Our World Today......

[najaboy]

Holiday From History
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A31


The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama bin Laden resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens preemptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin.

This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it.

You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road:

• Iraq: Saddam Hussein continued defying the world and building his arsenal, even as the United States acquiesced to the progressive weakening of U.N. sanctions and then to the expulsion of all weapons inspectors.

• North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement -- surprise! -- was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout.

• Terrorism: The first World Trade Center attack occurred in 1993, followed by the blowing up of two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement, Clinton dispatched the FBI -- and the odd cruise missile to ostentatiously kick up some desert sand. Bin Laden was offered up by Sudan in 1996. We turned him away for lack of legal justification.

That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants but as defendants. Clinton flattered himself as looking beyond such mundane problems to a grander transnational vision (global warming, migration and the like), while dispatching American military might to quell "teacup wars" in places such as Bosnia. On June 19, 2000, the Clinton administration solved the rogue-state problem by abolishing the term and replacing it with "states of concern." Unconcerned, the rogues prospered, arming and girding themselves for big wars.

Which are now upon us. On Sept. 11, 2001, the cozy illusions and stupid pretensions died. We now recognize the central problem of the 21st century: the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction.

True, weapons of mass destruction are not new. What is new is that the knowledge required to make them is no longer esoteric. Anyone with a reasonable education in modern physics, chemistry or biology can brew them. Doomsday has been democratized.

There is no avoiding the danger any longer. Last year President Bush's axis-of-evil speech was met with eye-rolling disdain by the sophisticates. One year later the warning has been vindicated in all its parts. Even the United Nations says Iraq must be disarmed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has just (politely) declared North Korea a nuclear outlaw. Iran has announced plans to mine uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel; we have recently discovered two secret Iranian nuclear complexes.

We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold.

There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939.

Carl Sagan invented a famous formula for calculating the probability of intelligent life in the universe. Estimate the number of planets in the universe and calculate the tiny fraction that might support life and that have had enough evolution to produce intelligence. He prudently added one other factor, however: the odds of extinction. The existence of intelligent life depends not just on creation but on continuity. What is the probability that a civilization will not destroy itself once its very intelligence grants it the means of self-destruction?

This planet has been around for 4 billion years, intelligent life for perhaps 200,000, weapons of mass destruction for less than 100. A hundred -- in the eye of the universe, less than a blink. And yet we already find ourselves on the brink. What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge without self-destruction -- not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children?

Those are the stakes today. Before our eyes, in a flash, politics has gone cosmic. The question before us is very large and very simple: Can -- and will -- the civilized part of humanity disarm the barbarians who would use the ultimate knowledge for the ultimate destruction? Within months, we will have a good idea whether the answer is yes or no.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company
[addsig]

[najaboy]

[addsig]

[Karen]

Oh, I think I'm in love, Ken. A man with a brain. It's always refreshing to read your posts. Not an ounce of ignorance in your body. Will ya marry me? hahaha just kidding. Educated people do exist!!

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The intruder is entering the building master."

]

[XzyluM]

I see things differently. While no one wants war, it's pretty obvious that Bush isn't going to stop until he gets war. Let's face it, if Saddam bombed us, the first thing us Americans would be screaming was war. It's pretty obvious that Saddam is evil and is hiding some lies and I believe he is hiding nuclear and biochemical weapons somewhere and someplace. Honestly, I have my thoughts that one of the main reasons Bush wants a war is because he is out to get Saddam. When his father was in office and Saddam was after him, it comes to mind that Bush wants some revenge. But then again, when Clinton was in office, he was planning a war with Iraq also.
[addsig]

[Domingo]

Those preceding articles were very well done. And the Mirror and the Post are not exactly Bush suck-ups if you know what I mean. I liked the political cartoon, but actually many Americans did have similar attitudes in the 30s. "It's Europes problem" was the general idea. It wasn't until 1941 when we were bombed at Pearl Harbor, that we became fully involved in the war. Until then we were providing England with only minimal help. Blockades, money, etc. In fact, we were still talking with Japan while they were moving their carriers towards Hawaii.

The danger here is that waiting will once again lead to disaster. No one can predict what will happen. On Dec 6, 1941, nobody thought that America would be ever be attacked. The next day they were all proved quite wrong. The same goes for Sept 11. We can't wait around for the next big disaster.

