952 replies to this topic

[bobdrake12]

Close the roads and the systems dies. It is the economy that needs the open borders, and it needs it the way SUV's need Oil and crack heads need a fix.

Close the borders and the enemy wins because we retreat into a seige mentality, embrace the world to maintain what we have and we must adapt to meet this level of integration.

Lazarus Long,

Securing the boarders does not mean closing them.

If you were to look up the word "secure", you would find that it means "free from danger or harm; safe."

Currently, the US does have valid checkpoints for roads crossing between Mexico and the US (Mexico and the US are the ones I am familiar with).

It is the other areas which are of concern.

So again, can you explain why the US has yet to effectively secure boarders?

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 09:09 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

History lessons and Spinning back to Iraq.

Bob pointed out:
o The Shah of Iran's regime was deemed by many in Iran as "anti-Islamic." A popular movement grew against the Shah until January 16, 1979, when he fled to Egypt.

o Two weeks later, thousands of Muslims cheered Khomeini's return to Iran.

o Afterwards, Carter admitted the Shah of Iran into the US.

This is not the start of events at all as I pointed out earlier on this very thread. We first installed the Shah by meticulously and duplicitously (along with Britain) destroying a constructive and POPULAR LEGITMATE DEMOCRACY IN IRAN IN 1953. Carter inherited the whirlwind and the storm came home in the Iranian Desert that summer of '79/80.

Carter listenned to many of the wrong people that fed him seriously flawed information that was making him avoid the Islamicists that at the time were based in Paris with Khomeni. Later he was forced to initiate negotiations with these same groups because of Afghanistan and wouldn't (in part because of Iran and bad advice) and then Reagan went in and DID negotiate with them all including the ones we are now facing.

He also failed to understand that we ( THE United States of America) had in fact destroyed not only the popular democratic process but forced all true popularists into bed with the religious extremists in order for them to accomplish their goals.

This by the way happened at the same time historically as we were in a different part of the world (Vietnam), doing the same thing with regard to our WWII ally Ho Chi Min. Ostensibly the argument was to stop the spread of Communism but in fact we were stopping the spread of Popular Democratic Movements, as we did later in Chile. This is not only history, IT IS THE HISTORY OF EVENTS MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD BELIEVES.

Ho Chi Min was a Social Democratic Nationalist and not at all intersted in another cult of personality and these were the background reports that Dulles as a Chief of the OSS was deep sixing in order to micromanage foreign policy and intentionally support the EuroColonialist Powers that demanded a payoff in the Post War period in order to cooperate on forming NATO and maintain the Marshall plan.

If we are to go forward then we must really begin to assess damage as we have already caused it, if for no other reason then to put into effect constructive damage control.

I also think you are correct about image. And OUR Technology doesn't impress our enemies as the real threat, it is OUR WILL which scares them.

We failed with Clinton too, when instead of engaging opponents directly, we paid them off and popped Cruise Missiles at them like pea shooters in the cafeteria. Bush went back to carpet bombing and the protagonists took blood and instead felt stronger and bolder as a consequence, because they not only went effectively underground but took their struggle effectively global and we are still playing catch up.

Depending exclusively on our tech makes us dependent on it and weak by comparison, like a Goliath facing their David.

Carter like Clinton, only less so created a foreign policy totally focused on Domestic Appeal but I fear honestly that Bush is creating a foreign policy balanced between the Unabashed Greed of Clearly Compromised Conflicted Interest Groups and a more clandestine Far Right Wing that wants to pull off a "Quiet Coup" like Wolves disguised as Sheep Fleecing the Country.

Compassionate Conservatism?

Patriot Act II is anything but Compassionate, it isn't even interested in Defending the Constitution. It makes some of the Feminazi agendas look tame by comparison, except that this group of Extremist Matriarchs eyes the opportunities it codifies for "Thought Police" with anticipation for the future. But extremist Matriarchs have never had much trouble negotiating with extremist Patriarchs, afterall there is no surprise there, POLITICS HAS ALWAYS MADE FOR THE STRANGEST BEDFELLOWS.

It is the Moderate, Liberal, and Near Right Conservative Matriarchs and Patriarchs that can't appear to get their collective act's together and this Effective Reality of Divided thus Conquered Middle Body Politic bodes ill for our ability to confront the actuall threats we face.

[bobdrake12]

This is not the start of events at all as I pointed out earlier on this very thread. We first installed the Shah by meticulously and duplicitously (along with Britain) destroying a constructive and POPULAR LEGITMATE DEMOCRACY IN IRAN IN 1953. Carter inherited the whirlwind and the storm came home in the Iranian Desert that summer of '79/80.

Carter listenned to many of the wrong people that fed him seriously flawed information that was making him avoid the Islamicists that at the time were based in Paris with Khomeni. Later he was forced to initiate negotiations with these same groups because of Afghanistan and wouldn't (in part because of Iran and bad advice) and then Reagan went in and DID negotiate with them all including the ones we are now facing.

He also failed to understand that we ( THE United States of America) had in fact destroyed not only the popular democratic process but forced all true popularists into bed with the religious extremists in order for them to accomplish their goals.

.....This is not only history, IT IS THE HISTORY OF EVENTS MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD BELIEVES.

Lazarus Long,

Let's go back to 1908 when oil was discovered in Iran. It is at that point that the Western nations became interested in Iran. Britain played a dominant role there until WWII when the USSR also become involved by fighting to keep the Nazis out.

The US became involved with Iran in 1953 due to the concern that Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh might be moving Iran closer to USSR. As a result of this concern, the CIA directed an operation to oust Mossadegh and consolidate power under the Shah.

As time went on, a growing resentment against an uneven distribution of wealth and the westernizing influence of the US, led to a confrontation with Islamic clergy in 1963. The Shah put down the uprising and sent its leader ( Khomeini) into exile.

On December 31, 1977, Jimmy Carter toasted the Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him "an island of stability" in the Middle East. Jimmy Carter at this time either failed to understand or ignored that the Shah was in serious trouble. As opposition to the Shah increased, the Shah had his secret police crack down on dissenters, resulting in even more resentment against his regime.

Within weeks of Carter's visit, a series of protests broke out denouncing the Shah's regime as "anti-Islamic."


At this point the story continues as I described before on the Global Warming topic. I am reposting it here in full for those that have missed it:


I believe the bungling of Jimmy Carter is one of the major reasons why the US is in the precarious situation it is in today relating to the Middle East.

