0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:08 pm
revel wrote:
Where's your proof that Clinton lied? He was acquitted in the senate from the charges of perjury. He was only charged with contempt of court from the Paula Jones case, not perjury. There has been offered proof here about the intelligence that the Bush administration ignored which didn't fit in with their agenda. They didn't share those dissenting views with the public when they were making their case for war. Those are the lies which we are talking about. Perhaps lied is the wrong word, but to make it short, it fits.

If Bush just admits that they stretched the truth for the Iraq war, then I would be satisfied just like I was satisfied when Clinton admitted before the whole world that he misled his family and the American people concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.


I have gone round with you on this one before, revel. I refer you back to the thread where I proved Clinton's lies, to both you and Cyclops. Have you forgotten? Surely you can find that thread without my help.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:11 pm
Rolling Eyes just cause you gone round and round don't mean it is any kind of proof.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:14 pm
tico, You seem to miss a very important point about lies by Clinton and lies by Bush. Think about it; it might dawn on you!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:21 pm
December 15, 2005
News Analysis
Analysis: Bush's Path Forward Has Many Ifs

By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - It took a thousand days after he ordered the invasion of Iraq for President Bush to describe in considerable detail his strategy for transforming the country and the region, and to lay out the benchmarks that he said Wednesday would lead to "complete victory."

Yet in four recent speeches and an accompanying strategy document he has made his case, some of his aides concede, just as his ability to control events in Iraq may be about to erode.

American officials fully expect that for months after the Iraqi election on Thursday the American ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, will remain the critical behind-the-scenes power in the creation of a factious coalition to run the country.

But it is the longer term - the next year - that worries many of Mr. Bush's advisers and the United States military. Amid insurgent attacks and warnings of civil war, the government may take months to form, and many officials wonder whether that lag will distract the Iraqis from leaping the hurdles that Mr. Bush wants them to clear before he will begin withdrawing American forces next year.

Taken together, Mr. Bush's speeches and document lay out just how high those hurdles are: building a new government strong enough that "terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy," Mr. Bush said; strong enough to make sure terrorists cannot use Iraq as a place to plot attacks against the United States; and with an Iraqi security force strong enough to protect its own people.

In the speeches, Mr. Bush has been cautiously optimistic. He has acknowledged, however, that almost nothing in Iraq has gone according to plan in these past 33 months.

Participants in some of the briefings he has received in the Situation Room in recent weeks say that acknowledgment is in keeping with the far more somber tone of the briefings. Military commanders have described possible situations that range from the best case - drawing American troops down to about 100,000 before the American elections in November - to keeping them at far higher numbers if the new Parliament turns to chaos, civil war threatens, or political leaders are assassinated.

"We've either built ourselves an exit ramp," one senior official involved in the discussions said this week, "or we've built ourselves a box."

The administration's concern is that chaos will exhaust what is left of the Congressional and public support Mr. Bush has tried to build up with his speeches and his repetition of the word "victory." (He used the word 10 times on Wednesday in a 31-minute speech, but after the first speech, at the United States Naval Academy two weeks ago, the White House decided to put the huge "Plan for Victory" backdrops in storage.)

The speeches were an effort to stanch the most immediate problem Mr. Bush faced as soon as he returned from an eight-day trip through Asia last month: a precipitous erosion of support for the war at home.

As he traveled abroad, Mr. Bush was repeatedly surprised by how the debate had turned; when Representative John P. Murtha declared that "it is time to bring the troops home," the White House lashed out, issuing a statement that Mr. Murtha, a veteran and a hawkish Democrat, was "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wings of the Democratic Party."

It quickly became apparent, though, that another approach was needed. "Every day, it seemed, someone was walking in to the president's hotel room and telling him he had to answer his critics from 6,000 miles," said one aide on the trip. "And it wasn't working."

So in his speeches, which have been in the works since last summer, Mr. Bush finally set out to offer the country a more realistic assessment of the task he faces. He acknowledged that the American military failed to arm the Iraqi security forces, allowing the insurgency to spread. He acknowledged that the first American plan to set up an Iraqi government moved far too slowly. He admitted that the American rebuilding effort was misguided, and that roughly 30,000 Iraqis have died as a result of American military action and the insurgency - a casualty figure he had never before discussed.

"The tone recognized that there have been setbacks, that there have been difficulties, and that this is hard to do," said Robert Blackwill, who was one of Mr. Bush's chief advisers on Iraq after the invasion. That tone was a major change.

But worries remain. One senior White House official, insisting on anonymity because he is not authorized to talk about Iraq, said last week that in meetings "we've talked about the possibility that the new Iraqi government will see no advantage in putting its security forces out on the street quickly" if they think the result will be the departure of American firepower.

Some officials have the opposite fear, that a new Iraqi government will ask the Americans to leave too quickly.

All agree, however, that over the next year the American ability to shape the Iraqi battleground will gradually decline.

If it declines because a new Iraqi government - even a factious, argumentative one - takes shape, the president will be able to declare before the midterm elections that the great gamble of his presidency has paid off, and troops may begin to come home.

If it declines because the country spins out of control, because terror groups and insurgents still roam, because holding elections turned out to be easier than forging compromises, then Mr. Bush could be back doing next year what he has done over the past two weeks: explaining what went wrong, and why invading the country turned out to be a lot easier than remaking it.


The only thing certain about Bush's plan is the simple fact the future presidents will inherit the quagmire he created.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:27 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Here's just one:

Quote:
Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."


That's a flat-out lie.


That's a statement. That is not proof that it's a lie.

Prove it's a lie.


Quote:
Of course, I'm sure you will say it wasn't a lie.

Cycloptichorn


'In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05'


There has never been any danger of the system going bankrupt in 2042, though Bush and others have claimed that there was; lies.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:35 pm
Bush and social security bankruptcy:

Bush's State of the Union: Social Security "Bankruptcy?"
That term could give the wrong idea. Bush also makes private accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not.

