952 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

Have fun Kids, try not to talk politics Don. Pay Attention to her instead, too da loo now shoo! Go play [ggg]

[bobdrake12]

You said that Bob wants to be on my side, but I scare him. That doesn't bother me. You see, when I type on this forum I reveal my mind. There is no political double talk coming out of me. That is the beauty of the net.

Kissinger.

Wrong.

This is not the beauty of the Net but the benefit of living in a country like the United States where people shed blood and others died protecting the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and enforced by the Rule of Law.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 February 2003 - 08:00 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Mr. Kissinger is correct, I am a Dreamer. A share this despicable burden and collar of cowardice with such like minded fools as Andre Sakarov, Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, Robert Oppenheimer, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King and every single common soul that sees to simple truths. Even Rocket Scientists eventually get the right idea and most certainly Nuclear Physicists often do.

Lazarus Long,

Not everyone dreams that dream, but are you also a realist? In other words, is there never a time for war?

bob

[Lazarus Long]

Bob I too have to run,

but please read the other two posts as well: "Pax Americana" and "Anti-Missile Defense and Diplomacy".

The short answer is yes, as long as it is precisely and surgically applied as well as that it meets the test of a "Post Mortem".

Did the chosen methods achieve adequate results conistent with intentions?

Has the minumum Sacrifice of Human Life been necessary?

Was the target actually acquired and removed or did it cause the cancer to metastisize?

In other words,

"Was the Operation a success yet the Patient died, or was the exorcised cancer truly removed and the Patient still has a chance at life?"

Gotta go my daughter is waiting.

[bobdrake12]

Bob wants to be on your side I believe Mr. Kissinger but as you speak you scare him more

Lazarus Long,

One of my close friends has changed his mind three times in the last two weeks on this subject. It is these people (those in the middle) that eventually carry the elections.

The US as a Republic allows for desenting points of view as well as neutral ones. We have extreemist on both sides and those in the middle. That is what makes up our system and I am grateful for it.

President Bush will be coming up for re-election in 2004 and the handling of the economy and this highly likely War with Iraq will be probably be campaign issues.

Someone emailed me U.S. Senator Robert Byrd's (member of the Democrat Party) comments on the situation and how it is being handled (which I have presented below). Once the facts sort out to a degree, we will be able to find out whether President Bush's position is correct , Senator Robert Byrd's or some other option. Hindsight normally has 20-20 vision.

bob

http://www.senate.go...ebruary_12.html


Senate Remarks: The Administration's Dangerous Wartime Rhetoric

The language of diplomacy is imbued with courtesy and discretion. Diplomats the world over can be counted on to choose each word of every public statement with precision, for an ill-received demarche could turn allies into adversaries or cooperation into confrontation.

Like most professions, diplomacy has its own lexicon. As John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in 1969, "There are few ironclad rules of diplomacy but to one there is no exception: when an official reports that talks were useful, it can safely be concluded that nothing was accomplished." And when we hear a seasoned envoy refer to a "frank and open discussion," we know that he is actually talking about a knock-down, drag-out fight behind closed doors. While negotiation can steer great powers away from a course that would lead to war, we can usually count on public statements about diplomacy to be underwhelming.

There have been exceptional times when bold statements have energized world opinion. When President Reagan stood on the Berlin Wall in 1987 and proclaimed, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," he spoke to millions of Germans who longed to be freed from oppression. While I would not go so far as to credit a single phrase with hastening the fall of the Eastern Bloc, certainly President Reagan's statement reflected the resolve of the West to oppose communism.

There have also been a fair number of bold statements to the world that have backfired.

For example, Nikita Khrushchev squandered whatever credit he might have gained through a goodwill tour of the United States in 1959, when he visited the United Nations the next year. The Soviet Premier famously exclaimed to the West, "We will bury you," while slamming his shoe on the table in front of him. This ill-advised outburst was a vivid depiction of an irrational and out of control superpower.

Fortunately, the United States has a tradition in foreign policy of being slow to anger. We have nurtured a reputation of being rational and deliberate. I doubt that Americans would have much tolerance for a president who used the United Nations as a forum for testing the construction of his footwear on the nearest table. It would be a great departure for the United States to use its foreign policy organs as a means to spread divisive rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the tone of our foreign policy in recent months has been in a steady decline. To some of our allies, the United States, through its words and its actions on the crisis in Iraq, is beginning to look more like a rogue superpower than the leader of the free world. Many newspapers in European capitals criticize U.S. policy toward Iraq. Moderate Muslim nations, such as Jordan and Turkey, are growing progressively suspicious of American motives in the war against terrorism. An increasing number of people in Arab countries are coalescing around an outright hatred of the United States.

Let us remember that President Bush came to office promising to change the tone in Washington. I wonder if the current tone of American foreign policy is what he had in mind? One source of alarm is the tone of the National Security Strategy released by the White House in September 2002. In broad strokes, the strategy argues that the United States should use its overwhelming military power to engage in preemptive strikes to prevent others from ever developing the means to threaten our country. The strategy notes a preference for working with allies to keep the peace, but underscores the willingness of the United States to act unilaterally.

The content and the tone of these important pronouncements in the National Security Strategy sparked outcry, in the United States and around the world. The report gave critics plenty of ammunition to make their case that the United States is a 400 pound gorilla that will stop at nothing to get its way. Our strategy leaves much of the world the impression that Americans agree with the quotation of the late Chinese leader, Zhou Enlai, which turned the axiom uttered by the military strategist Carl von Clausewitz on his head: "All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means."

There are many examples of provocative rhetoric that have escalated the stakes of our standoff with Iraq. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, the President coined an "Axis of Evil," comprised of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In October 2002, the White House Press Secretary suggested that regime change in Iraq could be accomplished with "the cost of one bullet." On December 30, 2002, President Bush said that Saddam's "day of reckoning is coming." The next day, he chided a reporter who asked about the prospect of war in Iraq by saying, "I'm the person who gets to decide, not you." The President's coarse words did nothing to ease criticism of American unilateralism.

Several members of the President's national security team warned Iraq in January 2003 that "time is running out" for Iraq, and that such time was measured in weeks, not months. On Sunday talk show interviews on January 29, the White House Chief of Staff refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq. On February 6, President Bush ominously declared that "the game is over." With each of these statements, the chances of war appeared to grow.

To be fair, the President and his advisors have repeatedly stated a preference for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. But as I speak right now, many Americans believe that war is inevitable. Through words and through action, the United States appears to be on a collision course with war in the Persian Gulf. Stating a preference for a peaceful solution is not enough to alter the heading of our great ship of state.

If our rhetoric toward Iraq is not alarming enough, the last weeks have seen an appalling increase in criticism of our allies and the United Nations.

On September 12, 2002, President Bush delivered a strong and effective speech that urged the United Nations to take action to disarm Iraq. The President said: "All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations [faces] a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

The President threw down the gauntlet, and the United Nations acted. Inspectors have returned to Iraq, and they are doing their job. The inspectors have asked for more time, but the President has now challenged the U.N. to authorize the use of force, or again face irrelevance. The world is now wondering, which is the greater threat to the relevance of the U.N.: a rogue nation that flaunts the will of the international community; or a permanent member of the Security Council that views the institution as useless unless it submits to its will? This hand has been overplayed. More threats of U.N. irrelevance will only portray the United States as a bully superpower.

European allies who do not share our view on the crisis in Iraq have recently been in the cross hairs for verbal bombardment. Secretary Rumsfeld has lumped Germany in with Libya and Cuba as the principal opponents of war in Iraq. He also characterized Germany and France as being "Old Europe," as if their economic and political power does not matter as compared to the number of Eastern countries that comprise New Europe.

Richard Perle, a senior advisor to the Department of Defense, has also had choice words about our European allies. In October 2002, Mr. Perle recommended that German Chancellor Schroeder resign in order to improve relations between our two countries. On January 30, Mr. Perle followed up this charge by saying: "Germany has become irrelevant. And it is not easy for a German chancellor to lead his country into irrelevance." Spreading his criticism around, Mr. Perle stated that "France is no longer the ally that it once was." So far as I can tell from press reports, Mr. Perle, who is the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, has not been admonished for his inflammatory statements.

Such vindictive criticism of our European allies has had repercussions. According to a new poll, published in the Financial Times Deutchland on February 10, 57 percent of Germans agree with the statement, "The United States is a nation of warmongers." And now we find ourselves in a pointless stalemate with our NATO partners over military assistance for Turkey. If we had been more temperate in our rhetoric, perhaps we could have worked through the anti-American tone of the recent elections in Germany. Instead, we find ourselves escalating a war of words against two great European powers.

How we communicate our foreign policy makes a difference. We expect North Korea or Iraq to use inflammatory propaganda to speak to the world, but we are a more dignified nation. There are ways for our country to indicate resolve without resorting to bellicosity. The subtext to nearly every new White House statement on Iraq is that the United States has run out of patience. The Administration is signaling its willingness to use an extreme amount of military force against Iraq when many still question the need to do so. We need to change our tone.

Impetuous rhetoric has added fuel to the crisis with Iraq and strained our alliances. Before committing our nation to war with Iraq and the years of occupation that will surely follow, we should repair the damage to our relations with our allies. I urge the President to change the tone of our foreign policy -- to turn away from threatening Iraq with war, away from insulting our friends and allies, away from threatening the United Nations with irrelevance. Our rhetoric has gone over the top, from giving an indication of our strength to giving an indication of recklessness.

I have learned from fifty years in Congress that it is unwise to insult one's adversaries, for tomorrow you may be in need of an ally. There will come the day when we will seek the assistance of those European allies with which we are now feuding. But serious rifts are threatening our close relationship with some of the great powers of Western Europe. The Secretary of State said yesterday that NATO is at risk of breaking up. It is time to put our bluster and swagger away for the time being. I urge the President to calm his rhetoric, repair our alliances, and slow the charge to war

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 February 2003 - 11:12 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Thanks Bob I appreciate reading a more statesmanlike position for a change. It is hopeful in and of itself. I can only improve on reading it by trying to imagine Sen. Byrd delivering it in the same eloquent drawl I heard him use during the Senate debates on the Current War Powers Act.

By now I hope you've read my concurrent pieces in this political barrage. I am afraid I pushed the limits of tact for humor and irony but hopefully it helps a perspective get heard. These messages of alternatives need to be heard I just hope I didn't overdue the Valentine's Day Motif.

[bobdrake12]

Senator Byrd:

Before committing our nation to war with Iraq and the years of occupation that will surely follow, we should repair the damage to our relations with our allies. I urge the President to change the tone of our foreign policy -- to turn away from threatening Iraq with war, away from insulting our friends and allies, away from threatening the United Nations with irrelevance. Our rhetoric has gone over the top, from giving an indication of our strength to giving an indication of recklessness.