Let's take a look at the sequence of events.



Jimmy Carter

o The Shah of Iran's regime was deemed by many in Iran as "anti-Islamic." A popular movement grew against the Shah until January 16, 1979, when he fled to Egypt.

o Two weeks later, thousands of Muslims cheered Khomeini's return to Iran.

o Afterwards, Carter admitted the Shah of Iran into the US.



o On November 4, 1979, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 66 US diplomats as hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held and sometimes paraded around as a propaganda weapon displaying the apparent weakness of the United States. This weakness was enforced by Jimmy Carter being photograhed and televised wringing his hands while pacing in the Rose Garden rather than taking decisive military action. That sent a message to the Middle East that the US is still suffering the consequences for.

o Meanwhile, Khomeini saw a chance to consolidate his power and issued a statement in support of the action against the US "den of spies." The students vowed not to release the Americans until the U.S. returned the Shah for trial, along with billions of dollars they claimed he had stolen from the Iranian people.

o On April 24, 1980, Carter finally approved a hostage rescue mission known as operation "Eagle Claw," which failed before it got started.



o On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan’s inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention.


The key point here is that Jimmy Carter sent a message of weakness to the Middle East. I firmly do not believe countries are attacked for being too strong but because they are viewed as being too weak. Carter projected the image of Peace through Weakness and Capitulation which the Iranian radicals capitalized on.

In addition, I believe that Jimmy Carter made the mistake of not reaching out to those who viewed the Shah of Iran's regime as "anti-Islamic" in order to to help facilitate the smooth transition of the new government in Iran. Thus, the US was viewed as a threat, and this threat was reinforced when Carter admitted the Shah of Iran into the US.


bob


Footnote to history:

Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 11:46 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Lazarus Long,

Securing the boarders does not mean closing them.

If you were to look up the word "secure", you would find that it means "free from danger or harm; safe."

Currently, the US does have valid checkpoints for roads crossing between Mexico and the US (Mexico and the US are the ones I am familiar with).

It is the other areas which are of concern.

Actually Bob this is not true.

I have crossed the borders routinely. I am "in the system" and have crossed probably well over a hundred times, walking, flying (as both a Pilot and Passenger), driving, boating, from Canada, Mexico, the Caribean, and from South America, and I must say that I see them as highly permiable. If Contraband and Undocumented labor crosses as easilly and often as it does now then it is false to think the Checkpoints are actually secure. As I pointed out the terrorists that we DO know about came in through THOSE CHECK POINTS IN CANADA and OUR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS LEGALLY.

International Trade means that cargo must move and the volume of cargo that is already moving is only seriously checked for between 20% and 25% of flow (and this optimistic). If they stopped it any further the entire process would jam under its own volume, like a traffic back up after an accident.

There is no way that even our current technology can in fact really secure the vast amount of border (Land, Sea, and Air) that we have (especially including Alaska, the Territories, and Inland Airports) and the Military's Officially Serious attempt over the last decade to actually stem the flow of Drugs after a declared War on "said contraband" demonstrates as much.

The sheer volume of that specific "Black Market" should demonstrate to everyone that the borders are a sieve. The Official Border Crossings are like funnels in the Wind. Yes the majority use them but the vastness of them actually means that if there exists a will to get around the checkpoints, it is all too easy.

Now if we have more effective cooperation with our Neighbors, and WITH the Nations abroad that prescreen at their International Airports and Cooperate with US then we have a chance of securing them. But the Current Adminstration's attitude of unilateralism is not very encouraging to these countries and their people are becoming more and more reluctant to cooperate with us on almost any level at the grass roots.

If we find these groups turning a blind eye toward our security as a consequence of getting alienated then we will find our back's fully exposed. The conflict we are in fact facing has no unilateral solution possible, there is no "Fortress America" to retreat to . Rome by the way discovered this inherent contradiction of Empire too, eventually the Visigoths and Huns followed the roads the Romans had built all the way home.

[bobdrake12]

Official Border Croosing are like funnel in the Wind. Yes the majority use them but the vastness of them actually means that if there exists a will to get arond the checkpoints, it is all too easy.

Now if we have more effective cooperation with our Neighbors, and WITH the Nations abroad that prescreen at their International Airports and Cooperate with US then we have a chance of securing them. But the Current Adminstration's attitude of unilateralism is not very encouraging to these countries and their people are becoming more and more reluctant to cooperate with us on almost any level at the grass roots. If we find these groups turning a blind eye toward our security as a consequence of getting alienated then we will find our back's fully exposed.

Lazarus Long,

The point you make is also a major concern.

Just consider the amount of rail and truck containers that cross over the boarder.

Friends and friendly nations can choose to either cooperate with the US regarding potential threats or ignore them.

While your points regarding the check points are valid, the US has areas which are relatively wide-open between the US and Mexico. These areas are also of concern.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 23 February 2003 - 10:26 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Lazarus Long,

Let's go back to 1908 when oil was discovered in Iran. It is at that point that the Western nations became interested in Iran. Britain played a dominant role there until WWII when the USSR also become involved by fighting to keep the Nazis out.

The US became involved with Iran in 1953 due to the concern that Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh might be moving Iran closer to USSR. As a result of this concern, the CIA directed an operation to oust Mossadegh and consolidate power under the Shah.

As time went on, a growing resentment against an uneven distribution of wealth and the westernizing influence of the US, led to a confrontation with Islamic clergy in 1963. The Shah put down the uprising and sent its leader ( Khomeini) into exile.

Bob, I am so glad that you went this far back because this will explain that we did only enter this region with any seriousness after the END of WWII. BTW, during that war Iran traded with Germany and was not able to keep its declared neutrality very well and was eventually overrun by British Imperial Forces after the war that couldn't continue to dominate them in the face of India/Pakistan, Palestine, and African dissent. (A Yalta related trade for territory)

They, along with our own Black Operatives decided that it was in our (Best) interest to manipulate the situation, not as much because we thought Mossadegh would cozy up to Stalin (he was rightly terrified of him and his desire for southern ports) but because in his fear of Stalin and the Soviets he was disinclined to cooperate with new NATO on the desired placement of the Listenning posts we wanted to install there.

Also Bectel and the Oil Companies now come into play. Iran is a former border State of the Soviet Union and was NOT interested in being a Satellite of the Soviets AT ALL. They were trying to achieve a Swiss like Neutrality that we refused to accept as legitimate. The Unilateralists came to dominate policy then too and the Shah was the result.