February 3, 2005




In his State of the Union Address, President Bush said again that the Social Security system is headed for "bankruptcy," a term that could give the wrong idea. Actually, even if it goes "bankrupt" a few decades from now, the system would still be able to pay about three-quarters of the benefits now promised.

Those that continue to support Bush's lies do not understand why more Americans mistrust Bush.


Bush also made his proposed private Social Security accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not. He said they "will" grow fast enough to provide a better return than the present system. History suggests that will be so, but nobody can predict what stock and bond markets will do in the future.

Bush left out any mention of what workers would have to give up to get those private acounts -- a proportional reduction or offset in guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits. He also glossed over the fact that money in private accounts would be "owned" by workers only in a very limited sense -- under strict conditions which the President referred to as "guidelines." Many retirees, and possibly the vast majority, wouldn't be able to touch their Social Security nest egg directly, even after retirement, because the government would take some or all of it back and convert it to a stream of payments guaranteed for life.


Analysis



Bush made Social Security the centerpiece of his Feb. 3 State of the Union address. He gave more details of how he proposes to change the system -- but left out facts that don't help his case.

Social Security "Headed Toward Bankruptcy?"

The President painted a dire picture of Social Security's finances:

Bush: The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy . And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security.

"Bankruptcy" is a scary term that Democrats have used too, when it suited them, but it could easily give the wrong idea. Nobody is predicting that Social Security will go out of business the way a bankrupt business does. It would continue to pay benefits -- just not as many.

The President was a little more specific about that later in his address, while repeating the word "bankrupt":

Bush: By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt . If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

But how severe would those benefit cuts be? In fact there are two official projections -- one by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and a somewhat less pessimistic projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The President referred to the SSA projection, which calculates that the system's trust fund will be depleted in 2042. After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits -- and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075.

The CBO doesn't project trust-fund depletion until a decade later, in 2052, and figures that the benefits cuts wouldn't be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits. But either way, even a "bankrupt" system would continue to provide most of what's promised currently.

Furthermore, the President did not specify what he would do to fix the problem. He again urged creation of private Social Security accounts. But those would be of no help whatsoever in shoring up the system's finances, as acknowledged earlier in the day by a senior Bush administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity:

"Senior Administration Official:" So in a long-term sense, the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security and on the federal government.

And that "net neutral effect" is just over the long term, 75 years or more. In the shorter term, creation of private accounts would require heavy federal borrowing to finance the payment of benefits to current retirees while some portion of payroll taxes is being diverted to workers' private accounts. The administration projects it will borrow $754 billion (including interest) through 2015 to finance the initial phase-in of the accounts, and much more thereafter. The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- which opposes Bush's proposal -- projected that $4.5 trillion (with a "t") would be required to finance the first 20 years of the accounts after they start to be phased in in 2009.

Private Accounts: A Sure Thing?

The President made those private accounts -- which he now prefers to call "personal" accounts -- sound like a sure bet:

Bush: Here's why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver -- and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security.

History suggests that the President is correct -- the stock market has averaged a 6.8 percent "real" rate of return (adjusted for inflation) over the past two centuries, according to Jeremy Siegel, professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. The administration says a conservative mix of stocks, corporate bonds and government bonds would return 4.6 percent, even after inflation and administrative costs. And the administration also figures that private accounts would need to generate only a 3 percent rate of return to beat what Social Security provides.

But there's no guarantee that history will repeat itself. Markets are inherently unpredictable and volatile. At present, for example, all major stock-market indexes are still well below where they were five years ago.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:39 pm
revel wrote:
Rolling Eyes just cause you gone round and round don't mean it is any kind of proof.


Right .... as I recall you steadfastly refused to believe Clinton lied in that thread as well. Even his televised mea culpa does not sway your Clinton worship in that regard.

Es la vida.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:39 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
tico, You seem to miss a very important point about lies by Clinton and lies by Bush. Think about it; it might dawn on you!


The most important point you're missing, c.i., is Clinton lied in reality, and Bush only lied in your wildest fantasies.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 01:45 pm
Quote:
December 14, 2005
Police Seize Forged Ballots Headed to Iraq From Iran
By DEXTER FILKINS
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 13 - Less than two days before nationwide elections, the Iraqi border police seized a tanker on Tuesday that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots, an official at the Interior Ministry said.

The tanker was seized in the evening by agents with the American-trained border protection force at the Iraqi town of Badra, after crossing at Munthirya on the Iraqi border, the official said. According to the Iraqi official, the border police found several thousand partly completed ballots inside.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Iranian truck driver told the police under interrogation that at least three other trucks filled with ballots had crossed from Iran at different spots along the border.


NYTimes

I'd be willing to bet that the pro-Iran party is going to win in a landslide.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 03:34 pm
No. When Bush made the statement that social security is headed for bankruptcy that is a lie. Go on believing in your fairy tale, tico.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 03:36 pm
"bankrupt - a person legally declared unable to pay debts adj. 1 that is a bankrupt; insolvent."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Dec, 2005 04:47 pm
Here is some real wisdom.

www.hillsdale.edu
Quote:
The Problems Facing Europe?