Lazarus Long,

The point that I found interesting in Senator Byrd's remarks was not the he was necessarily against the US invading Iraq, but rather that the rhetoric has gone over the top.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 15 February 2003 - 02:15 AM.

[bobdrake12]

http://news.yahoo.co...e_mi_ea/un_iraq

Major Powers Insist on Iraq Inspections (excerpts)

By EDITH M. LEDERER and DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press Writers

UNITED NATIONS - In a dramatic showdown, major powers rebuffed the United States in the Security Council on Friday and insisted on more time for weapons inspections after top U.N. inspectors failed to give Washington the ammunition it needs to galvanize support for military action.

A visibly exasperated Secretary of State Colin Powell, setting aside his prepared remarks, warned that the world should not be taken in by "tricks that are being played on us." But only Spain and Britain spoke up for the U.S. position in the 15-member council, and even Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw held out hope for a peaceful solution if Iraq dramatically accelerates its cooperation.

The United States and Britain say they are willing to go to war without U.N. backing but would prefer to have it. U.N.-backing is particularly important for the British government, which faces strong public opposition to a war.

Powell was undeterred by the outpouring of anti-war sentiment.

"The threat of force must remain," he told the council, adding that Iraq was strengthening its links with terror groups. "We cannot wait for one of these terrible weapons to turn up in our cities."

In a surprise move, Blix chose to address some of the evidence against Iraq that Powell shared with the council in a dramatic presentation last week.

Pointing to one case Powell highlighted using satellite photos of a munitions depot, Blix said: "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity" rather than one designed to hide banned materials before inspections.

"In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming," he said.

[Lazarus Long]

He said as much from the Senate floor a while ago when he lost the vote against the War Powers Act. As far as he was concerned it went over the top then.

That was back in October.

I have been listenning to the drums for some time,

I live near West Point.

Some levels of irony are beyond the scope of reason, but I need to laugh at something, otherwise it would make me want to cry.

As a counter balance on the otherside of forest reality to the North of my home along the ridges is a beautiful Tibetan Monastery.

[bobdrake12]

He said as much from the Senate floor a while ago when he lost the vote against the War Powers Act. As far as he was concerned it went over the top then.

Lazarus Long,

I've included Democrat Senator Byrd's remarks as of 2/12/03 below.

bob

http://www.senate.go...february_9.html

February 12, 2003


Senate Remarks: Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences (excerpts)

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Edited by bobdrake12, 15 February 2003 - 02:55 AM.

[bobdrake12]

He said as much from the Senate floor a while ago when he lost the vote against the War Powers Act. As far as he was concerned it went over the top then.

Lazarus Long,

After carefully reading Senator Byrd's 2/12/03 speech, I believe the following quote provides his current belief.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

bob

[bobdrake12]

Here is Rush Limbaugh's reaction to the UN .

bob


http://www.rushlimba...ctor.guest.html



Mangy Cast Of U.N. Characters Display Their Irrelevance; Decimated By Secretary Powell

Rush Limbaugh - February 14, 2003


On Friday, I decided to JIP - join in progress - Secretary of State Colin Powell's comments to the United Nations. Powell hammered the wimp French and Syrian foreign ministers. They spoke prior to him and insulted the United States of America in general and Powell personally. Every speaker prior to the SecState read from prepared comments, which they clearly prepared before Hans Blix issued his report. Secretary Powell spoke extemporaneously.

The secretary is interested in facts; everybody else involved was interested in "process." It's typical liberalism. Powell made it a point last week to establish a link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al-Qaeda; Blix and this waste of cheese from France, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, said that they don't believe Powell. There was a time when the French and the favorite target of their surrender, the Germans, would speak of the U.S. with respect. (The leading German guy has a dark history himself.)

The U.N. Security Council - with its Jabba the Hutt, its Trogdor and its various other Star Wars Cantina characters - is trying to lay a trap to delay Iraq's liberation under the guise that the inspections are making progress. The attention of the media and everybody else is wrongly focused. The onus is not on the United States to prove Saddam has WMDs. The UN placed the onus on Saddam to prove that the weapons we know he had at the end of the last inspections regime have been destroyed - period.

The most surreal moment was Blix praising Iraqi "president" Hussein for decreeing a ban on making WMDs or importing stuff to do so. Great! Maybe tomorrow he'll ban dictatorships! These mop-haired diplomats are trying to make themselves seem relevant by standing up to the U.S. - even though they know they couldn't defend themselves against a troop of reasonably aggressive Girl Scouts. They talk a whole lot about listening to reaction on their streets; they'd better be far more concerned with reaction on our streets, because they need us a whole hell of a lot more than we need them.

Edited by bobdrake12, 15 February 2003 - 03:19 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Rush would make a fine example of the elephant caught in the pigmie's trap and then he could feed a family of four for almost a week.

He could just write it off as his civic obligations fullfilled. [ph34r]

I hope that the restof the world sees that at least some Americans can see reality beyond such a fool's rhetoric.

You stay neutral but I think I have to claim a side in this. Regardless, I respect the shared knowledge you always are true to bring to the discussion.

[bobdrake12]

The this from California Democrat Senator Boxer. I do not know the position of our state's other Senator (Feinstein).

bob


http://boxer.senate....0030214_fr.html

Statement After The Report By The U.N. Inspection Team

February 14, 2003

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer today issued the following statement after the report by United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix to the U.N. Security Council.

Today, the U.N. inspection team announced that its work was producing results and that inspections should continue.

Because of the unpredictable nature of war and the considerable risks of using force without the support of our allies, I believe that the United States should continue to allow intrusive inspections as a means to completely and fully disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

The international community must be united in pressuring Iraq to fully comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. Iraq must provide complete and proactive cooperation to avoid the serious consequences called for in that resolution.

Edited by bobdrake12, 15 February 2003 - 05:04 AM.

[bobdrake12]

More from Rush Limbaugh.

bob

http://www.rushlimba...ight.guest.html



Bill Clinton: Bush Should Follow Blix Bunch

Rush Limbaugh - February 14, 2003

There was a time when leaders of France and Germany had enough respect for the United States and its role in liberating Europe from the Nazis and then the Soviets, that they were circumspect about what they said about us. This has changed since George W. Bush has become president, but I don't think it has anything to do with him. It has to do with Bill Clinton, and his unprecedented criticism of his successor.

This little wimp, Dominique de Villepin of France, reaped applause for basically calling Colin Powell a liar. We've always had some problems with the Empire of Cheese, but this is unprecedented. On Thursday, Clinton said that the United States should follow the guidance of Hans Blix - a documented fool - and the Europeans - documented appeasers. What breathtaking hypocrisy from a man who attacked Kosovo without the U.N.

The last thing Clinton wants is a Bush foreign policy success; that is a great disservice to his party and to the nation. I'm getting sick and tired of all this talk from the Democrats that America has to listen to "the European street," to make sure they like us. The Democrats are saying that if someone is unhappy with you, you should express concern and do whatever it takes to make them like you. Does that mean Tom Daschle, who has expressed "concern" over what I've said about him, will do anything he must to make me like him?

Our attitude should be this: these other countries had better be worried about our street and our anger at their lily-white, sorry rear ends. I realize they don't have to pay us back for WWII forever, but this business that we're weak? Screw that! We hold their destiny in our hands. We don't depend on them for diddlysquat. We paid the UN a courtesy call while waiting for our military to give the president the "go" signal. All these irrelevant diplomats know that. They're simply trying to make themselves relevant by standing up to the big, bad wolf - when they know that, in the final analysis, when it comes to defending themselves or defending freedom around the world, they are less than worthless.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...tape.guest.html



Inspector Clouseaus Useless As France's Military

Rush Limbaugh -February 14, 2003

Let me give you a little perspective on just what is going on vis-à-vis these Inspector Clouseaus. This Blix report makes it seem as though there's less damaging news now than there was two weeks ago, yet he still reported serious violations.

For example: Hans Blix reports that Iraq has illegally imported 350 SA-2 rockets, and that Iraq declared something like 8,500 liters of anthrax of which the inspection teams believe there are 25,000 liters. That's a breach of 16,500 liters of anthrax, a teaspoon of which was enough to shut down the Senate! Saddam is in breach! Blix did not use the words "breach" or "material," and made the case for...yawn...more inspections. And, of course, he applauded the Iraqi decree that they have banned weapons of mass destruction via legislation. Saddam Hussein has passed a law banning WMDs! Next thing you know, Saddam will ban dictatorship as well – what a total joke.

Folks, how long has it been since the anthrax letters arrived in this country? That happened in October 2001. We've had the full force of U.S. investigative power trying to discover the source of that powder. So if we, in this country, cannot in 15 months find the source of that anthrax, is it reasonable to expect that a bunch of buffoons trolling around Iraq with a dictator's "minders" harassing them every step of the way will be able to find weapons that have been hidden from them in a country the size of California?

The idea that, even if this resolution were about inspections, Iraq would provide any evidence is so patently ridiculous as to be surreal. Even Saturday Night Live could not satire this. They couldn't parody this meeting that took place today, because this is beyond parody and satire itself. It's just mind-boggling. Hans Blix is a documented fool. Listen to him in the audio link below. He's a failure, an abject fool and a pacifist tool.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...lain.guest.html



Peacenik Callers Schooled By Professor Reality

Rush Limbaugh - February 14, 2003

Open Line Friday is the day I invite you, the callers, to ring us up with your comments or concerns. We always put callers who disagree with me at the head of the caller rotation - this despite the liberal myth to the contrary - and that usually leads to name calling when I question liberal sacred cows. That was not the case, thankfully, with Robert in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He opposed the war, and after I told him that I respect his position, we talked.

The call made clear the misconceptions among the crowd protesting the war. Most outrageous: the assertion that the United States is forcing the United Nations into action like a man who forces a woman to have sex! Dan in New York City pushed the French plan to send in 3,000 inspectors. I told him that that's just what we're going to do - but there are going to be about 150,000 inspectors; they're going to be marines and air force and army, and not one of them is going to be named "Blix."

The French won't fight for their own freedom and security, so how can we expect them to fight for that of the Iraqis or America? This reminds me of a story about Tom DeLay running into a Frenchman in Houston. DeLay asked this son of Mashall Petain, "Do you speak German?" The French guy said, "No," to which DeLay responded, "You're welcome," and walked away. That's terrific, and it's the way we have to deal with these people. I respect your desire to protest this thing; you guys don't like war - no one does, by the way. But we're not going to war; it came to us on 9/11.


