952 replies to this topic

[DJS]

This is not a formula for a lasting peace, nor anything more than a cynical goal.  It is not a pragmatic solution for it breeds an unending generational memetic of continuous war.  War not just as hell but a condemnation to hell for all Humanity.  

Hell of our own continuous creation.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unique in and of itself. Trying to make sweeping generalization about war using such a specific example as Israel-Palestine is misleading.

[DJS]

Kissinger says:
One thing I think you may agree with me on Lazarus -- the US decision on how to administer to Iraq after the war may be as important as the initial decision to go to war.

Lazarus Long says:
No we don't quite agree, I think it is more important and the issue predated the war.

Well, then I guess you one uped me. However, we both recognize the significance of the pending decision. This decision by Bush will show just how far into the neo-con camp he really is. I am convince the neo-cons will get their way, with Bush rejecting the policy objectives of the (still Clinton infected) State Department.

[Lazarus Long]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unique in and of itself. Trying to make sweeping generalization about war using such a specific example as Israel-Palestine is misleading.

No actually it is sadly not unique onto itself as the all too numerous ethnic and tribal conflicts globally demonstrate. It is a paradigm of what you get if your policy becomes standard. Your policy is nothing new it is just status quo as you allude to in your response to Saille.

[DJS]

We are seen around the world as returning to a gunboat diplomacy; the ONLY justification for taking "Police Action” will be recognized by the majority of Nations and their Peoples THROUGH a Commonly recognized global body.

Or maybe we have finally gotten over Vietnam.

Many disparate groups will unite against us on this.

This is speculation.

the widely renowned checkpoint incidents

I am pretty sure I know how this was reported in the Arab world. However, anyone with any common sense would understand that this was a set up. The day before send a suicide bomber and take out 4 Marines. The next day force a guy to drive a van packed with women and children through the check point at top speed forcing our hand in the matter. I heard a guy at Barnes and Noble the other day say that this is why the war is wrong. I literally did a double take. I turn to him and politely explained the situation. "Well I never thought of it like that," he said. Of course not, that is why the terrorists do it. To make us look bad, and get stupid people like him to think that the US is killing innocent women and children.

You are right that the people of the world are not in the dark, and many, many of them see us as in the dark about them.

As a nation, the United States is better informed, educated and has more media outlets than any other nation on the planet. It is the rest of the world that is 50 years behind us, not the other way around.

The world is not so faithful of our “Good Intentions” and I must add that I am not entirely convinced either.

I am not concerned with world opinion. If they do not respect what the United States has done for the world then they are ungrateful and deserve no further explanations. Nonetheless, I feel that world opinion will come around when they see the spectacular job we do in Iraq. Peoples of the world may start writing us asking for regime change in their country. lol

I however will work to make this myth of American good will true, I will do so by protesting the excess I am witness to, by reminding my fellow Americans of our checkered past, and I will continue to point out where we possess glaring and subtler conflicts of interests.

What checkered past?? You must mean our glorious past. No nation has stood for liberty and freedom like the United States has. Also, every nation has conflicts of interests. Why don't you start criticizing them.

but the rest of the world deserves and demands proof, objective and definitive proof:  Just facts not wrapped in Old Glory.

We owe the rest of the world nothing. When it comes to buying the American Dream, they can take it or leave it. There are millions (billions??) of people who want to come to the US to be a part of the American Experience. They must know something that you and your "generic" foreign friends do not.

[DJS]

Oh, I am sure we will and all of this was basically unnecessary, except to force the American Public to become an accessory to a crime as obvious to the world as the German Public's abandonment of Democratic Principle when they voted for Hitler to be Chancellor and strongman, thus destroying their Republic.

You are showing what a left wing (yes, I said left wing) wacko you are by making such a statement. It sounds like something McDermott would say with some added eloquence.

[Lazarus Long]

Expect us to become friendless and expect all the world to unite against us; regardless of what they claim outright. From the way you talk they will have good reason. You are not alone among my countrymen that is certain, the whole world is watching like Mind says. He might like them to see Bob or perhaps his own reasoning but what all see instead as the current "Doctrine" is what you propose and this is as bad as the fall of the Weimarr Republic in many of their eyes. If what you say is true then we may be the greatest threat to peace and security, not the other way around.

Expect France, Germany and Russia to begin to merge industrial, military, and technological ability, it is only in their self interest to. Expect those we treat with contempt to conspire against our every turn. We got over Vietnam a long time ago now we will have to find out the hard way about making the same mistakes again and again. Expect NATO to dissolve. The EU will look at what we are doing and decide it certainly is time for them to build up arsenals again and balance our power in that region. But then again I doubt even the EU will survive intact our policies.

This policy isn't just doomed from the start, it is virtually guaranteed to increase WMD proliferation, which by the way, NONE HAVE YET BEEN FOUND. I am still concerned about that. Expect our trillion dollar marketplace to implode if we destroy freemarket access and expect unnecessary casualities at home and abroad and I hope you will be happy with those too.

And this is worse than venal speculation it treats their lives as irrelevant.

am pretty sure I know how this was reported in the Arab world. However, anyone with any common sense would understand that this was a set up. The day before send a suicide bomber and take out 4 Marines. The next day force a guy to drive a van packed with women and children through the check point at top speed forcing our hand in the matter. I heard a guy at Barnes and Noble the other day say that this is why the war is wrong. I literally did a double take. I turn to him and politely explained the situation. "Well I never thought of it like that," he said. Of course not, that is why the terrorists do it. To make us look bad, and get stupid people like him to think that the US is killing innocent women and children

Go spin for the ones that will profit from what we are doing but stop trying to rewrite history with ignorant spins. Our glory is covered in blood and bathed with the greed and avarice of all too many that have only been barely held back from the worst excesses. Like I said this war will come home with a terrible vengence and the "liberty" you only claim to hold dear may not easilly survive the result.

We have committed genocide, stolen free people's lands, practiced slavery and wanton rape and pillage please don't make me recite the specific facts for I know you are uninterested in truth and most of our immigrant people have little more knowledge of our history then the average joe shmoe. You want blind allegiance and this is against all principle for which our system stands too. Just remember that people like me have stood beside the more questionable types throughout history but we are more than tired of saving psychopaths and sociopaths from their just desserts.

Here is picture you will appreciate, it is the satellite image of the Saddam's Presidential palace on April 1st. Not as much leveling as I would have expected from the media hype but still a lot of rubble.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 04 April 2003 - 12:01 AM.

[DJS]

[quote]Oh. Well, I can understand that.... I just don' think this discussion is about whether something should be done -of course it should. I just don't think war ever does what it purports to do (there must be another way.)[/quote]

Do you think there would have been another way in WWII?

[quote]....whether Bush & Co. mean well or not, I think this war could destabilize the middle east. My point being, I'm not sure this debate should even be about research, proof and so forth.[/quote]

The term "stability" is code for status quo. I refuse to accept the status quo in the Middle East. Let there be instability. It may do some good to shake things up a little. Or are you scared of a bunch of Muslim without a serious military and with a total GDP 1/100th of ours? They picked the wrong nation to have a go at.

[quote]Yes... Sorry to change the subject, but: 1-if this war were about freeing a people, why didn't the U.S. ignore UN intentions, and prevent the mass-murder of Shi'ite rebels in 1991 [?] Perhaps because George Bush Sr. had more respect & caution towards breaking international law [?] There was much more justification for war in 1991, (when lives were in imminent danger) than there is now.[/quote]

The reason was because we only had a mandate to liberate Kuwait. Once again, this is an example of the limiting effect that a coalition can have on our foreign policy decision making process. In addition, no international laws have been broken, except by Saddam. And this war is not about freeing the people of Iraq. That is a nice bonus, but the real objective is to eliminate WMD and reform the government of Iraq.

[quote]2-Also, if this war were also about removing an imminent threat to the United States, then why did the U.S. not target North Korea 1st, Iran 2nd, and Iraq 3rd [?] Even if you buy the "One at a time" theory that the current administration trumps, wouldn't that therefore force common sense to prevail, and dictate that the U.S. should target the largest threat (by far) first [?][/quote]

More flawed liberal logic. But you are now on record as suggesting removing the imminent threats of North Korea and Iran. Remember that when you start complaining two years from now when we go after the other two. I will have you on record (and most of the liberal establishment) as saying that Iran and North Korea are more of a threat than Iraq. Which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would suggest that military action in Iran and North Korea are even more necessary than the war in Iraq was. You should stop using this argument, it may come back to haunt you.

And let's get this straight. The reason Iraq was first is because A) Saddam has violated countless UN resolutions (which gives us a good excuse to go in) B) the military infrastructure was already mostly in place to take out Iraq C) an occupation of Iraq offers greater strategic advantages than an occupation of the other two nations.

Surely you are not suggesting military action in North Korea. Therefore, I am left to assume that you are simply trying to skirt the issue of military action under any circumstances by offering alternative policy approaches which have little possibility of implementation. This is more than a little disingenuous. You are simply coming up with more excuses for inaction.

[quote]but I don't see how the actions of a dictator and his few close supporters should allow Americans to paint all Iraqi citizens (most of whom are innocent) with the same brush. [/quote]

When has this been done? Are you suggesting that war is never an option because of collateral damages? Do you know how many innocent civilians died at Normandy? Was WWII illegitimate? Should we have not gone after Hitler because people would die in the process? Your argument doesn't hold up.

[quote]The current war will take thousands of civilian lives.....doesn't the U.S. have the money, personnel (i.e. special elite forces, undercover agents etc.) and creativity to take out a leader without attacking an entire country [?] [/quote]

No, because people like you cut the defense budget over the past decade. And I can assure you that if we could we would. The United States is immensely powerful, but not all powerful.

