 2003
(revised 20 February), Independent Media Center,
This war is about more than oil. OIL DOLLARS!!!! DOLLARS, THE EURO AND WAR
IN IRAQ. This story is based on material posted by Richard Douthwaite on the
FEASTA list in Ireland.
USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela's President

Christine Palma

"Echo in the Sense" -  Poetry, Prose, Performance
- - Cultural and Public Affairs Programming

KXLU Los Angeles - 88.9 FM
Saturday Evenings from 8 to 9 PM

**streaming live - **

"Take a step into the sublime. . ."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:19:53 +0100
From: Oliver Grau <>
Subject: <nettime> [IRAQ] Corruption at the highest level

Chaney will be not the only war winner. The connection of the Bush clan and 
the expected oil booty of Iraq (est. value of US), the 
connection of Pearle (who invested in "Terror Industries (gas masks etc..)" 
to make monney with our fears), and the Rumsfeld millions are not the only 
smelly ties between the Bush administration and obvious private interests...

It would be good for the Iraqis if they could win freedom with honest people.

see also the "lexicon of propaganda", which is on-line again.

Mark Tribe wrote:

 > The New York Times reported today that "Bush administration plans for the

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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:52:43 EST
Subject: Re: <nettime> [IRAQ] Corruption at the highest level


"Multilateral organizations" don't bid on development contracts . . . 
companies do.

Who would you prefer to bid on these contracts -- the Bin Laden Construction 
Company? <g>

"Multilateral organizations" also don't award such contracts, unless they 
have the money to pay for them.

Given that there has been no indication that any "multilateral organization" 
will be collecting any money from any of the various, multiple "laterals," 
who should be asking for contract bids other than the U.S?

What is the logic of your argument? <g>


Mark Stahlman
New York City

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

Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:50:25 -0500 (EST)
From: (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: US government official blind to US people protesting war against Iraq

I just heard Dick Cheney on the "Face the Nation" Sunday morning tv show.

Cheney was asked why there are protests around the world against the
US govt war on Iraq. 

Cheney's answer was that people around the world didn't experience 9-11.

The questioner didn't ask Cheney, then why people in the U.S. are 
demonstrating in great numbers all around the country against war.

He didn't point out how there was all manner and means used to prevent a 
march in NYC against the war on February 15 2003. Yet at least several 
hundred thousand and perhaps almost a million people tried to protest. 
Police blocked many people from getting to the demonstration that had been 
given a permit.

Yesterday there was a large march in Washington DC against the war.

So how could Cheney say that people are protesting because they
hadn't experienced 9-11? How could the moderator just let that stand
and not ask about Americans and New Yorkers who are protesting.

So all matter of means are used to create a milieu of lies to 
justify an illegal and immoral activity by a small group of US
government officials and whoever they represent.

The advertisement on CBS News, which sponsored the program says
that this was brought to us by Cisco Systems and Merrill Lynch.

And the Cisco advertisement was about how people around the world
are being tied together by the Internet, but it didn't use the word
Internet. Instead, it said they are brought together by "Cisco Systems".

So this is the world of show, this is the world that is manufactured
to make excuses for government decisions in the US that have no 
relationship to the people. This is the world that claims the Internet
exists because of Cisco system.

Many cities around the country have passed resolutions condemning war.

There is no means of people affecting the federal government, except
by going out into the streets. And the government officials don't have
any knowledge or regard for the demonstrations in their own country
or their own city.

This is what the U.S. government and the US media like Face the Nation
are presenting to people around the world as "democracy".

To not allow people who opposed what the government of the US is doing
to march on February 15, 2003 is *not* democracy.

This is in no way democracy. That is some of what the demonstrations in
the US and around the world are about. They are about how these 
anti-democratic government people can be functioning as if they are
not part of any responsible entity. They are part of rougue governments.

Then to have the nerve to say on tv that the reason there are protests
around the world is because those people haven't experienced 9-11
is an incredible insult to the people of the world and to the people
of the US and NYC and to those who died in 9-11.

People who had loved ones who died in 9-11 have spoken out about
how they want justice, not wars against other civilians.
Many others around NYC and the US and the world who felt the sadness 
about this cruel loss of life, also want justice, not wars against other 
civilians around the world. We want a lawful world, a world where
governments respect international and national law. 

