Guns, politics, engineering and the miscellaneous pursuits of my life.
Email Mike: m_hanson76 [at] hotmail dot com
Email Me! m_hanson76 [at] hotmail dot com
Monday, March 31, 2003
For the sake of every Frenchman, lets hope there is nothing to this
via Ben Shapiro, Townhall
The other day, I received a letter from a U.S. Air Force officer stationed on a base in Saudi Arabia. He wrote that coalition commanders expelled French soldiers from his base late last week. The French had apparently been caught hacking into the U.S. secret computer system. Their rooms had been evacuated, and British and American troops were allowed to move their own belongings into the plush surroundings the French had previously enjoyed. The officer reported that the information was 60-70 percent reliable, as a couple of semi-reliable sources had corroborated the story.
This story has been kept under tight wrap by the governments involved -- perhaps because the information is false. But if the French troops were indeed removed from the base for spying on the U.S. military, relations between our countries will have reached a new low.
This latest breach of international relations would be the logical culmination of a pattern of deceit and treachery. After stifling a United Nations vote on any resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, France has frustrated U.S. goals as much as humanly possible. On March 24, the French refused the United States' request that France expel Iraqi diplomats and freeze the French-held funds of the Saddam Hussein regime.
French President Jacques Chirac pledged to oppose any U.S.-led effort to gain an "after-the-fact" U.N. resolution condoning our campaign to disarm Iraq. In a letter to fellow peacenik Pope John Paul II, Chirac reiterated his commitment to "defend the primacy of law, justice and dialogue between peoples." Chirac's commitment to law and justice ends where physical force begins; Chirac said that he "deeply (regrets) the start of armed operations." Despite France's opposition to the war, the French maintain that any post-war mess must be cleaned up with the help of the United Nations, aided by -- you
guessed it -- France.
The French government has also made untiring efforts to paint Saddam Hussein and his gang of brutal thugs as victims of imperialist aggression. Over the weekend, the Iraqi military allegedly murdered some American POWs and taped interrogations of several others, a few of whom were wounded at the time. Al-Jazeera, the Qatari television channel, broadcast the footage of the interrogations that was distributed by the Iraqi government. While the video made clear the brutality of the Iraqi regime, the French did not react with shock or horror at the prospect of American POWs being killed, wounded or forced to undergo severe humiliation in violation of the Geneva Convention. Instead, the Higher Audiovisual Council (CSA), the French broadcast watchdog, chastised Al-Jazeera head Michael Kik for putting the tape on television and revealing Iraqi war crimes.
Now, the French military has allegedly been expelled from a coalition base in Saudi Arabia for spying on the uncultured Americans. Can the French sink any lower?
The sad truth is that they can. Jacques Chirac's approval ratings are sky high; anything anti-American goes over like gangbusters with the French public. And that anti-American sentiment is likely to become more and more severe with the growth of the militant Muslim population in France. France currently has 5 million Muslims, totaling somewhere between 5 percent and 10 percent of its population. The highly polarized Muslim community has gained enormous prominence in France, especially because other ethnic groups are reproducing at relatively low rates while Muslims are having many children. At some point in the future, if demographic trends hold, France could become a majority Muslim state -- and a dangerous foe to the United States.
One of the underlying fears that the anti-war crowd has about the ultimate outcome of the war in Iraq is that Iraqi oil will fall into the hands of private companies. The evil globalization minded corps will rape Iraq of her natural resources and use the money to open genetically modified mink farms. Or so they claim. Although private commercial interests already drill and manage nearly every oil field in the Middle East [with the French and Russians exclusively in Iraq], all profits from petrol go directly to the governments [i.e. dictators] of the respective nations.
What’s so wrong with that you might be tempted to ask.
Think about it. Everything in the world revolves around the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. How can despots rule every single oil producing nation in the Middle East? Simple, command economies are ripe for dictatorial control. Not one nation that subscribes to the command economic model is democratically run, and the nationalization of large industries is a pretty good indicator of a dictator in the making [remember Cuba]?
Although the Middle East oil caliphates do not fit perfectly into the command economy model, the vast majority of all economic activity [over 75%] in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc.. is run managed and owned by the respective dictators of those nations. So while the average Saudi is unemployed and lives in squalor, Shake Shitsonmyself’ drives around in one of his 85 Bentleys swilling on bottles of Louis XIV cognac while getting hummers from hookers in hotpants. And when the average Arab wonders why he is in such poor shape, Shake Shitsonmyself’ uses his state owned media to blame it on the Zionist and Western Crusading Infidels.
With all the oil in the hands of a few monarchs, dictators, and Ayatollahs, it concentrates far too much power in the hands of far too few people. Entire economies are controlled Soviet style [with Soviet results] by a small cadre of royals and despots. People who use nearly all of that wealth to build billion dollar palaces with gold plated urinals.
But how to ensure that a good deal is brokered?
The Alaskan model comes to mind. Invite oil companies to come into Iraq, [or better yet maybe some enterprising Iraqis will start one of their own] bid on developing the petroleum reserves and mail every Iraqi a royalty check every year.
