952 replies to this topic

[DJS]

[QUOTE=Lazarus Long,]The use of these weapons is in direct violation of the Nuclear Arms Proliferation Treaty that we are both a signatory to, and claiming to be upholding as a pretext for attacking Iraq.

Both some of our allies, and countries like Russia and China are advising quietly that if we continue in this vein and actually use Tactical Nukes that the treaty is dead and Everyone from India to France and Germany are going to begin developing a vast array of new tactical nuclear weapons arsenals that are cheap and easier to become loose.[quote]

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

[DJS]

The claims about the Predators failed missions aren't propaganda they are failures of the tech that our government is paying damages for in Afghanistan. Since you want verification I will get the old articles referring to these incidents. The point was that in one case the data was misinterpreted and in the second bad data was fed to our targeting forces and innocent people WERE killed and no these kind of losses are no more acceptable then us killing our Canadian Allies. --LL
-------------------------------------------------------------

It is propaganda when you only bring up its failures and none of its successes.

[bobdrake12]

E-bombs are old technology.

Actually, the concern is that an E-bomb could be used by terrorists.

bob

http://popularmechan.../2001/9/e-bomb/

E-BOMB

BY JIM WILSON

In the blink of an eye, electromagnetic bombs could throw civilization back 200 years. And terrorists can build them for $400.



In the 1980s, the Air Force tested E-bombs that used cruise-missile delivery systems.
PHOTO BY AVAIATION WEEK & AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY


The next Pearl Harbor will not announce itself with a searing flash of nuclear light or with the plaintive wails of those dying of Ebola or its genetically engineered twin. You will hear a sharp crack in the distance. By the time you mistakenly identify this sound as an innocent clap of thunder, the civilized world will have become unhinged. Fluorescent lights and television sets will glow eerily bright, despite being turned off. The aroma of ozone mixed with smoldering plastic will seep from outlet covers as electric wires arc and telephone lines melt. Your Palm Pilot and MP3 player will feel warm to the touch, their batteries overloaded. Your computer, and every bit of data on it, will be toast. And then you will notice that the world sounds different too. The background music of civilization, the whirl of internal-combustion engines, will have stopped. Save a few diesels, engines will never start again. You, however, will remain unharmed, as you find yourself thrust backward 200 years, to a time when electricity meant a lightning bolt fracturing the night sky. This is not a hypothetical, son-of-Y2K scenario. It is a realistic assessment of the damage the Pentagon believes could be inflicted by a new generation of weapons--E-bombs.

The first major test of an American electromagnetic bomb is scheduled for next year. Ultimately, the Army hopes to use E-bomb technology to explode artillery shells in midflight. The Navy wants to use the E-bomb's high-power microwave pulses to neutralize antiship missiles. And, the Air Force plans to equip its bombers, strike fighters, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles with E-bomb capabilities. When fielded, these will be among the most technologically sophisticated weapons the U.S. military establishment has ever built.

There is, however, another part to the E-bomb story, one that military planners are reluctant to discuss. While American versions of these weapons are based on advanced technologies, terrorists could use a less expensive, low-tech approach to create the same destructive power. "Any nation with even a 1940s technology base could make them," says Carlo Kopp, an Australian-based expert on high-tech warfare. "The threat of E-bomb proliferation is very real." POPULAR MECHANICS estimates a basic weapon could be built for $400.

The theory behind the E-bomb was proposed in 1925 by physicist Arthur H. Compton--not to build weapons, but to study atoms. Compton demonstrated that firing a stream of highly energetic photons into atoms that have a low atomic number causes them to eject a stream of electrons. Physics students know this phenomenon as the Compton Effect. It became a key tool in unlocking the secrets of the atom.

Ironically, this nuclear research led to an unexpected demonstration of the power of the Compton Effect, and spawned a new type of weapon. In 1958, nuclear weapons designers ignited hydrogen bombs high over the Pacific Ocean. The detonations created bursts of gamma rays that, upon striking the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, released a tsunami of electrons that spread for hundreds of miles. Street lights were blown out in Hawaii and radio navigation was disrupted for 18 hours, as far away as Australia. The United States set out to learn how to "harden" electronics against this electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and develop EMP weapons.

America has remained at the forefront of EMP weapons development. Although much of this work is classified, it's believed that current efforts are based on using high-temperature superconductors to create intense magnetic fields. What worries terrorism experts is an idea the United States studied but discarded--the Flux Compression Generator (FCG).

A Poor Man's E-Bomb

An FCG is an astoundingly simple weapon. It consists of an explosives-packed tube placed inside a slightly larger copper coil, as shown below. The instant before the chemical explosive is detonated, the coil is energized by a bank of capacitors, creating a magnetic field. The explosive charge detonates from the rear forward. As the tube flares outward it touches the edge of the coil, thereby creating a moving short circuit. "The propagating short has the effect of compressing the magnetic field while reducing the inductance of the stator [coil]," says Kopp. "The result is that FCGs will produce a ramping current pulse, which breaks before the final disintegration of the device. Published results suggest ramp times of tens of hundreds of microseconds and peak currents of tens of millions of amps." The pulse that emerges makes a lightning bolt seem like a flashbulb by comparison.

An Air Force spokesman, who describes this effect as similar to a lightning strike, points out that electronics systems can be protected by placing them in metal enclosures called Faraday Cages that divert any impinging electromagnetic energy directly to the ground. Foreign military analysts say this reassuring explanation is incomplete.

The India Connection

The Indian military has studied FCG devices in detail because it fears that Pakistan, with which it has ongoing conflicts, might use E-bombs against the city of Bangalore, a sort of Indian Silicon Valley. An Indian Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis study of E-bombs points to two problems that have been largely overlooked by the West. The first is that very-high-frequency pulses, in the microwave range, can worm their way around vents in Faraday Cages. The second concern is known as the "late-time EMP effect," and may be the most worrisome aspect of FCG devices. It occurs in the 15 minutes after detonation. During this period, the EMP that surged through electrical systems creates localized magnetic fields. When these magnetic fields collapse, they cause electric surges to travel through the power and telecommunication infrastructure. This string-of-firecrackers effect means that terrorists would not have to drop their homemade E-bombs directly on the targets they wish to destroy. Heavily guarded sites, such as telephone switching centers and electronic funds-transfer exchanges, could be attacked through their electric and telecommunication connections.

Knock out electric power, computers and telecommunication and you've destroyed the foundation of modern society. In the age of Third World-sponsored terrorism, the E-bomb is the great equalizer.

[DJS]

Your blithe treatment of humans as sacrificial pawns has exposed your callous disregard for life and made all policy you attempt to propose suspect. Your solutions aren't anything we need.

As I said before how can we claim any moral superiority when we refuse to uphold the law for ourselves that we claim to be enforcing upon others?

The use of these weapons is totally unnecessary and unjustified and guaranteed to bring us much closer to the global war you claim we are preventing. Sorry, your shiny new toys are unimpressive. And as I pointed out already, unrelated to the real conflict. This is just a bunch of foolish punk machos showing off for the cameras. --LL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to pick your argument apart old man.

Personally, I think that your arguments aren't anything we need. You are unrealistic and a bleeding heart. Your weakness poses a grave threat to the security of the United States.

Let me ask you a question. What is worth more to you, 500,000 Americans or 500,000 non-Americans? Truman believed it was 500,000 Americans. He understood that his first duty was to protect the citizens of his country, not the citizens of the world. If collateral damages are always unacceptable then war is always unacceptable. I refuse to submit to that logic. It is too inflexible, too unrealistic. Collateral damages are acceptable because wars are necessary.

You set a moral example by the functionality of your society. We can claim moral superiority because of how we live our lives. Our freedom, our wealth, our power--it proves that we are doing things right. People from all over the world want to become US citizens. The freedom here is unequal anywhere else. Our society is an example to the rest of the world. (Go ahead, go into a rant about the decadence of your country).

Finally, the use of HPM is not unnecessary and unjustified. I have just finished explaining to you why we will need to use HPM to secure the wells and end the war quickly. You make it sound like we are using nukes. We are not. HPM is preventative weaponry.

Edited by Kissinger, 12 February 2003 - 12:48 AM.

[DJS]

[quote name='bobdrake12' date='][color=green']E-bombs are old technology.

You're right Bob, EMP is old technology. The fact that we know about it makes it old tech.

Edited by Kissinger, 12 February 2003 - 01:12 AM.

[bobdrake12]

The use of these weapons is totally unnecessary and unjustified and guaranteed to bring us much closer to the global war you claim we are preventing.

Lazarus Long,

Here is the concern: The term used is "terrorists" but in actuality, the term that should be used in some instances is "murderers". While I believe collateral damage in war should be avoided as much as possible, the fact is that there are the "murderers" whose intent it is to kill innocent, civilian people.

A number of pages back, I posted an article regarding Iraq possibly developing a nuclear bomb. While based upon speculation, I don't believe we should be decieved that the strong possibility exists that Iraq has one or more of these weapons. There are also what are called the "dirty bombs" which possibly could be deployed. Now we are discussing, old technology in EMP which Iraq also could possibly have.

It is not only Iraq, but it is many countries, and try as we might try to prevent it, the risk is that the proliferation will continue and so could the terrorism.

There are newer weapons that probably make the ones discussed so far in this topic look like toys.