[quote]I still think there is a question, however, about whether or not the U.S. has the right to act unilaterally , because they disagree with how another part of the world lives....I know it looks ridiculous from the outside, but I don't claim to much about Iraq from the outside.....[/quote]

"How another part of the world lives"-- what a quaint way to say RAPE AND TORTURE.

It became our right on 9/11. And your use of the term unilateral is ambiguous. We have a coalition of over 40 nations. If you are trying to imply that because other great powers did not act in concert with us that we acted unilaterally then you have no understanding of world politics or the relationship between the great powers of the world. Look up "balance of power" or "real politik". That is how the real world operates. France, Russia, China -- these countries are never going to side with us because they are our strategic competitors. Therefore, to suggest that we need to receive their approval before taking military action is once again an excuse for inaction.

[quote]True. However, if you respect the UN, you must acknowledge that they were none to supportive of America's actions in this case.....I wish Bush Sr. had toppled Saddam in 1991. There was more of a case for doing it then, and America would've much more world support.[/quote]

Hindsight is 20/20. The reason we didn't do it then was because we were still not truly aware of the horrible potential of WMD and terrorism. At that point, we were making a real politik, balance of power assessment in the Middle East. AKA, let'l let Iraq balance out Iran, etc. etc. I'll admit, history will look at the decision made by G Bush 41 in 1991 as one of those instances where real politik didn't work. G Bush can not be blamed for this, however. The dynamic changed so completely on 9/11 that very few were prepared for the situation that we now find ourselves in.

[quote]You are referring to a past resolution, I believe.....There is no resolution at this time. If you respected the procedures of the UN in the past, then why do you have no faith in them now, when they say that Saddam has destroyed some/all of his weapons.  They have been unable to find evidence to prove otherwise.....what happened to the "Inocent until proven guilty" ideology that America supports [?] I think we are seeing that America has different rules for different people.....that's fine, but they should at least admit it.[/quote]

We know that Saddam has WMD. He is guilty. It all comes down to not wanting to reveal sources. The intelligence community hates, really really hates to give away its sources for numerous reasons. We gave away as much as we could. And I don't know about you, but when I heard those tapes of the Republican Guard talking about the chemicals I was convinced. If you were not, then you must believe that your government was lying to you. And don't worry, we will find the WMD. Trust me, it is there. And if its not there, we will make it there. [ph34r] Innocent until proven guilty applies to individuals, not nation-states.

I feel like I keep going over and over again how we actually won our argument at the UN. Did Saddam have WMD in 1998. Yes. Everyone admits this. Where has WMD gone? No one knows. Resolution 1441 stated clearly that Saddam had to pro actively disarm. Not cooperate. He had to pro actively cooperate in the dismantling of his WMD programs. He did not do this. No one even tried to claim that he did.

So we have a rogue state in defiance of what, 17 UN resolutions. Who everyone knows still has WMD, and who is still defying the will of the international community. We have every right to take him out based on this alone.

[quote]Iraq's oil resources are actually very small. Only 20% of Amrica's oil comes from the middle east, and most of this comes from Saudi Arabia....also, although it costs a lot to extract, (down to abut $15/barrel, from  $35 in Candian dollars) Canada has 5 times the oil Saudi Arabia has, in the Alberta tar sands, and in various regions off the pacific coast of B.C., and the Atlantic coast of Newfoundland.[/quote]

Iraq's oil reserves are not small. It has the second largest known oil reserves in the world. A little lesson in oil. There is this thing called a R/P ratio (reserve to production). The US R/P is 10/1. Canada is 8/1. Kuwait between 100-120/1. Saudi Arabia 125/1. Iraq 518/1. Iraq has the highest R/P ration in the world. Granted, this is largely because of Iraq's antiquated facilities and diminished production capacity. However, even if all of Iraq's facilities were modernized it would still have a R/P ratio above 150/1.

In 10 years the west's last known oil reserves will be gone ($35 a barrel is too expensive to extract unless we revert to a situation like we had in the late 70's. In which case we would be able to crack OPEC this time anyway). All of this means that the last great oil reserve in the world will be the Middle East (and possibly the Black Sea). It is true that the US only gets about 20% of its oil from the Middle East. However, you are buying into right wing propaganda. Yes, I did just say that. They fool you into looking at the present, instead of looking at the realities of the future. This doesn't mean that I believe we shouldn't do what is in our strategic best interests, whether it means secure our fuel supply or anything else for that matter. The security of the flow of oil to our country is as important a national security concern as any other I can think of. Without oil our economy shuts down. Why should we let Saddam have us by the balls when we can just take him out instead? This lack of killer instinct on the part of the liberal establishment may be what does us all in. They have become complacent, like lambs fattened for the slaughter. Every time I think of a wimpy, helplessly liberal who couldn't defend his country to save his life I think of Jimmy Carter. They just can't help it. One of the negative results of secularization and modernization is that people who are a result of it have no idea that there are people in the world who are much less enlightened then themselves, and that can not be reasoned with. That is why people like me are here, to save your ass.

[quote]Not even Iran or North Korea have a realistic shot at hitting the U.S. at this time. Iraq is a long way off from being able to do that, based on UN findings....the only place they can reach at this time is Turkey. Also, what evidence is there that a war will prevent Iraq from attacking the US [?] A war could provoke an unexpected attack from one of many Arab nations....and couldn't Iraqis reject Democracy, and form a new regime/group to specifically target the Americans [?][/quote]

George Tenet, Director of the CIA testified before Congress that the "declassified answer" was that the DPRK most probably did have the capability to hit the western United States. The rest of this statement is negative speculation. I have to keep reminding you that Iraq would not necessarily attack us in a conventional way. What is to stop Saddam from proliferating WMD to terrorist entities that could then carry out attacks on the continental US? Nothing. "Relying on the sanity of Saddam Hussein is not an option." We must take out terrorism at its source, which are these rogue states.

[quote]That's very fair, but I'm much more worried at North Korea. N. Korea has better weapons, and nothing much to lose by using them. Also, if America weakens Iraq, that could bring a new attack against Iraq from much stronger neighboring Iran. Iran could then further strengthen itself for a attack on the US.[/quote]

North Korea has nothing to lose by using WMD? How about its existence!! If you want to talk about containment, the DPRK is much more effectively contained than Iraq. North Korea is also not intimately (directly) connected with the world wide terrorist infrastructure like Iraq is. North Korea has a completely different culture identity than nations of the Middle East. Surely you understand this. The main concern we have with the DPRK is that it is going to start selling nuclear materials whole sale to any and all interested parties. This can't be allowed to happen, and we will prevent it from happening, by military action if necessary.

You already stated your real politik argument about a weakened Iraq being attacked by a stronger Iran. I have already told you. Once a nation is under the security umbrella of the United States it is not touchable. If Iran took offensive military action against Iraq they would be inviting us to take them out. You shouldn't try to argue this point any further because it is just not credible. And what is this talk about Iran attacking the US, are you nuts? How would Iran attack the United States? Are you inferring that they would revert to asymmetrical warfare (terrorism)? If so then this all the more reason for us to take them out. Iran already knows that they are on thin ice with us. One good thing about having GW Bush in office instead of Carter, I can guarantee you that Iran isn't going to be taking any hostages anytime soon. lol

[quote]That's for sure.....Canada has limited troops and 3 ships in the gulf...although the government is attempting to call them part of the "War on terror", not the "Attack on Iraq." ....although the Canadian ships (HMCS Fredericton, Iroquois, and 1 other whose name I forget) will have to participate if they are attacked.[/quote]

So you're a Canadian. It's time to stop criticizing the US and start reforming your immigration policies before you get us killed.

[quote]Perhaps the country with the best military doesn't need approval..... [?][/quote]

That sounds like something I would say. lol

Edited by Kissinger, 04 April 2003 - 01:56 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Did you also ever think that maybe, just maybe, competitors/ strategic adversaries have a vested interest in giving the domestic opponents of US hegemony ample ammunition in the form of rhetorical quips? Example: Mubarrak of Egypt saying yesterday that US action has had the effect of creating "a hundred Bin Ladens". Ask yourself, why is he saying that. Mubarrak is one of many brutal despots in the Middle East. Is he simply speaking his mind, or is he trying to fuel domestic American opposition to the war by feeding them what they want to hear? Or stated more succinctly, do you trust a dictator or your government?

You have to understand that from my perspective America is the spear head of progress. We can not wait for the rest of the world to catch up. If the changes we hope are going to take place, take place, then it is going to have to come from America and its allies. Our goal should be to create a stable world order that allows our technological progress to continue unabated. This is a much more realistic goal then hoping to create a new world order using a debunked United Nations.

Kissinger,

To a degree, each nation is in competition with one another. There is another factor which is the multi-national corporations whose boundries are their corporation rather than national ones.

If the US's goal is to create a stable world order, I would think the people on this planet would be better off.

Now let's consider your point about trusting a dictator. If the US promotes a true representative form of government where the peole have a "Bill of Rights", the people would be better off than under a tyranical dictator - but the US becomes a threat to those countries controlled by tyranical dictators. Thus, there would be a lot of spin deployed against the US by those countries with tryanical dictators( as well as those countries that have profitable business dealings with the dictators). You make an excellent point by stating:

Mubarrak is one of many brutal despots in the Middle East. Is he simply speaking his mind, or is he trying to fuel domestic American opposition to the war by feeding them what they want to hear?