A junior high school student who went on strike on March 5 was interviewed.
He said that some of what upset him was to hear the US government officials
blaming Iraq for 9-11. That no connection had been made between the 
Iraq people and government and 9-11.

And now in the name of those who died in 9-11, US government officials
are invited to come onto a program like "Meet the Press" and use 9-11
to justify their plan to kill people first in Afganistan, now in Iraq, 
and then in other countries around the world which oppose their dictates.

How could Chaney or U.S. government officials use the deaths of people
in 9-11 to justify killing others around the world?

There is something very wrong that such activity can be promoted
by the US media and US government.

They feel they can be blind to their own citizens, and citizens around 
the world.

But the world is helping those of NYC who don't want a war, not for
any excuse, especially not for the excuse of how to prevent another
9-11. A world of law is needed, not a world of government officials
who use tragedies as excuses for their agressive attacks on other
countries and peoples.

People in NYC who went to the demonstration on February 15, 2003,
had signs thanking people and countries around the world for standing
up to the U.S. government.

The US press needs to help the US government to cease threatening or
going to an illegal war. The US press should be helping to urge
the US government to abide by international law and US constitutional
law. Instead too much of the US press is a party to the illegal
activity and excuses of the U.S. government. Too much of the press in 
the US functions as public relations department for the US government.

Many many people in the US and around the world are trying to do what 
we can to stop such arrogant and dangerous behavior on the part of 
government officials who despise democracy at home and abroad.

Also, however, we need to find some way to deal with the need for a
press in the US that will be worthy of being protected by the U.S.
constitution to speak out against the US government.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:19:15 +0100
From: anne-marie <>
Subject: Extopia: Hip-hoppin gegen den Krieg


New anti-war hip-hop song by  Elka Marhoefer and Anne-Marie Schleiner
(created for a-clip to replace advertising before movies in berlin theaters)

von Elke Marhoefer und Anne-Marie Schleiner(und dank Dr. Dre/SnoopDog)

my mind is a singing
with wordz im a bringing
i put them together in a chain
watch out chooga chooga here comes the train

i tell you i could wing it
my heart thump thumpin so you can hear it
but every beats a beat of pain
cant make it better with a soft refrain

in dem kapitalismus in dem wir leben
hoer ich den refrain der demokratie
doch sie hat nichts zu geben
und wird zur falschen ideologie

eine dunkle mathematik
kranke maechte
in oel und blut
denn sie kann nichts bewahren
und ist der gedanke boeser weltpolitik

diese realitaet die niemals endet
ist die fiktion die uns blendet
in einer zeit die fuer immer bleibt --breit--

my mind is a singing
with wordz im a bringing
i put them together in a chain
watch out chooga chooga here comes the train

Stuttgart 2003
One Laptop and No Microphone Productions

"The Presidents a bush,
and the Vice Presidents a dick,
so a whole lot of fucking
what we gonna get." Talib Kweli--The Proud


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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:17:04 +1100
Subject: No War! No War!

<missive march 2003 from brisbane, australia> having lots of trouble, oh 
international global community, dealing with this counting down
reality that the american government has going. who has died and left them 
kings? sounds like a game show. sounds like somebody's got control of 
everything, wants control of everything. the world. the globe. the land. the 
people. the minds. todya i wrote to the president to tell him i hope he gets 
impeached - bloody well impeached - by every decent, warm blooded democracy-
loving person on this earth. worse. how long can his criminalizing cabinet 
stand around bossing everybody, paying people off, trying to suck everyone in.
go solar! get off your addictions.  fear the loss of control of weapons of 
mass destruction on all sides - armegeddon -god'sland's possibility of final 
nukedom - is god holy? is holy holy? -  or will it just be fast and dirty? 
thugs run in like a gangster flick - white caddy - and rush out with the 
goods, the guys.  