Privatized oil resources will be better able to compete with non-privatized sources, providing Iraqis with even more money. It will also lower and stabilize oil prices worldwide. With stable oil prices, and market controlled oil resources in the Middle East, it may not be the hot spot it is now.
Note to self:
Don’t let the headline of my story conflict with the content.
'NO WARNING SHOTS': US TROOPS KILL 10 WOMEN, KIDS IN VAN...
Or so goes the sensationalistic banner headline at Commondreams.org.
But the article seems to contradict this.
Several said they accepted the platoon leader's explanation to Johnson on the military radio that he had, in fact, fired two warning shots, but that the driver failed to stop. And everybody was edgy, they realized, since four U.S. soldiers were blown up by a suicide bomber Saturday at a checkpoint much like theirs, only 20 miles to the south.
Its all good an well that they want to whip their fellow usefull idiots into action through bullshit editorials from the likes of Pravda, Noam Chomsky and Norman Solomon, but have they sunk so low that they now have to blatantly lie about what is going on?
I guess so.
Sunday, March 30, 2003
A word to Delta Force
To any member of Delta Force currently in Baghdad and reading this, please use extra brutal force when you repeatedly pistol whip Peter Arnett and Robert Fisk, now currently in Baghdad with you.
Ehh, what the fuck, just shoot em.
This just uncovered in the Pentagon’s collection of secret WWII archives.
The following is a transcript of an interview given by General Dwight D Eisenhower on June 19, 1944.
Reporter: General Eisenhower, my sources in Washington have leaked a confidential planning document on this so called “D-Day” and according to this planning document, the Normandy beach head was supposed to be secured and a breakout from the beachhead was supposed to be achieved by no later than the 15th. Some have even called this operation the beginning of the Allied quagmire.
Does this lack of progress concern you?
General Eisenhower: Resistance has been stiffer than anticipated, but our forces have done amazingly well in face of such fierce opposition.
Reporter: Yes, that may be true General, but you must admit that initial estimates of your timetable have not panned out to be true, isn’t this correct?
Eisenhower: Once again, I must inform you that estimates of a military operation this large are just estimates and can be changed according to developments. No battle plan is static and is subject to change as the situation warrants.
Reporter: Back to the start of this so-called “D-Day”, allied casualties were 3,488 KIA; 12,785 WIA. Some have called for your resignation over this blunder that turned into a bloodbath. What do you have to say your critics?
Eisenhower: Once again, although resistance was stiff the beach was taken through individual and collective acts of bravery and self-sacrifice.
Reporter: As far as civilian casualties go, reports point to the slaughter of 10,000’s of innocent Frenchmen, many just poor helpless children due to your indiscriminate and inhuman use of aerial bombing and sea based artillery strikes. Does the Allied command have any contingency to avoid these casualties?
Eisenhower: Listen, this is the most crucial battle in the war, and although targets are selected based on military importance, civilian casualties in a battle this large are going to be unavoidable.
Reporter: Lastly, I had an exclusive interview with Heinrich Himmler this morning and he claimed that Germany would never fall to the imperialistic Allied forces waging a racist and unjust war against the noble and kind Third Reich. What is your reaction to this?
Could anyone even imagine this taking place 60 years ago?
We all know the outcome of the battle that began on June 6th, 1944. More than any other event, it signaled the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.
Although everything did not go “exactly as planned” the outcome was the same.
500 of miles in 7 days, a kill ratio of over 500 to one, 50 miles from Baghdad, complete and total air supremacy, and all in 10 days.
This is not a war game or a fucking made for TV movie.
If that’s a quagmire, then call me a fucking Sally.
Thursday, March 20, 2003
One last post
I guess I could not leave well enough alone.
This one comes to us from the Vodka Pundit
Follow the Money
StrategyPage details who really armed Saddam , by tracking how much money he owes to different countries. The top three dealers?
Soviet Union- Over 25 billion dollars
France and China – at least five billion dollars each.
Is it any coincidence that these are three of the loudest voices against us getting into Saddam's filing cabinets?
NOTE: If you're curious, Saddam owes the US less than a quarter million dollars -- and we're usually pretty easy about giving credit.
One Week Off
Well, although it may seem strange now, I planned a vacation starting tomorrow, and I will not be blogging for about 9 days [well I might sneak in one or two here and there].
Once again, let me express my sincerest wishes for a brief and decisive conflict, and to all my readers in the armed forces, good luck and God Bless.
Oh, and Sarge. I cant remove my old email from my template!! I desperately need your help o' brainy computer guru!
At War Today
It seems that US and British forces came under attack by several Iraqi scuds today. You know the ones Hans Blixs said did not exist. The weapons that have been prohibited since 1992. The missiles that the whiney bitches over at Communist, er I mean Common Dreams continue to call weapons of mass distraction [implying that they are not there].
Iraqi forces have launched their first retaliatory strike at US forces by firing a scud missile at northern Kuwait.
A Kuwaiti defense ministry spokesman said a U.S. Patriot anti-missile defense battery brought down two Iraqi Scuds.