I don't think Bush is just out for revenge for his Father's sake. It's Saddam that wants revenge against America. He has constantly violated the no-fly zone, attempted to assasinate Bush the Elder, and his own defected scientists admit that he has vast hidden stores mustard gas, anthrax, sarin, ricin, and a strong desire to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq's scientist are much smarter than we give them credit for. We are not dealing with a couple of Jihadists making poison in their basement. They have the will and the money to create vast stores of illegal weapons, the ability to keep them hidden, and and scariest of all the desire to use them. ON US.
[addsig]

[ChrisRezendes]

>>I see things differently. While no one wants war, it's pretty obvious that Bush isn't going to stop until he gets war. Let's face it, if Saddam bombed us, the first thing us Americans would be screaming was war. It's pretty obvious that Saddam is evil and is hiding some lies and I believe he is hiding nuclear and biochemical weapons somewhere and someplace. Honestly, I have my thoughts that one of the main reasons Bush wants a war is because he is out to get Saddam. When his father was in office and Saddam was after him, it comes to mind that Bush wants some revenge. But then again, when Clinton was in office, he was planning a war with Iraq also.

Actually, while Clinton was in office, we bombed the heck out of certain areas of Iraq several times. The difference then was that we had a legitimate reason. Saddam would send troops into areas that were supposed to be demilitarized, we would bomb said areas. Illegal weapons would be found, we would bomb the places they were... Now, there ARE no such reasons. People keep harping on the NBC weapons... What weapons? Huh? Why can't Bush find them? Clinton did. Now, all over the news, they are big "reports" of Bin Laden supposedly in or tied with Iraq. Now, remember how all the other tapes of Bin Laden in the past year and a half? Remember how the news went out of their way to let us know that they were probably fake? Why not now? It's simple. Because the government doesn't want to expose the plant they set. Let's be perfectly honest- much of the news if embellished, exaggerated, and even, in more extreme cases, fabricated. Do you honestly think the government has no control over that?

And as far as people saying that the anit-war protesters are being greedy and not thinking about the troops, that's not exactly true. In fact, it's complete rubbish. Who do you think we are thinking of? We are thinking of the people getting sent over there. The people who are destined to die simply because fair-weather patriots and a leader (whose IQ simply cannot be higher than 75) wants to get Saddam. Hey Bush, why do you want Saddam? Because he "tried to kill my dad". Good logic there.

Yet ANOTHER thing people won't get off of is terrorism. How is destroying Iraq going to stop terrorism? If anything, it's only going to make it worse. It will be further propaganda used by terrorist organization to recruit new, possibly formerly peaceful, terrorists.

People keep citing the reactions in the middle east by certain people after 9-11. They say it like every single person in the middle east jumped for joy after it happened. That's because our country decided to use that as propaganda when it happened to get us to jump up in arms. Let's be serious. The news only SHOWED the people who WERE happy about the tragedy. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because everybody over in the middle east WAS happy? Quite far from it. The showed it because that's what they wanted to show us. We have very intelligent people in the government. They know how to manipulate the minds of the American people to get the desired response. It's effictiveness in this case is so positive that, quite franky, I'm shocked a little bit scared. How many people in the middle east do you think really ARE terrorists?

Since I doubt that will sink in to most people, let's look at it from a different point of view. When we destroy Iraq (which will be inevitable if we go to war), how the heck do you think our country will be able to afford to take control of it? Our economy is already terrible. It will get much worse if we go to war. Do you know what's going to happen? The US will cut into state budgets to be able to pull it off. Expect to see many cuts from government jobs. Expect to see worse roads and much worse of an educational system. Expect to see a poor, weak country. Because that's what we are going to be in. Now, think about the Americans who are going to have to go over to Iraq to "ensure" order and peace. How well do you think they will fare against the inevitably countless NEW terrorists created by this war? We will lose more boys in Iraq AFTER the war than we would during it.

Look into the future. Don't just assume that bombing Iraq will make the whole world happy. Look into the facts. Open your mind to the inevitable truth.

I am extremely sad for this country. [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
[addsig]

[SteveP]

"History teaches us that mankind learns mothing from history" -Hegel

We are in an era that has many similarities to the 1930's, with political unrest, downward economies and threat of war. In that regard we can begin to understand the uncretainty our parents or grandparents felt in those days. People did protest our involvement in World War II, despite documented acts against humainty, until the attack on Pearl Harbor forced us to react. A scary fact is that had the Japanese attacked several years earlier we were so incredibly disarmed the U.S. wouldn't have been able to respond, and likely would have been invaded. But imagine how many millions of people wouldn't have died had Hitler's sabre rattling been challenged much earlier? Interesting how the U.S. was still realing from a depression before WWII but by the end of it was able to finance rebuilding the vanguished. The economics of war, perhaps something Bush is banking on?!