Not every country is "by the people and for the people". Those countries that are not for the people, want stablity (that status quo).

bob

[bobdrake12]

[quote][quote]b]1) The US led the Gulf War led by President George H.W. Bush's Administration.[/b]

2)  After the Gulf War, per the "'Embed' free Iraqis, now!" article:

3)  Both 1) and 2) appear to have resulted a strong animosity between the Saddam's regime and the US.[/quote]

Yes... Sorry to change the subject, but: 1-if this war were about freeing a people, why didn't the U.S. ignore UN intentions, and prevent the mass-murder of Shi'ite rebels in 1991 [?] Perhaps because George Bush Sr. had more respect & caution towards breaking international law [?] There was much more justification for war in 1991, (when lives were in imminent danger) than there is now.

2-Also, if this war were also about removing an imminent threat to the United States, then why did the U.S. not target North Korea 1st, Iran 2nd, and Iraq 3rd [?] Even if you buy the "One at a time" theory that the current administration trumps, wouldn't that therefore force common sense to prevail, and dictate that the U.S. should target the largest threat (by far) first [?][/quote]

Limitless,

Regarding 1), I believe George H.W. Bush's Administration should have intervened at that time with air support to knock out Iraq's helicopters. That probably would have been enough to have made a regime change in Iraq. It didn't happen so we are where we are now.

I am not in favor of taking on N. Korea or Iran unless the situation gets much worse with those two countries.

[quote][quote]
Please check out how Saddam tried to Kill Bush I in the post following this one.  That in itself was sufficient reason for me for the US to go to war with Iraq.[/quote]

I find this odd. Aren't many leaders targets [?] There have been many unsuccessful assassination attempts on world leaders. I believe the important thing is that the attempt on Bush Sr. failed. It's impossible to know (for sure) how close the Iraqis came to meeting this objective, but I don't see how the actions of a dictator and his few close supporters should allow Americans to paint all Iraqi citizens (most of whom are innocent) with the same brush. The current war will take thousands of civilian lives.....doesn't the U.S. have the money, personnel (i.e. special elite forces, undercover agents etc.) and creativity to take out a leader without attacking an entire country [?] [/quote]

I consider a state sponsored assassination attempt as reason for war.

I am not in favor of state sponsored assassination attempts on another country's polical leader.

[quote]Well, I agree with you here. Saddam does what most dictators do. He uses fear & money to create power and influence. I still think there is a question, however, about whether or not the U.S. has the right to act unilaterally , because they disagree with how another part of the world lives....I know it looks ridiculous from the outside, but I don't claim to much about Iraq from the outside.....[/quote]

The point I was making was that Sanctions are viewed as costing lives by stating:

[quote]4)  The UN established Sanctions on Iraq to combat their potential for WMD.  

The WHO has reported as a result of Sanctions, that approximately 60,000 children in Iraq under 5 die a year.  We can point fingers at the Sanctions themselves or we can point fingers at the way Saddam's regime distributed the resources available under Sanctions, but this has damaged the US's reputation in the Middle East. [/quote]

Sanctions apparently cost lives and have caused a lot of anti-American feelings in the Middle East. What is more, they were not working.

[quote]True. However, if you respect the UN, you must acknowledge that they were none to supportive of America's actions in this case.....I wish Bush Sr. had toppled Saddam in 1991. There was more of a case for doing it then, and America would've much more world support.[/quote]

I agree.

[quote]There is no resolution at this time. If you respected the procedures of the UN in the past, then why do you have no faith in them now, when they say that Saddam has destroyed some/all of his weapons. [/quote]

This has nothing to do with procedures but evidence. I believe Kissinger addressed the evidence to you.

[quote][quote]6)  Iraq has considerable resources (oil) which would allow Saddam's regime to build considerable WMD once Sanctions were removed.[/quote]

Iraq's oil resources are actually very small. Only 20% of Amrica's oil comes from the middle east, and most of this comes from Saudi Arabia....also, although it costs a lot to extract, (down to abut $15/barrel, from $35 in Candian dollars) Canada has 5 times the oil Saudi Arabia has, in the Alberta tar sands, and in various regions off the pacific coast of B.C., and the Atlantic coast of Newfoundland.[/quote]

The concern I had was not about America getting oil but rather Iraq reaping the huge profits from oil and turning those profits into WMD.

[quote][quote]7)  Saddam's regime is a very brutal one with the motive to strike the US.[/quote]

Not even Iran or North Korea have a realistic shot at hitting the U.S. at this time. Iraq is a long way off from being able to do that, based on UN findings....the only place they can reach at this time is Turkey. Also, what evidence is there that a war will prevent Iraq from attacking the US [?] A war could provoke an unexpected attack from one of many Arab nations....and couldn't Iraqis reject Democracy, and form a new regime/group to specifically target the Americans [?] [/quote]

Saddam's regime already was involved in a state sponsored assassination attempt against former President Bush. That would only be the tip of the iceberg as time went on.

[quote]
Iran and N. Korea ignored, you have a point here. I think the real American mistake was not removing Saddam from Iraq in 1991.[/quote]

I believed it was a mistake at the time and still do.

[quote][quote]But while discussing the Middle East, the Palistinian issue has not been satisfactorily addressed in my opinion.   This is a separate issue, but it complicates the issue we are currently discussing.  [/quote]

Rightly or wrongly, this is used as more fuel on the fire that America is two-faced.[/quote]

This is definitely a problem that needs to be faced.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 04 April 2003 - 03:50 AM.

[DJS]

On Rewarding Friends
WILLIAM SAFIRE

Nations have alliances, based on short-term strategic or economic interests. But peoples have friendships, based on memories forged in times of trial. These are the times that make and break friendships among peoples.

Start with a small-nation example. Latvia was one of the Soviet "captive nations," ultimately freed by the U.S. victory in the cold war. Recently, as some of us had long urged, Latvia gained greater security when the U.S. lobbied for the Baltic nations to be brought under NATO's umbrella, despite Russian disapproval.

Under President Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Latvia has been an outspoken U.S. ally in the campaign to liberate Iraq. But polls show a possible switch: Latvians, swept up in a wave of European pacifism, may send Americans a message by turning her out of office in June. Democracy gives Latvians the freedom to ride that anti-U.S. wave — but should the Russian bear growl, Americans would be free to remember that message.

A more costly example of strains on friendship comes from Turkey, the ally that the U.S. hoped would lead the Muslim world to secular democracy. After dickering about an entry fee, its new Islamist government refused the U.S. request for transit of our troops to start a northern front in Iraq. Such cooperation would have shortened the war, saved lives and made Turkey a partner in extending freedom throughout the Middle East.

Then the Turks added insult to injury. Turkey's military is threatening to grab northern Iraq's rich oil fields if the Kurds, recently ejected from the area by Saddam, dare to return to their stolen homes in Kirkuk.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Ankara this week, pouring soothing syrup, pretending the political betrayal doesn't affect our "strategic partnership." And Israeli officials privately remind us of their quiet military relationship with Turkey, acting as if Ankara could still be relied upon.

But trust is shot. With our ships laden with troops and tanks offshore, Turkey suddenly embraced neutralism. Generations of Americans with memories of gallant Turks fighting alongside us in the Korean War — and saving refugees after the first gulf war — are being replaced by a generation that will remember the slamming of Turkey's door in our faces.

Of course, it is France, once identified with "the rights of man," that is most eager to bestride the world stage in gleeful confrontation with the U.S., and led the defense of Saddam's dangerous despotism in the U.N. The majority of French people care not a whit for the consequences.

Some of those will be economic. The U.S. will live up to its eight-year, $881 million contract with the French company Sodexho to provide domestic mess-hall meals to our Marine Corps (provided the soufflés don't fall). And most U.S. consumers will not boycott French perfume or wine (though Australian merlot deserves a try).

But on future big deals that require a trustworthy ally, public opinion will drive public policy. Right now, our Department of Energy is about to award a $30 million contract to design a system for its nuclear waste program in Yucca Mountain, Nev. The consortium that wins will have the inside track on a billion-dollar deal transporting nuclear waste within the U.S. in years to come.

Three bids were invited by D.O.E.'s general contractor, Bechtel. One is from an American-Japanese group; another is from an American-British combine; the third's from a mainly French, partly German nuclear conglomerate named Cogema.

Assuming the expertise and price are in the same ballpark, which outfit should not get this sensitive project financed by American taxpayers? In light of President Jacques Chirac's torpedo into the Atlantic alliance, the question answers itself.

What cements strategic and economic alliances is public sentiment among peoples. Britain and the U.S. are strategic allies, but Brits and Yanks are also genuine friends — free to disagree and compete, but when wartime chips are down and alliance has a cost, tightly together. That, as Winston Churchill and Tony Blair understood, is what makes the relationship "special."

Peoples have memories that profoundly affect international ties. Those memories are being forged right now, and Americans won't forget our friends.

[DJS]

What's next? U.S. set sights on Iran, North Korea
April 3, 2003

The Bush administration has pledged to end the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea after concluding its campaign against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

Administration officials said the White House sees the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea as the next imminent threats.

"In the aftermath of Iraq, dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons program will be of equal importance as dealing with the North Korean nuclear weapons program," Assistant Secretary of State John Bolton said. "This is going to be a substantial challenge."

Bolton told a conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee that the Iranian nuclear weapons program would receive "extremely high priority" under the Bush administration, Middle East Newsline reported. He said Iran is steadily advancing toward nuclear weapons capability, a development confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency inspection of two Iranian facilities in February.

"The estimate we have of how close the Iranians are to production of nuclear weapons grows closer each day," Bolton said. "The IAEA was stunned by the sophistication of the Iranian effort."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice agreed. She said Iran will continue to be regarded as a rogue regime and would come under close examination by Washington.

"Sometimes people think we're a little bit 'the-sky-is-falling, the-sky-is-falling' on these regimes that the president called the axis of evil," Rice said. "Once we have a better atmosphere after Iraq, one of the things we're going to have to look at is how the world gets itself better organized to deal with issues concerning weapons of mass destruction."