José María Aznar
Former Prime Minister of Spain


José María Aznar was born in Madrid in 1953. He earned a degree in law at the Complutense University and has held the qualification of Inspector of State Finances since 1975. First elected as a member of parliament in 1982, he became a leader of the newly founded Partido Popular in 1989, and was elected prime minister of Spain as the leader of that party in 1996 and again in 2000. Currently he is the president of the Foundation for Social Studies and Analysis and a distinguished scholar at Georgetown University, as well as chairman of the Partido Popular and of the Christian Democrat and People’s Parties International. Under his leadership, Spain enjoyed its first two income tax reductions since becoming a democracy, a 3.4 percent average annual increase in GDP, and was a member of the “Coalition of the Willing” in the Iraq War. Mr. Aznar has written several books, including La España en que yo creo (The Spain I Believe In) and Ocho Años de Gobierno (Eight Years of Government). Married to Ana Botella, he has three children and one grandson.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on October 24, 2005, at the Casa Fuster Hotel in Barcelona, , at a dinner preceding a Hillsdale College cruise of the western Mediterranean on board the Crystal Serenity.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, we are not living in the best of all possible worlds. We see violence, terror and fear nearly every day, thanks to 24-hour news coverage. We see poverty and hunger in too many places around the globe. We see acute crises sporadically breaking out between America and Europe. Moreover, we are seeing nature act up in ways unprecedented in modern times.
But despite the Katrinas, Bin Ladens, and Atlantic tensions, I also have to say that we are not living in the worst of all possible worlds. In fact, I'm optimistic. Let me tell you the reasons why.
First and foremost, the world in 2005 is no worse off than it was a few years ago. The opposite idea is widely accepted today, primarily because this is the view promoted by most of the media-media that undoubtedly leans towards the Left. This view is accompanied by the idea that the world is less just today than it was before the onset of globalization, and that the world is less safe than it was before the terrorist attacks of September 11, intervention in Afghanistan, and the downfall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Quite frankly, this view is mistaken.

Those who promote these pessimistic ideas always cite the same examples: the warlords in Afghanistan; the mislabeled "insurgents" in Iraq; the ongoing terrorist campaign being waged by Al-Qaeda; America's poor image in the Arab world; and disagreements between Europeans and Americans on various foreign policy and social issues. Based on these factors, they hold that the world today is much more vulnerable than it was before 2001, and therefore much more dangerous.

The truth, however, does not reside in a comparison of today's world with the apparently tranquil world that existed on September 10, 2001. Instead, we should compare the world as it is today with a hypothetical world in which the United States and the international community, instead of reacting as they did, had chosen to do nothing following the Al-Qaeda attacks-in other words, a world that surrendered to the temptation of appeasement of terrorists.

Let's not kid ourselves. Thanks to the measures that have been taken to fight and defeat terror over the last few years, we are much safer today than we would have been if we had simply closed our eyes to the existing threats and carried on as if nothing had happened. Today, the leaders of Al-Qaeda who have not yet been caught spend much more time trying to stay alive than they do planning new attacks. Far from possessing a safe haven from which to launch their operations, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban, they have been left stateless. They have no base from which to pursue their objectives. What is more, controls of all kinds make it difficult for them to operate.

Am I claiming, then, that Islamic terrorism has been defeated? No. It would be foolish even to imply such a thing. What I am saying is that if Bin Laden and his minions had continued to enjoy a free hand in Afghanistan or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the world in 2005 would be much worse off than the one we actually have.


Europe's Misguided Anti-Americanism

Another widely held belief, especially among Europeans, is that the allegedly simplistic, aggressive and imperialist reaction to September 11 by President George W. Bush's administration has only served to fan the flames of anti-Western resentment and violence. Advocates of this view also believe that poverty is the result of the American system's Wild West-style capitalism. What is more, they claim that if the United States had acted with the wisdom and tact that characterizes Europeans-supposedly acquired through centuries of internal squabbling and intrigue-the situation would be better today. These views are also grossly mistaken.

I hardly need to point out the fact that Bin Laden's crusade dates back to long before President Bush entertained any presidential ambitions, although this matters little to anti-American minds. The current occupant of the White House represents to them nothing more than an evangelical radicalization of Bill Clinton, being the representative of the supposedly ultra-conservative American heartland.

In reply, I have only this to say, and it is something of which I am entirely convinced: Weakness only encourages terrorists to continue perpetrating their atrocities. And let us not forget, there is no greater success for terrorists than that of being able to continue their operations. The weak responses of the 1980s and 90s consisted of reacting to one Islamic terrorist attack after another with gestures rather than firm measures. We Europeans have always preferred to look the other way, in the false and comfortable belief that Bin Laden and others like him are punishing the Americans for their policies, rather than for what they are and what they represent. During the Cold War, we told ourselves that if a nuclear confrontation should actually take place, it would pass over our heads and scarcely affect us. Something similar has happened in the case of Islamic fundamentalism: all of its venom is directed against America, so we imagine that we can again sleep easily.

In reality, Islamic terrorism has created a new bipolar conflict: them against us, in a global war in which our very way of life is at stake. On March 11, 2004, Islamic terrorists living in Spain attacked my country; last July 7, and again on July 21, other Islamic fanatics struck at the heart of London. So we can see that Europeans are not safe from the terrorist threat. And, to answer those who claim that everything is simply a product of U.S. policies, we should point out that Europe has taken a non-confrontational approach when it comes to handling Islamist radicals, both at home and abroad.

Indeed, far from generating further terrorism, the United States has taken three very important steps: first, it has beefed up national security, both by strengthening its borders and by passing the Patriot Act; second, it has brought terrorists to justice, wherever they may be, striking at them in their safe havens; third, it has sought to extend the boundaries of freedom and democracy within the Arab world, which is the best way to alleviate the conditions that encourage fanaticism and terror. These measures have all been strongly criticized in Europe. However, the proposals currently being considered by Tony Blair are not very different. The fact is, there is one and only one strategy when it comes to tackling terrorism: to ensure its defeat.

The foreign minister of an important European country, when asked at the beginning of 2003 whether he favored the United States or Saddam Hussein to win the Iraq War, replied with a resounding silence. Five years on in the war on terror, and three years on in Iraq, we should have learned something-namely, that when it comes to defending their national security, Americans are more steadfast and consistent than we might have thought. The re-election of George W. Bush is another good example of this.

Many Europeans are fond of criticizing Americans, whether it be their food, their way of life, or their foreign policy. They even criticize American films, forgetting that Hollywood is still very much a force to be reckoned with! However, it is wrong to make a habit of such harping. For one reason, those who seek to challenge American hegemony today-fortunately-do not have the resources to become a real counterweight. The so-called Paris-Berlin or Moscow-Beijing axes attest to little more than the weakness of European nations. Certainly the anti-American front can hinder Washington's capacity to act abroad. But any attempt to counter the power of America with empty hands is quite simply an act of suicide.