The Covert link between Corporate and Intelligence convinced the Adminstration at that time that we needed to control the Irannian (and Iraqi) Oil Fields both to guarantee the flow to Our Side (and their own bank accounts) and deny it to the Soviets.

These groups mislead Eisenhower about Iran and he punished them later with the Suez. The next Adminstration got into serious trouble when these same groups mislead, an at first willing Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs and more importantly Vietnam.

Of the groups with motive for that crime, they are not able to be fully exonerated and their possible solution to his about face in the weeks before his assassination, was shall we say, more extreme.

[DJS]

Carter inherited the whirlwind and the storm came home in the Iranian Desert that summer of '79/80.

Carter listenned to many of the wrong people that fed him seriously flawed information that was making him avoid the Islamicists that at the time were based in Paris with Khomeni.

I wouldn't trust Carter to clean my pool. I would be afraid he would drown in the process.

[Lazarus Long]

Hey Mangala...

William...

You folks still there?

Are you all paying close attention?

I'm just a bit curious to hear a few more opinions, especially from some of the originators of this thread.

Do you feel that some of the reasons you started this thread have been served Mangala?

Is the situation clearer to most readers of this topic?

And so perhaps it ultimately becomes some variant of the question of taking sides.

I am sure you don't disagree with this at all, do you Mr. Kissinger?

The only real debate seems to boil down to which side one feels a part of, and the sides include those that wish neutrality, it always has.

The respect of neutrality is an important way of demonstrating a respect of sovereignty. And the reality is that the middle is not occupied by a strict division of black and white (as all too many of my Countrymen believe), it isn't even shades of grey.

The middle is that vast majority of color that Mr. Kissinger believes is his Silent Majority.

Did Nixon learn that phrase from Kissinger?

Or the other way around?

Are we having fun yet Mr. Kissinger?

[DJS]

Antiwar And Illogical
By Richard Cohen

"Liar" is a word rarely used in Washington. This is not because the town lacks liars but because the word is so unambiguous -- so lacking in customary fudge -- that its use was long ago forbidden by, of course, consensus. So it was particularly shocking, not to mention refreshing, to hear Richard Perle on Sunday call Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) a liar to his face. I paused to see if the Washington Monument would crack down the middle.

It did not. Moreover, Kucinich himself seemed only momentarily fazed by Perle's sharp right to his integrity and went on, indomitable demagogue that he seems to be, to maintain that the coming war with Iraq will be fought to control that nation's oil. Kucinich, a presidential candidate, has made this charge before, and when Tim Russert asked him on "Meet the Press" to back it up, here is what he said:

"I base that on the fact that there is $5 trillion worth of oil above and in the ground in Iraq, that individuals involved in the administration have been involved in the oil industry, that the oil industry would certainly benefit from having the administration control Iraq, and that the fact is that, since no other case has been made to go to war against Iraq, . . . oil represents the strongest incentive."

But it is not true that no other case has been made for war with Iraq. In fact, many cases have been made -- some persuasive, some not. Some were made by George Bush, some by Tony Blair, some by Republicans and some by Democrats. If you don't impose a deadline for the war, then the case for it was even made by the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1441, endorsed, as it happens, by France. I don't think France, not to mention Syria, would have voted to secure Iraq's oil for America's energy companies.

Kucinich's accusation was too much for Perle, a Pentagon adviser and Washington's uber-hawk. He called Kucinich's argument "a lie."

"It is an out-and-out lie," he said. "And I'm sorry to see you give credence to it." But Kucinich, who must have studied logic in France, came roaring back. "Well, if America is not at threat, then what is this about? And many people are wondering: 'How did our oil get under their sand?' "

A better question is: How did this fool get on "Meet the Press"? The answer is disheartening. Not only is Kucinich running for president, but he has emerged -- along with former Vermont governor Howard Dean -- as the darling of antiwar Democrats who will have much influence in the Iowa caucuses. George Bush's war -- whether for a better world or more SUVs -- may well be fought hand to hand in the Iowa snows.

As for Dean, he too had something to say about Iraq over the weekend. Along with most of the other presidential candidates, he appeared before the Democratic National Committee and started right off with Iraq: "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack in Iraq?"

If Dean was referring to the original congressional resolution, then maybe he's technically correct. But if the verb "is" means what it usually does, then he is just plain wrong. Britain supports the United States. That makes it bilateral. And Spain would make it trilateral, and Italy and Poland and the Netherlands and the Czech Republic make it multilateral. Whatever may have been Bush's initial preference, he did wind up going to the United Nations -- and, it seems, going and going and going. Why is Dean saying something so unilaterally wrong?

Because something truly awful has happened. The looming war has already become deeply and biliously ideological. By that I mean that the extremes on both sides -- but particularly the war's opponents -- no longer feel compelled to prove a case or stick to the facts. As with Vietnam, this is becoming an emotional battle between ideologues who, as usual, don't give a damn about the truth.

Kucinich seems to be one of those. He may be largely an unknown, but in liberal circles he's something of a hero. Despite a long antiabortion record, which he recently (conveniently?) renounced, he has been featured in the Nation, a venerable and respected liberal magazine. It's impossible to know whether Kucinich believes what he said or was merely repeating a lie because others believe it. Either way, if he and his fellow antiwar candidates are going to turn a complex debate into an ideological brawl, then one outcome of the potential war will not be in doubt: The Democratic Party will lose.

[DJS]

Are we not all in agreement that Carter was the weakest President in the 20th century?

Bob, your comments on Carter were right on target. I don't necessarily think Carter is a stupid man. Heck, he is a very well accomplished guy if you think about it. It is just that when I look at him I see a farm animal that is completely domesticated and tranquil. It doesn't realize that it is in the forest with mountain lions.

Edited by Kissinger, 26 February 2003 - 04:21 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Todays AOL Pulse of America POll at 11:30 pm Feb.25. 2003

Are Big Oil Firms Gouging us at the pump?

1. Yes 88% 1, 264,860

2. No 5% 72,301

3. Don't know 6% 90,863


Lieberman Urges Inquiry


WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman urged the Bush administration Monday to investigate whether consumers are being gouged at the gasoline pump and also to be ready to counter a disruption in crude oil supplies if war breaks out in Iraq.

U.S. oil prices have topped $36 a barrel on market fears of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, which in turn have helped propel retail gasoline prices to more than $2 a gallon in some American cities.

