doc mercer,
I was wondering if you could reference a credible site where you read of Cheney's nuke policy? I would like to see this in print because a lot of what you say reminds me of a guy I know that can't stand Jerry Falwell yet he watches his show regularly and swears at the television. If I don't like someone, I don't watch. It's that simple. I don't know if you listen to Limbaugh or just parroting what you have read elsewhere.
I was wondering if you could reference a credible site where you read of Cheney's nuke policy? I would like to see this in print because a lot of what you say reminds me of a guy I know that can't stand Jerry Falwell yet he watches his show regularly and swears at the television. If I don't like someone, I don't watch. It's that simple. I don't know if you listen to Limbaugh or just parroting what you have read elsewhere.
Mr. J: email me at tmvlea70@yahoo.ca -- I may be able to help.
I am very sorry to hear about your wife and your own medical condition. I hope all goes well for you. A word of advice if you seek to move here: keep this as far away from the public record as you can. There is a bit of a backlash here regarding Canada accepting new citizens who require immediate medical care as we took in many children with AIDS through the 90s who were depleting, rather than enhancing, our medical care. At any rate, I can probably get you the forms and such that you need, maybe even see about sponsorship. Best of luck to you and yours.
I am very sorry to hear about your wife and your own medical condition. I hope all goes well for you. A word of advice if you seek to move here: keep this as far away from the public record as you can. There is a bit of a backlash here regarding Canada accepting new citizens who require immediate medical care as we took in many children with AIDS through the 90s who were depleting, rather than enhancing, our medical care. At any rate, I can probably get you the forms and such that you need, maybe even see about sponsorship. Best of luck to you and yours.
Cujo: Lot of stuff you can find out about Cheney's strategy:
Mahl Magazine, Seoul, Korea, February 2004 issue ... www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/LaRouche_mahl.doc <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>
[font=한]Title: Cheney Opposed a Unified Korea[font=한] [/font]
[font=한]Last fall, Mahl Magazine received some interesting emails from the American magazine EIR about U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's responsibility for manufacturing the current North Korea nuclear crisis. The author was Mrs. Kathy Wolfe, spokeswoman of U.S. Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Subsequently two LaRouche spokesmen visited Seoul, and we published their interview in our December issue. In a new interview about the U.S. Presidential election, Mr. LaRouche stressed the danger that Cheney's doctrine of preventive nuclear war could lead to another Korean War. [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]EIR also has revealed that in 1991, Cheney as U.S. Defense Secretary produced a "Defense Planning Guidance" document, which called for the preventive war doctrine and for its use against not only Iraq, but also North Korea. We knew about the first strike doctrine, of course, but we were amazed to learn of the existence of Cheney's Defense Guidance, so we first investigated this strange document in more detail. [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
The Cheney Pentagon's 46-page "Defense Planning Guidance" was written in late 1991, according to articles in the American press soon after, to establish the new U.S. defense strategy after the fall of the Soviet Union. It says that America must plan to prevent the emergence of any future potential global competitor, which might pose a threat such as was posed by the former Soviet Union, including Russia, China and India, and even allies such as Germany and Japan, and even mentions Korea. This should be America's main strategy for the 1990s.
<o></o>
It says America just had two visible victories: the fall of the USSR and the first Iraq War. A less visible third victory was the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security. The document says control over all such allies must be maintained:
<o></o>
"Asia is home to the world’s greatest concentration of Communist states. . .We must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area. This will enable the U.S. to prevent emergence of a regional hegemon. . . Any precipitous withdrawal of United States military forces could provoke an unwanted response from Japan. We must also sensitive to the potentially destabilizing effects that enhanced roles by particularly Japan, but also possibly Korea, might produce. <o></o>
<o></o>
"The use of weapons of mass destruction in regional conflicts could spur further proliferation which in turn would threaten world order. Nuclear proliferation, if unchecked by superpower action, could tempt Germany, Japan and other industrial powers to acquire nuclear weapons to deter attack from regional foes, leading eventually to global competition with the United States."<o></o>
<o></o>
The document also discusses the preventive strike doctrine, saying that the U.S. must prepare itself to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Those steps could include pre-empting an attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or punishing the attackers, which may include regional wars against Iraq and North Korea. <o></o>
But what most amazed us, was that rather than talk only about "north Korea" as a threat, this document also mentions "Korea," meaning a unified Korea. We must understand that they are writing just after the reunification of Germany, and expecting a possible reunification of Korea. They wrote that after the fall of the USSR, countries like Germany and Japan could possibly some day rearm, "as well as other industrial powers." So when it says "other industrial powers" could acquire nuclear weapons and become global competitors of the United States, it means other European nations – but it also it means the potentially unified Korea, which would be a significant industrial nation.