Second, it has been proven time and again that Europeans and Americans have more in common than what divides us. Moreover, when we manage to carry out coordinated policies and joint measures, the results are always much better. The Iran situation is a case in point. Until now, there has been a tacit agreement that the Europeans are the ones who should head talks with the Iranian authorities. However, as it becomes apparent that these negotiations are leading us nowhere, instead of criticizing the Americans for always seeking to wield their "big stick," we should seek out a joint course of action, using all the tools at our disposal. To ridicule President Bush for stating that no option can be ruled out is to deny the fact that diplomacy works best when words are backed up by the possibility of force.

Two Visions of Europe

Europe is supposed to be enjoying Year One of its Constitutional Treaty. It should also be halfway through the Lisbon Agenda and halfway toward making the European Economic Area the most competitive in the world. But not one of these objectives has been fulfilled. Europe is not in Year One, but in Year Zero. Nevertheless, in spite of what the prophets of doom have claimed, the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty is not the end of the world for the European Union. Quite the contrary, in fact.

It is true that Europe suffers from a problem of trust and credibility. But this is not only due to the enormous gulf of misunderstanding that has opened up between the European bureaucracy and the European Union's citizens. Above all, it is because the Union has progressively acquired commitments that its member states have subsequently been unable-or unwilling-to fulfill.

Donald Rumsfeld has stated that there are two Europes: an Old Europe and a New Europe. In reality, there are two existing visions for a single Europe: one is based on a state-controlled and interventionist approach to economic matters and seeks to create a counterweight to American policies abroad; the other is a free and classically liberal Europe, one that values the idea of being a loyal ally of the United States. These two outlooks became entrenched during the Iraq crisis, and have yet to be reconciled.

Despite the fact that pessimism reigns over Europe today, I believe that there is cause for optimism. This is not only because leaders can change public opinion, but also because the leaders themselves can change. Europe has not simply been paralyzed by voters' rejection of the Constitution. It has also been awaiting the outcome of the recent German elections and-even though the electoral results were not the clear victory predicted for the Christian Democrats-at the end of the day, Angela Merkel is Germany's new chancellor.
Pessimism should be overcome. It is not too late to change gears in Europe. Immobilism and soft or "decaffeinated" leaders are the worst possible prescriptions for Europe right now. Europe is under existential pressures-from the threat of terrorism, to the risks of economic decline and the perils of a demography characterized by an aging population and an insufficient birth rate, to the persistence of bad ideas about how to face our future. And Europe must find a way to cope with these pressures.

To me, the roadmap for a better future is simple and clear: We must recover our principles, the deepest roots of Europe-for example, our Christian roots, our own cultural beliefs, setting aside the enormous error of multiculturalism. And we should revive a strong will to strengthen our alliances and our commitments to our like-minded friends. We also need to increase the influence of Europe by promoting policies favoring reform, flexibility, and openness. And lastly, we need to decide how to define Europe as a power alongside the United States, as a strong part of the Western world, but not a counter-power to the U.S. It would be foolish to play the game of dividing the Atlantic world.


A Six-Part Program

This can be translated into specific policies, a program for a new Europe:
First, define the limits of the European Union. Europe is not infinite. At some point on the map, we have to draw the line. It is essential that we build a feasible Europe, a workable Europe. If one of the questions that needs to be addressed is Turkey, then we should talk about Turkey, with all of its advantages and disadvantages. This is even more important, now that the European Union has just decided to move ahead with Turkey's membership negotiations.

Second, respect the current institutional model. The Treaty of Nice is the expression of a consensus that made it possible to carry out the enlargement of the EU, as well as necessary institutional reform. It would not be serious leadership to approve a treaty aimed at defending a consensus, and then a mere two months later to say that we have a new idea-that the Treaty of Nice is in fact inconvenient, and that we should come up with yet another internal distribution of power in Europe. Respecting agreements, honoring one's word-that's serious policy.

Third, keep pushing for new economic reforms. Europe needs more liberalization, a stronger single market, more openness, more flexibility, lower taxes-in other words, it needs to recover the Lisbon Agenda, the only way to make Europe competitive in economic terms.

Fourth, re-establish the Stability Pact. The Stability Pact is one of the most important foundations for the credibility of Europe. In my view, the Pact is necessary, in the medium-term and even the short-term, to reactivate the economies of Europe. It is not serious leadership to establish a pact aimed at guaranteeing stability, and then for those who designed it to fail to honor it.

Fifth, define new policies in two essential areas: terrorism and immigration. Regarding terrorism, there are three things that we must do. One is that we must accept the fact that we are at war, a war declared against us by Islamic fundamentalists. Another is to make it clear that we have the right and the duty to defend our societies. And finally, we must do this in collaboration with our allies. In other words, we should not only talk about a community of beliefs, but also a community of coordinated action. Regarding immigration, I would say that the multicultural experiment has failed. We should defend the idea that all citizens are equal before the law, and that the law is the same for all. This is the true expression of tolerance: equality under the law. But we should also remember that the March 2004 terrorist attacks in Madrid, and the more recent attacks in London, were perpetrated by people who had lived for many years in our countries.

Sixth, strengthen the Atlantic relationship, particularly through two specific initiatives. One is to reform NATO, in order to better guarantee our security, our freedom, and our prosperity. The other is to create a great Atlantic Economic Area, to ensure our ability to face the future of a globalized world. Forget the ambition of some to create a Europe that is a counterweight to the U.S. Following that path, Europe could only become a dead weight. The only area of healthy competition must be the global economy.

I believe that all of this is urgently needed. I believe that we need to get serious about Europe once again, that we need to honor our word. To get to work, to strengthen our alliances, to defend our principles, to reform our societies-that is good policy. It is well worth trying. More so now that Angela Merkel is going to be in command of the German locomotive. Now there is a chance for Europe to forge ahead in the right direction.