Lieberman, along with other lawmakers and consumer groups, have questioned whether big oil companies have taken advantage of war concerns to boost gasoline prices more than would be justified by the rise in crude oil costs.

Oil companies have denied wrongdoing and said gasoline prices reflect current market conditions, including fears of war in Iraq, low oil inventories and strong consumer demand for petroleum products.

Lieberman asked the Energy Department to investigate the matter.

In letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Lieberman said the administration must "assure the American people, now and in the future, that the prices that they are paying at the gas pump and for their fuel oil are not the result of price manipulation or gouging."

He also asked Abraham to review the current oil supply and demand situation and U.S. preparations to respond to an oil supply disruption in the Middle East from a war with Iraq.

"The department should monitor both domestic and international petroleum markets and take additional steps to mitigate supply disruptions," Lieberman said

He said the administration should consider using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, suspend future oil deliveries to the reserve in order to keep more crude in the market, and increase coordination with other industrialized countries on supply conditions and the use of their own petroleum reserves.

On Friday, senators Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin and Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the Midwest's soaring gasoline prices and whether consumers are being gouged at the pump.

*****************************************

Elections are ultimately won over economic issues and if the public can pin the tail on this donkey he will follow his father as one term president.

I wouldn't be counting your chickens, as they say, but if I lived in New Jersey I would be buying gas masks not just because of the risk of more and more burning oil refineries but because you have to live with them on a regular basis.

Of course your cancer rates say you won't be living with them for long.

[bobdrake12]

Bob, your comments on Carter were right on target. I don't necessarily think Carter is a stupid man. Heck, he is a very well accomplished guy if you think about it. It is just that when I look at him I see a farm animal that is completely domesticated and tranquil. It doesn't realize that it is in the forest with mountain lions.

Kissinger,

Carter didn't realize that he was in the forest with a killer rabbit.


Check out the story below.

bob


http://www.newsofthe...rticle1021.html

Jimmy Carter Attacked by Killer Rabbit (April 20, 1979)

by News of the Odd



Today in Odd History, Jimmy Carter was attacked by a rabbit during a fishing trip in Plains, Georgia. The rabbit, which may have been fleeing a predator, swam toward his boat, "hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared." President Carter was forced to swat at the vicious beast with a canoe paddle, which apparently scared it off.

[DJS]

I'm on the floor here Bob. lol lol lol

[Lazarus Long]

Blair suffers huge revolt on Iraq
199 MPs vote against British PM
Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Posted: 1959 GMT

LONDON, England -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has suffered one of the largest ever revolts of his career, with nearly 200 members of parliament -- including dozens from within his own Labour Party -- voting against his policy on Iraq.

About 100 Labour MPs were believed to have defied him as members voted 2:1 by 393 votes to 199 to defeat a motion by dissenters that war should only be a last resort. The exact number of Labour rebels will be revealed later on Wednesday.

The Blair government had put forward a carefully worded motion asking for backing for U.N. efforts to disarm Iraq and that was passed by 434 to 124. The motion did not mention the possibility of war that could follow within weeks.

But 199 MPs backed an amendment to that motion which stated the case for war is as yet unproven. Embarrassingly for Blair, many of them came from his ruling Labour Party.

With the breakdown of votes still being tallied, one Labour MP told Reuters that 120 or more of his party allies had defied their leader, more than a quarter of the total in parliament, dwarfing any previous rebellion against Blair.

CNN's Christiane Amanpour says Blair, who has a large majority in parliament and the support of opposition Conservatives, was always sure to win the vote, but all day had faced his worst defeat as prime minister within his own party.

The biggest revolt previously by Labour rebels on Iraq had seen 53 vote against the Blair government. It suffered its worst ever rebellion in May 1999 when 67 MPs voted against it over cuts in incapacity benefits.

Amanpour says the vote was not about whether to go to war but a second U.N. resolution that Blair needs to win public opinion and cement an international coalition.

"A second resolution... is exactly what I want," Blair told MPs who fear they will not get another vote before military action begins.

Britain, the United States and Spain have put down a draft resolution saying President Saddam Hussein has failed to take a final opportunity to disclose and get rid of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

But France and Germany say a majority on the 15-member council support their view that there should be no rush to war and more inspections.

A sizeable Labour revolt will add to the impression of a leader standing out dangerously on a limb. More than 750,000 people took to the streets of London this month for an anti-war rally, while recent polls show Blair's approval rating has plunged.

Full Text and Links

[Lazarus Long]

Carter was way out of his league and isolated in Washington. Those that were feeding him information also were severely micromanaging his decisions.

Ross Perot is an example of someone that gave both very good and very bad advice during this period, but project Eagle Claw was Carter's responsibility as Commander and Chief but let's be frank the Military was in disarray during this Post Vietnam Period and Carter was incompetant to manage the military option on a good day.

At least Carter undertood this, (if not a little too late) and ordered the creation of the Rapid Deployment Force.

Carter was the reason I left my Democratic roots forever behind.

But if I wanted to pick the worst President of even just the 20th Century Calvin Coolidge is even more pathetic than Carter, and Harding?

Did they ever wake him up before he finally died?

[Lazarus Long]

Hizballah Is Moving Up the Threat Chart

Osama is still public enemy number one, but the feds are growing more concerned about Hizballah. Could the group be poised for an attack in the U.S.?

By TIMOTHY J. BURGER AND ELAINE SHANNON/WASHINGTON
Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2003

At first blush, it sounds like a run of the mill smuggling case. On Friday in Charlotte, North Carolina, 29-year-old Lebanese national Mohamad Hammoud will be sentenced on charges of running cigarettes from North Carolina to Michigan. But Hammoud isn't some two-bit crook trying to make a little extra cash. He's considered by the feds to be a dangerous terrorist. Hammoud has been convicted of using his illicit income to help fuel Hizballah, the Lebanon-based, anti-Israel terrorist army.

For his crime, he faces up to 155 years in prison. Federal prosecutors are convinced he was a young extremist militant before he gained entry to the U.S. through Venezuela in 1992 with a $200 fake visa. They maintain that he stayed in the U.S. by entering into first one, and then another, phony marriage to American women — all the while still engaged to another woman in Lebanon.

For most Americans, Osama bin Laden is the frightening face of international terrorism. But lately, Hizballah is almost as high on the feds' threat meter. "Al Qaeda has not been the only threat. Prior to September 11th, Hizballah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group," FBI Director Robert Mueller said last year. Just three weeks ago, two alleged Hizballah soldiers were among several individuals indicted in Detroit — also in a cigarette smuggling scheme that the government said is linked to Hammoud's. Prosecutors allege that they, too, were raising money for Hizballah. And TIME has learned that the FBI is investigating the activities of hundreds of suspected Hizballah members or sympathizers in the U.S. — including several dozen émigrés believed to be hard-core Hizballah believers.