[font=한]Now, it happens that after we published the LaRouche representatives' interview in our December issue, I received many critical comments about Mr. LaRouche. "LaRouche is an extreme right-winger," for example, or "LaRouche is not a Democratic candidate," were some frequent comments.[/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]But my investigation of the truth shows otherwise; it shows that none of these statements coincide with reality. For example, LaRouche has stressed the need for the role of the state in political and economic policy. But in America where liberal individualism is mainstream, the American left may view LaRouche as on the right, just for supporting any role for the state. This is because the American left is too liberal, too influenced by Adam Smith -- as is the left in Korea. [/font]
[font=한]A second important example is that on the internet website of the American Federal Election Commission (FEC), one can easily find all the names of the pre candidates of the Democratic Party, and there is clearly shown Mr. LaRouche. In fact, as of Oct. 2003, it shows that LaRouche is number 2 of all pre-candidates in the number of individual contributors, and number 6 in the amount of total citizens' contributions summed up in dollars. If people understand this, they will see quickly that LaRouche is not a peculiarity or an outsider, but rather he has many stable supporters and meaningful political power in the USA. Here follows the interview with Mr. LaRouche:[/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]MAHL: Looking at Cheney’s "Defence Planning Guidance," it is somewhat frightening the insistence with which they have stuck to this issue. Since the beginning of the 1990s, to the present, for the last 10 years, the Neo-con agenda is being realised step by step, isn’t it? [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
LaROUCHE: That is their intention, yes, at least. Bush is an idiot, the problem is Cheney. Cheney as Defense Secretary back in 1991-1992, while Bush was nowhere, developed the policy of preventive nuclear war, also called "first strike." Cheney and his neo-cons put out a Defense Planning Guidance with their new policy. With the U.S.S.R. just fallen, it said, the U.S.A. must now get ready to make a first strike, even with mini-nukes and other nuclear weapons, to stop any nation, ever again, from becoming a competitor.
<o></o>
In this document, Cheney proposed that Iraq and North Korea should be attacked, in war-fighting scenarios written for the US military. That is a decade before September 11, 2001. [font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]MAHL: But countries such as Iraq and North Korea are not the type of state which is powerful enough to challenge the USA for world domination, isn't that true?[/font]
[font=한]LaRouche: Iraq and North Korea were not the only targets of the preventive war doctrine. The Cheney Defense Guidance says that the real aim is to keep Russia, China and India, even Germany and Japan , also possibly Korea, from becoming regional or world powers. What they write is that if Iraq or North Korea get nuclear weapons, then all these other countries will want them, too, so therefore none of these countries can be allowed to have nuclear arms. But it is clear that what they really mean is: control Japan; control Germany, just reunified in 1990; control any future unified Korea. Terrorizing smaller states such as Iraq or North Korea, is really aimed to maintain control over all the other nations. It terrorizes everyone.[/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]MAHL: Nowadays in Korea people are beginning a campaign for defeating Bush in the U.S. election. But according to what you have said, I think that "dumping Cheney" is more important than just "defeating Bush."[/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
LaROUCHE: Cheney's preventive nuclear war doctrine was announced as the new National Security Policy of the United States on September 17, 2002. Already at that time, I called for Cheney to resign, on the grounds that the preventive war policy is a terrible breach of the U.S. Constitution, and of all moral law.
<o></o>
It is time for us to be serious – a fool like Bush could never have thought of all these extensive geopolitical theories! Bush can't even spell "Afghanistan," everybody knows it. Puppets like Bush come and go. It's popular and easy to criticize such an obvious idiot. But it's a trap to only criticize the puppet – you must attack the puppet master. Cheney and his preventive nuclear war policy must be made the center of criticism and political attack. [font=한] [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]MAHL: Regarding the U.S. election in November, many Korean progressives are worried Bush will be re-elected. So the Korean media are now prognosticating the chances of various Democratic candidates to defeat Bush, for example Howard Dean. [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
LaROUCHE: If you want to defeat Cheney and Bush, you have to have credibility with the American people. For that, you've got to nominate a real FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) Democrat with a strong attack on Cheney's preventive war policy, and a real change to an entirely new economic program. But most Democrats have the same policies as Bush!