The primary difference in this era is the capability of greater destruction. Unfortunately the "bad guys" also have that capability and consider it honorable, even a religious duty, to use it. If the coming war evolves into a religious war, which Sadam will want to make it, the world should prepare for the worst. Faith is a funny thing. It can be as fragile as a flower or as strong as a rock, and coming between a man and his faith in the later sense can meet with deadly force.

Personally I don't want war, but that's neither here nor there. I think people get caught in a nationalistic fever and fail to fully comprehend the ultimate price of war. Actually what I resent is we have been given an excuse to even contemplate war (i.e., 9/11). The terrorists have dealt the hand, whether funded by Iraq and Afganistan or not, and now we're calling their bluff. The Europeans don't want war not because they are such peace lovers (look at the 20th century) but because their economies are tied to the fuels they depend on from the Middle East...and they don't want the flow to cease.

During the first World War mustard gas was an insane weapon. It kills everything, including the earth it comes in contact with, to the point plants wouldn't even grow back for decades. It became so bad that during the war both the Bristish and Germans agreed not to use it. So what does bubble-head Sadam choose amongst his weapons of mass destruction to produce...mustard gas. The man has no regard for anything living...and unfortunately has to be stopped...and just as unfortunate means we go to war. God have mercy on the souls who pay the price. [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
[addsig]

[najaboy]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, while Clinton was in office, we bombed the heck out of certain areas of Iraq several times. The difference then was that we had a legitimate reason. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I would hardly call wagging the dog &quot;legitimate.&quot; Klinton merely used the military as a tool to divert attention from his moral and ethical ineptitude.

I've served in fprward operating locations for Operations Desert Thunder, Desert Fox, Northern Watch, and Southern Watch. The only events that preceded our major offensive operations were Bubba's scandals. Get caught with a cigar where it shouldn't be?... not a problem- a few Tomahawks will divert everone's attention.

Interesting that, circa 1995, the Klinton adminisatration effectively saved Saddam from being overthrown. Then again, this is the same administration that turned down having Bin Laden turned over to us in 1996.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>People keep harping on the NBC weapons... What weapons? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Yep, I guess they're playing this shell game for the sheer joy of it. The holes in Iraq's declaration are meaningless (after all, what's a few tons of mustard gas, sarin, and VX between friends?). I guess Hans Blix is merely mistaken with the list of 35+ outstanding issues regarding Iraq's disarmament.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Now, all over the news, they are big &quot;reports&quot; of Bin Laden supposedly in or tied with Iraq. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
No. The reports are of certain Al Qaeda operatives being linked to Iraq. OBL, if you will remember, expressed disdain for Saddam.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Remember how the news went out of their way to let us know that they were probably fake? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
The intel available at the time indicated that OBL had been killed in Tora Bora. At the time, we did not realize the red herring that had been perpetrated by OBL and one of his bodyguards. We now know that OBL gave his sat phone, which we had been using to track him, to one of his bodyguards.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Why not now? It's simple. Because the government doesn't want to expose the plant they set. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
A plant??? Let me just don my tinfoil hat... [img]modules/Forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE> Let's be perfectly honest- much of the news if embellished, exaggerated, and even, in more extreme cases, fabricated. Do you honestly think the government has no control over that? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Since we're striving for &quot;perfect&quot; honesty, let's take it one step further. The media, in general, tends to lean to the left (ie liberalism). It should come as a bit of a surprise then, that the liberal media is embellishing, exaggerating, and fabricating in am amnner that is contrary to their political position.

As for the claim that the government has some control over the media, consider that it was the media that compromised the hunt for OBL more than once. The media, given the chance, also compromises the safety of our troops on a regular basis.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>We are thinking of the people getting sent over there. The people who are destined to die simply because fair-weather patriots and a leader (whose IQ simply cannot be higher than 75) wants to get Saddam. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Interesting...as for the first part of your statement, it is a bit of a paradox to claim that one supports the troops, but condemn the job we do in the same breath. As for the &quot;fair-weather patriots&quot;- by definition, that would be people who are patriotic only when things are going good. Who would be the &quot;fair-weather patriot&quot;- he who serves and loves his country through thick and thin; or the one who supports it only when the going is good and subverts it in the face of adversity?