The State Department signalled that it agreed with plans by the administration to make Iran a priority after the war with Iraq. Officials said Washington is trying to stop nuclear supplies from Russia and other countries to Iran.

"Obviously, our concern about nuclear developments in Iran has only grown in recent months with the kind of information that has been coming out on Iran's nuclear fuel cycle," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. "And obviously, equally obviously, we are engaged in an effort with governments that may have some form of nuclear cooperation with Iran to try to point out these new facts and make sure that they understand this is why we have opposed it all along.

[DJS]

I am not in favor of taking on N. Korea or Iran unless the situation gets much worse with those two countries.

Bob, what about a pre emptive strike on Iran's nuclear reactors? This may be the best option available to take out Iran's nuclear threat (considering Iran could go nuclear within a year) Iran also does not have the retaliatory capability that North Korea would have if such a strike were to take place.

[DJS]

The concern I had was not about America getting oil but rather Iraq reaping the huge profits from oil and turning those profits into WMD.

Bingo! This is exactly what I have been saying. We do not want Iraq's oil. Oil is a commodity that can be bought just like any other commodity. What we want is a secure supply where the profits from said supply do not go to fund WMD programs. By changing the regime, Iraq's oil wealth will be distributed to those who it belongs to, the Iraqi people. Imagine the society they can build with such oil wealth. I am telling you, when the money and the jobs and the good times start rolling in Iraq -- democracy will flourished. Hey, I guess I'm just a naive idealist at heart. [blush]

[Thomas]

The biggest mistake for the USA now, when this war is close to the victory, would be a softness toward the France or Russia. They should be punished for their behavior and not allowed to easily come aboard. And the Poland should be rewarded.

That include also other countries - like mine - who had no moral strength to side with America a month or two ago. It would be also the best for us, people who live in those countries, to get rid of those tired politicians.

USA should go bilateral with every country on this planet. Be as friendly as the partner was in a past year or so. Not much more - except if the new government was elected recently.

A competition for a good relation with the USA - would be a good policy for all involved.

- Thomas

[Lazarus Long]

If I were Putin now I would "ignore” attempts to procure "loose nukes" by Iran and allow a small number to cross into that country so long as they were to demonstrate they are in possession of them by detonating within the next 6 months an underground test.

They of course would claim that this was the result of a domestic development and the end result is of little difference as all sides maintain plausible deniability and they achieve a certain rapprochement that forces a new tact for our strategic forces in that region.

In fact, counter intuitive to what Thomas is suggesting, and "egging on", if we continue, it is in their self interest to cause proliferation of nukes to a number of smaller States. They have only tenuous control anyway over some of these stockpiles and regional interests will now pressure their release and they are less vulnerable to a direct response if they aren't in possession of the actual inventories.

What we here are failing to realize is that our security is predicated upon facing concentrated forces, their response will be in decentralizing their strategic response and placing it under localized control. This is counter intuitive to classical thinkers because of the concentrated centralized traditions of the Soviet mindset but they are adapting to the changing strategic scenario also and they are decentralizing, as evidenced by their relatively "peaceful breakup” into the current largely Islamic Central Asian States.

The Chinese have been cooperating with us and "quietly" forcing the DPRK to tone down its rhetoric and scale back, because the Chinese are assessing "How Much" a threat we intend to be to them both sooner and later, but the Russians are reevaluating their entire strategic policy and can do a lot more than just harrie our forces.

To bad our foreign policy planners can't take a page from the Chinese on how to accomplish this. They turned off all oil to the DPRK for three days and then claimed it was "an accident", then quietly reminded them that the DPRK depends upon China for 80% of its oil, and over 50% of its food. They basically said "talk, or you are on your own AND naked in the wilderness". They have a firm leash on their war dog.

The Russians (and some of our NATO allies and the Chinese) have already quietly begun to retool their nuclear programs into building tactical nukes as well. The Russians are involved with joint military exercises with Iran, and Iran with India. If German industrial and technological prowess is added to the mix then a credible and formidable strategic match can be generated against the US in a relatively short time. It is in German economic Interest to do business with the Russians if we isolate them further. The French are pondering how to balance this shift, but will likely join with the Eastern Force if we alienate them too. Again it is in their self interest.

Because nuclear stockpiles were being regulated for a time we have some understanding about location and inventories, but we are also aware of hundreds of unaccounted for warheads. These didn't disappear, nor were they just accounting errors, they have been stockpiled at the doors to the "underground movements" as a hedge against what we are now doing and these will little doubt now start getting distributed.

Obviously we have policy planners that have returned to the idea that a nuclear war can be winnable. MAD has become obsolete regardless, and those who think they can just build bomb shelters and survive to come back out afterward better think twice.

History should warn people that if Hitler hadn't been a political demagogue and fanatic, he would have won WWII. He formed an alliance with Stalin to divide Poland. If he hadn't betrayed his ally and opened up a second front against the Soviets he likely would have defeated Britain BEFORE we even entered the war AND secured the bases for building a nuclear strike force against the US. If Germany and the Soviets had been able to reach a "meeting of the minds" as Churchill (even more than Roosevelt) accomplished later with his “personally” declared enemy, then we would have a very different world today.

Many see what the US is doing as a Fifth column of the Third Reich moving against the emerging technologies to block their development and control global resources into their economies so as to force compliance with American Doctrine regardless of legitimacy.

If this view is solidified then we can expect a violent and dedicated opposition for years to come from “most quarters”. If we act as the German Third Reich did and begin to treat allies as irrelevant (remember the German treatment of Croat, Italian, Japanese, allies) and we begin to think that the quality of mercy and respect are signs of weakness then we will give sufficient credence to many forces that might otherwise side with us to plot and prepare to confront us. Remember, until the Germans went "overtly" crazy they were heralded as the New World Order too by many peoples around the world, even by a large segment of our own population in America. The German American Bundt still exists.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 04 April 2003 - 02:13 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...urkey3april.htm
3 April AFP

Iran's foreign minister to hold talks in Turkey over Iraq war

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi is expected here Sunday ahead of talks with Turkish leaders on the war on Iraq and joint concerns about Kurdish factions in north of that country, the Anatolia news agency reported.

Ankara and Tehran both fear that US forces might allow Iraqi Kurds to seize northern Iraq's oil capital of Kirkuk, a move that would boost their demands for autonomy and could spur the larger Kurdish communities in Turkey and Iran.

Tehran has also voiced opposition to Ankara's plans to pour troops into northern Iraq to ensure its border security and to thwart any Iraqi Kurdish bid for independence.

"We understand and share Turkey's concerns, but we do not approve of Turkish forces entering Iraq," Kharazi told a news conference last weekend. "We are obviously worried and we have told our Turkish friends not to dispatch their forces," he said.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who visited Ankara on Wednesday, has also expressed opposition to any Turkish unilateral intervention, fearing it might precipitate a "war within the war" between Turkish forces and Iraqi Kurds.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...emism3april.htm
3 April Reuters
Iran's Khatami warns Iraq war will fuel extremism

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami warned on Thursday that the U.S.-led military assault on Iraq would increase violence and extremism in the world.

Shi'ite Iran, while no friend of Baghdad's ruling government, opposes the war on its western neighbour led by its sworn enemy, the United States, and is wary of the installation of a U.S.-backed government in Iraq.

''With this war you are giving a green light to extremist movements and violence-seekers to answer back your violence with violence,'' the official IRNA news agency quoted Khatami as saying in a speech.

''The result of this war is the death of innocent people and circulating and strengthening extremism and violence,'' he said.

Iran, which fought an eight-year war against Iraq in the 1980s, has adopted a neutral stance on the conflict.

Speaking in Iran's Kish Island in the northern Gulf, Khatami expressed sadness over the deaths on both sides of the war.

''I feel sorry for the oppressed Iraqi people whose youth are being sacrificed for some people who are sitting in their safe palaces,'' he said.

''We also feel sorry for the killed young American and British soldiers who came from another part of the world to war because of the wrong policies and motives of those who seek power.''

He called for an international effort to stop the war which he said was driven by ''Zionist lobbies'' and warned that the consequences could be ''worse than the Vietnam catastrophe.''

''Nobody is defending the Iraqi regime. We support Iraq's integrity and national unity. Neither foreign powers nor a dictator have the right to rule the Iraqi nation,'' he said.

Included by U.S. President George W. Bush last year as part of an ''axis of evil'' alongside Iraq and North Korea, Iran has been a sworn enemy of the United States since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...order4april.htm
4 April Reuters
Mixed feelings on Iran-Iraq border

At this Iranian border city people don't need to turn on their television sets to watch the latest scenes from the war in neighbouring Iraq: they can just look out of their windows.

For more than two weeks now the battle raging in southern Iraq around the city of Basra, 50 km (30 miles) away, has shaken the people of Abadan out of their beds, illuminated the night sky with terrifying flashes and sent many fleeing for safety.

The daily poundings of artillery and roar of military jets have brought back painful memories of Iran's own eight-year war with Iraq, during which this southwestern corner of Iran, more than 950 km (590 miles) from Tehran, suffered more than most.

But despite the general hatred for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whose forces used nerve and mustard gas on the Islamic Republic during the 1980-1988 war, there is little support for the U.S.-led attempt to topple him.

"If the Iraqi regime had left power two weeks ago there would not have been lots of human suffering and pain," said Mohammad Ali, 67, who runs a tiny grocery store next to the Arvand river, known as the Shatt al-Arab to Iraqis, which separates Abadan from Iraq.

"But you cannot say the United States is not to blame. It has come all the way from across the world to wage a war here," he added.