<o></o>
The problem is the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The DNC wants to sit there and say nothing about the economic crisis or Cheney's pre-emptive wars. They are dead meat. You could make giant efforts, and work very hard to defeat Bush – and then, you could easily get a Democratic candidate with this same Cheney policy, unless I am President!
<o></o>
Look, Cheney's first strike policy was almost sold to Bill Clinton right after he took office in early 1993, when Cheney followers nearly convinced Clinton to bomb North Korea. That's public knowledge now; Madeleine Albright announced it recently. We can't blame Clinton – later he created a good Korea policy -- but in 1993 when Clinton just arrived from the countryside, the Cheney advisors in the DNC Democratic mafia, made these demands. These are the permanent power circles of the DNC, tied to the financiers, tied to Wall Street. In 1993, they had the planes ready to drop bombs on North Korea! Al Gore supports the Cheney first strike policy, so does Joe Lieberman -- and I wonder about Howard Dean. Why don't you ask him?
[font=한]MAHL: But Korean progressives usually view the U.S. Democratic Party in a favorable light. [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
LaROUCHE: People think the Democratic Party is supposed to represent the American citizens. But I just wrote an "Open Letter to the DNC" ( December 24, 2003). I noted that at the 1944 Democratic National Convention, everyone knew FDR was dying, and the followers of Britain's H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, had the fool Harry Truman made Vice President. Never forget: Harry Truman, the Wall Street Democrat, dropped the world's first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! How could a Democrat commit such a crime?
<o></o>
You (Mahl Magazine) interviewed my representatives recently, and said you were surprised and happy to hear that I was calling for a new monetary system and criticizing the destructive results of international hot money. You said that many Koreans regard the U.S. Democratic Party as the spokesman for trans-national finance capital, after Korea's terrible experience in the IMF crisis of 1997-2000. Why is that? You need to look closely at the DNC.[font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]MAHL: What kind of military policy was taken by President Truman? [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]LaROUCHE: The utopians wanted to create an Anglo-American world government using nuclear weapons to terrify the world, so they put in Truman in 1944, and forced the Democratic Party to endorse the doctrine of preventive nuclear war. Truman also blundered into the first Korean War in 1950 the same way. [/font]
<o></o>
Truman dropped the nuclear bomb on Japan, then made continuing threats to drop it on the USSR and China. Under this same preventive war doctrine, Truman threatened the USSR with preventive nuclear war, in Turkey, in the Baltic, many other times. Truman's mentor, Lord Bertrand Russell, said: don't negotiate -- just make threats! The Russians don't have the A-bomb. They will back down.
<o></o>
But Truman got a reaction where he did not expect it: the North Koreans moved into the South in 1950. Instead of making the communists back down, Truman's threats provoked a war and killed millions.[font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]MAHL: Using such nuclear policy as "pre-emptive attack," you say that Truman rejected political negotiation. How is it now with Cheney? [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
LaROUCHE: On Dec. 12, Cheney personally intervened to stall the Six Power Talks on North Korea, by rejecting compromise plans put forward by China and other participants. Cheney said, We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it. Just like Truman, Cheney's policy is: don't negotiate, just threaten. Cheney thinks that he can threaten anyone hard enough, and they will back down. But he's insane. Just as in the last Korean War, Cheney's threats could result now, instead, in a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula, which could escalate potentially into a world nuclear conflict. [font=한] [/font][font=한] [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]MAHL: Please explain to more to us about why you are running for the presidency? [/font][font=한] <o></o>[/font]
[font=한]LaROUCHE: America has three terrible problems. First, we're in an economic depression, far worse than the 1930s Great Depression, and we're in a global financial collapse worse than the Crash of 1929. The United States is bankrupt. We are borrowing $1.4 billion a day from overseas to survive, every day. As a result, the dollar has fallen from 83 US cents per euro, since October 2000, to $1.26 per euro, a drop of 32% The gold price, the platinum price, are zooming. The post-1971 floating rate "non system" is crashing.[/font]
Second, we have Vice President Cheney's policy of preventive nuclear war, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq. Next, North Korea, Iran, Syria are on his hit list. Under Cheney, we face more wars; he may use nuclear weapons such as mini-nukes to attack North Korea. This first strike policy must be stopped. This anti-American doctrine, must be uprooted from our government. Due to Cheney's unilateral doctrine, we now have the worst relations with Europe, Asia and other nations, in the history of the United States. We must sharply reverse this.