Back to Iraq. What Iraq has been doing is no secret and the reasons for invading Iraq are not necessarily without solid logic.

Powell's speech provided nothing new to those that kept somewhat abreast with what has been going on. I firmly believe much more could have been presented but a basic in military strategy is not to let your opponent know all that you know.

There are issues about a number of countries in the UN that are not in favor of an invasion. Some of this could be that Iraq is a good customer of their's. Also the bungling of the British message to their people was well covered by the press abroad (I included a number of articles discussing this bungling further back in this topic), but the bungling of the message does not replace the fact that doing nothing is a risk.

Currently, Iraq is making concessions but the question is whether Iraq would live by these concessions once the hundreds of thousands of American troops leave the area if the final decision is not to invade Iraq.

As a student of history, you probably recall how Carter bungled the Iran hostage situation sending a message to the world how weak the US is. Before that, the US showed its lack of resolve in Nam. Weakness does not work in foreign affairs. In Aikido, I learned what I already knew that being "limp" is ineffective. Also, in Aikido, I learned that being "rigid" while being more effective than being "limp" is not the most effective way to fend off an opponent.

On another topic, we descussed whether this civilization is at risk. Hopefully, those that are following this topic recognize that it is at risk and we are living in a very critical time.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 February 2003 - 03:52 AM.

[bobdrake12]

People from all over the world want to become US citizens. The freedom here is unequal anywhere else.

Kissinger,

This is a fact.

It is because of this fact that I joined the service during the Nam War.

A little history is shown below as well as the Bill of Rights.

bob

http://www.archives...._of_rights.html

The Bill of Rights

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

http://www.archives....s/preamble.html

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

http://www.archives....ments_1-10.html

Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights


Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 February 2003 - 02:18 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Saille Willow:

'We cannot waste our precious children. Not another one, not another day. It is long past time for us to act on their behalf.'

How is the UN to be helped to honour a resolution that lies at the core of our moral ethos as a human species, taking care of our children lest we perish?"

- Saille Willow

Saille,

I believe that this is and always should remain the first option; and only when all the realistic options are exhausted, should other means be explored.

With that being the case, please keep on doing what I believe needs to be done here so I can retain this vital perspective.




This picture is included on the back of the US one dollar bill.

Note what the Eagle holds in his talons. The Eagle holds an olive branch (to your left) and arrows (to your right). I believe the US should always want peace, but also should never be afraid to fight to protect its citizens. In this picture on the back of the US one dollar bill, the Eagle faces what it always wants to face (the olive branch).

bob

[Lazarus Long]

Kissinger said:
Personally, I think that your arguments aren't anything we need. You are unrealistic and a bleeding heart. Your weakness poses a grave threat to the security of the United States.
 

Of course they are needed, and more so because you seemed to have glossed over the serious implications and consequences of your proposals so blatently and with barely hidden disdain for legitimate debate.

and you said:
It is propaganda when you only bring up its failures and none of its successes.  

This applies much more to your comments then mine.

First of all, you are the one that upped the ante by attempting to introduce the HMP weapons without so much as ONCE pointing out to the readers that this was a nuclear based technology that IS CONSIDERED BY THE OTHER SIGNATORIES TO THE TREATY AS A VIOLATION.

You raised the spectre of the perfect "Predator" without once giving a balanced assesment of its actual field history. I only needed to fill in the blanks, but since you wish to tout the supposed great history of this weapon please do so. That is why we have an open forum.

I am not propagandizing, you are, and by your own standards you are. It was you that has repeatedly introduced these weapons technologies in a biased and deceptive manner.

Let me continue, I respect Bob's desire for neutrality on this issue and many others. He is behaving as a concerned and responsible citizen attempting to obtain and assess ALL pertinent information and opinion BEFORE determining his course of action and you on the other hand are attempting to slight him by saying he is my secret ally or worse, that he is not ALLOWED to remain neutral and must decide if he is with US, or against US.

By the way, the treaty already is dead. Wake up from your dream world and come to grips with the fact that countries develop weapons covertly regardless of "treaties".

Third, you have bordered on personal attacks more than once by attempting to use labels to denigrate the points being made against your suppositions by back handedly demeaning my character and I have tried to mirror that for you to reflect upon. But I have done so not because I wish to label you but in order to get you to realize that you are obviously blind sided to yourself and how this is going to play out both domestically and abroad.

You have missed the endgame strategy completely.

Fourth, you are so concerned with your passion to go to war that you are losing sight of the purpose. Hence my repeated arguments that there is an apparant discontinuity between the Motives (goals) , Proposed Strategies, and Chosen Tactics.

Fifth, and in light of your willingness to gloss over serious political and economic concerns and gross disregard for the Equality of Human life, I will add that you are marching down a road of incompetant diplomatic intent that will increase the probability for failure of this entire policy. Why are you refusing to accept your own vulnerability?

Do you think you are immortal and invulnerable already?

By the way you must not have read "The Meme Makers" as I suggested because it is about the quest for power among US that will become inevitable should WE HERE IN THIS FORUM succeed at achieving our goals with regard to the technology of longevity and fail to transcend the basic failings of human character. In fact you have been acting in a paradigmatic fashion that validates every concern I have raised in that one short story. Thank you for leading by such bad example.

Or are you just insecure and "terrified" because you are being made aware that you are still just mortal?

Or will you return to that "Old Saw" about and "eye for an eye". And admit this is about revenge but if so it isn't even directed at the source of the insult and injury. It appears like a cheap, futile and grandiose shot. But one that doesn't meet the challenge of Risk/Reward analysis.

To close this quick response I will include an article that I tried to post this afternoon when my computer crashed: At the bottom you will find links to my sources. I would also ask you to think again: Why are so many former allies and military strategists begining to come forward and reject this approach you are making?

Why are allies that backed us the first time iin '91 and also in Kosovo now turning their backs?

Do you only care about your own feelings and opinions and think that if you ignore the world that they will either tow the line or go away? Or in your heart are you longing to just eliminate them (the opposition)?

Lastly, I have generally used for my arguments such biased left wing sources as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and arguments made by such radical communists as George Washington, so in your crass attempt to demean my sources I would expect that as simply another mainstream publication, we should find this article suspect too.

It is from the Associated Press, a "Secret Liberal Enclave" there too I suspose. But my arguments generally stem from my sources, which are at the bottom of the page.

Do you have any idea how damaging McCarthism was to this nation? You seem literally hell bent on returning to that tried and failed approach.

CIA Warns Congress of Imminent Attack
Tue Feb 11, 6:29 PM ET
Article with links
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Intelligence information suggests al-Qaida attacks may occur as early as this week in both the United States and on the Arabian peninsula, CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress on Tuesday.

The information led to last week's raising of the national terror alert level to "orange," the second highest level of five. The information came from "multiple sources with strong al-Qaida ties," Tenet said without providing details.

"The intelligence is not idle chatter on the part of terrorists and their associates," Tenet said. "It is the most specific we have seen, and it is consistent with both our knowledge of al-Qaida's doctrine and our knowledge of plots this network — and particularly its senior leadership — has been working on for years."

The information pointing to imminent attacks was gathered both in the United States and overseas, said FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, who joined Tenet and other intelligence chiefs to brief the Senate Intelligence Committee in an annual public session on threats to national security.

The CIA director said the information suggests the attack may involve a "dirty bomb" — a weapon that spreads radioactive material over a wide area — or chemical or poison weapons. Officials last week worried the attack was timed to coincide with the hajj, a Muslim holy period this week.

But Mueller and Tenet said the U.S. government has no specific information pointing conclusively to where, when, or how terrorists would strike. They said raising the national alert level — and taking security measures at government and business centers — makes it more difficult for the terrorists to carry out an attack.

Tenet had little information Tuesday morning on a new audio message attributed to Osama bin Laden, which aired later in the day. Some previous recordings of the al-Qaida chief have served as a prelude to terrorist attacks.

The CIA chief also repeated many of Secretary of State Colin Powell's statements last week to the United Nations regarding Iraq's efforts to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and linking al-Qaida supporters to the Iraqi government. Tenet said the key link between Baghdad and al-Qaida is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a senior associate of bin Laden.

About two dozen of Zarqawi's followers remain in Baghdad, where Zarqawi spent two months last summer. All are members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist group that has merged with al-Qaida, Tenet said. But he said he has no evidence suggesting Iraq has any operational control over Zarqawi's group or al-Qaida.

Echoing Bush administration policy-makers, Tenet and the other intelligence chiefs offered little hope that U.N. inspections would prompt Iraq to disarm, saying Saddam is intent upon and capable of circumventing the inspections.

Tenet also said U.S. intelligence has given U.N. inspectors all of its information on what it believed were Iraqi weapons sites. CIA officials declined to say how many of those sites the inspectors have visited.

Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, predicted Saddam would lash out in many directions if attacked.

"I expect him to pre-emptively attack the Kurds in the north, conduct missile and terrorist attacks against Israel and U.S. regional or worldwide interests — perhaps using WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and the regime's links to al-Qaida," Jacoby said in prepared remarks. "Saddam is likely to employ a scorched-earth strategy.... We should expect him to use WMD on his own people."

Tenet and Jacoby also raised the dangers of renewed nuclear weapons efforts in North Korea.

"Kim Jong Il's attempts this year to parlay the North's nuclear weapons program into political leverage suggest he is trying to negotiate a fundamentally different relationship with Washington, one that implicitly tolerates the North's nuclear weapons program," Tenet said.