MISSILE ON OIL DEPOT

The proximity of the conflict was brought home starkly on only the second day of the war when a rocket smashed into an oil refinery depot in Abadan, injuring two people.

Iran says the missile came from a U.S. or British jet but has played down the incident, accepting that mistakes will happen when a war is being waged on its doorstep.

But the official policy of remaining neutral in the war does not meet the approval of everyone in this city of 200,000 people. Some say they want to go to Iraq to fight the U.S. and British forces.

Unlike the rest of Iran's 65 million population, many in Khuzestan province where Abadan is located have Arab ancestry, speak Arabic instead of Iranian Farsi and have long enjoyed close ties with southern Iraq and neighbouring Arab Gulf states.

"If I am allowed by the government I'll go and fight for the Iraqi people, but not for Saddam," said 22-year-old Majid, who lost an eye as a young child during an Iraqi aerial attack in the Iran-Iraq war.

Majid's chances of joining the fighting are very slim.

The Iranian government has said it will not allow fighters from an Iraqi Shi'ite opposition group based in Tehran to cross the border into Iraq.

With U.S. officials singling out Syria and Iran for warnings on the sidelines of the Iraq conflict, Tehran is determined to avoid doing anything which could be perceived as interference by Washington.

Military checkpoints have been set up to prevent citizens or journalists from getting too close to the frontier, which is closed.

FISHERMEN NOW IDLE

In and around Abadan, the scars of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s are still evident. Rusting Iraqi tanks lie impotent and abandoned from the 1980 Iraqi advance which initiated the war. Marks left by bullets and shrapnel scar the facades of many buildings.

"I lost a son in the war. He was a voluntary Basij militiaman who was killed in a war training course just before making his way to the frontline," said Mohammad Ali.

That loss does not prevent this store owner, who has travelled extensively in Iraq, including Basra where his mother lived for three decades, from feeling sympathy for the Iraqi people.

"What are the poor Iraqi people being pounded for? For what sin? I am not talking about Saddam but about the people," he said.

But many in the city are more concerned about the affect of the war has had on the local economy.

Down by the river, fishermen play cards on the wharf across from Iraqi territory. They have been confined to shore by the local authorities.

"Some 100-150 boats have had to stay docked since the war began. This is unprecedented," said Mehdi.

"We have complained why we cannot go to sea to catch fish. But officials argue it's for our safety," said the 23-year-old fisherman.

"There are no restraints on Iraqi fishermen whose country is waging the war. Why should there be such restrictions on Iranian fishermen then?" asked a 24-year-old fish seller, who declined to give his name.

The transport restrictions have also hit merchants, many of whom normally receive their goods by sea from nearby Gulf states.

At Abadan's open-air market, Tah-lenji -- which literally means floor of a boat -- peddlers put on display everything from children's toys to domestic appliances. But stocks are running low.

"We haven't been offered anything new by the businessmen since the war started. What we have for sale is what is left from the past," said Hussein, who sells toys.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...istan3april.htm
3 April RFE/RL
Turkmenistan, Iran Appear To Agree On Approach For Dividing Sea

Turkmenistan says it has agreed with Iran on establishing wide offshore zones in the Caspian Sea, raising new doubts about the progress of five-nation division talks and the development of disputed oil fields. Russia wants open waters for shipping and its navy, but Ashgabat said it will try to reach agreement with Moscow, as well.

Turkmenistan and Iran appear to have agreed on an approach for dividing the Caspian Sea that could slow progress toward a five-nation settlement instead of speeding it up.

Last week's talks on Caspian borders suggests that bargaining over the oil-rich waters will drag on and on, despite new hopes for energy sources outside the Middle East as a result of the Iraq war.

On 27 March, the countries ended two days of negotiations in Ashgabat with positive statements from the Turkmen side. A source in the administration of President Saparmurat Niyazov told Interfax that the delegations had agreed to start drawing the bilateral border and had reached understanding on economic zones that could be up to 45 nautical miles (over 83 kilometers) wide.

The ITAR-TASS news agency quoted Turkmenistan's head of Caspian development, Khozhgeldy Babaev, as saying, "The views of the sides have coincided towards determining such zones within 35-40 nautical miles."

Interfax also reported a preliminary agreement to develop resources in the southern Caspian jointly. The official daily "Neitralnyi Turkmenistan" said the border marking "will allow both states to start active realization of oil-and-gas-exploration projects in the sea border area," Agence France-Presse reported.

Comments from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari were less specific. Speaking to the official IRNA news agency, Safari said he was satisfied with the talks and that the next round will be held in Tehran.

The sessions may solidify Iran's stance with Turkmenistan in the southern Caspian, which has been generally resistant to a Russian-sponsored plan, backed by Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Iran has claimed 20 percent of the Caspian area, although its coast would cover only around 13 percent. Years of talks on the post-Soviet split have brought only glimmers of progress.

Although Iran may welcome Niyazov's support against Moscow's median-line mapping, it still seems wary of signing a bilateral pact with Turkmenistan. IRNA quoted Safari as stressing that "the signing of [a] bilateral agreement will only delay a more comprehensive agreement between all the landlocked sea's littoral states."

Niyazov also said he would sign a Caspian agreement during his visit to Tehran two weeks earlier, but no such document emerged. Iran may find itself in a rhetorical trap over two-sided pacts, having attacked such accords among Russia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan, which could effectively fix its remaining share.

The outlook for progress after the latest meeting may be mixed. On the one hand, any border understanding may be better than none. The delay in developing bordering oil fields has been the biggest drawback in the lack of an overall settlement. Many offshore operations have gone forward without a five-way agreement. But several giant fields remain undeveloped because of disputes among Iran, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan.

Ashgabat's push for 45-mile national zones also appears at odds with what little progress has been made in five-nation negotiations.

Last year, Russia proposed a slight fattening of the national offshore zones recognized in old Soviet treaties from 10 to 15 miles (16 to 24 kilometers). The plan was included in a draft convention for a Caspian settlement, according to a Turan news agency report in February.

But Turkmenistan has proposed two tiers of national jurisdiction and "economic" zones for fishing and other rights, stretching up to 50 miles (80 kilometers). Niyazov wants a 20-mile-wide passage for open shipping in the middle of the Caspian, which is about 110 kilometers (70 miles) at its narrowest point. The big reason for the buffers is that the Russian Navy is larger than those of all the other Caspian countries combined.

Russia's plan calls for dividing only the sea floor into sectors while keeping the waters in common, a concept that would be hemmed in by various limits of the offshore zones. Hammering out a compromise has been an agonizing process, guided by various degrees of Russian pressure.

Last week, Niyazov warned against viewing the Iran talks as forming a southern Caspian bloc, saying, "We are striving to reach agreement with Russia and other nations as well," the Persian-language daily "Hamshari" reported.

But it may be hard to see the bilateral talks as more than banding together until Iran and Turkmenistan return to the table with Russia and settle their oil-field disputes with Azerbaijan.

[Lazarus Long]

http://www.iranexper...fted12march.htm
12 March Dow Jones Newswires Associated Press

Iran Would Sign Nuclear Treaty If Sanctions Lifted

Iran would agree to sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as Washington has urged, if Western countries drop sanctions against Tehran, the country's nuclear energy chief told a French newspaper.

In an interview published Wednesday in Le Monde newspaper, Gholamreza Aghazadeh said Iran neither had the need for nuclear arms nor the capacity to build them.

The comments came after Washington urged Iran Tuesday to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty, which would subject their sites to more rigorous inspections.

"We have nothing against it," Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told Le Monde. "But we have some conditions."

"As signatories of the Nonproliferation Treaty, we expect to get some benefits, but Western countries have imposed sanctions on us."

He added: "We are waiting for the sanctions to be lifted before we sign."

Washington imposed sanctions on Iran which ban the sale of dual-use technology. The sanctions were imposed after the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by militant students in 1979 as part of the revolution which toppled the shah of Iran.

Other Western nations have also refused to sell any sort of dual-use or nuclear technology to Iran.

The U.S. has rejected Iran's contention that its nuclear program is strictly for energy production and continues to express deep concern about Tehran's alleged effort to develop atomic weapons.

The Washington Post reported this week that a nuclear power facility at Natanz in central Iran is closer to enriching uranium than previously thought. The plant has hundreds of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium which could be used in advanced nuclear weapons, it reported.

When the project is completed in 2005, Iran will be able to produce enough enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs each year, the Post reported.

Aghazadeh denied the charge, saying Iran's production of enriched uranium was only 5% under controls stipulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency, whereas 90% would be needed to produce nuclear weapons.

"That requires other technologies that Iran does not possess, and is not looking to possess," Aghazadeh said. "We do not need either nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction."

********************
Perhaps having a full blown war on their border with the probability of being next in line will change their perspective on the desirability of being a nuclear power. Damned if the y do, and damned if they don't, regardless this war is pushing all levels of NBC weapons proliferation into high gear, not the other way around.

[Lazarus Long]

http://home.netscape..._ur..._ll1_ft_1


OPINION SECTION
America Shows Its Colors
Joe Klein on whether victory will make the U.S. humble or arrogant
Monday, Mar. 24, 2003

As war began last week, the American army in Kuwait received a remarkable order from the brass: stow your flags. The fearsome steel coil of tanks and artillery and Bradley fighting vehicles was told to enter enemy territory humbly, stripped of all banners, including the Stars and Stripes.

This seemed slightly un-American — we're flag crazed to the point of silliness — and entirely appropriate; liberation, not conquest, was the stated purpose of the war. And so, when the Marines captured their first town, Umm Qasr, and the American flag was reflexively raised in triumph, it was quickly hauled down.