It is often said that Europe always leans towards the soft option because it lacks the military power to do otherwise. The truth is that, at some recent point in our history, Europeans in general have chosen, either consciously or unconsciously, to separate diplomatic from military means, favoring conciliation over pressure and force. We refuse to call things by their proper names; we refuse to accept that there really are people prepared to die in order to kill us; we refuse to recognize our enemies, both at home and abroad.
We are engaged in a battle of civilizations against an emerging, assertively political Islam, all over the world. To make ourselves weaker is the best recipe for disaster. Another recipe for disaster would be to distance Europe from the United States.

Dear friends, I have described the current situation as I see it now, at the end of 2005. There is much that the United States and Europe could do together. I would even go so far as to say that there is a great deal we must do together in order to defeat the threats to freedom that currently hang over us.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 11:07 am
MEASURABLE PROGRESS

The Bush administration's solution is the seven-step course they specified in 2003. It is the course they have stayed and are staying and have repeatedly declared they will stay. Their solution is to establish a democracy in Iraq secured by the Iraqis themselves. They have completed five of the seven steps in their solution:
(1) Select an initial Iraq government to hold a first election.
(2) Establish and begin training an Iraq self-defense military.
(3) Hold a democratic election of an interim government whose primary function is to write a proposed constitution for a new Iraq democratic government.
(4) Submit that proposed constitution to Iraq voters for approval or disapproval.
(5) After approval by Iraq voters of an Iraq democratic government constitution, hold under that constitution a first election of the members of that government.

(6) Help train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government.
(7) Remove our military from Iraq in a phased withdrawal.

Is their progress toward their solution fast enough? NO!
Have they committed many blunders along the way? YES!
Are they making measurable progress toward their solution? YES!
Is an increase in Iraqi voter turnout of more than two-million measurable progress? YES!

Not bad for government work! Who in government would have done it better?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 12:58 pm
Transcribed from the WSJ, Page A18, December 16, 2005
(emphasis added)

Quote:
Iraq's Future, Our Past

By Rastislav Kacer, Petr Kolar, Janusz Reiter and Andras Simonyi

When it comes to tyranny, we believe we can offer some personal experience. After all, it was only a short while ago that our countries emerged from soviet oppression. During the decades of dictatorship, our peoples' attempts to restore freedom and democracy were crushed. Who would have thought in 1956 in Hungary, in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, or in 1980 in Poland, that we could get rid of the dictatorial regimes in our lifetimes and shape our own future?

The memories of tyranny are still alive in the minds of many Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Slovaks. We also remember the challenges we faced early in our democratic transition. It is a testament to the resilience of our peoples that we are where we are now -- members of NATO and the European Union, and strong allies of the U.S. We got here by believing in the transformational power of democracy and a market economy. But we needed others to believe in us, too. We could not have made it alone. We need the perseverance and support of Western democracies for freedom finally to arrive.

The attainment of our immediate goals of stability and prosperity could have made us complacent. It has not. We feel that as free and democratic nations we have a duty to help others achieve the security and prosperity that we now enjoy. That is why we have been part of the coalition to help democracy emerge in Iraq.

Establishing democracy in Iraq was never going to be easy. Yet it is essential for the political and economic stability of the entire Middle East -- and also vital for the security of our countries. We are convinced that for Iraq to become a vigorous partner in the war on terrorism, the Iraqis will need our continuous help for rebuilding their country, as well as for establishing democratic institutions and a market economy. The good news is that we are not alone; it's a truly international partnership, based on a U.N. mandate. More than 30 nations are on the ground with the coalition and NATO, and more than 80 have signed up for the "new international partnership" with Iraq. European countries work closely with the U.S. on strengthening stability and democracy in Iraq, and the U.N. is providing key support to achieve our goals.

The Visegra'd Group, which includes our countries, has been one of the most effective regional partnerships in Europe established after the changes of 1989. With our vast experience in transitioning from dictatorship to democracy, we can be of special help. Although the Central European reality is quite different from Iraq, we offer our assistance in building democratic institutions as well as civil society. We can share the successes and challenges of our transition with the Iraqis, as we all know that freedom comes at a price. The experiences from the area of responsibility of the Multinational Division Central South prove that transformation in Iraq can be completed with success. Right now we are transferring more power and responsibilities to the local Iraqi authorities, which, thanks to our assistance, are capable of securing their future.

Democratic transition is a long, painful process. It requires sacrifice. But more than anything, it requires a belief that democratic values will prevail and people will have a better life as a result. We had that belief to guide us during the most difficult years of transition and we want to keep that belief alive in the people of Iraq. Maybe it takes countries with vivid recollections of tyranny to serve as the institutional memory of a larger community of democracies. If so, we are ready to fulfill that role.

Messrs. Kacer, Kolar, Reiter and Sionyi are, respectively, theSlovak, Czech, Polish and Hungarian ambassadors to the U.S.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 01:36 pm
icant still doesn't get it; Iran is having inroads into Iraq poltics. Some people will nver wake up from their stupor.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 02:03 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
icant still doesn't get it. ...

a cicerone imposter compulsive fantasy!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 02:12 pm
From the BBC:

Analysis: Iran's influence in Iraq
An official Iranian delegation is in Baghdad at Washington's request to help resolve the impasse between the US occupation authorities and Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr. Middle East analyst Dilip Hiro says this underlies the influence that the predominantly Shia Iran has on the neighbouring Iraqi Shias.
The Iranian influence is exercised through different channels - a phenomenon helped by the fact that there is no single, centralised authority in Iran.

The different centres of power include the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President; the Majlis (parliament) and the judiciary; the Expediency Council; and offices of the Grand Ayatollahs in the holy city of Qom, and their social welfare networks throughout the Shia world.

It was the decision of Grand Ayatollah Kadhim Husseini al-Hairi - an Iraqi cleric who had gone to Qom for further theological studies 30 years ago, never to return - to appoint Moqtada Sadr as his deputy in Iraq in April 2003 that raised the young cleric's religious standing.