As for al-Qaida, Mueller and Tenet said the terror organization is damaged but still dangerous. Mueller called it "clearly the most urgent threat to U.S. interests." It has a strong presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan and is developing a presence in Iran and Iraq, Tenet said.

The FBI suspects there are "several hundred" Muslim extremists in this country who focus mainly on fund raising, recruitment and training, Mueller said. But he said the greatest threat to Americans at home are "al-Qaida cells in the United States that we have not identified."

Some of these cells have probably been in the United States since well before the Sept. 11 attacks, he said.

"The enemies we face are resourceful, merciless and fanatically committed to inflicting massive damage on our homeland, which they regard as a bastion of evil," Mueller said.
___

Associated Press writers Ken Guggenheim and Curt Anderson contributed to this report.
___

On the Net:

CIA: http://www.cia.gov

FBI: http://www.fbi.gov

DIA: http://www.dia.mil


Oh and as an afterthought, do you bother reading between the lines.

During the '90's while we were using a standoff approach to the Taliban (but at the same time continuing our funding for their movement) and Iraq with aircraft the Iranians were fighting them on the ground at their borders and through domestic terrorism.

Yes they supported Hizbollah against Israel BUT THEY WERE in ARMED Conflict against the Taliban and Iraqi backed guerrilla forces that tried bombing the members of the reform movement there right in Tehran.

Now it appears that our policy is pushing them toward alliance when it was against their self interest only a few years ago and is also toppling our own long term objectives with regard to promoting reform and stability in the region.

[bobdrake12]

The following excerpt is from the 12 February, 2003, 13:13 GMT BBC article, called US warns of terror alliance.

bob

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2751765.stm




The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has asserted that a new message - allegedly from Osama Bin Laden - is proof of a link between the al-Qaeda network and the Iraqi Government.

The Bush administration believes the tape to be almost certainly genuine and officials say the message heralds a "burgeoning alliance of terror".

However analysts point out that, while the statement calls for attacks on Americans, it offers no support for the Baghdad regime.

Mr Tenet said that US intelligence pointed to possible terror attacks in a matter of days - perhaps involving chemical or nuclear weapons.

The CIA director was speaking at a US Senate committee hearing alongside Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller.

"The intelligence is not idle chatter on the part of terrorists and their associates," Mr Tenet said.

"It is the most specific we have seen, and it is consistent with both our knowledge of al-Qaeda's doctrine and our knowledge of plots this network - and particularly its senior leadership - has been working on for years.

Edited by bobdrake12, 12 February 2003 - 01:59 PM.

[DJS]

Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century

"Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, and enterprise of our people."

President Bush
Washington, D.C. (Joint Session of Congress)
September 20, 2001

The major institutions of American national security were designed in a different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be transformed.

It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength.We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military’s highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our military must:


assure our allies and friends;

dissuade future military competition;

deter threats against U.S. interests, allies, and friends; and

decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails.
The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world’s most strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on how an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might occur. We will channel our energies to overcome a host of operational challenges.

The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces.

Before the war in Afghanistan, that area was low on the list of major planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate across the length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch of the armed forces.We must prepare for more such deployments by developing assets such as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision strike capabilities, and transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the ability to defend the homeland, conduct information operations, ensure U.S. access to distant theaters, and protect critical U.S. infrastructure and assets in outer space.

Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S. intelligence advantages, and taking full advantage of science and technology.We must also transform the way the Department of Defense is run, especially in financial management and recruitment and retention. Finally, while maintaining near-term readiness and the ability to fight the war on terrorism, the goal must be to provide the President with a wider range of military options to discourage aggression or any form of coercion against the United States, our allies, and our friends.

We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy—whether a state or non-state actor—to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends.We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.

Intelligence—and how we use it—is our first line of defense against terrorists and the threat posed by hostile states. Designed around the priority of gathering enormous information about a massive, fixed object—the Soviet bloc—the intelligence community is coping with the challenge of following a far more complex and elusive set of targets.

We must transform our intelligence capabilities and build new ones to keep pace with the nature of these threats. Intelligence must be appropriately integrated with our defense and law enforcement systems and coordinated with our allies and friends.We need to protect the capabilities we have so that we do not arm our enemies with the knowledge of how best to surprise us. Those who would harm us also seek the benefit of surprise to limit our prevention and response options and to maximize injury.

We must strengthen intelligence warning and analysis to provide integrated threat assessments for national and homeland security. Since the threats inspired by foreign governments and groups may be conducted inside the United States, we must also ensure the proper fusion of information between intelligence and law enforcement.

Initiatives in this area will include:


strengthening the authority of the Director of Central Intelligence to lead the development and actions of the Nation’s foreign intelligence capabilities;

establishing a new framework for intelligence warning that provides seamless and integrated warning across the spectrum of threats facing the nation and our allies;

continuing to develop new methods of collecting information to sustain our intelligence advantage;

investing in future capabilities while working to protect them through a more vigorous effort to prevent the compromise of intelligence capabilities; and

collecting intelligence against the terrorist danger across the government with allsource analysis.
As the United States Government relies on the armed forces to defend America’s interests, it must rely on diplomacy to interact with other nations. We will ensure that the Department of State receives funding sufficient to ensure the success of American diplomacy. The State Department takes the lead in managing our bilateral relationships with other governments. And in this new era, its people and institutions must be able to interact equally adroitly with non-governmental organizations and international institutions. Officials trained mainly in international politics must also extend their reach to understand complex issues of domestic governance around the world, including public health, education, law enforcement, the judiciary, and public diplomacy.

Our diplomats serve at the front line of complex negotiations, civil wars, and other humanitarian catastrophes. As humanitarian relief requirements are better understood, we must also be able to help build police forces, court systems, and legal codes, local and provincial government institutions, and electoral systems. Effective international cooperation is needed to accomplish these goals, backed by American readiness to play our part.

Just as our diplomatic institutions must adapt so that we can reach out to others, we also need a different and more comprehensive approach to public information efforts that can help people around the world learn about and understand America. The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area where America must excel.

We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC.We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials.

We will make hard choices in the coming year and beyond to ensure the right level and allocation of government spending on national security. The United States Government must strengthen its defenses to win this war. At home, our most important priority is to protect the homeland for the American people.

Today, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is diminishing. In a globalized world, events beyond America’s borders have a greater impact inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas, and goods from across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish—our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life—are vulnerable to terrorism. This vulnerability will persist long after we bring to justice those responsible for the September 11 attacks. As time passes, individuals may gain access to means of destruction that until now could be wielded only by armies, fleets, and squadrons. This is a new condition of life.We will adjust to it and thrive—in spite of it.

In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require.When we disagree on particulars, we will explain forthrightly the grounds for our concerns and strive to forge viable alternatives.We will not allow such disagreements to obscure our determination to secure together, with our allies and our friends, our shared fundamental interests and values.

Ultimately, the foundation of American strength is at home. It is in the skills of our people, the dynamism of our economy, and the resilience of our institutions. A diverse, modern society has inherent, ambitious, entrepreneurial energy. Our strength comes from what we do with that energy. That is where our national security begins.

[DJS]

Lazarus,

You began the "personal attacks". I can just picture you. In my mind's eye you are Michael Moore always spewing seemingly innocent rhetorical questions that have sinister ulterior motives. Stupid White Men? You don't say Michael, have you forgotten that you are one? But back to you Lazarus, "Have you forgotten where your loyalties lie?" Would you eliminate a billion people to preserve the Union. I would. You know I would.

I don't think you would. Your love for peace overshadows your love for country. And no, they are not one in the same. Peace for the sake of peace is naive when most individuals expound it. I do not believe you naive and I take back the bleeding heart comment (that was a low blow). I can see through your arguments for peace and human dignity to your real goal. Globalization, a one world state. Yes, no?

Maybe I over simplify your perspective, but your arguments all point to it. Collateral damages are unacceptable. Why? Where in our constitution does it say that non-Americans have the same rights as Americans? It doesn't. You are pushing a new world order.

Am I an elitist because I believe in "Americans first"? Possibly. The real reason is that I am very selfish and very suspicious. My assessment is as follows:

1) If the world can't make a uniformed stand against a despot like Saddam than it definitely will not be able to correlate and enforce a world order. Further, we are not the only ones who refuse to subjugate our sovernty. Many other nations have similar views.

2) What is the point of playing by the rules of a "new world order" when the possibility of a NWO is nonexistent. There is no point. It only acts as a handicap for us trying to attain our very lofty goals. Even if creating a "New World Order" were possible, how long would it take? Far longer than my life time I assure you. I don't have that kind of time to wait. We can not wait for the rest of the world to play catch up. We are the spear head of progress, we are at the forefront. If immortality is possible, it is only possible through the technological advancement of the western world. Atleast in my life time. Lazarus, you are substantially older than I. Does the thought of having the worms eat your flesh make you squirm? I'm 23 and it already makes me squirm. We are all fighting for life, whether it be through words or actions. The ideas I put forward are not naive. They are thoroughly calculated and based upon my assessment of how to advance humanity. My love for humanity is a tough love. I am not concerned with the individual, I am concerned with the progress of the whole. The United States represents the best path of progress. If you wish to debate this be my guest.