In the early hours of Operation Iraqi Freedom, its diplomacy was as stunning as its precision: from the reluctance to use maximum force for the first few nights to the patient efforts to secure a mass surrender to the decision — even after the awesome bombing began — to leave the electricity in Baghdad untouched and the public infrastructure intact. Donald Rumsfeld at war seems far more tactful than Donald Rumsfeld in peace.

The military's early restraint suggests a question: How will America face the post-Saddam world — brazenly, with Old Glory flying, or with quiet authority? Will it be hubris or humility? Humility was, of course, George W. Bush's campaign promise. "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us," he said in his second presidential debate against Al Gore in 2000. "If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us."

That sounded just right. ("I agree with that. I agree with that," was Gore's response.) But humility was lost in the anger, dust and blood of Sept. 11; it will be nearly impossible to recover when victory is won in Iraq.

Hubris could easily masquerade as reality. We are incomparably strong and admirably free, the most benign superpower in history. But the truths inherent in that proposition could easily lead to a falsehood — that we are justified in remaking the world as we choose. Certainly the world seems ripe to be remade. "We had certain strategies and policies and institutions that were built to deal with the conflicts of the 20th century," Vice President Dick Cheney said recently. "They might not be the right strategies and policies and institutions to deal with the threat we face now."

The old order did not distinguish itself in the run-up to Iraq. The French preened for the pacifist European street. Hans Blix's inspection regime wasn't nearly as muscular as it needed to be. NATO fiddled; the U.N. failed. Reality dictates that changes will come. At the very least, American forces — an inexact but not insignificant barometer of American interests — will be drawn down in Western Europe and moved east to friendlier (and less expensive) billets like Hungary. But a more important transition is imminent as Asia supplants Europe as the focus of American foreign policy. This may well lead to new alliances, institutions and military arrangements.

Europe is where the bulk of history happened in the 20th century, at least as Americans perceived it. Asia is where it will take place in the 21st — in Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, China and Japan, not to mention Iran, North Korea and the floating fester of Islamic radicalism. The saga began last week in Iraq, a country that may soon be perceived as an American showcase, whether we like it or not. Iraq's reconstruction will be as symbolically important as West Germany's was after World War II, but it will be a much tougher project. With three vehement ethnic and religious groups within, and Islamic radicals in the hills nearby, it looks more like Yugoslavia than Germany.

In that sense, Iraq predicts the complexities of Asia: the religions, cultures and traditions of governance are profoundly different from ours, the chances of lethal misunderstandings far greater than they were in Europe. President Bush seemed to dismiss this concern in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 26: "It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world...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."

But surely it is not presumptuous to suggest that freedom isn't easily imposed by outsiders, that it is nurtured slowly and indigenously and may develop in ways that we find strange. A disciplined American humility will be essential, and the reconstruction of Iraq is the first test.

Will we welcome other countries as partners — and take the edge off the occupation by inviting the U.N. to play an active role in rebuilding the government — or will we run it arrogantly, unilaterally, colonially?

The second test, an evenhanded effort to resolve the Middle East conflict, will be harder still. Beyond those will be many others, and the challenge will often be the same: Can we learn to use diplomacy as exquisitely as we do force?

The American military taught a lesson by example last week: it is far better for others to wave our flag in tribute than for us to.

[bobdrake12]

"But, as Mohammed told it, they longed for the day Hussein would fall."


I have no use for tyranical dictactors, but I do have great admiration for people who go beyond the call of duty for someone else.

There is a person called, Mohammed, who stated, “My heart is cut.”

Mohammed is a citizen of Iraq. I respect Mohammed very much for living up to his convictions by risking not only his life but the lives of his family as well.

bob


http://www.msnbc.com...5233.asp?0cl=c3

Iraqi man risked all for U.S. POW

32-year-old lawyer helped free Pfc. Lynch

By Peter Baker
THE WASHINGTON POST


MARINE COMBAT HEADQUARTERS, Iraq, April 3 — Mohammed, a gregarious 32-year-old Iraqi lawyer, went by the hospital in Nasiriyah one day last week to visit his wife, who worked there as a nurse, when he noticed the ominous presence of security agents.

CURIOUS, HE asked around, and a doctor friend told him an American soldier was being held there. Something made him want to go see. The doctor took him to a first-floor emergency wing where he pointed out the soldier through a glass interior window — a young woman lying in a bed, bandaged and covered in a white blanket.

Inside the room with her was an imposing Iraqi man, clad all in black. Mohammed watched as the man slapped the American woman with his open palm, then again with the back of his hand. In that instant, Mohammed recalled today, he resolved to do something. After the man in black left, Mohammed sneaked in to see the young woman.

“Don’t worry, don’t worry,” he told her. He was going for help.

As he recounted the events today, that decision set in motion one of the most dramatic moments in the first two weeks of the war in Iraq. Five days later, after Mohammed located U.S. Marines and told them what he knew, Black Hawk helicopters swooped in under cover of darkness, touching down next to the six-story hospital, and a team of heavily-armed commandos stormed the building. With hand-scrawled maps from Mohammed and his wife, the commandos quickly found the injured Pfc. Jessica Lynch and spirited her away to safety.

‘MY HEART IS CUT’

Mohamed said he decided to save the 19-year-old soldier because he could not bear to see her beaten in the hospital. “My heart is cut,” he recalled of his reaction when he saw her. “I decided to go to the Americans and tell them about this story.”

Mohammed and his family were flown to this crude desert camp by helicopter today to stay the night before being taken to a refugee center in the southern port city of Umm Qasr. They were allowed to clean up in a makeshift “shower” fashioned out of a giant cardboard box and then given clothes to wear — an MTV shirt for Mohammed’s wife, Iman, and an oversized military T-shirt for his 6-year-old daughter. When Mohammed mentioned that he would love an American flag, the Marines rushed to find one.

“He’s sort of an inspiration to all of us,” said Lt. Col. Rick Long, who hosted the family in his trailer for a dinner of Meals Ready to Eat tonight.

If not for his help, the Marines said, they might never have been able to rescue Lynch. “The information was dead-on,” said Col. Bill Durrett, who was helping process their refugee status to keep them safe from reprisals.

Lynch was part of a convoy from the Army’s 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company that made a wrong turn at the city of Nasiriyah on the banks of the Euphrates River on March 23 when it was ambushed by Iraqi paramilitary fighters. The U.S. invasion force was being attacked by Saddam’s Fedayeen, a militia formed by President Saddam Hussein’s son Uday.

Several of the soldiers were killed in the attack, and Lynch returned fire, according to the account given by U.S. officials. Lynch’s family said today that she was not shot or stabbed, as early intelligence reports had indicated. Five soldiers were captured in the attack, while seven are still listed as missing in action.

In a German hospital, Lynch underwent back surgery today to repair a fracture that was pinching a nerve. She is suffering two broken legs and a broken arm. She spoke by telephone with her parents in Palestine, W. Va.

LONGED FOR SADDAM’S FALL

Mohammed, whose last name is being withheld at the request of the Marines, set off the chain of events that led to Lynch’s rescue. . Mohammed was born in Najaf, a holy city to Shiite Muslims like him. He displays an easy smile and is quick to say “welcome.” He studied law and a little English in Basra in southeastern Iraq and became an attorney. He and his wife did what they could to make a decent life for themselves and their daughter; they had a house and a Russian-made car. But, as Mohammed told it, they longed for the day Hussein would fall.

So when he saw some Fedayeen in the hospital, he concluded they were up to no good. He said he knew some of them personally. Asked about them, he simply shook his head. “Very bad,” he said, switching back and forth from English to Arabic. “Very, very, very, very bad. There’s no kindness in my heart for them.” Mohammed recalled that, after the war began, he watched them drag a dead woman’s body through the street, apparently killed because she waved at a U.S. helicopter.

When he first saw Lynch that day, he said the Iraqis were talking about amputating her leg, which had been injured during or after the attack. Mohammed said he urged his doctor friend to stop the amputation. When he went in to see Lynch, he said, she mistook him for a doctor.

“A person is a human being regardless of nationality,” he explained today. “Believe me, I love Americans.”

The same day he saw Lynch he said in an account vouched for by the Marines, Mohammed set out by foot to find the Americans. The Marines had been trying to secure a route on the eastern side of Nasiriyah to keep critical supply convoys flowing over a pair of bridges that took them across the Euphrates. Mohammed said he walked six miles out of the town center before he came across some Marines.

He said he approached them with his hands raised.

“What do you want?” a Marine asked.

“I have important information about woman soldier in hospital,” he replied.

Mohammed was taking a chance, not only in defying Iraqi authorities but in approaching the Marines. Saddam’s Fedayeen and their allies had been dressing in civilian clothes to get close to U.S. troops, sometimes even faking surrender, only to open fire at short range. U.S. troops have also fired on civilians at checkpoints.

But with the mention of a woman soldier, Mohammed got the Marines’ attention, and he was quickly ushered in to talk with officers who began grilling him about the hospital and the soldier inside. At the same time, Mohammed instructed his wife to go stay with their family — and none too soon. That night, friends told him later, the Fedayeen showed up at his house and ransacked the place, searching for something.

It was not enough to simply tell the Americans that one of their own was at Saddam Hospital. Twice over the next two days, he said, they sent him back to the hospital to gather more information. Just to get to the hospital was perilous, he said, because of the U.S. bombs that seemed to be falling all around Nasiriyah. Once in the hospital, he had to make sure he was not spotted by anyone who would inform on him to the Fedayeen.

As he skulked around, he counted the number of Fedayeen at the hospital, until he came to 41. He noted that four guards in civilian clothes stood watch at Lynch’s first-floor room armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and radios. He traced routes through the building that commandos could use. He tried to learn what he could about the operations center they set up at the hospital on the first day of the war.