The more senior Ayatollah Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a member of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), is even more beholden to Iran. He is the leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), which was established in 1982 in Tehran by the Iranian government. He returned to Iraq after spending 22 years in Iran.

Shia militia

Sciri's 10,000-strong militia, called the Badr Brigades, has been trained and equipped by Iran.

Ayatollah Hakim underscored his continued closeness to Iran on 11 February, the 25th anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution. Opening a book fair in Baghdad, sponsored by the Iranian embassy, he praised the Vilayat-e Faqih (ie Rule of Religious Jurisprudent) doctrine on which the Iranian constitution is founded.


Sooner or later, the Americans will be obliged to leave Iraq in shame and humiliation
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei

Then there is Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most senior Shia cleric, who is now being routinely described by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) as a moderate, even pro-Western, even though he refuses to meet either the CPA chief Paul Bremer or any of his envoys, limiting his contacts strictly to IGC members.
Ayatollah Sistani was born and brought up in the Iranian city of Mashhad, and despite his 53 years in Iraq, speaks Arabic with a Persian accent.

Most of his nine charitable ventures, primarily providing housing for pilgrims and theology students, are in Iran. So too are the four religious foundations sponsored by him.

Increasing influence

Outside official circles, there are signs of growing Iranian influence among Iraqi Shias.

The religious foundations run by pre-eminent clerics in Iran are funding partially the social welfare services being provided to Iraqi Shias by their mosques at a time when unemployment is running at 60%.


Iran's present co-operation with Washington is a tactical move. They want to help stabilise the situation in Iraq to facilitate elections there so the Shia majority can assume power through the ballot box, and hasten the departure of the Anglo-American occupiers


If there is any day-to-day Iranian involvement in the workings of the Sadr network in Iraq, it is in the sphere of social welfare.
There is no need for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard to train the militiamen of Sadr's Mehdi Army since all Iraq males have received three years of military training under the Baathist regime and the country is awash with small arms and ammunition.

Also, Iranian Shias are pouring into Iraq, which has six holy Shia sites, across the unguarded border at the rate of 10,000 a day.

They are thus bolstering the Iraqi economy to the tune of about $2bn a year, equivalent to two-fifths of Iraq's oil revenue in 2003.

Covert activities

Then there are covert activities purportedly sponsored by Iran.

Soon after Saddam's downfall, some 100 "security specialists" of the Lebanese Hezbollah arrived in Basra, at the behest of the Iranian intelligence agency, according to the Anglo-American sources.

Since then two groups of Iraqi Shias calling themselves Hezbollah have emerged, one of them allegedly sponsored by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, with its headquarters in Amara and branches in other cities.

This is widely seen as a move to establish an Iranian intelligence infrastructure in Iraq. However, such a network can hardly compete with its Anglo-American rival.

Until a few days ago, conceding any role to the Islamic Republic of Iran has been anathema to the George Bush administration.

It is hell bent on seeing that the Iraqi politicians refrain from declaring Iraq an Islamic republic. Paul Bremer publicly announced that if those writing the transitional constitution made any such move, he would veto the document.

But present signs are that a large majority of Shias, led by Ayatollah Sistani, favour an Islamic entity of some sort for Iraq. About half of Iraq's Sunnis are also believed to support this.

Tactical co-operation

Iran's top officials are aware of this. They are aware too of what the US occupation authorities have done in Iraq.

Their present co-operation with Washington is a tactical move. They want to help stabilise the situation in Iraq to facilitate elections there so the Shia majority can assume power through the ballot box, and hasten the departure of the Anglo-American occupiers.

"America accuses other countries of intervening in Iraq and provoking the Iraqis, but it clear that the crimes committed by the occupying forces and their insulting behaviour toward Iraqi youth and women are the cause of the Iraqi reaction, whether Sunni or Shia," Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said in a speech delivered recently on state radio.

"Sooner or later, the Americans will be obliged to leave Iraq in shame and humiliation."


Dilip Hiro is the author of Iraq: A report from the inside . His latest book is Secrets and Lies: Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and after .

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3629765.stm

Published: 2004/04/15 16:55:51 GMT
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 02:13 pm
From the Washington Post:

U.S. Targets Iran's Influence in Iraq
Officials Say Tehran Aids Shiite Parties

By Robin Wright and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 25, 2004; Page A17

The Bush administration is exploring several steps aimed at containing Tehran's growing influence in Iraq, according to U.S. officials, who say a split between the Pentagon and the State Department has paralyzed the administration's ability to craft a long-term policy on Iran for three years.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 02:14 pm
Hey, icant, don't forget to tell Bush it's only a compulsive fantasy. LOL
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Dec, 2005 02:18 pm
Here is another informed opinion.

Distributed by American Committees on Foreign Relations, ACFR NewsGroup No. 644, Friday, December 16, 2005

Quote:
THE FIGHT FOR IRAQ
Q&A With Bernard Lewis
December 13, 2005

The Wall Street Journal's Thinking Global columnist Frederick Kempe talks with Bernard Lewis, a historian and intellectual force behind U.S. policy in the Middle East. They discuss the short American attention span, the effort to spread democracy, Iraq vs. Vietnam, "liberation" vs. "containment" policy, and the scope of the threat from Islamist radicals.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: As a historian, do you believe Americans appreciate the gravity of the moment in Iraq?

BERNARD LEWIS: Two things. One, in this country I think you will agree there is a general lack of interest in history, even a certain contempt for history. In American English if you say, "That's history," it means, "It's over and done with and of no current interest or relevance."Second, there is a tendency not to take much notice of other cultures and other civilizations. Yet there is in America a sort of basic instinct for what is good and right in a society, and that works surprisingly well.

Q: One U.S. general recently told me he worries that the American attention span is too short for an initiative that may take years to show success.

A: The American attention span is too short. I would agree with him on that. There have been several examples through the '90s. Two obvious ones are Lebanon and Mogadishu..