We Went the UN Route with North Korea, and Look How It Turned Out


If the world depended on the United Nations for peace and freedom, there wouldn't be any, anywhere. Tony in Eugene, Oregon also weighed in with the liberal perspective. He suggested that we conservatives have always hated and distrusted the UN, so we staged this battle to undermine it. This is the suggestion that we're not part of the "world community," and its entire premise is flawed. The blue helmets stopped being representative of the world's opinion long ago, and has become a forum for the jealous to reign in and fleece America.

A key observation for the pro-UN crowd is this: nations like North Korea, Red China, Libya and Iraq are given a forum that puts their dictatorships on an equal footing with the United States of America. There is no way France is one of the five most powerful nations in the world, yet it gets a veto. Iraq is chairing the UN commission on disarmament! The idea that treaties stop wars is well-intended, but dangerous. Communists and dictatorships never, ever abide by treaties. Sometimes, you must fight, which is why every animal in the wild has a way to defend itself against predators - or else they go extinct.

North Korea gave Bill Clinton a pinky swear that it wouldn't build nukes, so the Clinton administration gave them two nuclear reactors - and we all know what they did with them. Diplomacy will have nothing to do with how this ends in Iraq. When our military gives the go signal, we'll liberate the country - and all these nations like Germany, France or Belgium will be with us. Mark my words: they can't afford to be on the losing side of what will definitely be a successful operation. Don't forget, folks: 3,000 people - mostly Americans but from many nations - died on September 11. We're trying to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...ck_c.guest.html



Please, Mr. Jennings, Spare Us (excerpts)

Rush Limbaugh - February 14, 2003

I want to treat you to a sound bite from our old friend Peter Jennings over at ABC news. This came on ABC network's coverage after Secretary of State Colin Powell's powerful presentation before the UN Security Council in response to Hans Blix.

Taking the lead from Bill Clinton, Jennings asserts that the United States is "determined to have its way." Mr. Jennings, with all due respect, this is not about preserving the UN as you guys seem to think. This about U.S. national security. France wasn't attacked. Germany wasn't attacked. We were.

Those other nations aren't the targets of these weapons of mass destruction, but if they ever are, it will be America who bails them out.

Edited by bobdrake12, 15 February 2003 - 03:28 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2765705.stm



Saturday, 15 February, 2003, 13:04 GMT

Blair backs UN route on Iraq (excerpts)


The UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has said he still believes the United Nations should deal with Iraqi disarmament, but toppling Saddam Hussein would be "an act of humanity".

He told a conference of his Labour party in Glasgow that "there will be more time given to inspections" - but he also stressed "the moral case for removing Saddam".

The BBC's political correspondent, Jon Devitt, says Mr Blair seemed to suggest that an aim of action against Iraq was now regime change - in line with the US administration's view.

"I continue to want to solve the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction through the United Nations," Mr Blair said

[Lazarus Long]

Folks, how long has it been since the anthrax letters arrived in this country? That happened in October 2001. We've had the full force of U.S. investigative power trying to discover the source of that powder. So if we, in this country, cannot in 15 months find the source of that anthrax, is it reasonable to expect that a bunch of buffoons trolling around Iraq with a dictator's "minders" harassing them every step of the way will be able to find weapons that have been hidden from them in a country the size of California?

I am to understand from this that Limgaugh is willing to acknowledge that the Anthrax that Iraq has was in fact the same Anthrax that was shipped to Saddam from some of the very Adminstrative Officials that are now trying to invade Iraq?

You see ALL FORENSIC EVIDENCE SAYS that the genetic signiture of the strains used on us came out of US Amry Bioweapons stocks that somehow disappeared.

Interesting. [ph34r]

[bobdrake12]

http://www.suntimes....dt-novak10.html


The American imperium

February 10, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Colin Powell's masterful argument last week boosted public support for military action against Saddam Hussein, but did not convince his counterparts at the United Nations. The United States, therefore, is poised to attack on its own, without the UN Security Council passing a second resolution. However, presumed military success projects an American imperium that evokes apprehension among some conservative supporters of President Bush.

This imperial mission has staunch proponents inside the Bush administration. Worried Republicans in Congress and outside government question U.S. capability to bear so heavy a burden. The nation-building exercise in Afghanistan is faltering, and the task of dealing with North Korea while mobilizing against Iraq strains the government's capacity.

The path to war is clearly marked. Russia and China have signaled opposition to a second resolution unless they see hard evidence of nuclear weapons development by Iraq, and France is likely to take the same position. The International Atomic Energy Agency several weeks from now is expected to declare Iraq free of nuclear weapons development, but the U.S.-led coalition will have attacked by then and, probably, driven Saddam from power.

This will be no mere change of regime in Baghdad. George Friedman, chairman of the Stratfor.com private intelligence service, last week wrote: ''The conquest of Iraq will not be a minor event in history: It will represent the introduction of a new imperial power to the Middle East and a redefinition of regional geopolitics based on that power. The United States will move from being an outside power influencing events through coalitions, to a regional power that is able to operate effectively on its own.''

Friedman neither praised nor condemned this change, but suggested that ''countries like Saudi Arabia'' will not enjoy ''living in a new and quite unpleasant world.'' With Iraqi oil in hand, U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabia would end. The Saudis, fearing an Islamic revolt followed by U.S. intervention in their own country, are frantically trying to avert American intervention in Iraq.

After pondering Powell's presentation during a sleepless night, one conservative Republican e-mailed a friend his concern about a U.S. strategy for ''remaking the entire Middle East.'' He added: ''It's not that I care one whit whether or not Iraq is a crummy little dictatorship, but I do care that once we cross the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, we may have started down the road to a Pax Americana through an American imperium from which there is no return.''

Whether or not it is desirable, taking up this burden strains the nation's capacity. Senior Republican senators note the government's difficulty in dealing simultaneously with confronting Iraq, the Korean crisis and nation building in Afghanistan. Indeed, the followup to military victory in Afghanistan casts doubts on America running an empire.

A former senior diplomat who specializes in Central Asia last week wrote a private memo about ''winning the war and losing the peace in Afghanistan.'' He expressed fear that democratic friends of the West may lose power in Kabul.

At last Thursday's White House briefing, spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether the president was retreating from 2000 campaign opposition to the use of U.S. troops for nation building, since they now are stationed in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and probably soon in Iraq. ''No,'' he responded, ''the president continues to believe that the purpose of using the military should be to fight and win wars.'' Instead, he talked about U.S. relief workers distributing humanitarian aid in occupied Iraq along with ''a variety of international relief organizations.''

It will take more than civil servants to bring order to Baghdad after the coming war. In quest of national greatness at home and of a Middle East that is safe for America and Israel, George W. Bush faces a daunting task. While disdaining nation building, he is embarking on empire building.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.washtimes...15-93585473.htm

February 15, 2003

U.S. rebuffed on using force in Iraq

By Betsy Pisik and Joe Curl

THE WASHINGTON TIMES


NEW YORK — Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the United Nations' top two weapons inspectors, gave the Security Council ammunition yesterday in its push to stall a war and continue inspections with a report that brushed aside Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's charges that Iraq has not complied with a resolution to give up his weapons of mass destruction.

The report triggered a vigorous response from Mr. Powell, who forcefully declared, "More inspections, I'm sorry, are not the answer."

Mr. Powell said that "Iraq has failed to comply with [U.N. Resolution] 1441," which the council approved unanimously in November and gave Iraq one last chance to disarm or face "serious consequences."

"The threat of force must remain. Force must always be a last resort," he said. "I have preached this most of my life. But it must be a resort."

France, China and Russia, seizing on the measured assessments for the inspectors on Iraq's cooperation and state of arms, made it unmistakably clear they prefer disarming Iraq through open-ended U.N. weapons inspections rather than the use of force.

The U.N. inspectors offered only faint criticism of the Iraqi regime yesterday, compared with a more robust critique of its compliance two weeks ago.
The mild tone of the inspectors was especially surprising to Washington after an international panel of ballistics experts found Iraqi rockets capable of exceeding U.N.-imposed range limits.

President Bush joined the day's debate with renewed vigor, declaring that the United States will not be deterred.

"Saddam Hussein has got weapons of mass destruction and he's used them; Saddam Hussein is used to deceiving the world and continues to do so; Saddam Hussein has got ties to terrorist networks," Mr. Bush said in a speech at the FBI headquarters in Washington, flanked by his homeland security team and senior officials of the Justice and State departments.

"Saddam Hussein is a danger, and that's why he will be disarmed, one way or the other," he said.
But the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Mexico, China, Russia and Syria all stressed that Iraq should be disarmed through open-ended inspections, rather than by military force.

"We should try to do our best with the inspectors. If it doesn't work, then we should consider another option," said Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin of France. "The pressure is strong. We are seeing results."

Mr. De Villepin proposed that foreign ministers meet again at the United Nations on March 14 to consider what progress has been made by the inspectors. Later, Mr. De Villepin told the Associated Press that France would not support a U.N. resolution authorizing war.

The French diplomat received an almost unprecedented round of applause from the visitors' gallery of the council chambers after his remarks.
As demonstrators shivered outside in freezing winds, diplomats indicated yesterday that the time is not right for the United States and Britain, its closest ally, to circulate a second resolution that would presumably authorize force if Baghdad does not answer specific questions by a deadline.

Several ministers endorsed the idea of convening another foreign ministers' meeting on March 14 to discuss the Iraqi situation. But Mr. Powell indicated yesterday that Washington would not accept that date.

Last week, Mr. Powell gave the world a rare glimpse into U.S. intelligence capabilities with a briefing on what he described as Iraq's efforts to deceive inspectors.
The briefing appears to have persuaded Chile, Bulgaria and Spain that Baghdad does not intend to voluntarily disarm of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

But it appears to have alienated Mr. Blix, who is reported to have been embarrassed by the public presentation of intelligence that should have been shared first with U.N. inspectors.

Mr. Blix went so far as to contradict Mr. Powell's intelligence briefing last week, and chided Washington for not sharing information with the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC.

Mr. Blix rejected Mr. Powell's assertion that two aerial photographs of a munitions depot showed Iraq sanitizing the site before the inspectors' visit.
"This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect," said Mr. Blix yesterday.

"We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection."

He said Iraq could do more to cooperate with the inspection process.

But Mr. Blix reported progress on some issues of concern.

He said a few Iraqi scientists had agreed to private interviews with inspectors, and that reconnaissance flights by U-2 spy planes were scheduled to begin next week.
He said Iraq had reduced the number of "minders" who accompany inspectors on site visits, and that yesterday it had issued a requested presidential decree barring importation and production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Mr. Blix also offered a detailed description of the inspection team's plans for expanding its mission, seen by some as an implication that more time would be welcome.