I have read your story "The Meme Makers". My first impression is that you are a very quirky fellow lol . No, but in all seriousness, a future world like the one you presented is not out of the realm of possibilities. I am not one of those immortalists who thinks that all of humanity's problems will be solved with the onset of immortality. On the contrary, I believe that immortality is only the beginning of a great adventure, with many problems along the way.

As long as you accept the validity of the sovernty of the United States, my arguments will hold true. If, or when, the unit of nation/states becomes irrelevant your world view will be vindicated. You are ahead of your time Lazarus. Dangerously ahead of your time.

[DJS]

By the way Lazarus, I know what I throw out there is sometimes propaganda, I make no pretenses [ggg] . I just like to get your blood boiling by throwing the label around. I can tell I really got your panties in a bunch by your typing in cap locks [B)] .

[DJS]

In Aikido, I learned ...BD

You want to talk about Aikido Bob, check out this move by the Administration. I think of it as diplomatic Kong Fu.

Ari Fletcher Press Conference 02/11/2003

Q Secondly, back in November at the Prague summit, NATO agreed to take, "effective action" to assure Iraq's compliance with Resolution 1441. Do you say this latest blocking action by Belgium, France, and Germany on putting defensive measures into Turkey as being an abrogation of that pledge?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not certain -- I think it's too soon to say this is an abrogation, but it's a setback. And it's not only a setback for NATO, a setback that the President believes will be overcome, but it's a real setback for Turkey and the people of Turkey.

And you don't have to search very hard to look in the Turkish press this morning, or press around Europe to see that these three nations have invited a significant amount of criticism upon themselves. They have succeeded in distancing themselves from our good and worthy allies in Turkey at a time when Turkey needs to have the individual nations of NATO, and NATO collectively stand up on their behalf.

But make not mistake, NATO consists of 19 nations. Sixteen are pleased to help Turkey as Turkey invokes its Article IV rights under NATO. Three have, at least temporarily, sought to delay or block the NATO action. And I think that perspective is important. Virtually all of Europe -- virtually all of NATO are on board. There indeed are some who are not. And the United States is proud to stand tall and strong next to our ally, Turkey.

Q How long are you willing to wait before you take action either on a unilateral basis, as Secretary Rumsfeld suggested yesterday, or together with the other 16 member nations? What's the window of opportunity here for getting what you think you need to get into Turkey?

MR. FLEISCHER: John, I'm not prepared to put any timetable on it. I think, again, the President believes in the importance of diplomacy. We'll continue the diplomatic efforts. And at the end of the day, the President does believe that the right thing will be done and that nations will honor their obligations to our friend, Turkey.
-------------------------------------------------------
Are you noticing a pattern here? [huh] Talk about a brilliant stroke! Using NATO and its security clause to force France and Germany's hand! Everyone knows that NATO is where the real show down is. France and Germany have no choice. By doing what they are doing they are playing into our hands. Turkey has long felt "discriminated" against by the Western Europeans and now we have a chance to show Turkey who their real allies are. Its time for France and Germany to shut up and save face.

Edited by Kissinger, 12 February 2003 - 07:42 PM.

[DJS]

The wrecking game
Franco-German scheming that makes war more likely
The London Times 02/11/2003

No two governments have been more insistent than those of Germany and France that Saddam Hussein can be made to bow before the will of the international institutions he has for 12 years treated with contempt. No two countries have done more, in recent weeks, to undermine the credibility of these institutions. Europe’s delinquent duo has declared opposition to “the logic of war”. Nothing could be less logical, in terms of their proclaimed objective of peaceably disarming Iraq, than to throw spanners in the works at the UN and now also at Nato.

At the UN, Franco-German efforts to blunt the intimidatory impact of Resolution 1441 make war more likely than ever. In the crucial days before Hans Blix reports to the Security Council, the last thing the chief weapons inspector needed was a harebrained Franco-German scheme to dispatch lightly-armed UN peacekeepers to Iraq; it would give Saddam Hussein thousands of potential hostages. Dr Blix does not believe they will help. In the event of war, they would be unlikely to be allowed to leave and unable to fight their way out.

Meanwhile, at Nato, the refusal by France, Belgium and Germany to give Turkey access to purely defensive Nato equipment is an even more careless own goal. It has precipitated a pointless crisis in the Alliance, reinforced Turkish suspicions that its European Nato allies will leave it alone to face a pre-emptive attack by Iraq and, with justification, exasperated the US. The idea that Nato cannot even make contingency plans until the Security Council has acted is as hypocritical as it is militarily absurd. This is about tweaking the American tail, not about international law.

Turkey will get this equipment in any event, as Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, emphasised to The Times at the weekend; indeed the total incoherence of Germany’s position is underlined by the fact that, even while backing the French and Belgian veto on making available Patriot anti-missile systems in Nato’s inventory, Germany has promised Turkey Patriots of its own, manned by the Dutch. Turkey has tactfully depicted this as a technical dispute. It is not: it is a betrayal of Nato principles to refuse a Nato state up against the border with Iraq the means to defend itself.

French nose-thumbing at Nato councils is no novelty; Belgium’s action recalls its refusal to sell Britain bullets in the last Gulf War; but Germany, a Cold War frontline state resolutely defended by Nato for half a century, should be more mindful of its historical debt. Now, for the first time, Turkey has invoked Article 4 of the Nato Charter — notifying Nato that its “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is under threat. Turkey should never have been put in this position. Its new government, headed by a party with Islamist roots, is seeking to persuade a public opposed to war that Turkey must stand by its all-important American ally. Tony Blair’s difficulties with British public opinion are as nothing to those of Turkey’s leaders.

If the US cannot use Turkish bases to open a second front in the north, war, if it comes, will be longer and more hazardous, not just for Turkey but for the Iraqi people. To reassure the Turks that they can count on far greater solidarity than they had last time around, Washington has offered billions in economic aid as well as military assistance. Nato remained deadlocked last night and will not now meet until Tuesday — mere hours before Turkey’s parliament votes on whether to allow tens of thousands of US combat troops to use its bases. If that vote fails, Iraq is even less likely to do as Germany and France want. This is anti-Americanism at its purblind, populist worst.

Edited by Kissinger, 12 February 2003 - 08:28 PM.

[DJS]

The Dark Terrorist Past of Germany's Foreign Minister
Michael Kelly
Wednesday, February 12, 2003; Page A29
Washington Post

"Excuse me. I am not convinced." -- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, lecturing to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Munich last week, after Rumsfeld's argument for war against Iraq.

Mr. Rumsfeld may have convinced the leaders of 18 European nations, but not you, Mr. Fischer. It's personal. This seems to me the right way to look at it. The question of failing to convince must be seen in the context of whom we have failed to convince. Sometimes "who" explains "why."

Mr. Fischer, who are you?

You are the foreign minister of Germany. You have been that since 1998, when Germany's left-wing Greens party, of which you are a leader, won enough in the polls to force the Social Democratic Party into the so-called Red-Greens coalition government.

But for the formative years of your political life, you were no man in a blue government suit. You were a man in a black motorcycle helmet. That is what you were wearing on that day in April 1973 when you were photographed, to quote the New Left historian Paul Berman, "as a young bully in a street battle in Frankfurt."

In 2001, Stern magazine published five photographs of you in action that day. What these pictures depicted was described by Berman in a deeply informed 25,000-word article, "The Passion of Joschka Fischer" (The New Republic, Sept. 3, 2001). The photos showed you, Mr. Fischer, inflicting a "gruesome beating" on a young policeman named Rainer Marx: "Fischer and other people on the attack, the white-helmeted cop going into a crouch; Fischer's black-gloved fist raised as if to punch the crouching cop on the back; Fischer's comrades crowding around; the cop huddled on the ground, Fischer and his comrades appearing to kick him . . ."

As Berman reported, Mr. Fischer, you rose in public life as an important figure in the anti-American, anti-liberal, neo-Marxist, revolution-minded German radical left of the generation of 1968. This was the left that produced and supported the Baader-Meinhof Gang (or Red Army Faction), which, as Berman wrote, "refrained from nothing," including "kidnappings, bank holdups, murders." You were not a terrorist yourself, but you were a good and active friend to terrorists, weren't you, Mr. Fischer?

In 1976, to protest the death in prison of Baader-Meinhof founder Ulrike Meinhof, you planned and participated in a Frankfurt demonstration in which, Berman wrote, "somebody tossed a Molotov cocktail at a policeman and burned him nearly to death." You were arrested but not charged. In 2001, Meinhof's daughter, Bettina Rohl (who gave those damning photos to Stern) told the press that you were responsible for the throwing of that firebomb. Other contemporary witnesses, Berman reported, said that you "had never ruled out the use of Molotovs and may even have favored it." You denied it, for the record.

In 2001 the German government put on trial your old friend Hans-Joachim Klein, who had been an underground "soldier" in the Revolutionary Cells, an ally of the Red Army Faction and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The Revolutionary Cells helped in the murder of the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972, and Klein himself took part in a 1975 joint assassination operation with Carlos the Jackal in which three were killed.

During your testimony at Klein's trial, you were accused of having harbored Red Army Faction members in your Revolutionary Struggle house, the Frankfurt center for the group Revolutionary Struggle, which you co-founded with housemate Daniel "Danny the Red" Cohn-Bendit. You were forced to admit there was some truth in the accusation after it was revealed, as Berman reported, that Margrit Schiller, "who had served jail time for her connections to the Red Army Faction," had in her memoirs "plainly stated that she had spent a 'few days' in the early 1970s living in the Revolutionary Struggle house." (After your testimony, you shook hands with your old terrorist friend Klein. Sweet.)