Third, the first two problems are caused by a failed philosophy of government. Since the 1960s, we foolishly changed policy, to the anti-American philosophy of Malthus. It's a deliberate policy of anti-industrialism, zero or below-zero growth. For this reason, America has gone from the world's most successful producer society, into a post-industrial society which is producing nothing, and importing everything we need to survive. America lost 1.4 million jobs in 2003 alone; we've lost over 3 million jobs, since Cheney announced his "War on Terror." To live off imports instead, we enforce a global financial system, centered on the IMF, which keeps wages, and living standards at slave labor levels around the world. So we're stealing from our allies, and bankrupting ourselves.
Now the dollar collapse means: the world won't take our paper any more, to give us their food and industrial goods. The game is over, the system must be reorganized.
[/font]
Mahl Magazine, Seoul, Korea, February 2004 issue ... www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/dprk/LaRouche_mahl.doc <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>[font=한]Title: Cheney Opposed a Unified Korea[font=한] [/font]
[font=한]Last fall, Mahl Magazine received some interesting emails from the American magazine EIR about U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's responsibility for manufacturing the current North Korea nuclear crisis. The author was Mrs. Kathy Wolfe, spokeswoman of U.S. Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Subsequently two LaRouche spokesmen visited Seoul, and we published their interview in our December issue. In a new interview about the U.S. Presidential election, Mr. LaRouche stressed the danger that Cheney's doctrine of preventive nuclear war could lead to another Korean War. [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]EIR also has revealed that in 1991, Cheney as U.S. Defense Secretary produced a "Defense Planning Guidance" document, which called for the preventive war doctrine and for its use against not only Iraq, but also North Korea. We knew about the first strike doctrine, of course, but we were amazed to learn of the existence of Cheney's Defense Guidance, so we first investigated this strange document in more detail. [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font]The Cheney Pentagon's 46-page "Defense Planning Guidance" was written in late 1991, according to articles in the American press soon after, to establish the new U.S. defense strategy after the fall of the Soviet Union. It says that America must plan to prevent the emergence of any future potential global competitor, which might pose a threat such as was posed by the former Soviet Union, including Russia, China and India, and even allies such as Germany and Japan, and even mentions Korea. This should be America's main strategy for the 1990s.
<o
></o>It says America just had two visible victories: the fall of the USSR and the first Iraq War. A less visible third victory was the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security. The document says control over all such allies must be maintained:
<o
></o>"Asia is home to the world’s greatest concentration of Communist states. . .We must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area. This will enable the U.S. to prevent emergence of a regional hegemon. . . Any precipitous withdrawal of United States military forces could provoke an unwanted response from Japan. We must also sensitive to the potentially destabilizing effects that enhanced roles by particularly Japan, but also possibly Korea, might produce. <o
></o><o
></o>"The use of weapons of mass destruction in regional conflicts could spur further proliferation which in turn would threaten world order. Nuclear proliferation, if unchecked by superpower action, could tempt Germany, Japan and other industrial powers to acquire nuclear weapons to deter attack from regional foes, leading eventually to global competition with the United States."<o
></o><o
></o>The document also discusses the preventive strike doctrine, saying that the U.S. must prepare itself to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Those steps could include pre-empting an attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or punishing the attackers, which may include regional wars against Iraq and North Korea. <o
></o>But what most amazed us, was that rather than talk only about "north Korea" as a threat, this document also mentions "Korea," meaning a unified Korea. We must understand that they are writing just after the reunification of Germany, and expecting a possible reunification of Korea. They wrote that after the fall of the USSR, countries like Germany and Japan could possibly some day rearm, "as well as other industrial powers." So when it says "other industrial powers" could acquire nuclear weapons and become global competitors of the United States, it means other European nations – but it also it means the potentially unified Korea, which would be a significant industrial nation.