Q: The most compelling argument the Bush administration puts forward of why to stick it out in Iraq is an appeal to our sense of history and that we'll all be happier ten or twenty years from now.

A: The strongest argument is the astonishing success now of the democratic process in Iraq. This is a country that has been through decades of ruthless dictatorship. Yet within a comparatively short time, first they hold a genuine, free, honest, contested election in which millions of Iraqis consciously, knowingly risk their lives standing in lines to vote. That is a remarkable test. Following that, the results of the election were inconclusive. So the Iraqis advance to the second test of democracy, negotiation and compromise, which is probably more difficult than even holding the election. And they've been doing that. Then there was another election, a referendum on the constitution, and now this week they are going to vote on a national parliament. Despite internal difficulties and external sabotage, the process of democratization has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations.

Q: Yet some worry that democracy can produce a worse outcome than what we now have. The success in Egyptian elections of the Muslim Brotherhood is a case in point.

A: The process of democracy is neither quick nor easy. There are dangers. Hitler came to power through a free and fair election. But the dangers are increased when we are seen as supporters of corrupt and repressive regimes indifferent to the freedom and well-being of their subjects.

In Iraq, I am not so worried. Democracy doesn't come all at once. It has to be developed in stages, and it seems to be doing very well. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt represents a real danger. Yet if they come into power they will have to cope with the monstrous problems Egypt faces. If, like the theocracy in Iran, they fail to deal with these problems, they will have to face the anger of their own people. The danger: they wouldn't leave office by the same way they came, through free elections.

Q: Some would argue that the strength of the Iraqi insurgency shows the outcome hasn't been a better system but either a worse situation or even anarchy.

A: Fear was expressed in Europe and in certain circles of the United States that democracy couldn't work in Iraq. There is a much more deadly fear in the Middle East that democracy in Iraq will work, and that fact that it is working relatively well is why that shabby collection of tyrants who rule most of the Middle East are dead scared. Also, when the terrorists attack a wedding party in Amman, these are desperate measures. They feel they're losing. And they are.

Q: If this victory is so clear, why aren't Americans feeling that way.

A: My specialization is the Middle East and not the Middle West.

Q: Tack a crack at it anyway; U.S. popular support will be important in shaping the outcome.

A: I have the impression that a considerable part of the American people don't really believe the rest of the world exists. There is a certain impatience. Things have to be done quickly or not at all. We saw that on various occasions in the past, and sometimes it's self-destructive. Our enemies love that. If you look at the writings and pronouncements of Osama bin Laden and his associates, they have learned the lessons of Vietnam and Mogadishu very well, much better than people here have learned them.

Q: Some say Iraq is a new Vietnam.

A: The comparison is often made with Vietnam. Now one may have differing views on Vietnam, but withdrawing was a disaster for the Vietnamese. A million or more of them became refugees, risking everything to get out of the hell in which we left them. But that was the end of it. The Viet Cong didn't follow us here, nor was there any danger they would. But this is different. They are here. We are dealing not with a local enemy but a global enemy. They have made this perfectly clear they see this as a war in three phases. The first phase is evicting the infidels from the lands of Islam, the second phase is recovering what they see as the lost lands of Islam -- which means Spain, Sicily, and the Balkans, and of course Palestine -- and the third one is taking the war into the enemy camp to achieve final global triumph.

Q: Do you feel the Bush administration is wavering in its commitment to Mideast democratization?

A: It's difficult to read. Sometimes it looks one way and sometimes it looks another way.
There is a school of thought which would run something like this, not just for the Middle East but for Central America and all sorts of other places of the world as well. It goes, "These people are incapable of decent democratic or civilized government. Whatever we do they will be ruled by sons of bitches, and the aim of diplomacy should be to ensure that they are our sons of bitches and not otherwise. That is a well-known philosophy, still shared by certain [U.S.] policy-makers for the Middle East. I think it is a dangerous fallacy. Yet it's strongly held and still being advanced.

Q: It's been said that you are the closest thing we have today to George Kennan in setting out the doctrine for this administration in the Mideast in the way he did for the Cold War with "containment."

A: Mutatis mutandis. Make the necessary adjustments. What I am afraid of is that what we may be doing is creating in the Middle East the same situation we had in Central America, where they have a choice between Castro and Noriega, dictators hostile or submissive.

Q: Some say we should introduce a new form of containment now instead of putting our own soldiers' in harms way in the region.

A: Containment won't work now. With the Soviets we were dealing with a government in power and mutual deterrence could work. Before very long the so-called Islamists will have nuclear weapons and if they are used it will not be by governments but by terrorists, they will be used by terrorists, and they won't have any return address on them.

Q: If you look at the Bush administration now, it doesn't seem to have any stomach for regime change in Syria, where most of the terrorists cross to Iraq.

A: Syria's government is obviously faltering. The government is under attack at home. It has already withdrawn from Lebanon. A democratic process is reviving in Lebanon. And there are even glimmerings in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In the Palestinian territories, you see an awakening of democracy. In recent months I've been able to have conversations with people in Arab countries of a kind that would previously been impossible.

Q: For example?

A: People are more ready to express disgust with their own leadership, there's a growing desire for more open and free society. One hears things that would have been shocking previously, such as: "Israel is not the first priority. There are other things we have to deal with first." There are even people who speak with respect of Israel . I've been with people in Arab countries who watch on Israeli television an Arab member of parliament standing up in the house and denouncing the policies and direction of the Israeli government -- on Israeli television, For them it is a mind-boggling experience. It doesn't make them love Israel any more, but it does give them some appreciation of the democratic process. It seems that one can do better as second-class citizens in a democracy than as a first-class citizen in a dictatorship.

Q: So why do you think it was the Iraq war that has helped set off changes elsewhere?