In 1969, you attended the meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization in which the PLO resolved that its ultimate aim was the extinction of Israel -- that is to say, the extinction or expulsion of the Jews of Israel. Seven years later, Revolutionary Cells terrorists led by your Frankfurt colleague, Wilfried Boese, hijacked an Air France plane to Entebbe, Uganda. The hijackers intended to murder all the Jewish passengers on that flight but were killed by Israeli commandos. "Suddenly," Berman wrote, "the implication of anti-Zionism struck home to [Fischer]. What did it mean that, back in Algiers in 1969, the PLO, with the young Fischer in attendance, had voted the Zionist entity into extinction? Now he knew what it meant."

So, that's who you are, Mr. Fischer, the man we haven't convinced. You are the man for whom Munich wasn't enough, the man who needed Entebbe to convince him that murdering Jews was wrong. You ask to be excused. You have been excused.

Edited by Kissinger, 12 February 2003 - 08:40 PM.

[DJS]

ON THE LEFT

The Antiwar Anti-Semites
Peace protest organizers tolerate no dissent.

BY MICHAEL LERNER
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Wall Street Journal

SAN FRANCISCO--Imagine my surprise when I found out that I am banned from speaking at a peace rally here this Sunday. As editor of Tikkun, the largest-circulation liberal Jewish magazine in the world, I have been an outspoken critic of the proposed war in Iraq. I have also unequivocally condemned Saddam Hussein's brutality and called for the world community to bring him to justice for crimes against humanity. But we at Tikkun do not believe that this war--in which thousands of Iraqi civilians are likely to die--will bring democracy to the Middle East. Instead, it is bound to increase the threat of terrorism to American citizens and provoke more violence. It will also fuel American fantasies of world economic and political domination.

So why was I being blackballed over the peace rally?

My sin was publicly criticizing the way that A.N.S.W.E.R., one of the four groups sponsoring the San Francisco demonstration, has used the antiwar demonstrations to put forward anti-Israel propaganda. An A.N.S.W.E.R. spokesperson, speaking on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC, said that they didn't want a "pro-Israel" speaker at their rally.

The other groups have said that while they disagree with A.N.S.W.E.R., they will honor an agreement giving each group an effective veto on speakers. Yet it is inconceivable that these antiwar coalitions would let A.N.S.W.E.R. ban a speaker if he accused that group of racism, sexism or homophobia. Why should anti-Semitism be treated differently, as the acceptable -ism?

It is outrageous that those of us who wish to protest against what we see as a fundamentally unjust war must be subjected to a barrage of slogans and speeches that are one-sidedly hostile to Israel. That is just as outrageous as some in the Jewish community claiming that our opposition to war makes us champions of Palestinian groups which use terror and violence against Israeli civilians.

There is a huge difference between criticism of Ariel Sharon's repressive treatment of the Palestinian people and a refusal to accept the fundamental legitimacy of Israel's existence. For years, those of us who want democratic rights for Palestinians have been dubbed "self-hating Jews" by right-wingers in the Jewish world. Now, some on the left insist that if we support human rights we must also uncritically support the violence of some Palestinian "freedom fighters" who make no secret of their desire to overthrow the Zionist enterprise.

That's why we recently created a new national organization supporting a "progressive middle path" that is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. We call for an end to the occupation, the creation of a Palestinian state and reparations for Palestinian refugees. But we also call for reparations for Jews who fled Arab states, and for Israel's admission into NATO--or some other equally powerful military alliance--to give the Jewish state genuine security.

The most painful thing has been watching other antiwar groups make unprincipled compromises with A.N.S.W.E.R. As a result, there is support on the left for self-determination for every group in the world except the Jewish people. Fellow progressive Jews, some anxious to speak at these rallies, have urged me to keep quiet about anti-Semitism on the left. After all, they say, stopping the war against Iraq is so much more important.

Why should we have to choose? Tikkun will be bringing thousands of our supporters to the demonstration Sunday. But just as we fought against the sexism and homophobia that once infected the left, we will challenge anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing on the left, even as we say "no" to a war with Iraq.

[DJS]

"How should Saddam be dealt with?"

With so many minds wanting to avoid war, many alternatives have been proposed. I would side with the proponents of 'containment'.


The following is an extract from an article by John Battersby, The Sunday Independent, South Africa February 9, 2003.
"There appears to be a growing consensus between three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Russia, China and France - that the containment of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would serve the interest of global security far better than war which could push Iraq into using whatever undeclared weapons it might have.

Containment would involve the continued - even indefinite - presence of weapons inspectors. Laurie Nathan, the director of the Cape Town - based Centre for Conflict Resolution, who held talks with top Baghdad officials ten days ago, says that UN Resolution 1441 provides for the arms inspectors to remain in Iraq until the Security Council decides otherwise. --Saille Willow

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Okay Saille, I am going to take issue with what you posted here. First, containment doesn't work. We have had twelve years of sanctions, to no effect. In a post 9/11 world containment no longer seems to be a viable option against small rogue terrorist states. I would also like to point out that inspections and disarmament only work if there is the "intent to disarm" on the part of the violating state.

Finally, Germany, France, Russia and China are opposing the US for geopolitical and economic reasons. They don't view the threat posed by Iraq to be a threat to them, only to us. This is the whole reason why international bodies like the UN don't work. International bodies are not moral, they are political, always.

Edited by Kissinger, 12 February 2003 - 11:20 PM.

[DJS]

Suit questions Bush's war powers
David D. Haskell
From the National Desk
Published 2/13/2003 3:25 PM

BOSTON, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston Thursday seeks to prevent President Bush from going to war against Iraq without congressional approval.

A coalition including six House members, several U.S. soldiers and parents of servicemen claims only Congress has that power under the Constitution.

"We have a message for President Bush today. Read the Constitution," John Bonifaz, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, said at a news conference announcing the suit.

"A war against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war will be illegal and unconstitutional," he said. "It is time for the courts to intervene."

The representatives joining the suit, all Democrats, are John Conyers of Michigan, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, James McDermott of Washington, Jose Serrano of New York, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois.

The U.S. Attorney's office said it had no comment on the suit.

The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction against the president and for a hearing on their request that Bush be barred from launching a military invasion against Iraq without a congressional declaration of war.

The lawsuit cites Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall have power... (to) declare war."

The suit argues the resolution on Iraq that Congress passed in October did not declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to Bush.

The suit contends the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents would not have the power of European monarchs of the past to wage war.

"The Founding Fathers did not establish an imperial presidency with war-making power," Conyers said. "The Constitution clearly reserves that for Congress."

"The president is not a king," said Charles Richardson, a plaintiff whose Marine son is stationed in the Persian Gulf.

"If he wants to launch a military invasion against Iraq, he must first seek a declaration of war from the United States Congress. Our Constitution demands nothing less," Richardson said.

Richardson and two other plaintiffs -- Nancy Lessin and Jeffrey McKenzie -- are co-founders of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of people opposed to war against Iraq and who have family in the military.

"A full and complete congressional discussion of the issues and all options must precede any move towards war," Lessin said, "because of the irreparable harm that would result."

At the news conference, Lessin said she worried about her son, Joe, a Marine stationed in the Gulf.

"We worry about Joe," she said. "We don't want him to be wounded or die. We don't want him to be forced to wound or kill innocent Iraqi civilians. That would kill part of him and part of us."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Can you believe this treachery?! McDermott should be shot, he is a traitor. First he goes to Baghdad and calls the President a liar. Now he challenges the authority of the President of the United States. Outrageous, simply outrageous. He is testing the limits of free speech. James McDermott, one of the few people in this world that I truly hate.

Edited by Kissinger, 13 February 2003 - 08:56 PM.

[DJS]

The Perils of Passivity
Washington Post
Thursday, February 13, 2003

MANY WASHINGTONIANS, frightened after several days of new threats and increased talk of war, wonder whether the nation is foolishly poking a hornet's nest. Why must the United States attack Saddam Hussein if that will only anger much of the Islamic world? Don't the latest threats from Osama bin Laden or his proxy prove the recklessness of America's aggressive stance? Such questions reflect an understandable and justified anxiety. But they also reflect a mistaken view of the broader war in which the United States finds itself, through no choice of its own.

For more than two decades, the country tried a strategy of not poking the hornet's nest -- a strategy of accommodation, half-measures and wishful thinking. In the 1980s the United States sold arms to the Iranian government that had kidnapped American citizens and withdrew its Marines from Lebanon after a suicide bomber destroyed their barracks. In the 1990s a warlord's attacks prompted America to retreat from Somalia, and a fundamentalist government in Afghanistan allowed thousands of Islamist extremists to learn to kill Americans while America, knowing what was happening, did not interfere. Terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in New York in 1993, a U.S. military dormitory in Saudi Arabia in 1996, two American embassies in Africa in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000 -- and each time America responded feebly or not at all. During the past decade the United States vowed many times to disarm Saddam Hussein, who made no secret of his hatred and enmity toward the United States; but when the Iraqi dictator resisted, the United States chose to abandon its vows rather than use the force that would have been needed to enforce them. In every case, the calculation, stated or unstated, was the same: Pay tribute, don't make trouble, and maybe nothing worse will happen.