[font=한]Now, it happens that after we published the LaRouche representatives' interview in our December issue, I received many critical comments about Mr. LaRouche. "LaRouche is an extreme right-winger," for example, or "LaRouche is not a Democratic candidate," were some frequent comments.[/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]But my investigation of the truth shows otherwise; it shows that none of these statements coincide with reality. For example, LaRouche has stressed the need for the role of the state in political and economic policy. But in America where liberal individualism is mainstream, the American left may view LaRouche as on the right, just for supporting any role for the state. This is because the American left is too liberal, too influenced by Adam Smith -- as is the left in Korea. [/font]
[font=한]A second important example is that on the internet website of the American Federal Election Commission (FEC), one can easily find all the names of the pre candidates of the Democratic Party, and there is clearly shown Mr. LaRouche. In fact, as of Oct. 2003, it shows that LaRouche is number 2 of all pre-candidates in the number of individual contributors, and number 6 in the amount of total citizens' contributions summed up in dollars. If people understand this, they will see quickly that LaRouche is not a peculiarity or an outsider, but rather he has many stable supporters and meaningful political power in the USA. Here follows the interview with Mr. LaRouche:[/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]MAHL: Looking at Cheney’s "Defence Planning Guidance," it is somewhat frightening the insistence with which they have stuck to this issue. Since the beginning of the 1990s, to the present, for the last 10 years, the Neo-con agenda is being realised step by step, isn’t it? [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font]LaROUCHE: That is their intention, yes, at least. Bush is an idiot, the problem is Cheney. Cheney as Defense Secretary back in 1991-1992, while Bush was nowhere, developed the policy of preventive nuclear war, also called "first strike." Cheney and his neo-cons put out a Defense Planning Guidance with their new policy. With the U.S.S.R. just fallen, it said, the U.S.A. must now get ready to make a first strike, even with mini-nukes and other nuclear weapons, to stop any nation, ever again, from becoming a competitor.
<o
></o>In this document, Cheney proposed that Iraq and North Korea should be attacked, in war-fighting scenarios written for the US military. That is a decade before September 11, 2001. [font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]MAHL: But countries such as Iraq and North Korea are not the type of state which is powerful enough to challenge the USA for world domination, isn't that true?[/font]
[font=한]LaRouche: Iraq and North Korea were not the only targets of the preventive war doctrine. The Cheney Defense Guidance says that the real aim is to keep Russia, China and India, even Germany and Japan , also possibly Korea, from becoming regional or world powers. What they write is that if Iraq or North Korea get nuclear weapons, then all these other countries will want them, too, so therefore none of these countries can be allowed to have nuclear arms. But it is clear that what they really mean is: control Japan; control Germany, just reunified in 1990; control any future unified Korea. Terrorizing smaller states such as Iraq or North Korea, is really aimed to maintain control over all the other nations. It terrorizes everyone.[/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]MAHL: Nowadays in Korea people are beginning a campaign for defeating Bush in the U.S. election. But according to what you have said, I think that "dumping Cheney" is more important than just "defeating Bush."[/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font]LaROUCHE: Cheney's preventive nuclear war doctrine was announced as the new National Security Policy of the United States on September 17, 2002. Already at that time, I called for Cheney to resign, on the grounds that the preventive war policy is a terrible breach of the U.S. Constitution, and of all moral law.
<o
></o>It is time for us to be serious – a fool like Bush could never have thought of all these extensive geopolitical theories! Bush can't even spell "Afghanistan," everybody knows it. Puppets like Bush come and go. It's popular and easy to criticize such an obvious idiot. But it's a trap to only criticize the puppet – you must attack the puppet master. Cheney and his preventive nuclear war policy must be made the center of criticism and political attack. [font=한] [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]MAHL: Regarding the U.S. election in November, many Korean progressives are worried Bush will be re-elected. So the Korean media are now prognosticating the chances of various Democratic candidates to defeat Bush, for example Howard Dean. [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font]LaROUCHE: If you want to defeat Cheney and Bush, you have to have credibility with the American people. For that, you've got to nominate a real FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) Democrat with a strong attack on Cheney's preventive war policy, and a real change to an entirely new economic program. But most Democrats have the same policies as Bush!
<o
></o>The problem is the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The DNC wants to sit there and say nothing about the economic crisis or Cheney's pre-emptive wars. They are dead meat. You could make giant efforts, and work very hard to defeat Bush – and then, you could easily get a Democratic candidate with this same Cheney policy, unless I am President!
<o
></o>Look, Cheney's first strike policy was almost sold to Bill Clinton right after he took office in early 1993, when Cheney followers nearly convinced Clinton to bomb North Korea. That's public knowledge now; Madeleine Albright announced it recently. We can't blame Clinton – later he created a good Korea policy -- but in 1993 when Clinton just arrived from the countryside, the Cheney advisors in the DNC Democratic mafia, made these demands. These are the permanent power circles of the DNC, tied to the financiers, tied to Wall Street. In 1993, they had the planes ready to drop bombs on North Korea! Al Gore supports the Cheney first strike policy, so does Joe Lieberman -- and I wonder about Howard Dean. Why don't you ask him?
