952 replies to this topic

[bobdrake12]

It is just my take on the symbolism of the proverb and events but I do see that there is a kind of frenetic DEMAND to do something, anything as long as something is finally done. Ironicaly it is just this urge that both gets teh greatest achievements accomplished and precipitates the most catastrophic disasters.

Lazarus Long,

Action > Reaction > Solution

bob

[Lazarus Long]

Sounds like the dialectic

But seriously, we are still in the action>reaction phase and we need to assess better the options for solution.

Not all reactions offer solutions to the perceived action, and not all reactions are are in themselves solvable if the worst comes to pass.

[Lazarus Long]

First we were told by the Neo Hawks that today is different and this wouldn't happen, now we are just being told that we are irrelevant. But it certainly is escalating rapidly, much more rapidly then with Vietnam.

LL/kxs

Activists Plan Strong Anti-War Strategy
21 minutes ago
http://story.news.ya...ti_war_movement

By JEFF DONN, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - They have marched and chanted, hoping to use persuasion to prevent war. If that fails, though, activists are readying a more aggressive strategy of sit-ins and social disruptions, meant to restore peace in Iraq.

Protest sit-ins, especially at federal buildings, defense recruiting offices and military bases, have been mapped out for dozens of cities in the first day or two of any war, anti-war organizers say. Some also foresee widespread walkouts at schools and workplaces. A smaller number talk of blocking roads and bridges.

"Once war happens, there will be civil disobedience. It's bringing to a higher level what people have been doing," said coordinator Bal Pinguel at the American Friends Service Committee, an arm of the pacifist Quaker church.

The peace movement that has taken shape in the United States and around the world uses organizing technology — including the Internet and e-mail — that was not available the last time such large-scale domestic anti-war activism took place, in the Vietnam War era.

On Saturday, demonstrators gathered by the hundreds in cities across the nation, an increasingly common sight as the conflict looms closer. In Washington, police and organizers estimated between 4,000 and 10,000 demonstrators turned out in conjunction with International Women's Day; by late afternoon, 25 people were arrested on charges of crossing a police line in front of the White House.

The event was organized by the group CodePink, whose name protests the government's terror alert system. "The White House is definitely afraid of women in pink and the power of love," said CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans.

Once spearheaded largely by leftist students, hippies and draft-card burners, the peace movement is now taking on more support from the mainstream: labor unions, war veterans, middle-aged professionals, and teenagers born years after the last draft. Almost 100,000 backers have donated to Peace Action, one of the biggest anti-war groups, over the past six months, coordinators say.

Still, despite its broader reach, it is unclear if the highly decentralized peace movement can marshal protests that can disrupt the war effort or win public sympathy. Some peace activists themselves harbor doubts that they can prevent a war against Iraq.

"There's a good chance we won't be able to stop it," said Kate Pearson, a Chicago organizer at Not in Our Name.

In a counter effort, rallies to support President Bush (news - web sites) and U.S. troops in a possible war also are being held across the country, and anger at the anti-war movement sometimes is apparent. Echoing a slogan from the 1960s, one placard at an Orlando, Fla., rally read: "America — Love It or Leave It."

Peace activists have mounted mass rallies in major cities reminiscent of the Vietnam era, but they have also held smaller community vigils and discussion groups, and traditional contact-your-congressmen drives.

In January and again in February, peace groups coordinated demonstrations in cities around the world. Hundreds of thousands of protesters unfurled signs and rallied in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, London, Berlin, Rome, Tokyo, Cairo and other cities.

On Wednesday, thousands of students around the United States walked out of classes. Some Americans have taken quiet, personal actions too.

Anti-war members of the clergy have slipped into Iraq — without U.S. government permission mandated by American sanctions law — or visited European countries to lobby and pray with the local religious communities. Anti-war American doctors have gone to Iraq to evaluate the dangers that war poses for civilians there.

Picking up on domestic anxieties, some anti-war activists have argued that conflict might foster more terrorism that endangers American civilians on their own turf. "It's almost certainly going to guarantee not only more violence in the Middle East, but will almost guarantee another calamitous attack on U.S. soil," said Scott Lynch, a spokesman for Peace Action.

The White House has argued that disarming Iraq is part of its war on terrorism and will disrupt that government's links with terrorist groups.

The peace movement has also embraced a particularly influential contingent of supporters: veterans of the war with Iraq 12 years ago.

"Sept. 11 was nothing compared to the destruction that we visited on Iraq 12 years ago and even more so for what will probably happen this time," said Charles Sheehan-Miles, a decorated tank crewman in the 1991 Persian Gulf War who now wants peace.

President Bush has acknowledged the swelling protests, though they have not changed his mind.

After February's protests, he said he would not decide policy "based upon a focus group." At a White House news conference Thursday, he addressed protesters directly. "I recognize there are people who don't like war. I don't like war," Bush said. But he said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein must be deposed to disarm Iraq and keep the United States safe, and that might only be accomplished with force.

For his part, Doug Dixon, an activist who has joined counter-demonstrations to back the drive toward war, shrugs off the peace movement as "pretty irrelevant." Dixon, a Houston-based member of the conservative grass-roots group Free Republic, believes the anti-war movement is encouraging Saddam Hussein.

"I'm certain he's watching," Dixon said.

Outside of Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, N.M., on Saturday, about 250 people rallied in support of American troops and the Bush administration, while 50 anti-war protesters gathered across the street, police Capt. Sonny Leeper said.

"We're starting to see more 'support the flag' people at these things," Leeper said. "They're starting to gain in numbers. ... It seems like they're getting more organized."
___

On the Net

http://www.peace-action.org/

http://www.notinourname.net/

http://www.freerepublic.com/

http://www.rallyforamerica.org/
___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Jeff Donn is the AP's Boston-based Northeast writer.

[DJS]

SADDAM'S SOLDIERS SURRENDER
Mar 9 2003
Mike Hamilton reports from Camp Coyote in Kuwait

TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.

The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.

The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.

The drama unfolded last Monday as the Para batallion tested mortars and artillery weapons to make sure they were working properly.

The Iraqis found a way across the fortified border, which is sealed off with barbed-wire fencing, watchtowers and huge trenches.

TESTING TIME: British Marines are preparing for war

A British Army source in Kuwait contacted me to explain how the extraordinary surrender bid unfolded. The source said: "The British guys on the front-line could not believe what was happening. They were on pre-war exercises when all of a sudden these Iraqis turned up out of nowhere, with their hands in the air, saying they wanted to surrender.

"They had heard firing and thought it was the start of the war.

"The Paras are a tough, battle-hardened lot but were moved by the plight of the Iraqis. There was nothing they could do other than send them back.