In the ruins of Lower Manhattan in September 2001, most Americans saw evidence that this calculation was incorrect as well as craven. The nation's enemies would not be deterred or mollified by a gentle response; they would be emboldened. President Bush rightly concluded that the nation had to defend itself more vigilantly -- but also that no defense could succeed unless accompanied by an offensive against the terrorists and the states that sheltered them.

The resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein, finally, 12 years after the United Nations first insisted, grows inescapably from this new understanding. He shelters terrorists who have killed Americans and who would like to kill more. He owns large stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has considerable experience in their use. To allow him once again to outmaneuver the United Nations and continue his quest for nuclear weapons would subject Americans to unacceptable risks. It would also show other terrorist sponsors that, brave 9/11 rhetoric notwithstanding, they still have nothing to fear. The longer he remains unchallenged, the greater the risk.

Last week's orange alert and this week's al Qaeda tape remind the nation of real perils. The audiotape shows the Islamicists' willingness to set aside their disdain for Iraq's secular rule in the greater shared struggle against America. Al Qaeda does not need new pretexts to launch new attacks, but it may seek to time attacks to coincide with American war or preparations for it. Americans are right to prepare as best they can and to insist that the government do more to inform and defend -- and they are right to be nervous.

Yet they would be wrong to let fear cloud their judgment. A war with Iraq, if it comes to that, won't automatically make the world less dangerous; much will depend on America's commitment to help Iraq rebuild and reform. But what is certain is that the attacks will not stop, nor the dangers fade, if the United States backs down in the face of threats. That approach has been tried.

[advancedatheist]

Sorry, I haven't been able to read all 17 pages of this thread, so I don't know if this has already come up.

Is anyone else bothered by the religious subtext of President Bush's holy war against Mystery Babylon?

For example, yesterday I heard a christian talkshow host say that Bush isn't fighting just against flesh & blood, but also against "spiritual" entities called "principalities & powers." (I wasn't aware that Monaco had joined the Axis of Evil!)

[Bruce Klein]

POST BY SAILLE WILLOW


Kissinger

You say you aspire towards an infinite life span. After three hundred years will it even matter whether you were American or not. You say you do not believe in the rule of law, you believe that American life is worth more than Non-American. What you believe is for you to decide. It should then not surprise you that there is suspicion over the motives for the war especially when it is such a risk to world peace.

You said elsewhere that it is a country's first priority to take care of its citizens, yet you do not apply the same reasoning to the rest of the world. Try and understand the reasoning behind those that do not want war.

Many see that the truth lies somewhere in the middle; That both Hussein and Bush are threats to world peace. That the only way to ensure the world is made a safer place is to build respect and trust in the UN so that it becomes the real power of collective humanity and protects us from the excesses of national power and greed that characterise this global world of ours.

Speaking at the launch of the collection of signatures in preparation for the anti-war demonstration on Saturday, one speaker was reported to say: "In unity with the world movement for peace, let's oppose the war - who knows when they will come for us when they need our platinum". That is the kind of perception that prevails in a large part of the world. Can you see where it comes from?
What if Osama bin Laden was discovered hiding in South Africa. Our constitutional court ruled that no one, facing the death Penalty in another country, could be extradited.

What I see is a lot of fear building up in the world. In the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it states 'Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.' What this crisis is doing is dividing old friends and uniting old enemies. With the whole world jittery and everyone armed to the teeth with fearsome weapons, I shudder when I think what can happen.

This situation has to be defused. Containment would help. 'Conflict is an expression of fear.' Understand the nature of fear itself; fearful people do fearsome things, which further escalate fear, which increases insane activity. Have we not seen enough evidence of this?

It is easy to underestimate the collective will of humanity.

'Nothing in the world is more flexible
and yielding than water,
Yet when it attacks the firm and the
Strong,
None can withstand it,
Because they have no way to change it.
So the flexible overcomes the forceful."
The Essential Tao, Thomas Cleary




- SAILLE WILLOW

Attached Files

•  Untitled_1.gif   71.85KB   0 downloads

[bobdrake12]

Is anyone else bothered by the religious subtext of President Bush's holy war against Mystery Babylon?

advancedatheist,

No, but I did read a portion of the commentary you included called Bush's Messiah Complex (excerpt shown below).

The article to me seems slanted (everything written about Bush appears to be negative).

bob

http://www.progressi...3/comm0203.html

The grandiosity of Bush's vision can no longer be denied.

"Most Presidents have high hopes. Some have grandiose visions of what they will achieve, and he was firmly in that camp," Woodward writes. Bush told him, "I will seize the opportunity to achieve big goals," adding, "There is nothing bigger than to achieve world peace."

And the way to achieve that, he believes, is often through war. "As we think through Iraq, we may or may not attack. I have no idea, yet. But it will be for the objective of making the world more peaceful," he told Woodward. Bush seemed to understand that this missionary policy might get him into trouble ("Condi didn't want me to talk about it"), but he persisted, invoking it again in the context of Afghanistan ("I wanted us to be viewed as the liberator") and North Korea.

Bush's now famous comment, "I loathe Kim Jong Il," which he uttered to Woodward, was in the context of the North Korean leader starving his people and torturing prisoners. "It appalls me," Bush said, adding that his reaction "is visceral. Maybe it's my religion, maybe it's my--but I feel passionate about this."

When Bush calls Kim Jong Il a "pygmy" and insists on North Korea's "axis of evil" status, such language reverberates all the way to Pyongyang. And it is not reassuring to hear Bush loosely suggest the possibility of war with North Korea. At a January press conference on Iraq and North Korea, a reporter started to ask, "If we do have to go to war . . . " and Bush interjected, "With which country?" This is a flippancy about war not seen since the early Reagan years.

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 February 2003 - 01:58 AM.

[bobdrake12]

'Nothing in the world is more flexible
and yielding than water,
Yet when it attacks the firm and the
Strong,
None can withstand it,
Because they have no way to change it.
So the flexible overcomes the forceful."
The Essential Tao, Thomas Cleary

Saille,

That sounds something that my old Aikido instructor taught. [B)]

The rigid branch will break in a storm while a flexible one is more likely to survive.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 14 February 2003 - 02:07 AM.

[DJS]

Is anyone else bothered by the religious subtext of President Bush's holy war against Mystery Babylon?--AA

--------------------------------------------------------
I am agnostic and I support President Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. Your sentiment is the stuff conspiracy theories are made of.

Edited by Kissinger, 14 February 2003 - 02:50 AM.

[DJS]

After three hundred years will it even matter whether you were American or not?--Saille
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe, maybe not. I have great pride in the American system. I think most Americans would have a hard time doing away with American sovernty. Three hundred years is too far into the future to make a legitimate prognostication.

Edited by Kissinger, 14 February 2003 - 03:03 AM.

[DJS]

Try and understand the reasoning behind those that do not want war.

Many see that the truth lies somewhere in the middle; That both Hussein and Bush are threats to world peace.

This situation has to be defused. Containment would help. 'Conflict is an expression of fear.' Understand the nature of fear itself; fearful people do fearsome things, which further escalate fear, which increases insane activity. Have we not seen enough evidence of this?--SW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st-- I understand that others don't want war. It is just that I find them either insincere or incompetent.

2nd-- For me, there is no moral equivalency between Bush and Saddam.

3rd-- No, you are living in a fantasy land if you think this war isn't going down. That you still debate this point amazes me. Are you continuing to argue for peace because you feel there is principle in it? Or do you really believe that war is still avertable?

Saille,

This whole business is a deadly dance. The effects of this conflict, of this "war on terror", are negative for both sides. What you must understand is that I understand the mind set of this Administration. You may disagree with me and oppose my cold logic, but don't doubt that the neo-hawks believe what I believe.

Edited by Kissinger, 14 February 2003 - 03:22 AM.

[DJS]

Democrats for Preemption
An old doctrine.

By Gleaves Whitney
When it comes to Iraq, most Democrats straddle a line. They concede that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, and that he would show no compunction about using them under certain circumstances, but they do not support a preemptive strike to eliminate him or the weapons. Jesse Jackson, addressing an enthusiastic crowd near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, intoned: "If we launch a preemptive strike on Iraq, we lose all moral authority."

Among the early presidential candidates who intend to challenge Bush, Democrats Howard Dean and Al Sharpton are vociferously opposed to a preemptive strike. They are representative of a position that argues not just that a preemptive war is unjust, but that it runs counter to the American tradition.

Counter to the American tradition?

It might surprise Democrats to learn that there was a time when leaders — nay, giants — in their own party defended America's right to strike preemptively. Either today's Democrats are willfully ignorant of that tradition, or ashamed of it. Either way, in the Senate floor debate over whether to authorize President Bush to use force against the Butcher of Baghdad, Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke more truthfully than she realized: "My vote" she said, in support of authorizing the use of force, "is not … a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption."

True enough, senator. For there is an old doctrine of preemption developed and articulated within your own party.

During the Cuban missile crisis, John F. Kennedy told the American people, "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security…" [emphasis added].

Kennedy then got in a dig at Hitler's appeasers. "The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war…. Our policy has been one of patience and restraint," the president said. "But now further action is required — and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning…. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing."