Also,I'd be careful about making statements suggesting that the primary concern of ant-war protesters is the safety of our troops, because there's protesters who feel otherwise... I for one think it would be better if each of your precious US soldiers would DIE before carrying out their missions. That's right - better the aggressor should die if it would prevent the deaths of innocent civilians. That quote came from Democratic Underground, and I'm sorry to say that train of thought is not the exception over there.


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>How many people in the middle east do you think really ARE terrorists? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
It depends entirely on the region and country. Gaza, West Bank, Syria have a relatively high percentage of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. In most areas, they're few and far between.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>How is destroying Iraq going to stop terrorism? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
No one ever said it's going to stop it. It will, however, eliminate Saddam's subsidizing Palestinian terrorists.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>If anything, it's only going to make it worse. It will be further propaganda used by terrorist organization to recruit new, possibly formerly peaceful, terrorists. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
So then, we should all just pull the covers over our heads, ignore the danger that Iraq poses to America and her allies, and hope the problem goes away? I tend to think of that as &quot;do nothing defeatism.&quot;

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>When we destroy Iraq (which will be inevitable if we go to war), ...</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Okay. Substantiate that fallacious claim.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>It will get much worse if we go to war. Do you know what's going to happen? The US will cut into state budgets to be able to pull it off. Expect to see many cuts from government jobs. Expect to see worse roads and much worse of an educational system. Expect to see a poor, weak country. Because that's what we are going to be in. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Quite the opposite is true. Historically, war triggers unequaled economic and technological growth for both sides.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Now, think about the Americans who are going to have to go over to Iraq to &quot;ensure&quot; order and peace. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
As with any other peacekeeping force, Americans would only be part of the equation. Iraq is a relatively modern and civilized country, so a peacekeeping force would not be needed for an extended period of time.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE> How well do you think they will fare against the inevitably countless NEW terrorists created by this war? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
What &quot;creates&quot; a terrorist is hatred and intolerence. I can not &quot;make&quot; anyone hate me. That evil paradigm already exists in them. They may use this as an excuse to act on their hatred, but that's all it is-a feeble excuse for the pardigm that already existed.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>Look into the future. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I am. The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action. The world made the mistake of sitting idly by once before.

Now, one thing I find interesting is that communist orhanizations were behind the major peace rallies worldwide. I suppose that would explain the singing of communist anthems and desecration of American flags.

Finally, I'd encourage folks to check out the following link. It's a rather lengthy .mov file, so it's best viewed by those with a broadband connection.

Protesters have all the answers

_________________
What part of &quot;shall not be infringed&quot; do you not understand?

[RevMojo]

Ok...time for a few opinions from my inevetitably warped point of view

The liberal media:
1) if the media is so liberal, how come so many right wingers have got their own shows?
2) if you think the politics of the media are about anything besides making money, you're a fool. The more people watch, the higher the rates they can charge their advertisers. The only agenda of &quot;the media&quot; is making money. No ifs, ands, or buts. Whatever gets the idiots to turn on the box. And keep it turned on.

Klinton:
Spelling it that way just makes you look ignorant. No matter how poor a job he did, when you intentionally spell the man's name wrong, it just makes it look like you cut and paste your opinions from some radio show website

The democrats fault:
How many Democrats have led the country in the last, say...thirty years? This hatred for the US didn't exactly spring up overnight. That said, they didnt exactly pull off any great foreign policy coups

War:
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Sometimes you have to do bad things to bring about the good. &quot;Did Judas Iscariot have God on his side?&quot;-Bob Dylan

Saddam:
Clearly not the lesser of two evils.

The French Opposition to the war:
Bitte du

Wagging the Dog:
So this thing with Irag isn't just to make us forget that for over a year, they still haven't found Osama?
Bush:
Maybe he's just playing dumb to lure the &quot;axis of evil&quot; into his trap. For crying out loud, the word is &quot;Nuclear&quot; not &quot;Nucular&quot; Thank God we're gonna fight em with guns and missiles instead of challenging them to a spelling bee.


Now, all that aside, and getting back to the original post...yes, it is scary times we live in. We cannot be complacent in our supremacy. We should not revel in it either. If you're not happy with the way things are, do what you can to make it better. It's only an hour out of your day one tuesday in November, at the very least.

God bless the USA and those who defend it.


Ok..tear it up as you will. I've said my piece and feel no need to defend it.

_________________
Vidi, Vici, Veni

[1sttimesnakeowner]

Boy oh boy.... I have to reread all the postings and replay later this week. I am glad to see people are at least saying what they think....
[addsig]