"They were a motley bunch and you could barely describe them as soldiers - they were poorly equipped and didn't even have proper boots. Their physical condition was dreadful and they had obviously not had a square meal for ages. No one has ever known a group of so-called soldiers surrender before a shot has been fired in anger."

Last night the Ministry of Defence officially denied the incident had taken place, but the story was corroborated by an intelligence source.

Meanwhile Saddam Hussein has ordered thousands of troops back to Baghdad as he turns the city into a fortress.

It is believed that two rings of steel are being established around Baghdad. The outer one consists of regular Iraqi army soldiers and the inner one is made up of Republican Guard fighters - thought to be the only troops that will put up fierce resistance.

[bobdrake12]

Kissinger,

That story about the surrender is interesting.

The URL is shown below:

http://www.sundaymir...l&siteid=106694

bob

[bobdrake12]

http://www.nytimes.c...&partner=GOOGLE


C.I.A. Warning of Terror Risk to G.I.'s in Iraq (excerpts)

By THOM SHANKER and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON, March 8 — The C.I.A. has warned that terrorists based in Iraq are planning attacks against American and allied forces inside the country after any invasion, government counterterrorism officials say.

The agency's previously undisclosed assessment has circulated among senior Bush administration officials. It describes both the risks of terror attacks on American forces inside Iraq if an invasion occurs and the danger of similar attacks on troops already massing in the region.

The assessment goes beyond the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's military forces, predicting for the first time that groups that the Bush administration has said are given haven by Mr. Hussein's government may become engaged in the war, even if Iraq's military is defeated and the government overthrown. The administration has said that terrorists operating inside Iraq are affiliated with Al Qaeda, and that they are either tolerated by the Baghdad government or are based in parts of the country where the government exercises little control.

The conclusions are based on recently collected intelligence in the form of intercepted communications, "glimpses" of four to eight midlevel Qaeda operatives said to have been spotted in Iraq and an analysis of the organization's prior tactics, according to administration officials.

"The Al Qaeda network is intent on attacking U.S. interests throughout Iraq, as are other extremist Islamic groups," said one official who has read the C.I.A. threat assessment.

It is thought the attacks are being planned as "independent terrorist operations," conducted by individuals or small groups rather than controlled by Iraqi military planners, one official said.

Presenting evidence to prove a direct connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq has been one of the most contentious aspects of the Bush administration's efforts to make its case for disarming Mr. Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. But this assessment appears to have been prepared in order to help the military remain on guard, rather than to support the case for military action.

Even so, its disclosure could strengthen the administration's case that the campaign against terrorism is inextricably linked to the goal of unseating the Iraqi leader.

Critics of the administration's stance on Iraq have questioned its assertion that the Baghdad government has tolerated or even supported the Qaeda terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden.

A map accompanying the C.I.A. assessment states that a cell of up to two dozen Qaeda operatives had been set up in Baghdad, echoing a charge made by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in his speech on Feb. 5 at the United Nations.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Edited by bobdrake12, 09 March 2003 - 11:22 AM.

[bobdrake12]

http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm



BUSH SR.: THE DECISION MUST BE MADE BY ONE PERSON: THE PRESIDENT'

Sun Mar 09 2003 08:57:38 ET


President George W. Bush tells his father, former President George H.W. Bush, not to worry, reports TIME's Hugh Sidey. "It’s my job to worry," Bush the elder tells SIdey, with a chuckle. He says he has moments when he would like to suit up, "get off the bench" and go back in the game.

"The decision on the war cannot finally be made by a committee or by a general. It must be made by one person—the President," the former president tells Sidey.

Sidey reports Bush Sr. regards Saddam Hussein and his military establishment as far less powerful now than when Desert Storm was launched. But he believes Saddam is surely far wiser about the strength of the U.S. "He had no respect for our military then," says the elder Bush. "He felt that we could not fight. Now he knows."

Sidey writes that Bush, who will be 80 this year, is concerned "not about the rightness of the cause in Iraq or the ability of the President to lead the country in this dangerous time. It is that of a father who sees his son on a lonely and difficult march and knows he may be the only other person on the planet who can completely understand what the President is going through."

Bush Sr. spoke to Sidey, who writes of their conversations in his column, "The Presidency," which appears in Monday's TIME (on newsstands March 10). The headline is, "'He Had No Respect for Our Military Then.' The President's father on Saddam, the first Gulf War and what his son faces now."

Bush Sr. tells Sidey, "It is the toughest decision a President has to make, to send the sons and daughters of Americans into harm’s way." He recalls that before he sent these "wonderful young" troops into battle in Panama, the anxiety was terrible. "The night before I could not move my neck or arms. The tension had taken hold, the responsibility for those lives, even though I had been in combat myself."

Sidey has written about the American Presidency for more than 40 years and has authored TIME's column "The Presidency" since 1966. George W. Bush is the 10th President about whom Sidey has written. Sidey was the only reporter aboard Air Force One returning the President to Houston when he left office. In 1998, Sidey was elected President of the White House Historical Association.

END

[bobdrake12]

http://www.reuters.c...storyID=2349789

German Official: U.S. Acting Like 'Dictator' (excerpts)

Sun March 9, 2003 11:06 AM ET


BERLIN (Reuters) - A German junior minister said on Sunday the United States was behaving like a dictator over the Iraq crisis, a statement likely to put relations between Washington and Berlin under further strain.
"The Americans look more and more like dictators with their unilateral decisions," Walter Kolbow, junior minister in the Defense Ministry, was quoted as saying in the Welt am Sonntag newspaper.

Kolbow confirmed to Reuters he had made the remarks and said they referred to the U.S. stance on Iraq and environmental issues.

Transatlantic tensions remain high over Germany and other European nations' opposition to a U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Kolbow said his comments were a criticism of the phrase used by U.S. leaders: "Anyone who is not with us, is against us."

Kolbow also said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator who oppressed his people. "He's the best monitored dictator that I know of," Kolbow was quoted telling the rally.

[Lazarus Long]

West Split by Diplomatic War Ahead of Iraq Vote (excerpts)
1 hour, 35 minutes ago
http://story.news.ya...9/wl_nm/iraq_dc
By Arshad Mohammed and Dominic Evans

WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The diplomatic battle dividing the West intensified on Sunday as each side tried to woo wavering Security Council members into its camp before a U.N. vote on war in Iraq

Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States had a "strong chance" of getting nine or 10 states in the 15-member Council to vote for a U.S.-backed draft resolution setting a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Washington's closest ally, lobbied foreign leaders by phone on Sunday, among them Chinese President Jiang Zemin (news - web sites), China's official media said.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin was about to embark on a whistle-stop tour of Guinea, Cameroon and Angola, "swing voters" in the Security Council, in the hope of persuading them to reject the U.S. draft.

A defeat of the resolution alone is unlikely to avert war. Washington says it will lead a "coalition of the willing" into Iraq without U.N. approval if necessary, and more than 200,000 U.S. and British troops are in the region, ready to strike.

But U.N. authorization would be of huge value to governments of U.S. allies in placating public misgivings -- especially in Britain, whose deployment of 45,000 troops is by far the biggest after the Pentagon's.

Most Britons would support war if it had U.N. backing but only 15 percent would do so without, a poll indicated on Sunday. Newspapers said Blair faced a huge anti-war revolt among members of parliament in his Labour Party.

Russia and China join France in opposing any resolution implicitly or explicitly authorizing war. But U.S. and British officials say a vetoed majority would be a moral victory.

"I think we have...a strong chance...that we might get the nine or 10 votes needed for passage of the resolution, and we'll see if somebody wants to veto it," Powell said on Sunday.
The United States so far has the declared support of only Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Half-a-dozen members seem to oppose it, instead wanting arms inspectors to have more time in Iraq.

U.S. CASH TEMPTING

U.S. promises of economic aid to impoverished swing vote states may yet prove more tempting than political argument.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Sunday backed France's call for heads of state to attend the vote. Powell has said he sees no need for President Bush to be there.

The vote could come on Tuesday or later. Driving the diplomatic pace is the military's desire to attack before soaring early summer temperatures in the Gulf make fighting in chemical and biological protection suits especially arduous.

But analysts say U.S. commanders may delay war until April 1 as Turkey's reluctance to be a conduit for Western forces means they must plan another way to occupy northern Iraq -- and because early April offers a moonless sky for aerial bombing.

U.N. military observers on the Iraq-Kuwait border said they were withdrawing some staff to Kuwait City for their own safety.

NO SAUDI REFUGE FOR SADDAM

Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said Saudi Arabia would not shelter Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) if he chose exile to avert invasion.

Up to 800,000 people gathered in Indonesia's second city Surabaya on Sunday to pray for peace. Thousands protested against war in Damascus.

Albania, one of Europe's smallest and poorest nations, offered to send commandos to the Gulf. The Muslim country is grateful for the U.S.-led intervention that saved fellow Albanians in neighboring Kosovo in 1999.

Iraq scrapped more banned missiles on Sunday in a process Bush has dismissed as a "willful charade," accusing it of covertly making more al-Samouds.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.timesonli...-605557,00.html

March 10, 2003

Blix 'hid smoking gun' from Britain and US (excerpts)

From James Bone in New York


BRITAIN and the United States will today press the chief UN weapons inspector to admit that he has found a “smoking gun” in Iraq. Such an admission could persuade swing voters on the Security Council to back the March 17 ultimatum.
The British and US ambassadors plan to demand that Hans Blix reveals more details of a huge undeclared Iraqi unmanned aircraft, the discovery of which he failed to mention in his oral report to Security Council foreign ministers on Friday. Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting — an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war.

The discovery of the drone, which has a wingspan of 7.45 metres, will make it much easier for waverers on the Security Council to accept US and British arguments that Iraq has failed to meet UN demands that it disarm.

“It’s incredible,” a senior diplomat from a swing voter on the council said. “This report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It’s a biggie.”

An explicit report by Dr Blix of the discovery of an Iraqi violation would help the six swing voters — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan — to explain a change of position to their publics.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.thisislon...?source=Reuters

Forces fear suicide boats (excerpts)

10 March 2003


US and British navies are more worried about al Qaeda strikes on ships in the event of war with Iraq than anything Saddam Hussein could throw at them, the deputy allied sea commander said today.

British Rear Admiral David Snelson said that air patrols over the so-called "no-fly" zones and sanctions-enforcing sea patrols have long since neutralised many of the threats that Iraq could present to the 130-odd coalition ships now positioned off its shore.

But commanders fear Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda militant network could respond to war in the Gulf with suicide strikes against ships like those against the US warship Cole in October, 2000 and the French merchant vessel Limburg last year.

In both cases, militants are thought to have approached warships near land on tiny boats and detonated explosives. Seventeen American sailors were killed on the Cole.

©2003 Associated New Media

[DJS]

Give Freedom a Chance
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

How should free people feel — in our hearts, brains and guts — about launching a pre-emptive strike?

Note that we are not "starting a war" with Iraq. That was begun by Saddam more than a decade ago. We won the first battle, but he has since been secretly violating the terms of surrender. Either we will allow him to become capable of inflicting horrendous casualties in our cities tomorrow — or we must inflict and accept far fewer casualties in his cities today.

That's a Hobson's choice, which is no choice at all. We will now get on with it. We will not whip ourselves into jingoism, or become fascinated by our exercise of ultra-tech superpower or suppress our sadness at the pictures of Iraqi civilians Saddam will thrust into the line of fire as human shields.

But we should by no means feel guilty about doing our duty. War cannot be waged apologetically. Rather than wring our hands, Americans and our allies are required to gird our loins — that is, to fight to win with the conviction that our cause is just. We have ample reason to believe that Saddam's gangster government is an evil to be destroyed before it gains the power to destroy us.

It is futile to try to reason with passionate marchers waving signs proclaiming that America's motives are to conquer the world and expend blood for oil.

Nor should we waste more precious time trying to beg or buy moral approval from France or Russia, their U.N. veto threats largely driven by economic interests in Saddam's continuance in power. Nor should we indulge in placing second thoughts first: How much will it cost? How many will be killed? How long will it take? Will it kill the snake of terror or only poke it? Will everybody thank us afterward? Where's the guarantee of total success? Too cautious to oppose, these questioners delay action by demanding to know what they know is unknowable.

Our task now, as citizens of nations burdened with the dirtiest work of mankind — a pre-emptive attack to finish a suspended war — is to call up the national spirit and determined attitude needed to sustain a great effort. Skepticism is a fine American trait and many find patriotic fervor uncool, but the eve of hostilities is the moment for opening the mind to exhortation.

We are launching this attack, already too long delayed, primarily to defend ourselves. This is a response to reasonable fear. We know Saddam is developing terror weapons and is bound on vengeance; we know he has ties to terror organizations eager to use those weapons for more mass murder; we know he can bamboozle the U.N. inspectors again; we know Americans are terror's prime targets. That's plenty of reason to take him out.

But this reasonable fear should be accompanied by a strong dash of hope. Wilsonian idealists have found a soulmate in President Bush, who surprised us all with his challenging vision — not merely a "vision thing" — for the coming generation.

The defeat of Saddam may just send a clear message to Kim Jong Il and other tyrants that we will respond with more action than ransom to nuclear blackmailers, thereby making the world a safer place. But safety is not all.

The liberation of 23 million Arabs and Kurds now ruled by a bloody-handed dictator, followed by a transition to a confederation (aided by an Arab-American general like John Abizaid, now Gen. Tommy Franks's deputy), may just make it possible for a rudimentary democracy to take root in this major Muslim nation.

Such a birth of freedom in Iraq, a land of oil wealth and a literate population, may just spread to its neighbors and co-religionists. This would counter the cancerous growth of repression and rancor that has roiled the Middle East and impoverished the people of 20 nations.

If Bush's vision of a transformed region fails, it will fail while daring greatly — a nobler course than that weakly advocated, in Teddy Roosevelt's words, by "those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

This campaign near the Ides of March will make us safer, allaying our fears; it has the potential of making the world freer, justifying our hopes.

[bobdrake12]

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



We Tested a Bomb!

March 11, 2003

love this news that we tested a 21,000 pound Massive Ordinance Air Burst Bomb (MOAB) in Florida. (No, we didn't feel anything in EIB Southern Command.) It's the biggest non-nuclear bomb in our arsenal - and it produces a mushroom cloud! The Air Force may send a video of the explosion to Iraq to show them what's in store.

The MOAB is 40% heavier than the 15,000 pound Blue 82 "Daisy Cutter" we dropped in Afghanistan to clear the caves of Al-Qaeda leaders. That was the bomb that turned Tora Bora 2,000 degrees. We used it to clear mine fields in Gulf War One. This is great, folks, because it's going to just freak out all the peaceniks. They're already going nuts over the E-bomb. This is going to just drive them batty - though if Saddam had it, that would be just fine with them.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...or_2.guest.html



Who's Paying Hans Blix?

March 11, 2003

Would somebody tell me who's paying Hans Blix? On Monday, the White House questioned why Chief UN Inspector Clouseau omitted from his public testimony that Iraq is developing combat drones and cluster bombs capable of unleashing chemical and biological weapons. Wait, I thought he didn't have any of those! I thought Bush hadn't made the case!

Randy Scheunemann, president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, says it's "hard to believe that Blix's Friday statement was based on this devastating written report." President Bush is engaged in an "urgent phone campaign" to get tinhorn dictators of lame nations around the globe to "support from a tough deadline on Iraq." I thought we had one in called Resolution 1441 - the 17th resolution, which we now say needs a "second" resolution which is really the 18th! How many times do you tell a wife beater to stop beating or killing his kids before you take him down?

The US, Britain and Spain say that military action could come earlier than the March 17th deadline if the Security Council does not approve this latest resolution. There are real consequences to all of this dillydallying around. But diplomats are paid not to make decisions. They're paid to bottle everything up, and so terrorists get to enjoy watching a divided world. They see France, Germany, Russia and China urging appeasement. They're seeing Hans Blix cover-up a new missile and a drone - clear smoking guns along with dozens of others - just to buy a few more weeks or months of this immoral "peace."

I'll say it again: the purpose of the currently constituted United Nations is to oppose and defeat American power at each and every opportunity. Blix is obviously working towards that end. If Blix were to tell the truth about what's going on with these inspections, he would be canned. That's why he gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a version of the report with the information on the cluster bombs and drones edited out. I don't buy that this is a way to destroy the UN. We could do that any day of the week by pulling out or telling them to move to Paris. This delay is a bad idea, no matter what the strategery behind it.

[DJS]

If you're in a hole, stop digging. Unless, of course, you're France. At this writing, French diplomats continue their work to further isolate Paris from the majority of European capitals who will not be silent in the face of Jacques Chirac's appeasement of Saddam Hussein. Just how big a hole France has dug for itself is cogently explained by noted French philosopher André Glucksmann in "France's Five Cardinal Sins Over Iraq," which appeared in the International Herald Tribune on February 22. Above all, Glucksmann argues that current French policy remains morally bankrupt.

France's Five Cardinal Sins Over Iraq
André Glucksmann
International Herald Tribune
February 22, 2003

PARIS: The usual trans-Atlantic spats are growing into a full-blown divorce. It is time everyone swept off his own doorstep and closely examined his government's responsibilities. In my view, Paris has committed five cardinal sins.

1. Demolition. Responding to the eight-plus-10 European states that have sided with the United States, President Jacques Chirac sealed an "alliance for peace" with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on Feb. 10. In so doing, he revived in Central Europe the harsh memory of three centuries spent in the shadow - or under the heel - of the Russian "big brother."

With the European community divided and NATO splintering, the Franco-German duo calls itself "Europe" and says it speaks for 25 nations, but represents only three (thanks to Belgium). The "old European" couple criticizes American "arrogance" and "unilateralism," compliments that can easily be turned back on them. Is there a more insane way to saw off the branch you're sitting on? Is there a less productive path to European unity?

2. Moral scandal. The French-German-Russian coalition (joined by China and Syria) proclaims itself the "moral" axis, the "peace camp." But this "anti-war party" has its feet firmly planted in war. For those who may have forgotten, think of the Caucasus, where the Russian Army razed Chechnya's capital city, Grozny, and left from 100,000 to 300,000 cadavers in its wake.

No more horrific war is being waged against civilians today. The Holocaust Museum in Washington - which can hardly be suspected of spreading extremist Islamic propaganda - ranks the Chechen conflict No. 1 on its "genocide watch." What are the anti-war activists dreaming of when Chirac promises Putin his support?

In the name of "international law," Paris and Berlin are choosing curious allies. Witness the recent election, thanks to the abstention of the Europeans, of Libya to the chair of the UN Human Rights Commission! Putin, Jiang Zemin of China, Moammar Gadhafi of Libya, Bashar Assad of Syria: why is the "peace camp" attracting butchers?

3. Demagogy over democracy. Eighty percent of Westerners support peace over war. Who wouldn't? Draping themselves in "global opinion" and scoffing at other governments as "vassals" of the war clique, Paris and Berlin are recycling arguments used by the Stalinist "peace movements." The revolutionaries of yesteryear pitted "peoples" against "formal democracy." Do Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany today question the notion that, in a proper democracy, decisions are made not by polling institutes, or at the stock market, or in the streets, but in the voting booth? The elected representatives in London, Prague, Sofia, Madrid, and Warsaw are as legitimate as those in Paris and Berlin.

4. Powerlessness. The same global opinion polls, meanwhile, show that 75 percent of the world views Saddam as a threat to peace. While one actor can indeed trigger a conflict, it takes two to disarm. Yet for the past 12 years Baghdad has done nothing but deceive and delay. A malevolent state can easily camouflage instruments of biological and chemical terror, scientists agree. Dragging out inspections and adding inspectors will only allow the dictator to push the game into overtime forever.

5. Wait and not see. Well-meaning souls whisper, "Certainly the Iraqi tyrant is a villain. He's tortured, killed, gassed. But how many other leaders around the world have blood on their hands? Why pick on Saddam?" Because he is more frightening. Because he is an ever-present powder keg in the heart of a fire zone. Because we must stop him from playing with his apocalyptic matches.

Imagine Kim Jong Il, North Korea's leader, with his arsenal, ruling Iraq, threatening to pulverize not Seoul but Riyadh. The planet would be petrified! The Iraqi problem is not that of a local dictator, but a global peril. However, if you listen to the "peace party," it's always too early - "Iraq has no nuclear weapons; there's no need to intervene" - or too late - "North Korea has nuclear weapons; it's too dangerous to take action."

Paris and Berlin are living on a cloud. That does not mean American strategists are infallible or that we have to hand them a blank check.

The writer is a French philosopher. This comment was translated by Tony Paschall.

[Lazarus Long]

Making the World Safe
Commentary by Richard C. Hottelet in The Christian Science Monitor

As a gung-ho administration moves toward major commitment to war and peace in Iraq, it should study the cautionary tales of previous experience. None is more pointed than Afghanistan. Today, nearly a year and a half and billions of dollars after military victory, Afghanistan is on the razor's edge. Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN's extraordinary chief political construction engineer, says that improvements made so far are "not irreversible."

At first, progress came easily. The war was won quickly and at small cost. A respected figure, Hamid Karzai was an authentic rallying point for transforming a torn, weary people, a mosaic of tribal entities, into a democratic state.

The world community was of one mind, applauding the process and rushing to help, guilt-ridden at having abandoned Afghanistan when the Soviet invader withdrew. A loya jirga, grand council, resurrected from Afghanistan's past, gave legitimacy to a blueprint of democratic government.

But lawlessness and insecurity are on the rise again. Local warlords and their militias fight it out. One of the biggest, Ismail Khan of Herat, simply doesn't recognize the national government. An old extremist mujahideen, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has declared war on Kabul. The vanished Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, calls for holy war against "America, the crusaders, and their allies." Afghanistan's border with the strongly Islamist tribal areas of western Pakistan is porous to Al Qaeda.

In February, the UN suspended its aid operation in the north because of factional skirmishes. Roads are unsafe in much of the country. The voluntary program to disarm militias has not even begun. Only a small step has been taken to create a national army. Police, such as they are, can't handle the upsurge in crime. A penal and judiciary system doesn't exist. Kabul is the one area under central control, thanks to an international military force of 5,000. Covering the rest of the country is out of the question because contributing governments will not risk soldiers. As for aid money, donor fatigue grows as this commitment wears on and others tug at the sleeve of a world in economic straits.

The effort bravely continues to aim at a national election next year. A constitution is being written. But heroic work will be needed to cope with the expected return of more than a million refugees this year. And, although Mr. Karzai banned the opium trade more than a year ago, it remains enormous, linked to warlords and provincial governors as protectors and profiteers.

The place of the US in this troubled scenario is uncertain. Washington has donated food and mainly security- oriented funds. Overcoming its original phobia of nation-building, the administration has assigned soldiers to help with reconstruction. But most of the 8,000 troops in Afghanistan have their separate agenda, pursuing what remnants of Taliban and Al Qaeda they can track. Inevitably, they work with warlords who have little use for Kabul.

The ghosts of other campaigns hold their own messages. Vietnam saw irresolute use of power in the service of confused policy end in tragic failure. While World War II had titanic battles and bright victories, its aftermath persisted for half a century. Now the world faces a new great war - asymmetrical, the experts call it - where shadowy groups and suicide bombers attack large nations.

Today, as the US pushes toward Iraq and invasion, the US Army's chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, estimates that several hundred thousand soldiers must stay in Iraq even if the war goes extremely well. Pentagon hawks call this a wild exaggeration. Afghanistan suggests it is not. Resolve is needed, certainly, but also a goal bigger than "defeating the enemy." Ideals, such as those that animated the grand coalition in the 1940s, must lead, championing human values in a better world and summoning global help to build it.

Copyright © 2003 The Christian Science Monitor.

[Thomas]

15 years ago, I was under communism. The argument above - "nothing can be done about that and those people" - was false.

And it's false now, in the Iraq case.

- Thomas

Edited by Thomas, 12 March 2003 - 08:03 PM.

[DJS]

Are you from Eastern Europe Thomas? What is public sentiment where you are from?

[Thomas]

What's the situation here (in Slovenia)?

I estimate, that 30-40% of people are very "against Bush". Another 40 or more percent are "pro Europe". And 20% percent are "pro Americans".

The government and opposition are both divided also. They don't want to discuss it openly, since we have a referendum to join NATO in 10 days. Both want to join. Except SNS and SMS. Small parties, 4 parliament members each - among 90.

More on the east - Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania - "everybody" knows, that America is the only credible power. They are sick tired of "Old Europe".

It's absolutely mandatory, that the USA wins this dispute. With no compromise.

- Thomas

[DJS]

Cool, thanks for the info

I have also had the impression that the issue of war in Iraq has significant implications, not all of which deal with global security (AKA western vs eastern Europe). Regional politics are definitely having their effects on how this plays out diplomatically.

[DJS]

Morality aside, getting rid of Saddam is politically imperative
By Malcolm Rifkind

If I had wanted to get to Baghdad, I wouldn't have started from here.

Over the past few months I have been critical of American policy towards Iraq. The Bush Administration has been cavalier towards its allies; has appeared indifferent to the views of the rest of the UN Security Council; has seemed determined to go to war regardless of Hans Blix's achievements.

The French, Germans and Russians have, in some ways, behaved even worse. If they had stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans and the British, warning Saddam Hussein of the inevitability of war if he did not disarm, we would have seen far more concessions than the dismantlement of a few controversial missiles.

Nor have I been impressed by those, including some Conservatives and Right-wing commentators, who have been queueing up to praise Tony Blair for his integrity and moral leadership. I do not doubt his sincerity. I accept that he believes in his moral case for war. Mr Blair, after all, likes being compared to Gladstone. It was said of the latter that he was able to convince most people of most things and himself of almost anything.

But where was Mr Blair's moral case for attacking Iraq during the first five years of his prime ministership? So far as we know, he made no attempt to persuade Bill Clinton to attack Iraq if Saddam did not disarm. The undeniable truth is that Mr Blair's conversion to the need to disarm Saddam by force occurred only after President Bush declared it to be American policy.

It is quite clear that the moral dimension has been advanced because of the Labour Party's reluctance to be persuaded by the geostrategic arguments. Like any good politician, Mr Blair tailors his rhetoric to his audience.

The most important reason for the British support for Washington has been the traditional determination of all prime ministers to be America's closest ally. Mr Blair is not to be criticised for this aspiration, but in its pursuit he has been too uncritical; his support has been too unconditional.

Even Margaret Thatcher was willing to have blazing rows with the Americans, as she did on Grenada and over the Soviet gas pipeline.

Mr Blair began by making his support dependent on a new Security Council resolution. Then, when that seemed unlikely, he declared that he would ignore the UN and support war but only if there was one "unreasonable" veto. Last week, the policy changed and he indicated that even several vetoes might be overruled. The truth is that he remains bound to whatever Mr Bush decides.

So the past few months have not been glorious for American, British, French or German diplomacy. What is at stake now, however, is not just the future of the Iraqi regime but the leadership of the United States, the credibility of the UN and the future of the Western alliance. Over the next few months, there might be regime change not just in Baghdad but also in London. Such a prospect would have been inconceivable even two months ago.

The stakes are therefore much higher and that has made it much easier, not more difficult, for me to decide who has my support in the weeks ahead.

Ideally, I would like the inspectors to be given two or three more months to try to finish their work. I don't doubt that it would squeeze a few more concessions out of Saddam Hussein but, on past form, it would not lead to his full disarmament.

Accordingly, the kind of further delay being suggested yesterday would be justified only if the French and the Russians would give a clear commitment that they would support the Americans in the use of force if Saddam had not fully complied by the end of that period. If that is their position, let us hear it, in unambiguous form, from Messrs Chirac and Putin in the next few days. I doubt we will.

Without such a commitment, Mr Bush will have my support when he sends in his armed forces and drives Saddam Hussein from power. That support will not indicate approval for recent American policy. I believe it has been insensitive and, in some respects, incompetent. But that is the past. The only serious question is where we go from here.

If the Security Council does not approve a new resolution, it will not only be the United States but also the rest of the world that will be faced with a stark choice. The Americans have almost 200,000 troops in the Gulf. They cannot stay there indefinitely. They must either be used or brought home.

If the Americans were to withdraw their forces, leaving Saddam in power and his capability for biological and chemical weapons intact, the world, as well as the United States, would have suffered a dangerous and destabilising defeat.

The authority and credibility of the United States would have been seriously damaged. Washington would be embittered and frustrated. The Bush Administration and future American presidents would be alienated from their European allies.

If I have to choose between Washington and Paris, or Moscow, or Berlin, as the champion that will ensure the growth of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, I will always choose the Americans. I will do so not because they have any moral superiority, nor any more courage or sincerity. I will choose them because only the Americans have the power to deliver.

Our world faces many threats, not just one. Terrorism, nuclear weapons, and biological or chemical armaments are examples, but not an exhaustive list. The Middle East is the most unstable region, but conflict can come from many other states and continents. Only the United States has the military power, the economic strength and the political will to deal with these threats. Neither France, Russia nor anyone else has.

The United Nations should not be at an impasse. The Western world should not be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place. Both Bush and Blair must share some of the blame for where we now find ourselves.

But the harsh reality is that if the Americans were to be rebuffed and humiliated in the next two weeks, the real victors would not be the UN but Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il and similar despots around the world. The moral case might remain ambiguous and uncertain. The political one has become unanswerable.

[bobdrake12]

http://abcnews.go.co...313_strike.html

First Strike?

U.S. Military Concerned Saddam Hussein May Launch First Attack

By John McWethy

March 13 — U.S. officials fear that once President Bush signals the U.S. is headed to war, Saddam Hussein will strike pre-emptively, administration sources told ABCNEWS.

But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself.

This new level of concern about Iraq is caused by an accumulation of intelligence including troubling new details that focus on three areas:

o Specific new evidence indicates that Iraqi activity in the Western desert shows the strong likelihood Scud missiles are hidden there. These missiles could easily reach Israel carrying chemical or biological warheads which could draw Israel into any war.

o Detailed new intelligence from the southern Iraqi oil fields shows that many of the 700 wells have now been wired with explosives. These explosives appear to be connected to a central command post, so Saddam could easily set the wells ablaze.

o Near the border with Kuwait, where 135,000 U.S. troops are now stationed, recent surveillance indicates Iraqi artillery batteries have been moved dangerously close. The artillery is capable of firing shells filled with poison gas.

The United States is now considering moving against all three of these targets before any war begins in an effort to prevent Saddam from acting first, sources told ABCNEWS.

Copyright © 2003 ABCNEWS Internet Ventures

[Lazarus Long]

March 14, 2003
EDITORIAL
The Right Way in Iraq
http://www.latimes.c.....2Doped-manual

The terrible specter of war in the Middle East temporarily pushed the world back from the brink Thursday and gave the United Nations Security Council more time to do the job for which it was created -- keeping the peace.

France, which threatened to veto any resolution it considered an authorization of military action, left a tiny opening in proclaiming its "openness to seize all opportunities." The United States, which previously demanded a Security Council vote no later than today, said it could wait until next week. Britain helped by modifying its demands that Iraq must fulfill to avoid invasion.

The welcome delay in war may be only momentary and the battle of words is unceasing. President Bush has repeatedly said that if Washington did not get council support, the United States would act on its own.

In a post-9/11 world, the president argues, things are different. The nation must protect itself. Yes. So the question becomes, would an invasion of Iraq make the United States and the world safer? If the world community unites to do it, yes. But a U.S.-led invasion, without sanction from the United Nations, would make this nation and the world at large more dangerous.

It is well established that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. Among other things, Iraq still has tons of material that can be made into biological weapons like anthrax and into chemical weapons like mustard gas.

It clearly is in the world's interest to disarm this murderous tyrant. The Security Council, riven by both legitimate concerns about the U.S. use of power and its own petty political games played for domestic consumption in France, Germany, Russia and China, must not freeze in a critical moment. Hussein should be disarmed, and it should be done by a coalition that includes these countries and more. If the council ultimately were to refuse to act to enforce its 17 resolutions demanding that Iraq rid itself of weapons that can kill or maim millions -- a refusal made in the name of "peace" -- it would be disingenuous at best, cowardly at worst. A United Nations' failure to act after Iraq ignored its resolutions for 12 years would rightly call into question its leadership and relevance. Bush is correct about that.

But the president's next step -- in effect, "if the U.N. doesn't do it, right now, the United States will" -- is where he loses us and, we suspect, many other Americans.

The Bush administration's months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding "regime change," the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about "nation-building" and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost.

Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.

There's no doubt that Hussein with his stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction is an affront and a threat to the international community. Under the relentless pressure from the Bush administration, Hussein has slowly, belatedly begun to destroy some of his weapons. Can he be trusted to do the right thing without pressure? Of course not. But why insist on immediate war just as the political pressure and military threat appear to be having a positive effect?

This week's renewed diplomacy should strengthen the resolve to disarm Iraq -- a goal France says it shares with the United States. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said he needs months to verify Iraq's compliance. Not weeks, but not years, months. Then let him have those months, but no more. Continued Iraqi recalcitrance, underscored not by hot political rhetoric but by a final and objective inspectors' report, should convince most nations that Iraq must be forcibly disarmed.

Opposition to immediate war cuts across religious lines, but it is especially strong among Muslims, some of whom see an attack on Iraq as a renewal of the Christian crusades against Islam. Throughout the Middle East, a postwar occupation of Iraq would become part of the myth of an American empire come to wreak havoc on the Muslims. This refueled resentment would not make the world safer. It would not make the streets at home safer.

The cost of war would be high, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars. Add on costs to occupy Iraq while rebuilding it and the price tag would be higher still. Without U.N. support, these tremendous expenses would be borne largely by American taxpayers. Though decisions of war cannot be made in strictly financial terms, the nation cannot ignore the pragmatic question of how it would afford war and the occupation and rebuilding of another country.

The administration early in its term undercut its case for going into Iraq now by doing very little to help end the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Former National Security Council official Kenneth Pollack makes the best case for war against Iraq in his book "The Threatening Storm," contending that by the time Hussein becomes a true threat to the United States, able to inflict massive casualties, it will be too late to stop him. But even Pollack argued for delay until Israeli-Palestinian violence waned. This is the conflict that demanded the time and energy Bush so willingly poured instead into making a case to go after Hussein.

An Iraq invasion without U.N. sanction would be a preemptive attack by the world's only superpower. It would probably be successful in the initial military phase -- but at what cost? A preemptive strike can be justified if the threat is imminent and unavoidable. With neither of those conditions proven, a preemptive attack yields the moral high ground. The U.S. would be cast as the global bully, seeking to arrogate the installation of governments in other lands.

As the U.S. places a laser focus on Iraq, other serious challenges await. North Korea is believed to have one or two nuclear bombs and the intention of making more. It exports missiles to other countries. It is desperately poor and could raise money by selling its plutonium or bombs -- to countries or terrorists. Kim Jong Il's regime has threatened to turn the South Korean capital into a "sea of fire" if North Korea is attacked, risking the lives of hundreds of thousands, including many of the 38,000 U.S. troops in South Korea. And recent reports suggest that Iran too is making advances in its nuclear weapons program.

All of these problems require a response, and this nation cannot muscle its way out of all of its international disputes. The United States, in word and in deed, must do nothing to undermine the crucial tool of diplomacy in resolving conflicts. That's why the United States and Britain must be successful in this probably final effort to unite the United Nations to disarm Saddam Hussein. It is the way to best serve the long-term interests of the United States. It is the right way.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.latimes.c.....Dworld-manual
March 14, 2003

SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ

Democracy Domino Theory 'Not Credible'
A State Department report disputes Bush's claim that ousting Hussein will spur reforms in the Mideast, intelligence officials say.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root -- an event the report casts as unlikely -- anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.

"Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve," says one passage of the report, according to an intelligence official who agreed to read portions of it to The Times.

"Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."

The thrust of the document, the source said, "is that this idea that you're going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible."

Even the document's title appears to dismiss the administration argument. The report is labeled "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes."

The report was produced by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the in-house analytical arm.

State Department officials declined to comment on the report. Intelligence officials said the report does not necessarily reflect the views of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell or other senior State Department officials.

Daunting Challenges

The obstacles to reform outlined in the report are daunting.

"Middle East societies are riven" by political, economic and social problems that are likely to undermine stability "regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change," the report said, according to the source.

The report is dated Feb. 26, officials said, the same day Bush endorsed the domino theory in a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

It's not clear whether the president has seen the report, but such documents are typically distributed to top national security officials.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," Bush said.

Other top administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have made similar remarks in recent months.

But the argument has been pushed hardest by a group of officials and advisors who have been the leading proponents of going to war with Iraq. Prominent among them are Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel.

Wolfowitz has said that Iraq could be "the first Arab democracy" and that even modest democratic progress in Iraq would "cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world."

Similarly, Perle has said that a reformed Iraq "has the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential."

White House officials hold out the promise of a friendly and functional government in Baghdad to contrast with administration portrayals of President Saddam Hussein's regime as brutal and bent on building his stock of biological and chemical weapons.

The domino theory also is used by the administration as a counterargument to critics in Congress and elsewhere who have expressed concern that invading Iraq will inflame the Muslim world and fuel terrorist activity against the United States.

But the theory is disputed by many Middle East experts and is viewed with skepticism by analysts at the CIA and the State Department, intelligence officials said.

Divisions in Iraq

Critics say even establishing a democratic government in Iraq will be extremely difficult. Iraq is made up of ethnic groups deeply hostile to one another. Ever since its inception in 1932, the country has known little but bloody coups and brutal dictators.

Even so, it is seen by some as holding more democratic potential -- because of its wealth and educated population -- than many of its neighbors.

By some estimates, 65 million adults in the Middle East can't read or write, and 14 million are unemployed, with an exploding, poorly educated youth population.

Given such trends, "we'll be lucky to have strong central governments [in the Middle East], let alone democracy," said one intelligence official with extensive experience in the region.

The official stressed that no one in intelligence or diplomatic circles opposes the idea of trying to install a democratic government in Iraq.

"It couldn't hurt," the official said. "But to sell [the war] on the basis that this is going to cause 1,000 flowers to bloom is naive."

Some officials said the classified document reflects views that are widely held in the State Department and CIA but that those holding such views have been muzzled in an administration eager to downplay the costs and risks of war.

One intelligence official said the CIA has not been asked to produce its own analysis on the domino question.

CIA Assessment

At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, CIA Director George J. Tenet offered a modest assessment of the prospects that overthrowing Hussein could prompt a wave of reform.

"I don't want to be expansive in, you know, a big domino theory about what happens in the rest of the Arab world," Tenet said. "But an Iraq whose territorial integrity has been maintained, that's up and running and functioning ... may actually have some salutary impact across the region."

The State Department report cites "high levels of corruption, serious infrastructure degradation, overpopulation" and other forces causing widespread disenfranchisement in the region.

The report concludes that "political changes conducive to broader and enduring stability throughout the region will be difficult to achieve for a very long time."

Middle East experts said there are other factors working against democratic reform, including a culture that values community and to some extent conformity over individual rights.

"I don't accept the view that the fall of Saddam Hussein is going to prompt quick or even discernible movement toward democratization of the Arab states," said Philip C. Wilcox, director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace and a former top State Department official. "Those countries are held back not by the presence of vicious authoritarian regimes in Baghdad but by a lot of other reasons."

Bush has responded to such assessments by assailing the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

In pushing for democracy in the Middle East, he is departing somewhat from a long track record of U.S. presidents -- focused on preserving stability, economic ties, and access to Middle East oil -- backing autocratic regimes.

Still, the Bush White House has been selective in applying pressure for reform, favoring longtime U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

*

Times staff writer Sonni Efron contributed to this report.

[bobdrake12]

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



Clouseau More Worried About Global Warming!

March 14, 2003

My friends, I read something during the busy broadcast program on Friday that, while unbelievable, was sad because it’s totally believable.

In an interview with MTV News, Hans Blix said the following: “To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.”

So inspector Clouseau is more worried about global warming than any major military conflict. If that doesn't tell some of you people what's really going on here, I don't know what does. This guy is a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. A blithering idiot. There's no other way to describe it.

[DJS]

Explosive messages for every war
From Glen Owen and Michael Evans
Our repoters with the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing in the Gulf

A US bomb bound for Afghanistan

THE message scrawled on the side of an American bunker-busting bomb being wheeled out into the desert was blunt: “Fuque the French” had been scrawled on the side by a member of the US Air Force.

Painting war graffiti and taunts on bombs and shells is one of the great traditions of warfare. But normally it is the enemy that is the target for the abuse, not a Nato ally. However, senior American officers at this munitions plant in the desert — known colloquially as “Ammo country” — said the French gibe “crossed the line” of acceptability.

“I don’t think that is necessary,” said Chief Edwards, the plant’s second in command. “France is still an ally.”

But when the enemy is the target anything goes. In the First World War, the heaviest calibre artillery shells were often chalked with messages such as: “Present for the Kaiser”. It was not only the troops who chalked on the messages. Many bombs coming off the production lines at home were inscribed before going to war zones.

Keith Miller, of the National Army Museum, said it was a tradition in every war. “The names have changed but the terms of abuse have remained as primitive as ever. It’s not a sophisticated art form.”

In the Second World War it was common to see “Up yours, Adolf”. In the 1991 Gulf War, that was changed to “Up yours, Saddam”.

In Vietnam, the Americans liked to use the slogan “Kilroy is here” — meaning simply that Kilroy, an archetypal American soldier, was everywhere, sorting out the world.

The missiles that rained down on Taleban and al-Qaeda targets last year bore messages remembering the September 11 attacks. “I Love New York,” “Kill, kill, kill. This one’s for New York,” or, remembering the firefighters who died, simply: “FDNY”.

[Ganshauk]

"Beware of entangling alliances."
- George Washington

"Fuck the bastards."
- Ganshauk

[DJS]

Good GW quote Ganshauk. Hhhmm, the almighty GW doesn't agree with you this time, does he Lazarus? [B)]

[bobdrake12]

"Beware of entangling alliances."
- George Washington

GW makes sense, but how about BC wanting the US to be weaker?

bob

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



Bill Clinton: U.S. Should Be Weaker (excerpts)

March 14, 2003

Many of you may not believe this, but it's true: the last thing I want to do on this program is talk about Bill Clinton. He's the past, but he keeps speaking up and I just can't avoid him when he does. Clinton spoke at the 92nd Street Y in New York City and double-dissed President Bush for his handling of the U.S. economy and Iraq. He also went after his supposed best buddy Tony Blair on this need to disarm Saddam.

What really jumped out at me in Clinton's speech was his remark that the United States should be strengthening the United Nations and other mechanisms of cooperation. Quote: "We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block." He wants us to be weaker!

Madeleine Albright was the first to talk about how we don't want to be the lone superpower, and Jimmy Carter is out there fully guilt-laden over the primacy of the United States. So I guess we know why Clinton slashed defense and intelligence spending in the face of all these terrorist threats and attacks. He wants a weaker United States. This is why Clinton talks about the signing the Kyoto accords which would destroy our economic system - in the face of stories like that one out of Ottawa saying that pine trees pollute. He doesn't believe in what Reagan called "the shinning city on the hill." We're going down, and Clinton wants to help us get there.

Edited by bobdrake12, 15 March 2003 - 05:55 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Irony is finding the same thing twice and seeing opposite spins. I found this same story listed in AOL News as Poll: War Expectations High the substance of the article is the same in both cases.

http://story.news.ya...mi_ea/iraq_poll

Poll: Bush Has Solid Support for War
39 minutes ago

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (March 15) - Americans support President Bush on national security issues, pollsters say, but the nation's political balance could easily shift if a war with Iraq goes badly for the United States.

Those sharply mixed feelings suggest that war and its effects on international relations, terrorism and the economy pose considerable political risks for the president, said a bipartisan team of political pollsters who conducted a survey for the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.

''The president has inspired a great deal of confidence about himself,'' said Democratic pollster Jeremy Rosner, ''and one of the consequences is that there are very high expectations for the conduct of the war.''

Republican pollster Bill McInturff said the poll demonstrates ''how narrow the window could be for the definition of what goes well in Iraq and how many things could go wrong that could very quickly shift public opinion.'' If the war goes smoothly, he said, Democrats could face a significant hurdle in the 2004 elections.

Besides the White House, Republicans currently control both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The poll found that about half of adults, 47 percent, say they support military action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq, even without the support of the United Nations Security Council. Almost four in 10, 37 percent, said the United States should do that only with full support of the Security Council; 13 percent said the United States should not take military action even if the Security Council agrees.

The poll also suggested widespread concerns about what would make a war against Iraq successful or unsuccessful.

The public said it would consider the war a success if Iraq is disarmed and Saddam removed, even if more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers are killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed.

A majority said they would not consider the war a success if:

-The war costs more than $100 billion.

-Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction against U.S. troops.

-Iraq returns to dictatorship after the war.

-There are more terrorist attacks on the United States

-Israel is attacked and the Mideast becomes more unstable.

By a 2-1 margin, Americans said the United States needs to preserve the American tradition of not launching attacks on other countries unless it is attacked, rather than taking military action against countries before they can threaten or strike this country.

''Given the amount of emphasis the administration has placed on this (pre-emptive attack) rationale, this is really quite stunning,'' said Rosner.

The poll showed significant gender differences, with women more likely than men to say they feel threatened, and more women saying they are cautious about going to war without support of the United Nations.

Eight in 10 of the entire sample said it's important to be liked and respected abroad, but a majority, 55 percent, said they feel the United States is less liked and respected by people in other countries than a year ago.

The poll of 1,005 registered voters was taken between March 3-8 and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The poll was conducted by the Democratic polling firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and the Republican firm of Public Opinion Strategies.

McInturff said the results of the poll, along with several focus groups held around the country, have convinced him that people are very torn about what to do about Iraq, no matter which side they are on.

''Are we safer because we initiate military action in Iraq,'' he asked, ''or does that simply unleash a response that makes this country more vulnerable?''

Americans, he said, ''don't know the answer to that question.''

AP-NY-03-15-03 0951EST