JFK was hardly the first Democratic president to make the case for preemption. In a fireside chat three months prior to Pearl Harbor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned the Nazis that the U.S. would not look passively on their menacing arms buildup and aggression on the high seas. "Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say: 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are drowned.' This is the time for prevention of attack" [emphasis added].

And then FDR uttered these famous words: "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." A vivid metaphor for preemption, that. (Roosevelt, by the way, delivered this 1941 fireside chat on a date that would take on significance to a later generation — September 11.)

Perhaps the most recent Democratic President, Bill Clinton, was aware of his predecessors' eloquent defense of preemption when in 1998 he launched Operation Desert Fox, an intense 70-hour bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein. At the end of the campaign, the president told Americans, "we will maintain a strong military presence in the area, and we will remain ready to use it if Saddam tries to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction."

Clinton left no room for doubt. If the U.N. could not undertake weapons inspections on a regular basis, the U.S. would "remain vigilant and prepared to use force if we see that Iraq is rebuilding its weapons programs" [emphasis added].

FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton. Three presidents. Three generations of leadership. Three public defenses of preemption. Democrats, it turns out, have eloquently made the case for President Bush.

[Lazarus Long]

[quote]
“Many things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield themselves up when taken little by little.”
--Plutarch
[/quote]

What we face, together and separately is the greatest challenge that has ever befallen humanity, not just America. We are stepping daily inexorably closer to Global War and the voices that seek to prevent this holocaust can unwittingly contribute to this occurring if we confuse "Appeasement with Peace".

In contrast and within a double image, those that would intentionally confuse the many alternative approaches to achieve Fraternity, Liberty, Tranquility, and Justice for this family of Man, with the failed acts that have attempted to profit off the passionate hatreds of the past and that have attempted and failed to suborn prejudice, corruption, and fanaticism, should reconsider the simple fact that they do even worse harm.

They are destroying hope and playing out Self Prophetic Apocalyptic Plans.


[quote]
Mr. Kissinger says:

Tonkin was all LBJ, a domestic politician in over his head.
-----------------------------------------------------------
These people that you refer to who are so against war, I view them as a national weakness.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transform America's National Security Institutions to Meet the Challenges and Opportunities of the Twenty-First Century
[/quote]

I view fanatic Nationalists as a greater threat and one I must live with or be forced to openly oppose. Your entire presentation has not only failed to make the case for a novel approach for addressing foreign threat it has demonstrated the opposite, a flawed approach that increases tension both at home and abroad .

[quote]
QUOTE
Kissinger states:

Unless you have absolutely no trust in your government then the Powell presentation offered proof of Iraq's WMD.


Then Bob reminds him:,

The exact language of the question is:

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

To you there is. Not all agree.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, not all agreed that the United States should go to war; but an overwhelming number did. This was important. It is important that both those in the military and the homefront understands "Why we fight."

During the Nam War, I joined the service because I believed there was sufficent evidence that the United States was under a considerable threat. You might want to check out your history to see how the vets during the Nam War were treated at the homefront.

and you Mr. Kissinger come back with:

"Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, creativity, and enterprise of our people."  
[/quote]

Then why won't you reconsider a more appropriate response should be symbolic too?

It will be whether you like it or not.

[quote]
Lazarus,

You began the "personal attacks". I can just picture you. In my mind's eye you are Michael Moore always spewing seemingly innocent rhetorical questions that have sinister ulterior motives. Stupid White Men? You don't say Michael, have you forgotten that you are one? But back to you Lazarus, "Have you forgotten where your loyalties lie?" Would you eliminate a billion people to preserve the Union. I would. You know I would.  [/quote]

What gave you the idea I am a White Man?

Moi?

I am clearly a light skinned person of color, just another 'nigga' who passes. You are quite correct to treat me as the Sworn Enemy of another Aryan Nation.

I would rather help bring the false promises you make into reality for the Iranian Nation but above all I deeply Love my Nation, and The Principles for Which It Stands.

[quote]
I don't think you would. Your love for peace overshadows your love for country. And no, they are not one in the same. Peace for the sake of peace is naive when most individuals expound it. I do not believe you naive and I take back the bleeding heart comment (that was a low blow). I can see through your arguments for peace and human dignity to your real goal. Globalization, a one world state. Yes, no?
[/quote]

I love my country enough to know its best hope for the future and fulfillment of the Hope of our Constitution lies in being the Nation that truely brings an Age of Peace o this Whole World upon which together We live.

[quote]
Maybe I over simplify your perspective, but your arguments all point to it. Collateral damages are unacceptable. Why?
[/quote]


Life is sacred or its not, life is precious or its not. Life is worth preserving, or its not. You decide for yourself and I will and like every other person alive will, we will for ourselves.

[quote]
Where in our constitution does it say that non-Americans have the same rights as Americans?

It doesn't. You are pushing a new world order. [/quote]

No, What it clearly describes are the Principles We the People Define as Rights. And more over it does so regardless of Race, Creed, Color or place of Ethnic Origin.

[quote]
Am I an elitist because I believe in "Americans first"? Possibly. The real reason is that I am very selfish and very suspicious. My assessment is as follows:

1) If the world can't make a uniformed stand against a despot like Saddam than it definitely will not be able to correlate and enforce a world order. Further, we are not the only ones who refuse to subjugate our sovernty. Many other nations have similar views.

2) What is the point of playing by the rules of a "new world order" when the possibility of a NWO is nonexistent. There is no point. It only acts as a handicap for us trying to attain our very lofty goals. Even if creating a "New World Order" were possible, how long would it take? Far longer than my life time I assure you. I don't have that kind of time to wait. We can not wait for the rest of the world to play catch up. We are the spear head of progress, we are at the forefront. If immortality is possible, it is only possible through the technological advancement of the western world. Atleast in my life time.

Lazarus, you are substantially older than I, does the thought of having the worms eat your flesh make you squirm?

I'm 23 and it already makes me squirm. We are all fighting for life, whether it be through words or actions. The ideas I put forward are not naive. They are thoroughly calculated and based upon my assessment of how to advance humanity. My love for humanity is a tough love. I am not concerned with the individual, I am concerned with the progress of the whole. The United States represents the best path of progress. If you wish to debate this be my guest.

I have read your story "The Meme Makers". My first impression is that you are a very quirky fellow . No, but in all seriousness, a future world like the one you presented is not out of the realm of possibilities. I am not one of those immortalists who thinks that all of humanity's problems will be solved with the onset of immortality. On the contrary, I believe that immortality is only the beginning of a great adventure, with many problems along the way.

As long as you accept the validity of the sovernty of the United States, my arguments will hold true. If, or when, the unit of nation/states becomes irrelevant your world view will be vindicated.

You are ahead of your time Lazarus. Dangerously ahead of your time.


In Aikido, I learned ...BD

You want to talk about Aikido Bob, check out this move by the Administration. I think of it as diplomatic Kong Fu.

Ari Fletcher Press Conference 02/11/2003

Q Secondly, back in November at the Prague summit, NATO agreed to take, "effective action" to assure Iraq's compliance with Resolution 1441. Do you say this latest blocking action by Belgium, France, and Germany on putting defensive measures into Turkey as being an abrogation of that pledge?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not certain -- I think it's too soon to say this is an abrogation, but it's a setback. And it's not only a setback for NATO, a setback that the President believes will be overcome, but it's a real setback for Turkey and the people of Turkey.

And you don't have to search very hard to look in the Turkish press this morning, or press around Europe to see that these three nations have invited a significant amount of criticism upon themselves. They have succeeded in distancing themselves from our good and worthy allies in Turkey at a time when Turkey needs to have the individual nations of NATO, and NATO collectively stand up on their behalf.

But make not mistake, NATO consists of 19 nations. Sixteen are pleased to help Turkey as Turkey invokes its Article IV rights under NATO. Three have, at least temporarily, sought to delay or block the NATO action. And I think that perspective is important. Virtually all of Europe -- virtually all of NATO are on board. There indeed are some who are not. And the United States is proud to stand tall and strong next to our ally, Turkey.

Q How long are you willing to wait before you take action either on a unilateral basis, as Secretary Rumsfeld suggested yesterday, or together with the other 16 member nations? What's the window of opportunity here for getting what you think you need to get into Turkey?

MR. FLEISCHER: John, I'm not prepared to put any timetable on it. I think, again, the President believes in the importance of diplomacy. We'll continue the diplomatic efforts. And at the end of the day, the President does believe that the right thing will be done and that nations will honor their obligations to our friend, Turkey.
-------------------------------------------------------
Are you noticing a pattern here? Talk about a brilliant stroke! Using NATO and its security clause to force France and Germany's hand! Everyone knows that NATO is where the real show down is. France and Germany have no choice. By doing what they are doing they are playing into our hands. Turkey has long felt "discriminated" against by the Western Europeans and now we have a chance to show Turkey who their real allies are. Its time for France and Germany to shut up and save face.
[/quote]

You are looking too closely at the board and not seeing the game, or grasping the trends of play.

I like worms, they are my friends, they help my soil be healthy and I can eat them.

I left the entire dialogue in place to demonstrate how you are developing your policy statement either anticipating, or just following in accord with Official Position as represented by the Established Media.


[quote]
"How should Saddam be dealt with?"

With so many minds wanting to avoid war, many alternatives have been proposed. I would side with the proponents of 'containment'.

Saille asks legitimately:
"How should Saddam be dealt with?"

With so many minds wanting to avoid war, many alternatives have been proposed. I would side with the proponents of 'containment'.

The following is an extract from an article by John Battersby, The Sunday Independent, South Africa February 9, 2003.

"There appears to be a growing consensus between three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Russia, China and France - that the containment of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would serve the interest of global security far better than war which could push Iraq into using whatever undeclared weapons it might have.

Whereby you address her substantiation for her position:

Containment would involve the continued - even indefinite - presence of weapons inspectors. Laurie Nathan, the director of the Cape Town - based Centre for Conflict Resolution, who held talks with top Baghdad officials ten days ago, says that UN Resolution 1441 provides for the arms inspectors to remain in Iraq until the Security Council decides otherwise. --Saille Willow

-----------------------------------------------------------------
And Kissinger relpies:

Okay Saille, I am going to take issue with what you posted here. First, containment doesn't work. We have had twelve years of sanctions, to no effect. In a post 9/11 world containment no longer seems to be a viable option against small rogue terrorist states. I would also like to point out that inspections and disarmament only work if there is the "intent to disarm" on the part of the violating state.

Finally, Germany, France, Russia and China are opposing the US for geopolitical and economic reasons. They don't view the threat posed by Iraq to be a threat to them, only to us. This is the whole reason why international bodies like the UN don't work. International bodies are not moral, they are political, always.

Bob in his turn offers as a response to Saille:

QUOTE
There is not always going to be conclusive proof. That is the nature of these shadow terrorist networks.


I agree. The question is whether the proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and how extensive the threat is compared to other threats around the world.

QUOTE
Yes Bob, the war has started. We bomb Iraqi installation targets in the southern no fly zone almost daily.


I gather that the bombing has been going on intermittently ever since the Gulf War officially ended. For example, in 1993, Iraqi agents tried to assassinate former President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. Confronted with the evidence, President Clinton responded with a cruise missile strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters.

QUOTE
Unless you have absolutely no trust in your government then the Powell presentation offered proof of Iraq's WMD.


Actually, I don't know what was all that new about Powell's presentation. The U.S. State Department report published early in 1998 stated that Iraq still had the potential to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), apparently concluding that enough production components and data remain hidden and enough expertise has been retained or developed to enable Iraq to resume development and production of WMD. I undestand that the report also stated that Iraq had maintained a small force of Scud-type missiles, a small stockpile of chemical and biological munitions, and the capability to quickly resurrect biological and chemical weapons production. One other point was that Iraq reported had an interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.

bob
[/quote]

Bob wants to be on your side I believe Mr. Kissinger but as you speak you scare him more and he does not irrationally fear battle, but rationally does through experience. I am confident in Bob's Patriotism and I will not tolerate the continued attempt you have made to question loyalties and impugn sources of information, while thinking yourself glib for acknowledging your repeated use of mere propaganda.

At what point in analysis does the data require the examination of Hard Truths concurrent with an Honest Assessment?

Could you please answer my rhetorical question?

[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Feb 8, 2003)
I do not agree that even an easy victory in Iraq will make a difference in the kind of war that is being waged against us, in fact much the opposite. We are destabilizing the region and I think that we haven't even secured our backs in Afghanistan.

What proof do you have that we are destabilizing the region? You make that statement with absolutely no proof. You get mad when my side puts together a course of action, but your plan is to do nothing.

Everyone, this is a dodge. If the French and Gemans know what is good for them they will get out of the way. It is unacceptable that a NATO allie be denied protection because of political quarrels.

You know why they are doing this? It's not because they are such ardent peace warriors. It is because of greed. Greed first and foremost. We should make the grab and throw it in their faces to make a point. It amazes me that these ungrateful cowards have the temerity to openly oppose us.

All right, I had to let off some steam.
[/quote]

How many more deaths in daily statistics, how many more "Intiffadas"? How many more border wars and ethnic cleansings? How many more troops going in will it take for you to see the forest before the trees?

The French and Germans have been in this region for a lot longer then we. In fact they live near the region. Trying to tell them to get out of the way isn't foolhardy it is a form of sabotage and strategy aimed at destroying the Alliance that have long born the fruit of a Free Market Harvest. Why would you kill the Golden Goose?

What you fail to appreciate is, CONTAINMENT IS NOT APPEASMENT.

I must not be the first to remind you continuously of the need to study history so as not to repeat past mistakes but I also must admonish you my young adversary that we must face the future with untried solutions. And what you propose has universally been tried and more often than not has brought little more than disaster.

[quote]
QUOTE
There is not always going to be conclusive proof. That is the nature of these shadow terrorist networks.

bob answers:

I agree. The question is whether the proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and how extensive the threat is compared to other threats around the world.

QUOTE
Unless you have absolutely no trust in your government then the Powell presentation offered proof of Iraq's WMD.

bob then replies to Mr. Kissinger:

Actually, I don't know what was all that new about Powell's presentation. The U.S. State Department report published early in 1998 stated that Iraq still had the potential to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), apparently concluding that enough production components and data remain hidden and enough expertise has been retained or developed to enable Iraq to resume development and production of WMD. I undestand that the report also stated that Iraq had maintained a small force of Scud-type missiles, a small stockpile of chemical and biological munitions, and the capability to quickly resurrect biological and chemical weapons production. One other point was that Iraq reported had an interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.

bob  [/quote]

Powell is an interesting issue he is both a token member of State and a brilliant thinker in his own accord and while he is a loyal spokes person of this Administration I think he is feeling muzzled by that loyalty right now.

He argues many valid legal distinctions and is more careful than the rest of the Administration at parsing his phrases and qualifying his statements to b exquisitely careful about stating what he thinks is the Truth. But as Bob suggests We The People already read the Brief before the case and trial began.

[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Feb 8, 2003)
I do not agree that even an easy victory in Iraq will make a difference in the kind of war that is being waged against us, in fact much the opposite. We are destabilizing the region and I think that we haven't even secured our backs in Afghanistan.

What proof do you have that we are destabilizing the region? You make that statement with absolutely no proof. You get mad when my side puts together a course of action, but your plan is to do nothing.

Everyone, this is a dodge. If the French and Gemans know what is good for them they will get out of the way. It is unacceptable that a NATO allie be denied protection because of political quarrels.

You know why they are doing this? It's not because they are such ardent peace warriors. It is because of greed. Greed first and foremost. We should make the grab and throw it in their faces to make a point. It amazes me that these ungrateful cowards have the temerity to openly oppose us.

All right, I had to let off some steam.
[/quote]

I again sak you to reconsider, CONTAINMENT IS NOT APPEASMENT.

Am I the first to remind you continuously of the need to study history so as not to repeat past mistakes?

Apparently I also must admonish you my young adversary that we must face the future with untried solutions.


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

Bob eloquently and succinctly states:

SAILLE WILLOW and all,

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

She goes on and adds:

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

and he tries to comfort by acknowledging only the truth:

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

bob


To all this Mr. Kissinger answers:


I know that there are talking heads who bring up North Korea constantly to try and confuse the issue with Iraq. What I am saying to you is that comparative analysis in no way equates to moral justification. It is a bait and switch my friend.

I think I can answer the question Bob. I do not think I have convinced either of them. Saille is against all war for ethical reasons. Lazarus also has opinions which I do not think will be easily swayed. That is okay though. I simply try to represent my side as best I can.

There are some who will never have enough proof. They will never have enough justification. They are simply against war. I must admit that this annoys me because it is not a position established through logic. Lazarus is a different story. He is not for peace just for the sake of peace. He has his logic, it is simply different than mine.

Bob, what is your opinion on the subject? The time for neutrality has passed. The war drums are beating loudly...
[/quote]

Yes they are, The War dance has clearly begun and the Death's Song is howling in the Wind.

But the "Fat lady has yet to Sing" and Life is Still Present and Precious.

While there is life there is hope.

Where there is a will there is a way. And if we can truly find a Common Will, We the People stand a Chance of achieving a just Solution. Time is not money, life is not money, of these two, Life and Our Time are truly precious, the wise say "priceless" then we need to respect the Responsibility to preserve it as much as possible and not treat some People as expendable to the Need of Others. Money is not sacred and wealth is what you do with it.

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

The list is long.

I have personally made the acquaintance of one of your namesake's buddies Mr. Kissinger. In fact I met Edward Teller as representative of the Libertarians with whom I had help form our Fusion Club at college, he inspired me to destroy my own work. Clearly not all physicists are pacifists and of that the Physics of Politics bases its Profitable Policies.

You just want Nuclear Weapons Strategies. I prefer Global Weather Modification and Open Energy Production and Genetic Modification and Nanotech Industrialization along with Globalized Artificially Intelligent Civil Integrated Infrastructures. Internationalized Open Space Exploration and Open Off World Migration.

You think I am just "dangerously ahead of my time" then don't continue a policy of escalation against technologies that are beyond your ability to integrate rationally into your ideologies.

[DJS]

Lazarus,

I have much to respond to with what you said. You said that Bob wants to be on my side, but I scare him. That doesn't bother me. You see, when I type on this forum I reveal my mind. There is no political double talk coming out of me. That is the beauty of the net. Double talk is inconclusive and, by its very nature, evasive. I would like to type an elaborate response but I am off to Cooperstown with my girlfriend for Valentines Day, tata.