In a separate report, Mr. ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said his inspectors had found no sign Iraq had resumed its nuclear-weapons program.

"The IAEA's experience in nuclear verification shows that it is possible, particularly with an intrusive verification system, to assess the presence or absence of a nuclear-weapons program in a state even without the full cooperation of the inspected state," Mr. ElBaradei said.

Edited by bobdrake12, 15 February 2003 - 09:30 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.latimes.c.....ome-headlines

2:42 PM PST, February 15, 2003

Millions Around Globe Protest War With Iraq (excerpts)

From Associated Press

LONDON -- Millions of protesters-- many of them marching in the capitals of America's traditional allies-- demonstrated Saturday against possible U.S. plans to attack Iraq.

In a global outpouring of anti-war sentiment, Rome claimed the biggest turnout-- 1 million according to police, while organizers claimed three times that figure.

In London, at least 750,000 people joined the city's biggest demonstration ever, police said. About 660,000 people protested in Madrid, Spain, police said, while organizers said three times that number gathered.

Berlin had up to half-a-million people on the streets, and Paris was estimated to have had about 100,000.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...otes.guest.html



The Dr. of Love (excerpt)

Rush Limbaugh - February 14, 2003

“The reason all this anti-U.S. talk is going on out there is precisely because a former president is encouraging it. Bill Clinton is encouraging the French and Germans with idiotic comments.”

[bobdrake12]

http://www.foxnews.c...3,78698,00.html

U.S., Britain Rework U.N. Resolution in Face of Anti-War Sentiment (excerpts)

Sunday, February 16, 2003



UNITED NATIONS — Less-than-damning assessments of Iraq's cooperation by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors coupled with massive worldwide protests against a possible war have sent the United States and Britain back to the drawing board.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, diplomats said U.S. and British officials are toning down a draft resolution, and that the final version may not explicitly call for war.

Before Friday's Security Council meeting, where weapons inspectors gave a relatively favorable accounting of Iraq's recent cooperation, U.S. and British diplomats said they had been preparing a toughly worded resolution that would give them U.N. backing for military action.

British diplomats had said then that any resolution would have to include an authorization of force. They described working versions of the draft as short, simply worded texts that found Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations and reiterated that Saddam now faces "serious consequences" as a result.

In diplomatic terms, coupling the consequences with material breach would be tantamount to an authorization.

But the measured reports by inspectors, in addition to massive global opposition to war — expressed both in the council and in the streets — came as a blow to their plans.

The two English-speaking allies had hoped to push through a new resolution quickly, and there had even been talk of a Saturday council meeting to introduce it. But their plans were put on hold Friday after staunch opposition — led by France, Russia and China — drew rare applause inside the council chamber.

British and American diplomats conceded they would need to go home, consider the views of others and soften the tone of the draft.

While Secretary of State Colin Powell said after Friday's meeting that there was no talk of compromise yet, some diplomats said privately that it was the responsibility of the five council powers — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — to negotiate a way out of the impasse over Iraq.

Unless that happens, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are unlikely to gain U.N. support for a war to disarm Iraq. While they may be prepared to act without it, U.N. backing would offer international legitimacy and a guarantee that reconstruction costs would be shared.

Noting the opposition, diplomats from Mexico, Chile, Angola and Bulgaria — key swing votes thought by the United States to be likely supporters — were considering abstaining in a vote as long as the five powers were unable to agree.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.boston.co..._in_Gulf .shtml

This time, US readies a lightning strike in Gulf (excerpts)


By Bryan Bender, Globe Correspondent, 2/16/2003

WASHINGTON -- Gulf War II is shaping up to be quite different from the Operation Desert Storm of a dozen years ago.

This time, Washington is largely on its own. And the battle plan is bolder, faster -- and significantly riskier, according to analysts and military officers, including veterans of the first Gulf War.

In a coordinated air, land, and sea attack, US and other forces plan to unleash nearly all elements of their power simultaneously. The goal, specialists say, is to topple within days a leadership armed with poison gas and biological weapons.

In the early hours, combat jets and bombers loaded with a new generation of smart weapons will catapult from aircraft carriers and take off from land bases to strike Iraqi air defenses and command and control centers. Other aircraft will seek out suspected weapons of mass destruction facilities. Helicopter-borne Army and Marine Corps forces will advance deep inside Iraq on as many as three fronts to secure oil fields, occupy air strips, and ferret out stocks of chemical or biological weapons before they can be unleashed.

If all goes according to plan -- and there's no assurance that it will -- formations of tanks and armored vehicles and infantry units will race for Baghdad, skirting or overpowering Iraqi Army resistance. Unlike the relentless ground advances of the Gulf War, this time, whenever possible, US forces will speed past Iraqi units to what Washington says is the ultimate prize: the leadership of Iraq's Baath party regime.

The United States will concentrate less than in 1991 on destroying regular military units, many of which are expected to stay out of the fray, the sources say. The military said it will also try to avoid the widespread destruction of Iraqi infrastructure, which will need to be rebuilt after the war.

Instead, US war planners are aiming to disarm potentially catastrophic Iraqi weapons, to seize key cities, and to neutralize the instruments and centers of power, including the elite Republican Guard and Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. The specialists call this the ''Baghdad first,'' or ''inside-out,'' approach, billed as a lightning-paced assault that the Pentagon hopes will daze Iraq into quick submission.

But as 200,000 US troops, perhaps aided by British and Australian forces, mass around Iraq for a war that could begin in a few weeks, there is no guarantee of a swift and clean victory.

Two possible scenarios are paramount:

o Saddam Hussein, perceiving his downfall, might order commanders to retaliate against invading troops with chemical or biological weapons.

o US troops would become engaged in street fighting in Baghdad, a city of 5 million that is likely to be the best defended and most prepared for the onslaught. Both scenarios probably would result in a high number of US casualties and Iraqi civilian deaths, perhaps in the tens of thousands.

The ground war will also have clear differences. Ground forces will not wait for air forces to soften up the opposition before making a foray into Iraqi territory. Light, computerized Army and Marine Corps units with chemical and biological protection gear will see action in Iraq right from the start, according to the military sources and analysts. From Turkey, units such as the First Infantry Division, Fourth Infantry Division and possibly the 82nd Airborne Division will move on oil fields near Mosul and the key objective of Tikrit, north of Baghdad, officials said. Other key objectives will include installations in western Iraq where Iraqi missiles could threaten Israel or other countries.

Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Lazarus Long]

[quote] “It is sometime expedient to forget who we are.”
--Publius Syrus  

“The proper function of man is to live - not to exist.”
--Jack London

“Good is not good, where better is expected.”
--Thomas Fuller

“One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time.”
--André Gide

“To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and, whatever you hit, call it the target.”
--Patrick Toche [/quote]

The danger to Prophets (as opposed to Profits) is the "Test of Time" and the danger of Prophecy is when we try to skew (spin) the results to fit a believer's purpose as opposed to the maker's message.

[quote]Kissinger prophecizes:

My prognosis is this: the impending war in Iraq is the breaking point for the United States and the United Nations. The time line for conflict in Iraq will be as follows...

January 27th--UNMOVIC gives its report on weapons inspections. It states that there has been no conclusive proof of violations by the Iraqis and that they will need more time to verify compliance.
[/quote]

This is not quite correct in a very important manner. They did find verifiable violation and suspect behavior, pay attention.

[quote]January 28th--President Bush's State of the Union address in which he points out that Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq must be proactive in dismantling its WMD programs. He will then state that Iraq is in material breach. At this point he may also offer "smoking gun" evidence to gain momentum within the international community. [/quote]

Give the Boy a Cigar!

I congratulate you and presenting the party line. Succinct and substantially correct that is why I am talking to you. Gotttaa .... love him

[quote]January 28th-February 10th--Iraqi opposition in the North and/or West declares Independence.
[/quote]

Whoooops gross exaggeration there huh, guess you need to better analyze the threat you face.

Instead Korea is pushing us slowing into a Higher DEFCON Status. You read too much Tom Clancy.


[quote]February 10th-February 25th--US forces are in place and US offensive begins. I'll predict February 22nd as the start of offensive operations. [/quote]

Here we are...

Get a grip...

It just isn't going according to plan. I suggest you rethink.

Shift & Feint
Twist and Shout
Better to learn to Rock'n Roll
Then Lock & Load

Change your footing and get prepared for another set of blows from an unforeseen direction.

Are you beginning to understand the Metaphor of MIRV's?

The Whole World is Watching.

Are you planning to kill them all if they don't go along and won't back your plans?

Inquiring minds want to know.

They want to know if their lives mean anything to you or if you are getting ready to write them off as collateral damage?


[quote]March 1st--Oil fields and Scud boxes have been secured. Baghdad (and possibly Tehkrit--Saddam's home town) will be the only areas of resistance left. [/quote]

I think I will go out on a limb and suggest not only are your dates far fetched as premature more importantly is your policy.


[quote]March 3rd-April 1st--Baghdad falls and order is restored. Nation-building commences.

The time line for Baghdad falling depends on the US decision as to whether it will resort to urban combat or whether it will cut all power to Baghdad and lay siege to the city. This is the one really difficult decision the US has to make. [/quote]

This isn't just unrealistic, it is a false promise made to commit the People to a course of action that will have profound and grave long term consequences of commitment not a damn urban renewal. Nation Building begins in the Hearts of those defining the Nation.

[quote]Another unknown is whether the United States will push for a second Security Council resolution against Iraq. After the January 27th Inspections Report there is going to be pressure to allow the inspectors to have more time. The US is not going to allow this. Instead the US will push for a resolution authorizing force. Opposition to authorization of force will come from Russia, China, France and Germany. A compromise will be reached in which the Security Council states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1441. However no authorization for the use of force will be given. This allows the UN to save face.  [/quote]

It is no longer an unknown they are writing and rewriting it as you read this.

[quote]The United States will justify using force by saying that it is simply enforcing Security Council resolutions.

In reality, the US acting without explicit authorization from the Security Council will be a major blow to the UN. An international body such as the UN lacks credibility when the sole super power in the world doesn't pay it any credence.

I personally believe that the decision has already been made at the highest levels of power in the US to pull the rug out from under the UN because it is no longer serving its purpose. The power taken from the UN will be reallocate in NATO which is easier for us to control and is entirely western in its composition. Of course publicly things will appear status quo at the UN for some time to come.

Overthrowing Saddam and installing a pro-US regime is crucial to our long term strategic objectives in the region. Think about it like this; 9/11 was a terrorist attack and was the result of the "radical Islamic movement" and specifically Al Qaeda. The causes of terrorism are numerous. The Liberal establishment, true to its nature, will try to objectively analyze the root causes of terrorism. "We need to know the nature of terrorism before we can conquer it", they say.