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

Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:13:56 -0700
From: "rick silva" <>
Subject: war time mix

war time mix   by rick silva aka cuechamp

approx. 50 min. long

1. public enemy - countdown to armageddon vs. fuckitall - state of the union 
    address remix vs. dj spooky - pandemonium 

2. radio bemba soundsystem - machine gun

3. congo natty - red alert vs. mr vegas - war

4. the coup feat. dead prez - get up

5. the evolution control committee - rocked by rape

6. top gun over baghdad - cuechamp

7. public image limited feat. afrika bambaataa - world destruction

8. mandroid - rogue missile vs. atari teenage riot - revolution action (a 

9. rage against the machine - testify (rowena projects mix)

10. v man - who attacked us? (gwb remix)

11. david bowie - i'm afraid of americans (photek mix)

12. nena - 99 luftballons (westbam mix)

13. bjork - joga (state of emergency mix by alec empire)

.. .::.....::::..::::::::...::..:.. ::  ....:.::

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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:09:26 +0100
From: "Konrad Becker" <>
Subject: Lethal Cognition 

[sorry... formating was broken in the previous ...- Konrad]


++ Lethal Cognition ++ 
Forthcoming:World-Information.Org @ Novi Sad and Belgrade ++
++ Now Out: World-Information.Org’s Book "Die Politik der Infosphaere"
++ Interviews with Brian Holmes and Ben Bagdikian ++
++ compiled by World-Information.Org ++



Entanglement nets form part of the
less-than-lethal-weapons armory that was heralded in
past years as a step to a new kind of war:
bloodless, and therefore "humane". Four years after
Steve Wright denounced the "hypocrisy of non-lethal
weapons", the US prepares to go to a new war that is
set to apply the non-lethal principle of
entanglement to the info-sphere. As a key tool of
propaganda and deception, it becomes the functional
basis of the war of networks. "Dominating the
information landscape now is as important as
occupying the land or controlling the air has been
in the past", as US General Ronald L. Fogleman
states in his infowar manual.

Non-lethal disinformation

On the information battlefield the less-than-lethal
characteristic of entanglement nets translates into
the "less-than-a-lie" principle of disinformation.
Shifting between varying narrative contexts, the
facts cited in official rhetoric draw their validity
from the secrecy of their origin, the "secret"

Yet the Iraqi National Council, frequently quoted by
the US government as a reliable source of
information, was recently exposed as a PR front
group created by the Rendon Group. Sure enough,
stories like these are unlikely to appear in
mainstream media, and less still in a new propaganda
radio station apparently set up by the CIA to
cognitively entangle the Iraqi population: Radio
Tikrit, named after Saddam Hussein’s birth town and
broadcasting from Kuwait and from airplanes, is
supposed to target the mind of the enemy commander,
the "real target of war", as Basil Liddell Hart
writes in strategy classic "Thoughts on War".

But the convenience of networks in war propaganda
could have serious consequences as they begin to
affect system architectures. One decisive step
towards entangling information and disinformation
and avoid non-patriotic crossfire, is the Pentagon’s
"Embed" program: journalists’ work is fully
"embedded" into the Forces’ mission, and bonds of
fraternization are generated in integrated training
programs. In addition, US army officers will be
equipped with satellite links in order to ensure
that the gun barrel perspective shapes public
opinion before the public can shape it themselves.

Non-lethal energy

Strengthening one’s own disinformation
infrastructure and destroying the enemy's go hand in
hand. Direct Energy weapons are supposed to
non-lethally disrupt electronic networks command and
control networks of the enemy in Iraq, as are
High-Power Microwave weapons. These weapons, for
which Iraq will be a test field, are taken to their
targets by cruise missiles and are expected to
disable al electronic equipment, radios, mobile
phones and heart pacemakers alike, within a few
hundred meters. Using frequencies between one and
ten Gigahertz, these weapons occupy the pinnacle of
the radiation spectrum, promising electromagnetic

Way beyond the range of these weapons, in the
Florida sunshine that spoils the US Forces’ Central
Command, doing all these non-lethal things seems to
be part of an information wellness experience.
Picturesque beaches, war games and the glamour of
hi-tech equipment leave no doubt that violence and
entertainment have finally been fused into a
military-entertainment complex.

Getting real

In the meantime, the future reconstruction of the
communication infrastructure destroyed this way is
already generating real business expectations. The
US is expected to reserve this market for its own
companies, ensuring that France, whose Altel
corporation built Iraq’s telephone system in the
1980s, and who now forms part of the "axis of
 weasel" (New York Post) will be left out.
By contrast, repairing the cognitive collateral
damage of the coming Iraq war does not sound like
something that will attract much investment.