FIVE HAND-DRAWN MAPS

After returning to the Marine base, he drew out five maps by hand, and his wife, who was brought there, drew one, too. The military planners took the scraps of paper and got to work.

In the end, a Special Operations force of Navy SEALs, Army Rangers and Air Force personnel swooped in early Wednesday morning, while Marines staged a fake offensive elsewhere around Nasiriyah to distract attention of the Fedayeen and their allies. It was one of the few times an American prisoner of war has been successfully rescued in the last half century.

Mohammed has given up the life he knew to help a woman he met only briefly. He and his family came to this Marine base with nothing but the clothes they were wearing and a blanket. But Mohammed smiled broadly and happily talked about his role. He expressed no doubts about his decision.

“She would not have lived,” he said simply. “It was very important.”

He knew the risks, he said. “I am afraid not for me. I am afraid about my daughter and my wife,” he said, turning to them sitting quietly next to him. “Because I love much.”

Mohammed wants to work with the Americans some more, maybe help them gather information elsewhere in Iraq. His wife could help treat injured soldiers, he offered. Maybe he will go to America. But eventually, he said, he wants to return home.

“In the future when Saddam Hussein is down,” he said, “I will go back to Nasiriyah.” He said he would not worry then about the Fedayeen. “When Saddam Hussein goes down, I’m sure they will go away.”

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Edited by bobdrake12, 04 April 2003 - 09:35 PM.

[bobdrake12]

The people of Iraq, such as Mohammed, deserve a better govenment.

Bob, what about a pre emptive strike on Iran's nuclear reactors? This may be the best option available to take out Iran's nuclear threat (considering Iran could go nuclear within a year) Iran also does not have the retaliatory capability that North Korea would have if such a strike were to take place.

Kissinger,

A lot depends upon what happens next.

Will Iran send terrorists into Iraq to disrupt the new government of Iraq or will they remain relatively neutral?

I question whether the totalitarian governments of Iraq and Syria would like to see a representative form of democracy accompanied by a Bill of Rights succeed in their midst. That just might be a threat to these totalitarian governments because a free Iraq would "destablize" (disrupt the status quo of) the area.

If either Syria or Iran carry on hostile actions (including terrorism) against Iraq, that aggression would be a call to war (and not just a pre emptive strike).

On the other hand, if Syria and Iran wish to be good neighbors with Iraq, that would be a different story. I prefer diplomacy and peace over war, but I believe Syria and Iran need to fully understand the US position. I believe it is vital now that the US has invaded Iraq for the US (not the UN) to help establish a government which leaves the people of Iraq in a much better postion than before under that serial killer called Saddam. The US has told the world that this is its plan; thus, the US needs to live up to its word.

Check out the article below.

bob

http://www.washingto...0-2003Apr4.html

Blair Says U.S. Has No Plans to Attack Syria, Iran (excerpts)

Reuters
Friday, April 4, 2003; 11:11 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday the United States had absolutely no plans to attack Syria and Iran, which have been warned by Washington over their alleged involvement in Iraq.

In an interview with the Arabic service of BBC World Service Radio, Blair also said it was every bit as important to make progress in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it was to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Last week, Washington accused Syria of allowing shipments of military equipment to cross the border into Iraq in defiance of a U.S. warning. It also said it was concerned by the presence inside Iraq of hundreds of Iraqi Shiite Muslim forces, trained and financed by the Iranians.

Asked if he had enough influence in Washington to curb any move to attack Syria and Iran, Blair -- Washington's closest ally in its self-declared war on terror -- repeated his assurance to the Arab world.

"I know of absolutely no plan to do that," he said.

"There are concerns about support for terrorism in certain of these countries, that is true. But I have always thought we can try and deal with these issues in a different way."

Edited by bobdrake12, 04 April 2003 - 09:24 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Saddam's business partners (excerpts)
Sun Mar 30, 7:00 PM ET

BY LOU DOBBS - U.S. News & World Report


It is well past time that the United States seriously reviewed its economic and political relationships not only with France and Germany but with the United Nations (news - web sites) itself. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder are notorious emblems of the old Europe and have done incalculable damage not only to their respective relationships with the United States but also to an institution--the United Nations--that can hardly afford further assault.

The business ties between France and Iraq have indeed been con-siderable and complex. France has exported $3.5 billion in goods to Iraq since sanctions were eased in 1996, according to a September 2002 report commissioned by the French Parliament. And in 2001, French exports to Iraq reached $650 million--more than any other country.

But France hasn't been the only one benefiting from Baghdad. So has the U.N. itself, through its oil-for-food program. The effect of the program has been to put tens of millions of dollars in the hands of Hussein over the past several years. Hussein has decided what to do with that money, and the U.N. has been his biggest accomplice. As Claudia Rosett of the Wall Street Journal has said, the U.N. has "become a business partner, effectively, with the Iraqi regime."

The U.N.'s oil-for-food program now supports a massive bureaucracy of 4,000 workers and is sitting on an $8 billion escrow account from the sale of Iraqi oil. Only after President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) publicly chastised the U.N. did it begin the process of freeing up that money so it can be used for the people who deserve it, and own it: the people of Iraq. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), Chirac, Schroder, and Russia's Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) had worked to use the money intended for the Iraqi people as a lever against U.S. and British policy in Iraq.

[bobdrake12]

BBC

"France, by its obstructionist diplomacy, encouraged Saddam to resist U.N. Resolution 1441."



U.S. News & World Report

With friends like this. . . (excerpts)
Sun Mar 30, 7:00 PM ET

BY MORTIMER B. ZUCKERMAN

The white-flag Iraqi irregulars, who pretend to surrender and then open fire on our men and women exercising humanitarian restraint, are despicable. Sooner, rather than later, the treacherous will get what they deserve. So it must be for the others who have betrayed our restraint and practiced a lethal deceit: What Saddam's thugs are doing on the field of battle is what France, under the leadership of President Chirac, did on the field of diplomacy. Any slim chance that Saddam would come clean or quit was lost while the French played their games. When the fog of war has lifted, we will remember how innocent blood came to be shed.

Chirac's conduct must be measured against the yardstick of British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s sterling performance. The left wing of Blair's Labor Party was immersed in its traditional pacifism and thus hostile to force whatever the provocation. Blair made no attempt to dodge the bullets. He put his premiership on the line and held fast to the alliance. He spoke with stern moral authority and penetrating insight. Two points he made are critical:

o One, France, by its obstructionist diplomacy, encouraged Saddam to resist U.N. Resolution 1441.

o Two, the most dangerous thing in the showdown with Iraq (news - web sites)'s dictator would have been to let him go unpunished. "It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us," Blair said. "Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us. Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity."

Economic interests, as well as jealousy of power, color the picture. According to the International Herald Tribune, French interests have signed with Iraq drilling contracts worth as much as $50 billion. The contracts are so lopsidedly favorable to the French firms that no successor regime to Saddam will be able to respect them.

This is all part and parcel of Saddam's incestuous political and commercial relationship with the defense, business, and political elites of France that will undoubtedly be exposed after the war. As the Weekly Standard reported, Saddam threatened to expose what he saw as France's betrayal in the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), saying, "If the trickery continues, we will be forced to unmask them, all of them, before the French public."

Edited by bobdrake12, 04 April 2003 - 10:31 PM.

[bobdrake12]

BBC

"Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's thugs are known to use steel bars to bash their prisoners' limbs."


http://www.nydailyne...25p-67094c.html

POW Jessica was tortured (excerpts)

Tip from Iraqi led to hospital room

By MAKI BECKER
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Jessica was being tortured.

That was the urgent word from an Iraqi man who alerted U.S. troops where to find Pfc. Jessica Lynch - and her injuries seem to bear out the allegation.

One tip came when an English-speaking Iraqi man approached NBC reporter Kerry Sanders to tell him about the soldier being held captive.

"Please make sure the people in charge know that she's being tortured," he told Sanders.

Belying her country-girl smile and petite 5-foot-5 frame, Lynch put up a Rambo-worthy fight when her unit, the Army's 507th Ordnance Maintenance Co., came under attack, according to a new report.

Lynch opened fire on the Iraqi assailants, picking them off one by one until she ran out of ammunition, according to today's Washington Post

"She was fighting to the death," a U.S. official told The Post. "She did not want to be taken alive."

Yesterday, when Lynch was plucked from Saddam Hospital, Special Forces troops found a soldier in pain.

Her broken bones are a sure sign of torture, said Amy Waters Yarsinske, an ex-Navy intelligence officer and an expert on POW treatment.

"It's awfully hard to break both legs and an arm in a truck accident," Yarsinske said.

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's thugs are known to use steel bars to bash their prisoners' limbs, she said.

"In the first gulf action, they tried breaking their [captured U.S. airmen's] legs with steel bars," Yarsinske said.

Another clue that Lynch and other POWs were being tortured came Friday, when Marines raided a hospital near Nassiriya where other members of Lynch's unit were videotaped and later shown on Iraqi TV. Marines found at least one shredded woman's uniform spattered with blood and the name patch torn off. In addition to Lynch, two other female soldiers went missing after the ambush.

In one hospital room, Marines discovered a car battery next to a bed - a possible electrical shock torture chamber.

During the last Persian Gulf War, Iraqis attached wires to one American POW's jaw and shocked him, Yarsinske said.

An Iraqi pharmacist who works at Saddam Hospital told Britain's Sky TV he treated Lynch's leg injuries. He added: "Every day I saw her crying about wanting to go home."