The investigation is spread over many cities including New York, Los Angeles and Boston. "You could almost pick your city and you would probably have a presence," says one knowledgeable law enforcement official. The concern is that Hizballah — among other groups — may have U.S.-based sleepers in place not only to raise money, but also to pounce with an attack when the timing is right.

Hizballah is certainly a menacing terrorist group with a known track record of brutal attacks all over the world. The organization's American victims in Lebanon range from Navy diver Robert Stethem — his murdered body was thrown out the window of a TWA airliner in a 1985 hijacking in Beirut — and CIA station chief William Buckley the same year, to 241 killed in a 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine headquarters that led Ronald Reagan to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. The group was also blamed for lethal 1990s bombings of Jewish targets in Argentina — showing that its deadly reach extends far beyond the Mideast.

Attacks like these help account for a $25 million bounty the U.S. has placed on the head of Hizballah's Imad Mugniyeh, who is listed among America's 22 most wanted terrorists and is believed to be hiding out in Lebanon. "Hizballah may be the 'A team' of terrorists, and maybe al-Qaeda is actually the 'B team.' And they're on the list and their time will come," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said last September. "They have a blood debt to us,... and we're not going to forget it." Added an old counter-terrorism hand: "They're very good and very deadly. For whatever reason, they've stopped killing Americans."

But if they decide to start again, U.S. officials dread their professionalism, training and discipline — and their penchant for particularly deadly suicide attacks. "They're military trained. They keep their military skills up," said Chris Swecker, the special agent in charge of the FBI's Charlotte office and a key player in the Hammoud case.

The Hammoud case is auspicious because it has been the first of its kind under a 1996 anti-terror law that outlawed giving material support to terror groups, such as an uncertain amount of smuggling profits that Hammoud was proved to have sent abroad. "The case was about fund-raising, but there was enough evidence seized in the course of the investigation to justify a legitimate concern about terrorism in general," U.S. attorney for Charlotte Bob Conrad tells TIME of the charges his office brought against Hammoud and two dozen or so others, including his brother and several Americans. "A group such as this is in place to do other things."

The Hammoud case began innocuously enough in 1995. Local sheriff's detective Bob Fromme, working off-duty as a security guard at JR Tobacco Warehouse in Statesville, N.C., grew suspicious when he saw a group of Middle Eastern men repeatedly buying hundreds of cartons of cigarettes apiece. Local prosecutors in tobacco-friendly North Carolina weren't interested, but Fromme persuaded the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to investigate. Just as they were poised to bring charges, the FBI swooped in and took over — linking the smuggling operation to the Hizballah cell that Hammoud allegedly headed.

The FBI is using fund-raising investigations like the one in Charlotte to nab operatives like Hammoud while trying to roll up any possible plans for violence. As FBI agent Swecker put it: "These fund-raising cases were good ways to get in and see what they were doing. And if we had to wait and see what they were doing — I mean that'd be way too late." So far, neither Hammoud's gang nor other Hizballah operatives are accused of planning specific attacks here. But Conrad noted that the government filed an affidavit citing a confidential source who said that "if Hizballah issued an authorization to execute a terrorist act in the United States, Mohamad Hammoud would not hesitate in carrying it out." And prosecutors may present evidence at Hammoud's sentencing from an inconclusive post-trial investigation of allegations that Hammoud sought a hit man to "put bullets into the skull" of Kenneth Bell, the lead prosecutor.

Evidence gathered in the case included photos of Hammoud handling guns and rocket launchers in Lebanon and taking target practice in the U.S., as well as brandishing an automatic rifle in Hizballah headquarters in Lebanon — at age 15. Seized from Hammoud's house was a videotape of Hizballah men with explosive belts around their waist "and the interpretation of the chanting is that 'We pledge to detonate ourselves to shake the ground under the feet of our enemies, America and Israel,'" Conrad says. "To me, that indicates a general intent to engage in violence on our soil." Canadian intelligence intercepts showed the Charlotte cell had been in close contact with Hizballah leaders in Lebanon, and the cell was found to have procured "dual-use" equipment for military use there.

Hammoud denied during his trial that he was a Hizballah militant. His lawyer could not be reached. Hizballah leaders in Lebanon also could not be reached for comment. Federal sources say the FBI has identified a small number of emigres who attended Hizballah training camps in Lebanon and now reside in the U.S. A few of these have even returned to Lebanon for more advanced training, sources say. Agents are monitoring them closely, along with a larger number of suspected Hizballah members, associates and sympathizers suspected of providing logistical support for the organization.

While authorities put the heat on Hizballah here, the U.S. has also moved to try to rein in the terror group abroad. In a private meeting in Damascus last April, Secretary of State Colin Powell asked Syrian President Bashar Assad to restrain Hizballah forces that had been firing rockets at Israel from the north. A diplomatic source critical of Iran's role in arming Hizballah tells TIME that the U.S. has at least twice asked Saudi Arabia to stop giving Iranian military supply planes overflight permission for loads of weaponry earmarked for Hizballah. "We continually raise this issue with diplomatic discussions and our views on overflight are well known throughout the region," a U.S. State Department official told TIME. "We don't tolerate illegal flow of weapons and that message has not changed." A Saudi spokesman had no immediate comment.

Meanwhile, the feds are watching closely to see if groups such as Hizballah use the Iraq crisis as a lynchpin for attacks. "If they sympathize and identify with Iraq and they decide this is just an affront to Muslims all over the world, then they could decide to get involved," said one law enforcement official. "We are certainly watching that--nationwide."

Whether Hizballah switches from quiet fund-raising to attack mode in the U.S. "is a big issue," agrees Rep. Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "They don't ask our permission."

Additional reporting by Viveca Novak and Adam Zagorin/Washington; Kim Ghattas/Beirut; Matt Rees/Jerusalem

[bobdrake12]

Kissinger and Lazarus Long,

Did you know that thirty years ago, Jimmy Carter risked being labeled a crackpot when he said he saw a UFO?

Bob

http://abcnews.go.co.../ufo990122.html

Carter’s Close Encounter



When a President Says He’s Seen a UFO, You Really Have to Wonder if the Truth Is Out There

President Carter filed two formal reports when he was governor of Georgia describing his observation of an unidentified flying object to organizations that collect and promote UFO sightings as unexplained phenomena. (ABCNEWS.com)

By Buck Wolf
ABCNEWS.com

Jan. 22 — It was just another fun night at the Lion’s Club for Jimmy Carter — when suddenly from the sky a UFO “as bright as the moon” flashed before his eyes.

A red and green glowing orb radiated as it hurtled across the southwestern Georgia skies that January 1969 evening. Ten minutes later, it vanished. That was Jimmy Carter’s story — and he’s sticking to it. Carter, then Georgia’s governor, became the first major politician to risk achieving “crackpot” status by claiming he had had a close encounter. “I don’t laugh at people any more when they say they’ve seen UFOs,” Carter said at a Southern Governors Conference a few years later. “I’ve seen one myself.”

[Lazarus Long]

Yes I remember the killer rabbit and the UFO sightings quite well but what I will always cherish is the " I have lusted after other women" speech.

Obviously everyone failed to mention to him that licentiousness was included in the job description of President.

But Bob from my recollection you have granted a few sightings of UFO's as credible yourself?

Oh that was just "other people's" reported sitings

[ph34r] [B)] lol

kidding, just kidding [ggg]

[Mind]

I watched most of the Dan Rather interview with Saddam Hussein. It reminded again how it is much harder to demonize or kill someone when you see them up close and personal. Obviously Hussein is a criminal. The atrocities that have occurred by his hand are well documented Human Rights Abuse. I still think he should be arrested. I am postulating that the interview was a calculated move on his part. He is probably aware that a recluse is more easily demonized than a person wearing a tie in front of a camera.

[DJS]

The President of the United States
The Freedom Gap

We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us.

On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years in secret and far away led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way, because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century.

We learned a lesson: the dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: we will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men.

Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of Al Qaeda. Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning, and we're showing them the definition of American justice. And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror — outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world, and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country, and America will not permit it.

The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction — to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein. But Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick. And we are now moving into place nearly three million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We will make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating under the oil-for-food program, are stocked and open as soon as possible. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commission on Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and Unicef to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.

We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners: the Iraqi people.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we're the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror.

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers.

And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders — true leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.

For its part the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end.

And the Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel.

The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal. Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken if all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and violence and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace, and the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity.

In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We're a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council.

We believe in the Security Council so much that we want its words to have meaning. The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today, and will need tomorrow, international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to make sure that the force of right will in the ultimate issue be protected by the right of force.

Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the Council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the Council will fulfill its founding purpose.

I've listened carefully as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world. The threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent and defend the cause of peace. And by acting we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.

Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we will meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. These dangers are real, as our soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines fully understand. Yet no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges.

Members of our armed forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America's cause is right and just: the liberty for an oppressed people and security for the American people.

And I know something about these men and women who wear our uniform. They will complete every mission they are given with skill and honor and courage.

Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions and war. It'll be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East after so many generations of strife, yet the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us. And Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times and we will meet the tests of our time.

We go forward with confidence because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history and free people will keep the peace of the world.

Thank you all very much.

Edited by Kissinger, 27 February 2003 - 05:24 AM.

[DJS]

This is definitely "go" talk from the President.

Am I the only one in the world that has a good feeling about this? I think this is all going to work out in the end. I really believe that democracy can take hold anywhere. I guess history will be the vindicator.

Edited by Kissinger, 27 February 2003 - 05:39 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

I have already tried to address the fallacy of comparing this scenario to Prewar Germany and Japan. Let me add two more criteria to this critique.

1. Both Germany and Japan were coherent social organizations with the clear common identification of the populous in each case toward the central Identity of the State in question.

Simply put, Germans collectively thought of themselves as Germans and the Japanese as Japanese. This was in addition to the fact that both had strong (though suppressed democratic movements that were homegrown).

Second, When we went into these regions Postwar, our committment to stay and occupy was recognized to be "In perpetuity" or until such time as we felt our goals of a stable and cooperative partner in the defense of Democracy had been secured.

As a point of reference, now nearly 60 years later we are still present in both countries. Democracy is not "giftable" and trying to say it can be is a "Trojan Horse".

The more likely scenario of Iraq is what we saw in Yugoslvia recently when historically competing, belicose, and divergent interests will tear the region apart if we do not impose an autocratic military oligarchy that is the opposite of bringing a Democratic process.

Regardless of this however what it won't take under any circumstances is a small committment for a short time.

Current estimates of the Army of Occupation necessary for NO LESS THAN FIVE YEARS is at least 100,000 troops on the ground and a global supply chain. The probability is that five years is way too optimistic for when we can get out.

As an additional caveat, we will have to secure the supply chain through the surrounding countries and this will require additional bases and troops. Generally speaking for every soldier in the field there are as many as eight more required in the shadows for support.

You are probably not alone in having a "Good Feeling" about this but I should say that generally only fools and madmen are Happy to go to War. The warriors who survive and succeed in the field do it as coldly and dispassionately as possible. The paradox is that it is impossible to be dispassionate about this.

I think this is all going to work out in the end. I really believe that democracy can take hold anywhere. I guess history will be the vindicator.

Only survivors keep history and it is the victors that write it. Your statement beautifully demonstrates my point that politics is a category of religious belief. And despite how many in a Secular Society like to "believe" that our system is qualitatively different from a Non-Secular one.

Your words demonstrate that when you scratch the surface of this "confidence" you find that from a sociopsychological perpsective there is little qualitative difference.

What is different is the pragmatic application of belief as it organizes social structures. This is no small difference but it isn't what is being presented to most people as the difference.

Iraq is NOT a theocracy, it is a totalitarian fascist autocracy. Islam is not even a particularly unifying aspect of this society internally as they are divided ferverently between Shiite and Sunni, but also they are divided culturally between Bathist's, Kurds, Arabs, Persians, etc.

We are about to take out the "Tito" that has held these warring factions in common for decades. We aren't going to be able to replace such a central authority without a measure of force that most people might find difficult to accept, but also one which is logically antithetical to the promise of bringing Democracy.

Or are we about to go from Nation Building to being the Colonialist Drafter of New Territorial Borders?

[Thomas]

Nowdays, some Chimpsky like Americans are visiting my country, selling their yada about Iraq and stuff.

They appearing on the national radio, universities ... claiming how America should listen Leonid Ilyich Chirac and so on ...

Then, the Soros is founding all the Leftist and communists here, by his Open Society Found. They would die out already, if there was no $$$ from US for them.

As we hadn't enough of those models already, they are coming from US also!

- Thomas

[Lazarus Long]

By "Chimpsky" do you mean Chomsky?

My, my Thomas, how obvious of you

I am sure he has heard the pun before no doubt though.

Still it does make make me laugh,

with you both.

[DJS]

I watched most of the Dan Rather interview with Saddam Hussein. It reminded again how it is much harder to demonize or kill someone when you see them up close and personal. Obviously Hussein is a criminal. The atrocities that have occurred by his hand are well documented.  I still think he should be arrested. I am postulating that the interview was a calculated move on his part. He is probably aware that a recluse is more easily demonized than a person wearing a tie in front of a camera.

It was calculated. Did you notice Saddam had what they called a "command presence"? He practices this. Shoulders squared, no fidgeting, direct eye contact, direct abrupt responses with no ellaboration-- all practiced.

Finally, of course he comes out looking ok, he edited the tapes. Why wasn't he asked any of the really tough questions, like his raping and pillaging of Kuwait? Or his gasing of the Kurds? Both well documented historical events. Because he would have lied about the atrocities anyway. The most you would have gotten out of him is some real politik excuse for invading Kuwait (slant drilling, exceeding OPEC quotas and skewing the market, etc. etc...). He deals with the incovenience of fact and reality with lies and deception. His games may work on his own censored population or the arab street, but only the most extreme left wing fringe of America believes one word of it.

[DJS]

1.  Both Germany and Japan were coherent social organizations with the clear common identification of the populous in each case toward the central Identity of the State in question.

Simply put, Germans collectively thought of themselves as Germans and the Japanese as Japanese.  This was in addition to the fact that both had strong (though suppressed democratic movements that were homegrown).

Second, When we went into these regions Postwar, our committment to stay and occupy was recognized to be "In perpetuity"  or until such time as we felt our goals of a stable and cooperative partner in the defense of Democracy had been secured.

As a point of reference, now nearly 60 years later we are still present in both countries.  Democracy is not "giftable" and trying to say it can be is a "Trojan Horse".

Iraq willl be more difficult to reform than Germany and Japan--no doubt. However, democracy can flourish anywhere. This is not religious belief, it is well thought out and reasoned. I take offense when you imply that my philosophical beliefs take on aspects of religiosity. Every philosophy, when broken down, has basic components which are generic in nature. Yours, as well as mine. So if you really want to advance the point you would have to maintain that we are all just really shooting in the dark, that everything is relative, and we are really just wasting our time by trying to complete an evaluative process.

The reason that I believe that democracy is possible anywhere is because democracy is adaptable. You have yet to comment on your opinion of a possible Iraqi Alliance. Would the chances of creating a successful democracy increase if Iraq was broken up into three (north, south, and central) jurisdictional zones, each with semi-autonomous control of their populations. I think the answer to that is yes. And second, democratic principles do have universal appeal. If you don't believe that then you no longer believe in the American Ideal.

The more likely scenario of Iraq is what we saw in Yugoslvia recently when historically competing, belicose, and divergent interests will tear the region apart if we do not impose an autocratic military oligarchy that is the opposite of bringing a Democratic process.

Obviously this is the scenario that you invision. It is the one that is the most pessimistic. What you failed to mention is that the ethnic cleansing that took place in the former Yugoslavia started before NATO forces became involved. I fail to see the correlation between the two. How can you seriously advance the notion that that kind of civil unrest, usually associated with states of anarchy, will occur in a nation under martial law. Instead of being plagued uncertainty and self doubt, you should be confident in the power and worthiness of your nation.

Regardless of this however what it won't take under any circumstances is a small committment for a short time.

And you pull it all together with some diplomatic talk, with only slight under tones of pessimism.

You are probably not alone in having a "Good Feeling" about this but I should say that generally only fools and madmen are Happy to go to War.

No, I am never happy to go to war. However, I am very confident about the outcome. And I am very confident about the direction of the democratic movement.

Only survivors keep history and it is the victors that write it.

Yes and we are the victors. Any questions Gorky Park? [B)]

Or are we about to go from Nation Building to being the Colonialist Drafter of New Territorial Borders?

Come back in five years and I'll try to answer your question.

[Lazarus]

hmmmm, I usually try to not involve myself in the polotics of men, as they will always be corrupt as polotics it the buisness of holding power over poeple and land and power corupts when abused, which it nearly always does in politics. however I push this to you. should we really ask if it is right or wrong for us to go to whereever and do what we are doing. the us IS going to go and WILL do what it will and NO ONE will stop them. Being a millitary brat all my life and haveing a father in millitry intellegence I learned a great deal about the us government. the way thier policies are and WILL stay, a war with them, though more like a slaughter (if you actually know the facts about the millitary cpapbilities of the us compared to the rest of the world, then iraq vs the us is like a grain of sand againt a supernova, the only thing keeping the us from wiping iraq off the face of the earth is the fact that they dont want to loose face in the eyes of others or make any enemies of it, so they are being carefull. The US millitary capabilities are absolutley terrifying, just most people dont realise it
), is inevitable. what we should really be concearned about is how the us will be judged afterwards when all the cards are on the table. in a war as sad as it is the only way you can judge it is once it over. if you prejudge it you set yourself up for disaster. what if they find a wepon over there that would biologically wipe all life on this planet except that which is ethnically middle eastern. sure its unlikeley but it is possible. and if the us were to find it and keep it from harming us just in the nick of time before they used it. you would be very very very very very very VERY sorry had you prejudged them wrongly because you would now owe the us (assuming your not from middle eastern decent) you very life. so I say let governments have thier war when they are on issues of territorial control, when they start killing innocents, non millitary, pourposly, then take a stand agaist them, untill then I say judge the war after its over and not before. becasue then is when the world changes, when the war is over and policies are rewritten.


~Lazarus A. Epicurus~

[DJS]

Well thought out Lazarus #2.

I agree with almost everything you have said. The US' military cabablities are unmatched. Also, Gulf War II is going to happen. You are showing your realism by not prejudging the results of the pending war.

Additionally, your comments on genetically programmed bio-weapons is not out of the realm of possibilities.

Edited by Kissinger, 28 February 2003 - 02:56 AM.

[DJS]

Who Wins Without War?
Peacenik protestors haven't thought through the consequences of not going to war.
Fred Barnes
02/27/2003

ONE OF THE SLOGANS of the antiwar movement is "win without war." It means that somehow, some way, Saddam Hussein will be removed from power in Iraq or, through some miracle of geopolitics, he will decide to disarm his country of weapons of mass destruction--all without a shot being fired. It's a pipe dream, of course, but it raises the question of what really will happen if there's no war of liberation that frees the Iraqi people from Saddam's yoke.

The answer is nothing good and a lot that's bad. The most disastrous result of no war is Saddam stays in power, stronger and less restrained than ever. He will have gone eyeball-to-eyeball with President Bush--and Bush will have blinked. That outcome is not likely to make Saddam willing to disarm or stop tormenting his own people or threatening his neighbors. Nor is it likely to make him skittish about getting up close and personal with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. One significant result: The security of the United States will be further imperiled.

Imagine how Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will feel, having sided with the United States, the losing side in the face-off. They will be forced to come to terms with Saddam, since he suddenly will be the new strongman in the Middle East. Imagine how the Israelis will react. Saddam is the guy who rewards the families of suicide bombers (who kill Israeli women and children) with a check for $25,000. The Israelis will feel less secure than ever, and they will be less secure, despite American assurances that Israel will never be abandoned. The bottom line is that the entire Middle East will have a taken a sharp turn for the worse.

Two examples. One, the Bush administration's plan is to use Iraq, absent Saddam, as a beacon of democracy in the Arab world. The hope is that, just as in eastern Europe after the fall of Soviet communism, democracy will be contagious and democratic reformers will step front and center in Arab nations. Countries like Qatar that have started on the path to democracy will be encouraged to move ahead. And countries with little interest in democracy now--Egypt, for instance--will be prodded to democratize. With no war, however, any democratic trend will be short-circuited.

Two, the influence of the United States in the Middle East (and other regions) will be substantially reduced. Sure, America will remain the lone superpower in the world, but the United States won't be quite as imposing if Saddam can force an American president to back down. It will bring back fears of the United States as a "helpless, pitiful giant," fears that will not be unreasonable, given the new circumstances.

And it will mean the American pressure on Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians to reform will not be taken as seriously. Bush has refused to meet or deal with Arafat and demanded reform of Palestinian rule as a step toward a major American effort to forge a final peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israel. Arafat has balked at reform that would weaken his authority. A Saddam triumph will only strengthen him and cause the reformers, now working quietly behind the scenes to make Arafat into a ceremonial figure, to desist. That would mean a peace accord with Israel is removed from the realm of possibility for the foreseeable future.

Another victim of no war against Iraq would be multilateralism and especially the United Nations. If Saddam is allowed to thumb his nose at U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring him to disarm, the United Nations will emerge as solely a palace of blather and boilerplate, not to be taken seriously. Certainly American presidents won't consider the United Nations as an important body to consult in carrying out U.S. foreign policy. It will be irrelevant.

Another alliance will be badly damaged, too--the Atlantic alliance. France is positioning itself to become the leader of a new alliance that acts as a counterweight to the United States. If the French succeed in blocking a war against Iraq, it will not only be a feather in their cap, image-wise, but it will mark their first success in challenging a superpower. In political slang, France will be up, the United States down--and the Atlantic alliance shattered. NATO will be less damaged, but it won't be the same either.

Those whose placards say "win without war" ought to consider who will actually win. It won't be the United States, the Iraqi people, democracy, the United Nations, peace in the Middle East, or the Atlantic alliance. The slogan might as well be Saddam's, for he will indeed win big if there's no war.

[Lazarus Long]

Obviously this is the scenario that you invision. It is the one that is the most pessimistic. What you failed to mention is that the ethnic cleansing that took place in the former Yugoslavia started before NATO forces became involved. I fail to see the correlation between the two. How can you seriously advance the notion that that kind of civil unrest, usually associated with states of anarchy, will occur in a nation under martial law. Instead of being plagued uncertainty and self doubt, you should be confident in the power and worthiness of your nation

I am not "uncertain and full of self doubt" but I certainly doubt what you and the administration are offering. Please stop trying to be so cliched with me.

As a separate point NATO duplicitously contributed to the start of the problem in Yugoslavia in the first place. If the principal players had done their job and acted internally to address what they were doing instead of recognizing their Secret Deals with Traditional and Protagonistic allies within hours of their declaring Independence then the entire mess might have been contained in the first place. The French recognized the Serbs after the Germans had recognized the Croatians less than a day after they both declared Independence.

The British sat back and did nothing and the US was asleep at the switch and behaved irresponsibly until after things got out of control through neglect and the ethnic cleansing (which we knew was a risk) began. Oh sure later we got to say we are so responsible that we couldn't let ethnic cleansing go on but were we when the situation could have been quietly negotiated in the beginning?

Oh yeah, we were in Ruwanda, and gloating too much at what we thought was the done deal of the fall of the Soviets.

If that Adminstration had done its job and responsibly tried to manage events by handling what was happening diplomatically in the first place then we would have stopped both France and Germany and asked them to take a little time to reconsider what they were encouraging by recklessly self indulging gleefully in the break up up that Nation.

"The itch to be a world saver should not be scratched; it rarely does any good and can drastically shorten your life," says Lazarus in Time Enough for Love (1973). He was talking about the "itch" as a private citizen and as a nation. Lazarus Long often comments that the best way to win a fight is to avoid getting into one in the first place.
Copyright © 2002 by William Dennis
http://billdennis.net/

Please stop whining about the fact that I am at least consistent and in character. Belief in Democracy is misplaced. It corrupts the system and degrades the methodology of judgement to theocratic standards.

Of course, the contention that Heinlein opposed intervention into the affairs of other nations takes a beating in the short story "Solution Unsatisfactory," (1940) reprinted in Expanded Universe (1980). It is the story of the creation of "atomic dust" whose deadly radiation gives the United States the superweapon it needs to defeat the Axis. Of course, once the war is over, our Soviet allies could not be trusted and they develop their own version of the dust. The Soviets were put down, but the only solution Col. Clyde Manning can foresee is a form of "Pax Americana," which must be headed by Manning, as the President is to short sighted to do what is necessary. Manning, by the way, is described as a liberal.

I am too much like my namesake for my own good. I independently created the title "Pax Americana". I missed this short story but that will be remedied.

This story was written before the creation of the first atomic bomb. "Solution Unsatisfactory" demonstrated Heinlein's skill as a Cassandra.