I disagree. We didn't try to psycho-analyze Imperial Japan after Pearl Harbor, we simply defeated them. The Islamic world has never experienced an enlightenment. Trying to "enlighten" them will not only prove futile, it will prove fatal. In reality, the root causes of terrorism stem from the fact that the Islamic world can not combat the hegemonic power of the United States (and the West in general) in any conventional way. We are simply superior to them militarily.

Therefore, they needed to find a backdoor. They found that backdoor in terrorism which effectively negates our conventional military superiority and turns the conflict into an asymmetrical affair.

The location of Radical Islam is, geographically, the Middle East. Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda need friendly nation-states to properly plan and coordinate attacks. (These nations are on our state sponsors of terror list) They are often simply called Terrorist states.

Some of them include Syria, Lebanon (a puppet state of Syria), Iraq, Iran, formerly Afghanistan, etc. In other Middle Eastern states, terrorism is not state sponsored , but the government instead turns a blind eye towards terrorist activity. This is indicative of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Eygpt, etc. Because of the complexity of the terrorist problem in the Middle East, the Administration has adopted a multi-layered approach.

Iraq is part of a network of terrorist states in the Middle East. After we topple Saddam we will occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future. (When we conquered Germany and Japan in WWII we occupied both countries, there are still troops in both countries to this day. Iraq will be no different.) By having troops in Iraq it will establish a permanent, intimidating military presence in the region with quick strike capabilities. We will no longer need to ask for permission or seek SOFAs (status of forces agreements) to be there.

Additionally, form a geo-strategic perspective:
1) Syria will have its legs kicked out from under and will basically be isolated. It will feel increasing pressure to halt the terrorist activity that it encourages in Lebanon (Hezbollah). This will have the effect of easing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2) Iran will be staring down US troops to its east (Afghanistan), west (Iraq), and south (US navy in Persian Gulf). Hopefully this will be enough to destabilize the current government, but if not it will make military preparations easier.   [/quote]

This is worse than foolhardy and a harbinger of doom, it is self-prophetic to that effect. You are increasing the scope of the "Theater of Operations" Asymmetrically. Escalation needs to be systematic or its loses effectiveness and Exponential Escalation is a Destructive Quantum Leap.

[quote]
Further, freeing up Iraq's oil supply and distributing the wealth equitably among the Iraqi citizens will give the average Iraqi wealth beyond their wildest dreams. By establishing a viable, wealthy, democracy in the region we will put pressure on the other regimes in the region to democratize.

Another indirect effect of taking control of Iraq's oil supply will be that we destroy OPEC's monopoly and consequently its ability to maintain artificially high oil prices. Why do you think all of the oil producing nations in the Middle East are so afraid of us occupying Iraq?

I can assure you it is not for their love of Saddam. The real reason is two fold; their fear of US troops in the region and their desire to maintain the price of oil. Expect oil to drop below $20 a barrel when we get Iraq up and running as the largest self serve the world has ever seen. One of the side effects of lower oil prices will be the possible destabilization of regimes in the region. Countries like Saudi Arabia, where almost half of their GDP is oil revenue, would face the real possibility of social upheaval when their revenue stream from oil dries up. The result would either be democracy-great but unlikely- or the rising of a Radical Islamic regime which would give us an excuse to go in and set things up the way we want them to be.

Brutal?

Yes, but also very effective.

9/11 changed a lot of things in the US. One of them is the belief that international law is paramount. We are embarking on a path of unilaterism in which we will rewrite the map of the Middle East. In my opinion, it is the only way.

Interested in the neo-conservative movement? Check out
www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org and www.newamericancentury.org
[/quote]

You are in serious jeopardy here. And I think you run some serious risk of putting me in trouble with you and I won't float your boat. You are correct to see us as diametrically opposed. I seriously hope we are both making that is clear. For I wouldn't want the rest of the world too confused by this argument of American Patriots. For as I said when I invited you back my young and worthy opponent I like this and am having fun.

As I write this Blix has found evidence and is laying a valid case. As the German Chancellor has said succinctly "In a Democracy you must come before the People and make your case".

He was not convinced, neither am I, and I would suggest that you pay attention, the majority agrees with us.

[quote]
One last thing. Everyone keeps saying that Iraq has no direct links to terrorism. This is not true. Iraq has a long history of sponsoring terrorism and has had connections with Al Qaeda in the past. Even if you don't think it is likely that Saddam would help out Al Qaeda, are you willing to take that chance?

Are you willing to take the chance that chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons could proliferate from Iraq to Al Qaeda?

We are fighting a war. Excuses for procrastination are not going to fly anymore.
[/quote]

When are you then in turn going to adopt new strategies and tactics and discard the extinct mindsets of ancient history and eons of Cold War and Regional Conflict.

Why don't you apply your own advice to your self?

A demand of thoughtful analysis is not an excuse to procrastinate.

Misdirected force at this scale is implicitly catastrophic, not collateral damage.

[quote]"We should solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first!"-- Excuse for inaction. The conflict has been going on for 50 years and may go on for another 50. Are we suppose to sit on our hands until the matter is resolved?
[/quote]

Is this a call for a Second Coming?

Because this is the common request of protagonist parties that are driving the conflict. Are you volunteering to be martyred?

[quote]"We should win the war on terror first!"-- The war on terror might take 30 years to win. Once again, an excuse for inaction.

Islamic states such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are gnats that need to be swatted. They pose a mortal threat to western civilization.
[/quote]

So far the logic that you have applied as the best method to accomplish this was by killing a billion people. I will not be party to the building of a New World Reich. Your approach is not only duplicitous I wonder if this not intentional.

Do you seek disaster for its own sake or are you just so misguided, or just so indulgent of your fear and terror that you would overreact so blatantly?

[quote]Mr. Kissinger continues:

Here is some progressive logic on the matter:

If terrorist states threaten western society, then they threaten western progress. And if they threaten western progress, then they threaten western technological innovation. And if they threaten technological innovation, then they threaten progress in the field of life extension. And if they threaten progress in the field of life extension, then they pose a threat to my quest for immortality. And I can not tolerate that. They must be conquered and recast in a form which is conducive to democracy and progress.


Peace through Strength  [/quote]

The greatest strength is through knowledge and reason, too much "Force" (as strength is too often confused to only be) is applied to a problem it can be damaging to the very system it claims to uphold. Like trying to use a hammer to fix the computer.

Knowledge is true power but it didn't save Archimedes.

Irony is a wonder of history too.


[quote]In 1991 Iraq signed a cease fire agreement in which it agreed to proactively submit to weapons inspections. This meant that it was suppose to cooperate in destroying all of its weapons programs. At first Iraq complied, but as the years passed it became more and more resistant to the inspections. The economic sanctions that we hear so much about were put in place by the UN as a reaction to Iraqi defiance (yet another example of failed containment).

The resistance continued to grow until 1998 when the Iraqis took the opportunity posed by domestic troubles in the US (Clinton and Lewinsky) to kick the weapons inspectors out. They realized that Clinton was a lame duck President who didn't have the moral authority to wage a war over UNSC violations. Clinton proceeded to launch an air campaign on Iraq.

This was, of course, anticipated and no critical programs were effected by the coalition air strikes. Since 1998 the UNSC has passed numerous resolutions to no effect. Iraq has violated every resolution that has been issued and has showed flagrant disregard for international law.

On September 12th, 2002 President Bush gave a speech to the UN outlining Iraq's noncompliance with UNSC resolutions. (Basically, the current administration has inherited a problem that has become progressively worse over the 1990's.) The President's speech had the desired result and gave the international community a little backbone. T

he Security Council voted on a new resolution (1441) which stated that Iraq must not only submit to weapons inspections, but be proactive in dismantling and destroying its weapons programs. Since the resolutions inception Iraq has continue to deny that it has any WMD. This denial is, in and of itself, a violation of Resolution 1441. WE ARE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN ENFORCING THE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS AND THE 1991 CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT.  [/quote]

This is correct what we differ on is the best manner of enforcement, clearly there exists more options than have been explored. Please don't tell me that overkill is the only rational response.

But we can't claim to be legally upholding any Just Order of Law if we decimate the Institution that issued the edict and hold authority over the directive.

The Clinton Administration tried under-kill and bribery, with limited to no true success and the current administration appears hell bent on taking the other extreme.

Is there not a path to success and progress that we can see is more effective, more practical?

Define success?

Ask yourself the question so many of us are asking:

Is this really a global strategic objective that has little to do with our claimed intentions and much more to do with this Administrations unspoken fears?

[quote]QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003)
It will be the occupation of Iraq that is the real issue. We are not yet so secure in Afghanistan as the media would have most believe and there was even less opposition and we will not be out before we have put more in. We are beginning to have expeditionary forces on the ground in dozens of countries throughout the world and we will be maintaining their presence not for weeks or months but for years and decades. Is the American public really willing to foot that bill?

Alone?

Mr. Kissinger concurs;

I agree, the occupation of Iraq and the nature of that occupation is the real issue. Let's not get crazy on Afghanistan though. There are limits to the amount of reform we can hope for there. The main thing is that we destroyed the training camps and made it difficult for them to reconstitute.

As far as footing the bill, that is part of the commitment of fighting a global war on terror. However, the bill may not be as large as you think. Special forces do not require the funding nor the accommodations that conventional military forces do.
[/quote]

And so? We just get to make any promise we like and then do what ever we want?

Afterward what ever happens we just want to claim plausible deniability and cry about our limits to address social developmental concerns?

Get real Mr. Kissinger, War costs less than Peace, but Profits very different Sectors of Economies and the GNP Potential under Peacetime has dwarfed all possible GNP under a Wartime economy. So once the factor of relative percentage is balanced in the equation against the volume of available resource to function with; the fact that War, on a purely Lycurgan Scale, is less costly to some sectors of Society than Peace, has to be weighed against a Pragmatic Scale. Peace generates a Market Wealth that is a vastly larger amount of total resource and capital that gets distributed to significantly greater numbers of sectors of Society.

The problem we face is that like waning royalty these sectors are not necessarily the same sectors that have profited from the traditional Military Industrial Establishment and herein comes the power struggle and the issues of treating Governmental Budgets as the "Old Frontier" for "Modern Robber Barons".

[quote]
QUOTE
When you aspire to an Infinite Lifespan, all of life becomes precious.

Another American speaks up and answers this Lady of South Africa and us all:

SAILLE WILLOW and all,

Some measure actions purely in dollars and cents or merely to further their agenda. Those that do (by placing an irrelevancy on life) eventually become threats to others. Here is where the danger begins.


QUOTE
I could hear them squeaking in agony. It was horrible and I felt sick in my stomach. The stench of the dead came after that with the arrival of the flies. It sounded so easy getting the experts in and you would be rid of them. The reality was quite different. But the rats were gone and posed no more threat or so we thought.


It is so easy to dehumanize and consider war a video game unless you have been close to war or experienced horrors similar to that of war.

QUOTE
The world needs a paradigm shift. We cannot move to the next level unless we learn to solve problems without violence.

bob agreeing adds and laments:

Unless a paradigm shift is made, this current civilization is at risk.

Unfortunately, the current recorded history on this planet is that of war. The concern is that as technology continues to advance, the consequences of war escalates in the negative direction. We can illustrate this concept by comparing one person throwing a rock versus one person setting off a tactical nuke.

The issue is that the character of the humans on this planet has not changed significantly since the current recorded history while the technology continues to advance.

QUOTE
Do you want to be happy or do you want to be right? I for one cannot find happiness through the suffering of another.

bob replies pragmatically:

The unfortunate reality is that there are some who dehumanize others in order to attain their agenda or to blindly follow a leader.

QUOTE
The pest control came and the dying started. I could hear them squeaking in agony. It was horrible and I felt sick in my stomach.

bob goes on to conclude:

Now, here is the dilemma: If Iraq sponsors and supports terrorist organizations, Iraq becomes a threat. To compound that threat, if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; the threat could be significant. Iraq could provide these arms to terrorist organizations, giving them the means manifest their hatred. These terrorist groups could attack or attempt to blackmail various countries. With these possibilities, the price of taking just symbolic action could be catastrophic.

In view of what Colon Powell presented to the United Nations Security Council regarding Iraq, what should be done? Do you believe Iraq is a threat to some other countries? If so, what are the options?

bob  [/quote]

I can only be grateful for someone that clearly is first of all interested in the truth and again I ask how do we address his serious questions?


[quote]
bob asks poignantly:

What are the ethical principles ("just cause", moral high ground) that you see for invading Iraq?

Powell provided evidence today to the U.N. Security Council.

Is the evidence sufficient for an all out invasion or are there any other options?

Is there an Iraqi-al-Qaida connection?

Is the evidence sufficent for an all out invasion or are there any other options?

bob
[/quote]

That our means is in accord with our goals and that those goals are not greed and power but the development of a practical peace as the prime moral objective. That we are bound to fulfil our Commitments for going in and those Commitments be Stated clearly beforehand, and subjected to at least a decision of Plebiscite.

Sec. Powell's promise that Iraqi resources will be used exclusively in the rebuilding of Iraq is propaganda or is this the voice of the Common Will?

I take Mr. Kissinger at face value and feel that the Bush Administration is using Sec. Powell as a Sacrificial Offering and is more in accord with Mr. Kissinger.

Ironically though for this matter, I sincerely hope I am disproved, Personally I like Mr. Powell, and more so I hope that this Administration can retain an ability to see past their insecurity and avarice and instead act in accord with their Oaths of Office, and Discharge their Duty to Defend and Respect the Constitution.

Frankly "Patriot Act II" is a direct example of proof they are in fact not.
[quote]
Patriot Act II (draft)

Source document:
http://www.pbs.org/n...patriot2-hi.pdf

CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Draft--January 9, 2003
DOMESTIC SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2003
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Title I: Enhancing National Security Authorities
Subtitle A: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments
Section 101: Individual Terrorists as Foreign Powers.
[/quote]

"Is there an Iraqi-al-Qaida connection?"
The short answer is yes, and the long answer has to address why there is a Bush Administration-al Qaeda connection? And a Bush Administration-Iraq Connection? and on and on. The problem is that when at first we conspire to deceive oh what a treacherous web we do conceive.

The case for war has NOT been made in a satisfactory manner for a Democracy. And more importantly there do EXIST Clear and Numerous Options as alternative to driving Hell Bent into this Conflict.

[quote]
In relation to the Nuclear Arms Proliferation Treaty Mr. Kissinger states:

No, it is not a direct violation. It is an indirect violation. There is no specific language restricting the development and use of HPM. By the way, the treaty already is dead. Wake up from your dream world and come to grips with the fact that countries develop weapons covertly regardless of "treaties". I have never been a believer in the rule of law. The rule of law is too dependent on countries playing by the rules.
[/quote]

You have made yourself clear Mr. Kissinger, for you it boils down to "Might makes Right".
It is Your Tried and True Method it's true.

But in what way is it a change in tactics, strategies, and motives for developing a concept of International Relations to meet these New Age Challenges?

I propose a different approach,

I proposed marriage.

I hope you had a very Happy Valentines Day

Oh and as an after word:

My Prognosis is that the fuse is lit and time is wasting
and trying to do this too fast will result in the opposite occurring.

Ironic isn't it?

How we see the same glass.

[Lazarus Long]

[quote]Think not that thy word and thine alone must be right.
Antigone, 706.
Death is not the worst evil, but rather when we wish to die and cannot.
Electra, 1007.
Sophocles. 496-406 B. C.[/quote]

Of this I am sure, there is little that passes for thought among those that claim to be modern humans that has not been tested in time or pondered by like minds.

History is the safeguard that allows a thinking human the opportunity to pass beyond mere rhetoric and memetic manipulation, but the education this requires and discipline to exact, makes a mockery of any warrior's art, for in this we are discussing a Life's Work and the means of giving Life worth.

[quote]
Mr. Kissinger recites:

The US uses the UN for two things.
1) To keep the international community operating under a legal frame work which makes our job easier in maintaining the balance of power through out the world.

2) Having to enforce international law (instead of our will) against rogue regimes gives us a certain amount of moral authority.

However, both of these points are irrelevant if the UN doesn't follow our lead. In my opinion the UN is a kind of Frankenstein. A monster that has turned on its master.

When the US and its allies created the UN it wanted it to be a moral body. However, over the years the UN has become more and more political. The result is that the United Nations has turned into a League of Nations. It is ineffective and slow to act. Any of the five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power which means it is hard to form a consensus on anything.

A majority of the nations on the Security Council view the UN as a tool of the United States. This is because the international order, which the UN tries to maintain, has been created by us. Major nation-states which oppose our hegemony in the world have, as a goal, the obstruction of any action taken by the United States. They realize that any action that the United States takes without UN approval is bad PR domestically.

Therefore they use their veto power on the Security Council as a new age "balance of power".

While we view ourselves as a benevolent super power, other major nation-states view us as a hyper-power (a term coined by the Russians in the 90's). The term refers to a super power that is unchecked and aggressively expanding. [/quote]

So is this "Official Stance of Third Age Reich", Doctor?

It is our game...

Or we will take our bat and ball and beat you over the head with it?

The diminishment is not through coincidence, or accident; it is by design. The consistent and constant efforts of the extreme Right Wing Body Politic in the United States acting in concert with Select Interest groups worldwide to undermine and destroy this Great Institute of Modern Unity since its inauguration has been a factor. Before that, these same philosophical ideologies went to war only after they had gutted the first attempt at a League of Humanity.

Did they, this First League of Nations, as any Institutional Bureaucracy tends too, also self-destruct with materiel excess and misdirected efforts?

Again correct.

What "Enterprise of Man" has never encountered this upon its learning curve to survival?

Let me turn the topic again to a historical analysis and again I suggest you study both your chosen foe and the art of war.

[quote]
The Mongol conquests, which began in the early 13th century, caused a general series of movements of the Turkic peoples that continued for several centuries. The Mongols eventually brought under their domination almost all the areas held or inhabited by Turkic peoples.

The Kipchak, a Turkic people who had moved from the Irtysh River southwest across Kazakstan to establish themselves in what is now southwestern Russia, were destroyed by the expanding Mongols in 1239, and the last remnants of the declining Seljuq empire in Iran were likewise subjugated. But when the Mongol empire was divided following Genghis Khan's death (1227), a process of Islamization and Turkification ensued that resulted in the virtual absorption by the Turks of those Mongols outside Mongolian territory.

The influence of the Mongol rulers diminished, and real power in Central Asia passed to their Turkic provincial governors, one of whom, Timur, was able to extend his own authority over most of southwest and parts of South Asia in the late 14th century. In the 15th century, Russian expansion south toward the Caspian Sea drove the Turkic inhabitants there eastward into what is now Kazakstan, where they are now known as Kazaks.  

The most numerous of the Turkic peoples, after the Turks of Turkey, are the Uzbeks of Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Their name seems to have originated from Öz Beg, the greatest khan of the Golden Horde (q.v.), who embraced Islam; the name came to be applied to the Muslim ruling class of the Golden Horde.
Another numerous group are the Kazak, who are thought to have been formed from the Kipchak tribes that constituted part of the Golden Horde. Most of them live in Kazakstan; there are also a large number of Chinese Kazak in Sinkiang and neighbouring Kansu and Tsinghai provinces of China.

The Kyrgyz, whose origin is obscure, chiefly inhabit Kyrgyzstan. There is a small minority of Kyrgyz in Afghanistan and western China.

The Azerbaijani, who inhabit Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran, are one people; they were divided between the Russian and Persian empires in 1828 by the Treaty of Turkmanchay.

The Karakalpak, who are closely allied to the Kazak, inhabit Karakalpakstan (q.v.), which is a portion of Uzbekistan. The Tatars consist of two groups, those living in Tatarstan, a republic in Russia, and those inhabiting the Crimean Peninsula; the latter were deported from their homes en masse in 1944 and forcibly resettled in Uzbekistan, but since 1989 they have been returning to Crimea. The Tatars in Tatarstan are thought to be descended from indigenous Turkic tribes of the Kipchak group. It is probable, however, that they also contain Bulgarian elements.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1999 ed.
[/quote]

You need to look deeper at the roots of the fighting my friendly Mr. "Cannon Fodder", here let me help show more of the history of your supposed Turkish Allies.

[quote]
A year after the capture of Jerusalem by the crusaders, the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem was established (Christmas Day, 1100). Thereafter, there was no effective check to the expansion of the crusaders' power until the capture of their stronghold at Edessa (modern Urfa, Tur.) by the atabeg of Mosul, 'Imad ad-Din Zangi ibn Aq Sonqur, in 1144. Zangi's anticrusader campaign was carried on after his death by his son Nureddin (Nur ad-Din Mahmud) and, more effectively, by the sultan Saladin, a protégé of the atabeg's family.

After consolidating his position in Egypt and Syria, Saladin waged relentless war against the "infidel" Franks (Western Christians).

On July 4, 1187, six days after the capture of Tiberias, he dealt the crusaders a crushing blow at the decisive battle of Hattin (Hittin). Most of Palestine was once again Muslim. Further attempts by the crusaders to regain control of Palestine proved ineffective, primarily because of incessant quarrels among the crusaders themselves.

Ironically, it was left to an emperor of dubious Christian standing, Frederick II, to negotiate in 1229, while under excommunication, a 10-year treaty that temporarily restored Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem to the Christians. In 1244, however, the Ayyubid sultan as-Salih Ayyub definitively restored Jerusalem to Islam.

While the Ayyubids of Saladin's house were losing ground to the Turkish-speaking Mamluks in Egypt, the Mongol sweep westward continued, placing the crusaders, as it were, between two fires. To make matters worse, the crusaders themselves were hopelessly riddled with dissension. In 1260 the Mamluk leader Baybars emerged as a champion of Muslim resurgence.

After taking part in the defeat of the Mongols at 'Ayn Jalut in Palestine, he became sultan; in the years 1263 to 1271 he carried out annual raids against the harassed Franks. His efforts were continued by the sultan al-Ashraf, during whose reign the last of the crusaders were driven out of Acre (May 18, 1291). A chapter in the history of Palestine thus came to an end.

The Mamluks and subsequent Muslim regimes ruled the area with only brief interruptions for the next 600 years.

Palestine under the Mamluks in the 14th century saw a period of prosperity for some; this was especially notable in Jerusalem, where the government sponsored an elaborate program of construction of schools, lodgings for travelers and Muslim pilgrims, and renovation of mosques.

Tax revenues, collected mainly from the villages, were spent largely on support of religious institutions. Palestine formed a part of the district of Damascus, second only to Egypt in the Mamluk domains.

The region suffered the ravages of several epidemics, including the great pestilence, the same Black Death that in 1347-51 devastated Europe.

The fall of the Bahri Mamluks and the rise of the Burji Mamluks (1382-1517) contributed to a gradual economic deterioration and a decrease in security. During the reign of the second Burji sultan, Nasir Faraj (1398-1405), the last onslaught of the Mongols, which made the name of Timur (Tamerlane) a synonym of destruction and plunder, took place.

Although Palestine was spared the pillage of his hordes, it could not escape its disastrous repercussions as the Mamluks moved through in a vain attempt to defend Damascus against the invader. The death of Timur in 1405, and the weakness of Iran in the ensuing century, pitted the Mamluks against the rising power of the Ottoman Turks for the control of western Asia.

Hostilities broke out in 1486 when Sultan Qait Bey contested with Bayezid II the possession of some border towns. The climax came three decades later on Aug. 24, 1516, when the Ottoman sultan, Selim I, routed the Mamluk armies. Palestine began its four centuries under Ottoman domination.

Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica
[/quote]

The Warrior Clans and their dominance of local regions gets its start in both the resistance and later assimilation with the Mongols that brought the blood drinking Horsemen down off the Steppes of Asia. Wahaddhi is such a branch of Islam and its roots run deep among the peoples you are depending upon to guard your back in this coming conflict.

This is also the real origin of al Qaeda and the real threat we face.

But what part of the Star Wars Program is in fact directed at this significant threat?

The Star Wars program is not a valid strategy it is an obsolete concept that is a dinosaur of the Cold War. It purpose was to force the Soviet economy into a combined Escalation of weapons requiring GNP they barely had with a parallel development of Anti ballistic Missiles that their economy couldn't afford at all.

What the Star Wars program is in fact is a modern variant of a Land Grab. It is a way of generating Windfall profits for a lagging industrial sector that is highly unpopular with the public unless they are made sufficiently "AFRAID and INSECURE" in order to foment their willingness to contribute to this sector. External threats are preferable but if these fail then the tried and true method is to return to the principles of Nationalism, the questioning of Loyalties and calling the opposition seditious ( McCarthyism), and when all else fails the rescinding of Civil Liberties and open suppression of individual Rights.

The image I have of popular over reaction is one that describes the testing for a knee's reflex only to find the patient kicking himself in the head once the sensitivity is found. Again I remind all that read this and attempt to evaluate the dilemmas facing our age, we pave the way into the future upon shifting sands with uncertain design. This is not a time to return to the dinosaur-like megalithic practices of "Old Minds" making "Old Promises" about what has worked in past "Old Cold Wars". It is the time to face a hazy future with subtlety, flexibility, and intelligence. We can defeat the enemy by defeating the causality of the conflict, this is certain. We can defeat the enemy by isolating access to resources, support, and recruits. We can defeat the enemy by assimilating them.

Understand this simple fact my youthful opponent, those you fear don't fear you, they fear me because I know their vulnerabilities, their hopes, their fears, and their desires better than you do. I am one of those who can identify and recruit a Josephus to campaign against the rebels. Your disdain for history will find you fodder on the battlefield but my love of those that serve the Glory of our Noble Purpose will engender wise investment in both effective strategy and tactics. I am a non-violent terrorist. I use the power of ideas and suggestion to accomplish much more than destructive violence ever could.

When we face a serious need then I might agree with the idea of a Planetary shield. Until we make "First Contact" with aggressive alien intent I would rather direct the capital necessary for programs such as missile defense at the most powerful deterrent we can develop against this Dark Force of Ignorance we face as a Common Enemy. This is through Education, Heath Care, giving People a true Voice in Democratic Institutions, and the creation of a healthy global economy that ameliorates the scourge of poverty, disease, fear, and parochial prejudice that is the TRUE medium for the fermentation of the "enemy".

This will not be done by contributing to the budgetary grab for capital investment that the Military Industrial establishment is using to hoodwink the masses by exploiting their fears and ignorance at this time.

[quote] "We have but one thing to fear and that is fear itself"
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
[/quote]

[quote]
Lazarus said:

If you expect serious students of Global Politics to take American analysis seriously then it had better become, how should I say this...

less provincial.

We tend to look like dangerously powerful amateurs because too many of our own analysts believe the propagandistic pabulum fed to masses as excuses. We are also not very subtle in our policies and look openly duplicitous to even a casual inspection by objective observers.

and Kissing retorts:

First, we tend to look like amateurs because the nature of democracy makes our foreign policy approach inconsistent. [/quote]

We tend to look like idiots because the people claiming to be experts got their positions through nepotism and have little understanding of the full ramifications of the actions they are taking. While lone voices in the wilderness of simple citizen individuals with better minds and fewer degrees make not only more common sense but demonstrate greater depth of comprehension of what is going on.

The fact is that we are inconsistent because we are behaving duplicitously. But in this game it is only Standard Operating Procedure.

This is the House of Saud.

[quote]
Wahhabi, also spelled WAHABI, any member of the Muslim puritan movement founded by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century in Najd, central Arabia, and adopted in 1744 by the Sa'udi family.

(see also Index: Sa'ud, House of)

The political fortunes of the Wahhabi were immediately allied to those of the Sa'udi dynasty. By the end of the 18th century, they had brought all of Najd under their control, attacked Karbala`, Iraq, a holy city of the Shi'ite branch of Islam, and occupied Mecca and Medina in western Arabia.

The Ottoman sultan brought an end to the first Wahhabi empire in 1818, but the sect revived under the leadership of the Sa'udi Faysal I. The empire was then somewhat restored until once again destroyed at the end of the 19th century by the Rashidiyah of northern Arabia. The activities of Ibn Sa'ud in the 20th century eventually led to the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932 and assured the Wahhabi religious and political dominance on the Arabian Peninsula.

Members of the Wahhabi call themselves al-Muwahhidun, "Unitarians," a name derived from their emphasis on the absolute oneness of God (tawhid). They deny all acts implying polytheism, such as visiting tombs and venerating saints, and advocate a return to the original teachings of Islam as incorporated in the Qur`an and Hadith (traditions of Muhammad), with condemnation of all innovations (bid'ah).

Wahhabi theology and jurisprudence, based, respectively, on the teachings of Ibn Taymiyah and on the legal school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, stress literal belief in the Qur'an and Hadith and the establishment of a Muslim state based only on Islamic law.

Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica
[/quote]

Mr. Kissinger you are far from home, have you enlisted yet?

I advise you seek Command for it may be your only way to ensure that the Army of Auxiliaries whose constituency are the People of Color does not turn upon you someday. You would make a fine Centurion. The uniform is a great way to get girls. I won't even tell your girlfriend though she might have her own uniform before this is over.

Soldiers can only win or lose battles they cannot make peace.

As has happened every time before, when you and your kind are done ruining the world and laying waste to one another it will be the healers, peacemakers, and true diplomats that are brought back in to do the real work of Nation Building with none of the glory, fanfare, or spoils, and all of the responsibility.

That is if there are any survivors.


[quote]
Kissinger says:

You know what I hope for Saille? I hope for world peace. I really do. And not just for the humanity of it. You see, I have my selfish motives. Imagine the US taking the $400 billion dollars it spends on defense every year and putting it towards science and technological progress! Immortality would really be within our grasp. Having to spend such exorbitant amounts on defense hinders the progress of society.

However, and this is a big however, you have still not answered how Saddam should be dealt with. Are you saying that there is never justification for war? What about self defense? Should we not have stopped Hitler?

In the end it comes down to this: I agree with you whole heartedly on the desired outcome. I disagree with you vehemently on the way to get there. [/quote]

In this we can all agree we disagree. There is no doubt that the real debate is ultimately about methods and the profound lack of trust that we share in common for one another's proposals.

[quote]
And then Mr. Kissinger adds:

I know this is scary shit, but you must realize one thing. We are not Israel. If suicide bombers start detonating themselves in movie theaters and dirty bombs start going off in major cities we are going to go nuts. We'll drop nukes. We will destroy their civilization. There will be no Arabs left. I say this with no bravado, this is the worst possible scenario. It is also what OBL does not realize--that we can be terrorists also. That when our survival is put into question we become what he is--primitive and brutal. And we got the toys to back it up.

You can criticize the nature of the beast, but do you doubt that my assessment is correct? [/quote]

Absolutely, I have tamed your beast and your assessment is short sighted and much too limited in scope to have any long term probability of success.


[quote]
Lazarus Long,

What are the ethical principles ("just cause", moral high ground) that you see for invading Iraq?

bob
[/quote]

Here is what I consider to be a serious question. First of all, Truman didn't sacrifice 500, 000 lives to save an equal number of American Lives. He did it to save what strategists believed was a probable death toll of as many as three to five million lives, mostly Japanese from broad scale invasion and used the power of Nuclear Weapons as a Staged Demonstration with ignoble purpose but demonstrable pragmatic effect.

I have few qualms of making an example of Saddam, I question the example we are making. We are too comfortable with collective punishment and I think we would be wise to avoid such draconian tactics, and I think so because of Principle, but I also think they have a low probability of giving the message we in fact want to send. What I do think is that we are falling into a trap of fighting by the enemy's rules.

I don't think we should just contain Saddam, I think we should start ratcheting up the pressure systematically and transparently begin the "Liberation" of specific regions. It is time to start a very careful dissection rather than a Holy war. We could force his Command and Control Infrastructure an alternative outcome along with a countdown, but instead of going in for an occupation we force them to clean house and begin regrouping. Then we continue negotiating.

[quote]
Kissinger says:

QUOTE (bobdrake12 @ Feb 5, 2003)
Is there an Iraqi-al-Qaida connection?

Is the evidence sufficent for an all out invasion or are there any other options?

As I have said earlier, I believe that there is an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection. Is there conclusive proof? No, at least not publicly. You keep asking for evidence. Unless you have absolutely no trust in your government then the Powell presentation offered proof of Iraq's WMD. However, in regards to the Al Qaeda connection you must realize that Iraq offers a perfect example of the problem we are dealing with today. There is not always going to be conclusive proof. That is the nature of these shadow terrorist networks. So by asking for conclusive proof you are living in the world of the past.

We have similar goals, you and I. We want to live forever. This is a worthy goal. These terrorist entities, these backwards middle eastern states--they are a threat to us achieving our goals. I want them dead. I want them destroyed. I don't care about justification. I don't care about right and wrong. I care about eliminating them. Do you understand my mind set. When I give you your moral justifications I am placating you. In my minds eye I do no need moral justification, I find them to be a handicap. The only reason I argue morality is because I know other people need to have things justified in those terms. Like any aspiring (potential) politician I have learned that morality is a tool of the trade.
[/quote]

You have the image backward and you are not seeing our enemy at all. Just because this group is against all forms of technological advancement doesn't mean they are ignorant fools. And if you haven't noticed it your propagandistic attitude about your opponent has not offered you a single clue as to his true strengths and whereabouts, no positively confirmed and locked on target at all. You are just another distraction in battle and more than likely to not only get yourself killed but all that would follow your Command. A good Commander never squanders his forces or spends Human Capital on the unnecessary slaughter of innocents.

[quote]
Your criticisms on Afghanistan are unwarranted. Before we went in all the doubters were whispering in the American public's ear, "We're going to get bogged down just like the Russians did." We didn't. Then afterwards, the success that we did have just wasn't good enough for them. We did destroy a lot of Al Qaeda. We took out the Taliban. We dismantled the terrorist infrastructure. We set our guy up in Kabul. I think our performance in Afghanistan was quick and pretty. The one regret is, of course, Tora Bora.

As far as putting boots on the ground at Tora Bora... I think we should have used nukes. The collateral damages would have been minimal because its in the middle of nowhere and you probably would have gotten most of the rats hiding in the caves from either the explosions or the fallout.

I also think that the reason we didn't put guy on the ground is because of Tommy Franks. The guy looks like a goof ball and I personally think he is incompetent. He is currently under investigation for allowing his wife to sit in on a classified meeting. I just know that behind the scenes Rumsfeld is dragging his sorry ass along for the ride. As soon as the combat phase in the Iraq conflict is over I predict Franks will make his departure.

As far as the Neo Hawks having an aversion to nation building, times change.  [/quote]


We did not take out the Taliban we forced them back into their Hills, Hills they have retreated into for thousands of years. Hills that have defended them from Alexander to Montbatten.

Second, we did not dismantle their terrorist structure and I have already provided the CIA reports from G. Tenet that confirms what I claim.

Third, Tommy Franks makes as good a fatted pig for the BBQ as any sacrificial goat you have in mind but he was only following orders and doesn't want to follow the order to fall on his sword.

Fourth, If we had used Nukes at Tora Bora the Chinese wouldn't even be considering our ideas they would have closed up their Operations and Observations and decided to support the North Korean Nuclear Missile Program openly. You just have no interest in winning do you?

You are so interested in making a good show. Nukes would have killed bin Laden but served his purposes more than ours. We would have irrevocably started WWIII. The incremental steps of escalation would have been impossible to stop and you are very wrong in thinking you can both pay the MAD Strategy of WMD and the Tactical Nuclear Card. It stops being preventable MAD when it starts being tactically acceptable.


[quote]
Let me get this straight. We're going into Iraq to supply Europe with more oil? And they're complaining about it!?! God the French really are assholes.  [/quote]

No more the asshole then any other solely self interested party to this crime. The French and the Germans have been developing successful contract negotiation for some time with the Iraqis. They are about to lose there highly lucrative contracts if we invade. But also your promise of oil spent for our profit as a people is also a sleight of hand, that is if the Administration is not forcing Secretary Powell to be duplicitous to the UN when he says that the Iraqi oil is for rebuilding Iraq. If this is the real agenda then it most certainly is not in accord with yours.

[quote]
Don't dismiss my knowledge of Ancient Rome. I am not ignorant of history. Originally Rome was an empire of conquest. They gained more wealth from the civilizations they conquered than the amount it cost them to do the conquering. Eventually it began to cost them more to hold onto these conquests than it was worth. Gradually their economy went from one of conquest to agriculture. Their empire started to crumble when their crop yields started to diminish and their rate of return started to decrease. There are other theories but that is the one I buy into. [/quote]

Well if that is the one you'll buy then I have a gently used bridge that I might interest you in. You did well in History at school I suppose, you certainly have memorized the answers. Too bad they are little more than hollow fairy tales meant for children. I suggest an independent and serious study of History is long over due.

[quote]
No the perspective of the world is not in accord with the US. I agree. And indeed, we should not trample on the interests of everyone else unless one day we may wake up to find we are all alone. But I ask you this. Aren't we as good as it gets?
[/quote]
NO. We are good but we have yet to fulfilled even a small percentage of our true potential.

[quote]
Do other free democracies really have a choice? Further, who is going to stop us? We spend more on our military than the next 15 on the list combined. Let's run down the GDP #s, shall we?

US 10.6 TR
CH 4.6
JP 2.8
IN 2.5
GR 2.2
EN 2.0
FR 2.0
RU 1.0

AOL Time Warner lost $100 billion dollars last year. That's the GDP of Southern Africa! [/quote]

I don't see the figures for al Qaeda's budget.

I would suggest to you my young friend that in this Age of Asymmetric Warfare they are currently getting much more Bang For Their Buck then you, and all the Democracies combined are, and that is because they are like Banker's they are playing with other people's money.

They are getting us to do their dirty work for them.

[bobdrake12]

The following is one of many articles found referenced in the Center for Security Policy

bob

http://www.centerfor...ection=featured



*****

http://www.townhall....k20030214.shtml

Larry Kudlow (back to story)

February 14, 2003

Saddam-first mentality


Despite charges by media elites and liberal intellectuals that the United States is unwilling to make sacrifices in the war against terror, at least one recent poll offers a totally different story. The TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence Poll, published by Investors Business Daily, shows that the vast majority of Americans believe Saddam Hussein must be taken out in the next six months, and that military action to achieve this goal will damage the already faltering economy. This says a lot about American sacrifice.

Sixty-seven percent of our citizens believe that Saddam is an immediate threat to the United States, and 77 percent says it is important for the United States to take military action against Saddam in the next six months, according to IBD/TIPP. Following President Bush's State of the Union message and Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony to the U.N. Security Council, 79 percent of Americans now believe that regime change in Iraq is necessary. That number is up 12 percentage points from early January.

Now here's where it gets real interesting. The IBD/TIPP data clearly show that people want to get rid of the Iraqi despot even if military action has a negative effect on the economy.

Twenty-six percent of those polled believe a war with Iraq will throw the American economy back into recession. Another 42 percent expects a slowdown, but no recession. And only 25 percent believes war will help the economy. So while 79 percent wants to get rid of Saddam, 68 percent anticipates a high economic cost. In other words, the American people are willing to sacrifice the economy -- and presumably even the stock market -- in the name of national security.

This undermines the liberal notion that folks are not as patriotic as they used to be. It also underscores the view that right now in American politics, war is much more important than the economy. Democrats who think otherwise -- especially those running for president -- are misreading the public and barking up the wrong tree.

To a large extent, economic fears revolve around oil -- at least in the short run. Oil is the most direct link between the Iraqi battlefield and the American gross domestic product. At $35 a barrel today, oil stands at a two-year high -- up about 75 percent from a year ago. Regular gasoline and diesel fuel prices also stand at two-year highs. An energy price-hike like this, if sustained, could lop more than $100 billion, or 1 percent, from GDP.

But the polling data show that people don't really care. Knocking off Saddam Hussein, in what would be a major step forward in the global war against terrorism, is simply more important. They want to breathe easier in terms of homeland safety. A world without Saddam means they can do just that.

In battlefield terms, the big economic-impact question is whether the United States and allied forces can secure Iraqi oil fields in both the northern and southern parts of the country before Saddam's forces sabotage them. Clearly this will be a top priority for the terrorist dictator. He did this in Kuwait 12 years ago, and it took Red Adair and his associates eight months to put out the fires.

Military experts report a likely foot race between American special-operations units and Saddam's troops. It is known that the 101st Airborne will be involved in oil-field defense, and it has been made clear to Iraqi officers that anyone who takes part in oil-field sabotage will be subject to harsh prosecution by the new government in Iraq after Saddam is ousted. But at present there are still many unanswered questions about the special-forces strategy. Will they clandestinely move to protect the oil fields before the formal beginning of war? No one knows, or they're not talking.

What is known, however, is that Saddam's forces are headed toward the oil fields. Satellite pictures reveal a number of Iraqi cargo trucks filled with explosives moving on the fields. For shareholders, the big question is whether the futures markets have already discounted oil-field blowups. Nobody can confidently answer that question, but surely one reason that U.S. and global stock markets have been falling of late is the fear that oil prices could rise another $10, $20 or more. Yes, oil prices might eventually fall back to $20 a barrel, but it's the next three to six months that people are worried about.

So there you have it. There's a huge oil risk to our economy. But the great fact is that over three quarters of Americans are willing to risk it. Knocking out Saddam -- which will open the way to dealing with Iran, North Korea and other terrorist countries -- is well worth the economic hit to Americans.

If that isn't sacrifice, then I don't know what is.

©2003 townhall.com

Edited by bobdrake12, 16 February 2003 - 08:34 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

from the above article
This undermines the liberal notion that folks are not as patriotic as they used to be. It also underscores the view that right now in American politics, war is much more important than the economy. Democrats who think otherwise -- especially those running for president -- are misreading the public and barking up the wrong tree.

As another point of reference almost none of the current crop of Democratic candidates has staked out a pacifist agenda and in fact virutally ALL of them voted for the last War Power's Act and are self proclaimed Hawks not Doves.

Also as a point of Reference I happen to be a Registered Republican.

Stereotypes are only as good as the believers in them.