Edited by bobdrake12, 04 April 2003 - 10:29 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.telegraph...02/wfeyad02.xml



Fedayeen use children as shield (excerpts)
By Martin Bentham near Basra
(Filed: 02/04/2003)

Iraqi Fedayeen paramilitaries used children as human shields during a battle with troops, a British tank commander said yesterday.

Sgt David Baird, who commands a Challenger 2 tank from C Squadron of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards battle group, said that he had witnessed at least four or five children, aged between five and eight, being grabbed by the scruff of the neck and held by Iraqi fighters as they crossed a road in front of his tank.

Sgt Baird said the Iraqis had moments earlier been firing rocket-propelled grenades at his tank. He added that he had been forced to halt any retaliatory fire because of the danger of hitting the children.

"We were just to the south east of Basra and we were being fired upon by rocket-propelled grenades," he said. "I could see the Iraqis ahead of us at a crossroads. They were wearing black jump-suits with red shamaghs. They were Fedayeen and I was preparing to fire at them.

"They were crossing the road to try and outflank us on the left and, as they crossed, four or five of them grabbed kids by the scruff of their necks and dragged them across with them. They were using them as human shields so that I had to stop firing.

"The children were only five to eight years old. There were lots of women and children there. It was a busy crossroads but they didn't seem to care.

"I am married with a son of nine months and I just felt disgusted. In this part of the world it seems that life is not held in the same way as we regard it. It was terrible."

[DJS]

Plan B -- for Baghdad
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 4, 2003


The first gulf war took six weeks. Afghanistan took nine. Kosovo, 11. We are now just past two weeks in the second gulf war. It's time for a bit of perspective. This campaign has already been honored with a "quagmire" piece by the New York Times' Johnny Apple, seer and author of a similar and justly famous quagmire piece on Afghanistan published just days before the fall of Mazar-e Sharif and the swift collapse of the Taliban.

The drumbeat of complaint for the first two weeks from the media, retired generals and anonymous administration malcontents has been twofold: the "flawed plan" and the raised expectations.

With American troops at the gates of Baghdad, the plan is looking pretty good now. But even when things looked tough in Week Two, the frenzy of the critics was a bit weird. It's a military cliche that all plans look great until the shooting starts. Then the plan is thrown out. Nonetheless, Tommy Franks's plan has fared better than most. It may not have anticipated the level of initial resistance in the south. But this is a campaign of staggering complexity. The fact that but a single element was miscalibrated (without significant damage to the overall campaign) is, on the contrary, testimony to a plan of remarkable prescience.

Even more impressive was the speed of the military's adaptation to the new circumstances. For a military establishment as large, mechanized, integrated and complex as America's to be so nimble in adapting to the tactics of Saddam Hussein's Baathist die-hard irregulars in southern Iraq is nothing short of astonishing. Why deny it? Take credit for it. This flexibility will have a far more decisive effect on the final outcome than the silly charge that the original blueprint did not perfectly predict the future.

The other major complaint has been raised expectations. It is true that before the war there were expectations of a quick and bloodless victory. It is not fair to say that the administration orchestrated the expectations. It is fair to say that the administration allowed that impression to grow.

For example, former president Bill Clinton predicted, "This war is going to be over in a flash" and "You're looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week." President Bush said nothing of the sort. But the administration did little to dispel the conventional wisdom that Clinton was reflecting.

This passivity is taken by administration critics to be a cynical attempt to manipulate U.S. public opinion in support of a dubious war. Nonsense. The administration already had remarkable across-the-board support for the war. Why raise expectations at home? It is an axiom of political life that you never raise expectations, whether in a political or military campaign, because your defeats are then magnified and your victories discounted.

It is true that the administration did not contradict the general view of an easy war. But not for domestic political reasons. It did so for obvious and very good military reasons. The target audience for these inflated expectations was not the American people but Hussein's henchmen.

Plan A for the war was a quick and devastating attack that would cause a collapse of the regime and lead to the ultimate military outcome -- the Sun Tzu ideal of victory with barely a shot fired.

Plan A had several parts: an intense initial "shock and awe" air attack, a bold rush of armor to the gates of Baghdad and, fortuitously, a first-night decapitation strike on Hussein's own bunker. But the key to Plan A was a further psychological-warfare element: planting in the Iraqi leadership the idea that an American victory was inevitable, that the war would be quick and that Hussein's collapse would be immediate -- and therefore that Iraqi officials should be prepared within hours to either flee or defect to the winning side.

The point of allowing expectations to remain unrealistically high was to encourage waverers in Hussein's entourage to turn against the regime very early and end the war even before it began. It was a good idea. It did not pan out. But given the possible benefits, it was certainly worth a try.

The regime did not collapse overnight. Hence Plan B, an adapted version of the original war plan. It involves real fighting and real losses. Plan A, in contrast, while always plausible, was a hope for the miraculous. It was a kind of anti-war plan, as it would not have required any real battles at all.

The miracle having not happened, we are now fighting a conventional war. And winning -- thanks to the Franks plan and its flexibility, and despite the carping of those who, in conflict after conflict, see Vietnam in anything short of immediate immaculate victory.

[DJS]

I always find Buckley to be witty, although he does look like his face is melting off... lol

I Suspected That About You
Our minds during war.
William F. Buckley Jr.

Suspicion, suspicion everywhere. Sometimes it's phony — the guard frisks the 6-year-old girl at the airport. The rules are that everything and everybody is suspicious, so that includes 6-year-old girls. Sometimes it's sinister — you charge that 9/11 was a Jewish-inspired contrivance. This suspicion comes in with details: All the Jews in the World Trade Center slinked away just in time before the planes crashed! Sometimes suspicion is intended to bring tendentious focus. The caption in Morocco's Al Alam reads, "The attacking forces of the Americans plunder and steal the money of Iraqi civilians." Does the editor really believe it? Conceivably, but he wants to arouse feeling, and encourage suspicion of U.S. military motives.

Jonathan Brent of Yale and Vladimir Naumov have produced their Long-awaited book, Stalin's Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors 1948-1953. We are at Stalin's dacha on March 1, 1953, and with him at dinner are his closest associates, Beria, Malenkov, Khrushchev, and Bulganin. They sit down to eat and drink at about 10 P.M., and continue to do so until about 4 A.M. Fourteen hours later the great Stalin hasn't risen, but a light suggests he is now awake. Well, he is lying on the divan speechless and Khrushchev is summoned. But — he says, later, after the monster finally died on the 5th — he didn't want to call the doctors right away because his impression was that Stalin was suffering from a hangover, and you don't want to call in doctors to minister to an embarrassing complaint.

But . . . but. Beria said he wasn't drinking that night, just a little light Georgian wine. Why was he not drinking? Because Stalin liked it for others to drink so that he could probe his suspicions. But there is the suspicion that what he was given to drink was poison. They didn't want to unearth the actual cause of death because to administer poison to the leader of the Soviet Union was one big bourgeois-cosmopolitan act of treason. Speaking of cosmopolitanism, the suspicion against Jewish doctors was ripening. Did he die of conventional heart and brain problems? Was he properly treated? A commission was set up to report on the entire thing, and filed a huge study in June, but nobody much bothered to examine it; it just sat around. The drama in the Kremlin had worked itself out and suspicions weren't needed on that question, at that time.

Of singular notice in the world of suspicion is the story of the Iraqi soldier, a veteran of the first Gulf War, who speaks of his companion who disobeyed orders by wearing white underpants. Disobeyed by doing what? Yes. "In the Iraq Army we cannot wear white underpants. It's forbidden, like wearing white vests or white socks or white handkerchiefs. Do you know why? Because with white underpants and white vests and white socks and white handkerchiefs soldiers can make white flags and surrender."

How did his friend Abdul handle that problem? "Abdul never took off his white underpants. Never. Not even to wash them. If an officer confiscated them, goodbye white flag." Perhaps the Morocco paper will run a picture of a pair of rancid underpants, with a caption, "U.S. invaders require rancid defense measures by brave resistance soldiers."

We suspect, and not at all without reason, that there are millions of people in nations we accept, or have accepted, as civilized and friendly, who really do welcome any bad news for the coalition forces. Germans and French who opposed U.S. military action, and they are the majority, have progressed not so much to suspicion that their advice ought to have been taken, as to an appetite for proof positive that it should have been taken. This is normal, or better, not abnormal. An adviser to President Truman who counseled against dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima might have felt furtive satisfaction if it had precipitated not Japanese surrender, but Japanese resolve.

But in such situations what one does is refrain from expressing such satisfactions. If John, spurned, is convinced that Mary will not be happy marrying Jim, his challenge is to participate gladly at the celebration of Mary's happy 25th wedding anniversary. Our suspicion that Germans and French — and Russians and Hollywood actors — would actually take satisfaction from reversals in Iraq, we must suppress. Though it would be nice if Chirac were to appear in due course at the White House, drop his pants, and wave his white under drawers, surrendering to the superior statesmanship of President Bush.

Edited by Kissinger, 05 April 2003 - 07:03 AM.

[DJS]

The biggest mistake for the USA now, when this war is close  to the victory, would be a softness toward the France or Russia. They should be punished for their behavior and not allowed to easily come aboard.  And the Poland should be rewarded.

That include also other countries - like mine - who had no moral strength to side with America a month or two ago. It would be also the best for us, people who live in those countries, to get rid of those tired politicians.

USA should go bilateral with every country on this planet. Be as friendly as the partner was in a past year or so. Not much more - except if the new government was elected recently.

A competition for a good relation with the USA - would be a good policy for all involved.

Your insights are on the mark as usual Thomas. The stick and carrot approach does work, but the liberal establishment only has a bag full of carrots. With some particularly hostile regimes, throwing out carrots is tantamount to appeasement. Only a really big stick will work in such instances.