++ LINKS ++

Steven Wright on non-lethal weapons

General Fogleman’s Infowar manual

PR Watch on Iraqi National Council

"Embedded in the Iraq Conflict" (Chicago Tribune)

New Scientist on Radio Tikrit

Microwave Weapons

US Forces Central Command

Interview with Bruce Sterling about the
Military-Entertainment Complex (by Krystian

"Looking Beyond a War in Iraq" (New York Times)



After successful presentations in Brussels (2000),
Vienna (2000), Munich (2001), Helsinki (2001),
Berlin (2002), London (2002) and Amsterdam (2002)
World-Information.Org will once again stage its
extensive exhibition and conference program. This
time the venues are located in Serbia, where
World-Information.Org will be shown from 22 March to
5 April, 2003, in Novi Sad's Museum of Vojvodina and
from 19 April to 5 May, 2003, at the Museum of
Contemporary Art in Belgrade.

While the World-Information Exhibition will outline
the history of communication networks and explore
their future, exhibit historic and state-of-the-art
control and surveillance technology and display
digital artworks and installations, the
World-Information Forum entitled "Total
DisInformation Awareness: Conflict, Control and
Freedom of Information" and held on 20 April, 2003,
in Belgrade will bring together international and
renowned speakers from the fields of activism,
politics, journalism and culture to discuss
communication technologies and their role in the
psychological positioning of ideas. Rounding off
the exhibition and the conference will be the
World-Information Lounge; a temporary space, where
presentations and lectures from artists, activists,
professionals and scientist as well as discussions
will take place.

The opening event will take place on 22 March, 2003,
at 18.00 at Museum of Vojvodina, Novi Sad.

In cooperation with and Museum of
Contemporary Art Belgrade.



"Die Politik der Infosphäre. World-Information.Org",
an introductory reader on the politics and culture
of information (in German language) is a
representation of the research on the social and
cultural implications of new information and
communication technologies, carried out in the
framework of the project World-Information.Org of
the Vienna-based Institute for New Culture
Technologies / t0.

In a stimulating and highly readable fashion, the
individual chapters provide insights into the
interrelations between social processes and
information and communication technologies.
Following introductions by renowned Sociology
Professor Saskia Sassen and Konrad Becker, Director
of World-Information.Org, the book is divided into
seven main sections including "Global Networks",
"Global Info Rights" and "Global Security".

"Die Politik der Infosphäre. World-Information.Org"
will be presented at the Leipzig book fair (20 - 23
March, 2003) and was produced in cooperation with
Center for Civic Education, Berlin. It will soon be
available for sale via the Center for Civic
Education and Leske + Budrich publishers.


Center for Civic Education

Leske + Budrich



Ben Bagdikian, Professor Emeritus of Journalism at
the University of Berkley (US), and one of the
foremost media critics in the US on media, elections
and democracy.


Writer, art critic and translator Brian Holmes about
his collaboration with the French artist group
Bureau 'Études in mapping capitalist structures.



The Institute for New Culture Technologies/t0
is the carrier of World-Information.Org
Zwischenquartier, Burggasse 21
A-1070 Vienna, Austria
phone: ++ 43.1.522 18 34
fax: ++ 43.1.522 50 58

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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:31:05 +0100
From: (philip pocock)
Subject: ami-prop sources

what is raining down by closed database broadcasters from america

information news radio from pentagon/cia


philip pocock

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

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:00:25 -0800
From: Seth <>
Subject: Not In My Name!


On this eve of unjust war in Iraq and across the world, I urge you to check
out these songs of protest and PLEASE help pass them on.


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

This email comes at you from Not In Our Name, Saul Williams, DJ Spooky,
Coldcut, Ninjatune, and Synchronic Records - who have created some powerful
music and art AGAINST THE WAR.

Time is short, and we need your help to spread this art and message far and

At the site below, we have provided the music to download FREE as MP3s,
graphics, text, banners - everything you need to make this travel

We ask you to do 2 things right away:

and everywhere you can, including websites, friends, peer-to-peer networks,
radio shows, at protests and rallies.  Write about them.  Make your own
remixes (downloads include a vocal track).  Whatever's clever!

2) TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE SONGS. Forward this email to friends,
and motivate their friends to do same.

Please help us make this message of peace and solidarity go viral!!

Another world is possible, and we pledge to make it REAL!!!


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


"No Man's Land Radio"

Available for free for download at

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

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: