Scientist Stephen Hawking Decries Iraq War

[The Sushi Bandit]

I dont have a link.. it came as an e-mail

By TIM ELFRINK
Associated Press Writer

November 2, 2004, 3:27 PM EST


LONDON -- Britain's most famous scientist, Stephen Hawking, condemned the U.S. led invasion of Iraq as a "war crime" and said Tuesday it was based on lies.

The physicist spoke at an anti-war demonstration in London's Trafalgar Square timed to coincide with the U.S. election. Protesters read out the names of thousands of Iraqis and coalition troops killed since the March 2003 invasion.

"The war was based on two lies," said Hawking. "The first was we were in danger of weapons of mass destruction and the second was that Iraq was somehow to blame for Sept. 11.

"It has been a tragedy for all the families that have lost members. As many as 100,000 people have died, half of them women and children. If that is not a war crime, what is?"

Hawking, the best-selling author of "A Brief History Of Time," was joined by other public figures. Similar events were being held in Spain, Italy, Australia, the United States and Iraq.

"Our message to the U.S. is that the war is illegal and unnecessary, and we want our troops to come home," said Andrew Burgin, a spokesman for demonstration organizer Stop the War Coalition. "We also want to highlight the enormous number of Iraqis killed in this conflict who are so often ignored."

In Trafalgar Square, hundreds of spectators holding candles or placards opposing President Bush listened as speakers read the names of the dead while their images were projected onto a large screen.

One group of students from London's Imperial College waved anti-Bush signs, hoping to send a message to U.S. voters.

"If enough people show up tonight at the demonstration, I think a few more voters might notice what we're saying," said Emma Thomson, a student from Scotland who said she was able to cast a vote in Pennsylvania because she was born there.

[NVMojo]

1. sadly, ,Emma, most americons are stupid...

i work with several and they don't see past the promises of Bush to the realities...

[dummy-du1]

2. A political system that delivers this disastrous mistake needs reform

I cannot post new threads yet, but I just was reminded of Richard Dawkins' article written one year ago:

Bin Laden's victory - A political system that delivers this disastrous mistake needs reform

Well, the guy is not a prophet but he's one of the best scientist of our times, read this little quote:

The population of the US is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the US leads the world by miles. You would think that a country with such resources, and such a field of talent, would be able to elect a leader of the highest quality. Yet, what has happened? At the end of all the primaries and party caucuses, the speeches and the televised debates, after a year or more of non-stop electioneering bustle, who, out of that entire population of 300 million, emerges at the top of the heap? George Bush.

My American friends, you know I love your country, how have we come to this? Yes, yes, Bush isn't quite as stupid as he sounds, and heaven knows he can't be as stupid as he looks. I know most of you didn't vote for him anyway, but that is my point. Forgive my presumption, but could it just be that there is something a teeny bit wrong with that famous constitution of yours? Of course this particular election was unusual in being a dead heat. Elections don't usually need a tie-breaker, something equivalent to the toss of a coin. Al Gore's majority in the country, reinforcing his majority in the electoral college but for dead-heated Florida, would have led a just and unbiased supreme court to award him the tie-breaker. So yes, Bush came to power by a kind of coup d'état. But it was a constitutional coup d'état. The system has been asking for trouble for years.

Is it really a good idea that a single person's vote, buried deep within the margin of error for a whole state, can by itself swing a full 25 votes in the electoral college, one way or the other? And is it really sensible that money should translate itself so directly and proportionately into electoral success, so that a winning candidate must either be very rich or prepared to sell favours to those who are?

When a company seeks a new chief executive officer, or a university a new vice-chancellor, enormous trouble is taken to find the best person. Professional headhunting firms are engaged, written references are taken up, exhaustive rounds of interviews are conducted, psychological aptitude tests are administered, confidential positive vetting undertaken. Mistakes are still made, but it is not for want of strenuous efforts to avoid them. Maybe such methods would be undemocratic for choosing the most powerful person on earth, but just think about it. Would you do business with a company that devoted an entire year to little else than the process of choosing its new CEO, from the strongest field in the world, and ended up with Bush?

[bloom]

3. I like the points about the electoral college

"Is it really a good idea that a single person's vote, buried deep within the margin of error for a whole state, can by itself swing a full 25 votes in the electoral college, one way or the other? And is it really sensible that money should translate itself so directly and proportionately into electoral success, so that a winning candidate must either be very rich or prepared to sell favours to those who are?"


The election of George W. Bush* makes sense in light of his "ends justify the means" advisors - Rove and Hughes & his ability to steal Florida and Ohio while having the Secretary of States be his campaign managers of those states (probably a Rove idea).

This article is esp. disturbing for people who have seen "Bushes Brain" (about Rove):

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0927-01.htm