A: It simply is not true that Saddam Hussein's form of government is normal in this part of the world. This kind of arbitrary dictatorship has no roots, either in the Arab or the Islamic past. The traditional form of government isn't democratic, it is authoritarian, but it is not despotic, it is not arbitrary and it is not above the law. They have a very strong political tradition of government according to law and political limits. (See "Freedom and Justice in the Modern Middle East"4 by Bernard Lewis in Foreign Affairs.)

What was important for the Middle East in Iraq was the fact that a tyrannical regime was removed, that the people are free to express themselves, that the United States did not try to install a tame tyrant but really tried to open the way for the people of Iraq to choose their own government, and this is something new and wonderful.

A successful democracy in Iraq, for example, would be very dangerous for the present rulers of Iran. A largely Shia country practicing democracy would be very worrisome across the border.

Q: Do you believe military means can bring about further changes in the region. Syria? Iran?

A: If you mean U.S. military means, I am against it. I think that there is great opposition in both Syria and Iran to their governments. Iranians and Syrians with a little help from outside can do the job themselves.

Q: What is your general view of the situation, in Iraq and the Mideast? Are you growing more or less confident of positive change?

A: I would describe my position as one of cautious optimism. My optimism derives from events in the Mideast and my caution derives from observing the United States. The situation in Iraq is vastly better than what you would know from reading the media, which really do often present a misleading picture of what's happening. In many, many ways Iraqi life has improved enormously, in terms of freedom of press, economic and social improvements, the educational system is reviving. The terrorism is only limited to a certain area, but the terrorists and their sponsors are becoming more and more desperate because they see they are losing.

Q: The daily reports of killings can lead one to believe otherwise.

A: What's astonishing when they blow up half the people standing in line at a recruitment center, kill them, is that the next day the other half are back there waiting to enroll. That's remarkable. It's happened time and time again.

Q: What have we done wrong in Iraq?

A: The sooner we get out the better, but we cannot just cut and run. The people I talk to in Iraq say we could do a lot better in handing over, in giving Iraqis a bigger share in, for example, the recruitment and training of security personnel.

There were several stages when we could have avoided all these problems with very little trouble. When we had Saddam Hussein on the run [in 1991], we could have finished the job in a matter of hours. The argument at the time was that would have meant going on to Baghdad and setting up an imperial administration, which was nonsense. The Iraqis would have been capable of doing it themselves, but we stopped and let Saddam reconstitute his government. We backed down at a crucial moment.

There was then a free zone in the [Kurdish] north. There were interesting possibilities. It was one-fifth of the territory and one-fifth the population of Iraq. They were beyond Saddam's reach. There were lots of things we could have done from there at the time, but we didn't. That was another missed opportunity.

Q: And mistakes regarding the war?

A: What was really striking was the ease with which the conquest was completed. There was virtually no resistance. Saddam's army just faded away. The country was peaceful for a while. That was an opportunity that was lost. One could have installed something more genuinely Iraqi. It would have been perfectly possible at the time. Setting up a kind of viceroy arrangement in the style of the 19th century British Empire was not a good idea. Looking back now, the actual defeat of Saddam Hussein and occupation of Iraq was remarkably peaceful and easy. People speak with derision about Iraqis not welcoming us. They did. They would have welcomed us much more readily if we hadn't let them down ten years earlier.

Q: What's the lesson?

A: Our job is not to create democracy. Our job is to remove obstacles and let them create their own. That is what we did in Germany, Italy and Japan, and it is what we should do in Iraq. And now we seem to have moved in that direction.

Q: If George Kennan's doctrine was "containment" how would you characterize your own for the Mideast?

A: Liberation.

Q: Would you expand?

A: I think that's clear enough. Enable them to achieve or recover their freedom, to which they are entitled no less than anyone else in the world.

Q: So more activist than was our Soviet policy of containment. Why?

A: Well, we were dealing with the Soviet Union, a mighty imperial power, and we're not dealing with anything like that in the Middle East. But comparatively small terrorist movements now are potentially more dangerous than the entire Soviet Union because mutual deterrence won't work. In any case, the Soviet Union did not use suicide bombers. Suicide was not part of Communist ideology.

Q: It's said your influence has been decisive on the Bush administration.

A: I may have had some influence but I think this is greatly exaggerated. I have never at any time been a formal consultant..

Q: Do you believe the Bush administration is wavering on this liberation policy?

A: "It's difficult to read. Sometimes it looks one way and sometimes it looks another way."

Q: How do you best take on the insurgency in Iraq?

A: This is a military question for which I am not competent.

Q: It's a central question. Any general thoughts?

A: We should look more closely into the places from where the insurgents come, Syria and Saudi Arabia and look there.

Q: So what is the historical context you think Americans and Europeans are missing?

A: The threat we face now is more like that of the Third Reich than that of the Soviet Union. It is more militant, more violent, and commands a good deal of support. We are much more threatened than we ever were by the Soviet Union. I would compare where we are to Britain in 1940 add the threat of Hitler and the Nazis. I began the year as a very junior teacher in the University of London and ended the year as a very junior member of his majesties forces. At that time, we were alone, the Soviet Union was supporting Hitler, the united states was at that time resolutely neutral, nevertheless I and my contemporaries had no doubt we would win. I wish I were as confident now as I was then of our final victory.

Q: Why are you less confident now?

A: By 1940, we had no doubts or hesitations. We knew we faced a ruthless and dangerous enemy and we knew we had to stand together. I think now when I look back that if Churchill and his team had had to face the same sort of opposition as does President Bush, Hitler might well have won the war. They are more dangerous than Hitler because we are not as firm as we were with Hitler. And also times have changed. We didn't confront the possibility of nuclear terrorists with suicidal ambitions.

Q: But a difference with Hitler is we also have no territorial target.

A: It makes it more difficult.

Q: It also means they can't occupy us.

A: The danger is not to occupy but to devastate. They have all the modern possibilities. And in Europe, in some respects they are taking over already. You see that in many ways. Already the Muslim religion enjoys an immunity from criticism that Christianity has lost and Judaism never had. In this Christian West it is much safer to criticize Christian values than Muslim values.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/22/2025 at 04:57:18