[font=한]MAHL: But Korean progressives usually view the U.S. Democratic Party in a favorable light. [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font]LaROUCHE: People think the Democratic Party is supposed to represent the American citizens. But I just wrote an "Open Letter to the DNC" ( December 24, 2003). I noted that at the 1944 Democratic National Convention, everyone knew FDR was dying, and the followers of Britain's H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, had the fool Harry Truman made Vice President. Never forget: Harry Truman, the Wall Street Democrat, dropped the world's first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! How could a Democrat commit such a crime?
<o
></o>You (Mahl Magazine) interviewed my representatives recently, and said you were surprised and happy to hear that I was calling for a new monetary system and criticizing the destructive results of international hot money. You said that many Koreans regard the U.S. Democratic Party as the spokesman for trans-national finance capital, after Korea's terrible experience in the IMF crisis of 1997-2000. Why is that? You need to look closely at the DNC.[font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]MAHL: What kind of military policy was taken by President Truman? [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]LaROUCHE: The utopians wanted to create an Anglo-American world government using nuclear weapons to terrify the world, so they put in Truman in 1944, and forced the Democratic Party to endorse the doctrine of preventive nuclear war. Truman also blundered into the first Korean War in 1950 the same way. [/font]
<o
></o>Truman dropped the nuclear bomb on Japan, then made continuing threats to drop it on the USSR and China. Under this same preventive war doctrine, Truman threatened the USSR with preventive nuclear war, in Turkey, in the Baltic, many other times. Truman's mentor, Lord Bertrand Russell, said: don't negotiate -- just make threats! The Russians don't have the A-bomb. They will back down.
<o
></o>But Truman got a reaction where he did not expect it: the North Koreans moved into the South in 1950. Instead of making the communists back down, Truman's threats provoked a war and killed millions.[font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]MAHL: Using such nuclear policy as "pre-emptive attack," you say that Truman rejected political negotiation. How is it now with Cheney? [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font]LaROUCHE: On Dec. 12, Cheney personally intervened to stall the Six Power Talks on North Korea, by rejecting compromise plans put forward by China and other participants. Cheney said, We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it. Just like Truman, Cheney's policy is: don't negotiate, just threaten. Cheney thinks that he can threaten anyone hard enough, and they will back down. But he's insane. Just as in the last Korean War, Cheney's threats could result now, instead, in a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula, which could escalate potentially into a world nuclear conflict. [font=한] [/font][font=한] [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]MAHL: Please explain to more to us about why you are running for the presidency? [/font][font=한] <o
></o>[/font][font=한]LaROUCHE: America has three terrible problems. First, we're in an economic depression, far worse than the 1930s Great Depression, and we're in a global financial collapse worse than the Crash of 1929. The United States is bankrupt. We are borrowing $1.4 billion a day from overseas to survive, every day. As a result, the dollar has fallen from 83 US cents per euro, since October 2000, to $1.26 per euro, a drop of 32% The gold price, the platinum price, are zooming. The post-1971 floating rate "non system" is crashing.[/font]
Second, we have Vice President Cheney's policy of preventive nuclear war, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq. Next, North Korea, Iran, Syria are on his hit list. Under Cheney, we face more wars; he may use nuclear weapons such as mini-nukes to attack North Korea. This first strike policy must be stopped. This anti-American doctrine, must be uprooted from our government. Due to Cheney's unilateral doctrine, we now have the worst relations with Europe, Asia and other nations, in the history of the United States. We must sharply reverse this.
Third, the first two problems are caused by a failed philosophy of government. Since the 1960s, we foolishly changed policy, to the anti-American philosophy of Malthus. It's a deliberate policy of anti-industrialism, zero or below-zero growth. For this reason, America has gone from the world's most successful producer society, into a post-industrial society which is producing nothing, and importing everything we need to survive. America lost 1.4 million jobs in 2003 alone; we've lost over 3 million jobs, since Cheney announced his "War on Terror." To live off imports instead, we enforce a global financial system, centered on the IMF, which keeps wages, and living standards at slave labor levels around the world. So we're stealing from our allies, and bankrupting ourselves.
Now the dollar collapse means: the world won't take our paper any more, to give us their food and industrial goods. The game is over, the system must be reorganized.
[/font]