Neither missile was believed to have been carrying chemical or biological weapons.
Too bad guys, you almost had some people fooled. But shhhhhhhh, no one tell Norman Solomon or Michael Moore.
What other surprises lay in store for us? I hope we don’t have to find out.
Strikes in Afghanistan
on Taliban and Al’Queda remnants to show them that a two front war is not only very possible, but will be done.
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war
As I sit here behind the relative comfort and safety of my computer screen, halfway around the world the first war of the 21st century begins.
Seems almost ridiculous to have six months of intense media coverage and debate on a war than will most likely be over in six days. The anxiety that everyone is feeling over this has almost gotten to be too much.
I watched the Iraqi press release on CNN a few minutes ago and that has got to be the worst Saddam Hussein impersonator I have ever seen.
Who the hell was he trying to kid?
Why war? How does it get to this point? Why does mankind always have to resort to such destructive, barbaric ways to settle a conflict?
We are weak, constantly putting short term interests over long term threats. Constantly “negotiating” and “containing” and “playing nice” with individuals and organizations with which we have nothing in common with.
I realize that hindsight is 20/20, but hopefully we will pay more attention in the future.
Hopefully, from this day foreword, we just may realize that the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. We may as a world, just might grow the collective balls and stomp these assholes in the larval stage instead of waking up in the middle of the night and looking down the barrel of a gun.
Just surfed over to Indymedia
, God damn, what a bunch of pansies. I don’t think I have seen the Indymidiots this riled up since they heard the Soviet Union no longer existed.
Here is one of the best ones I have seen this evening.
And what about the “Peace Movement"
™ ? Fuck them!
I don’t know if there is a group of more insincere, more transparent, more duplicitous people on this earth. I saw a flock being interviewed by CLTV in front of the Dirkson Federal Building in Chicago tonight and the one on the camera had a Red Army Faction T-Shirt on.
Give me a break.
They will pay for the bullshit they have been cramming down people’s throats for the past year or so. When the truth comes out they will be so humiliated for their tactic support of Hussein that I truly hope it discredits them to the mainstream. When people see how happy the Iraqis are to have that son of a bitch dead, and when we find out the real extent of his Permanently!
I just sincerely hope they don’t destroy the morning commute.
With any luck this war will be over within a week. Delta will have killed or captured Saddam Hussein, the man ultimately responsible for this, and all this will die down.
Maybe the worst case scenario will happen. Saddam will use chemical and biological weapons and turn a coalition victory into a phyric one. Hundreds of thousands of innocent dead.
Who knows, but I would put my money on the better of two outcomes. Or mabey that’s just wishful thinking.
But make no mistake, no one, most especially myself ‘wants’ a war, sometime it just comes down to this. I feel sorry for the Iraqis who have to go through this, and for those who will die. I feel sorry for the members of our armed forces who are in harms way and may also pay the ultimate sacrifice to make the world a safer place.
War should always be one of the last resorts, but make no mistake, it should always be
I just pray that it will be short.
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Why the Left Loves Osama [and Saddam]
You know I had touched on this subject back in June
, when I first started my weblog.
Pipes puts a great twist on it by incorporating the "dependencia theory" and how the left sees nowhere else to turn to to fight capitalism except for Saddam.
More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.
Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad?
Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer, offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institution's journal, Policy Review. He does so by stepping way back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events:
* Business profits decline in the industrial countries;
* Bosses squeeze their workers;
* Workers become impoverished;
* Workers rebel against their bosses, and
* Workers establish a socialist order.
Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time - which, of course, did not happen. In fact, Western workers became richer (and increasingly un-revolutionary). By the roaring 1950s, most of the Left realized that Marx got it wrong.
But rather than give up on cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Harris notes, Marxists tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the entire populations of poor countries to carry out the revolution. Class analysis went out the window, replaced by geography.
This new approach, known as "dependencia theory," holds that the First World (and the United States above all) profits by forcefully exploiting the Third Word. The Left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries; thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a "leading terrorist state."
For vindication of this claim, Marxists impatiently await the Third World's rising up against the West. Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the 1950s was Iran's in 1978-79. It ended with militant Islam in power and the Left in hiding.
Then came 9/11, which Marxists interpreted as the Third World (finally!) striking back at its American oppressor. In the Left's imagination, Harris explains, this attack was nothing less than "world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era."
More from Little Green Footballs
on Rachel Corrie, "Peace Activist"
With "Peace Activists" like Mrs Corrie, what do we need armies for?
Rachel Corrie was emphatically not a “peace activist.” She sided with terrorists and criminals, and advocated—in fact, was excited by—violence and mass murder. In her diary entry for February 10, she lavishes praise on suicide bombers:
I would also like to ask you, and those to whom you pass this on, to think about the relative positions of the fighters and occupiers in this monumentally unequal struggle. While the huge force of Israelis have every technical aid invented by the US war machine, the few young fighters have NOTHING BUT THEIR WEAPON (and this not the most modern) - no helmet, bullet proof vest, radio contact or other protection. No back-up, no plane, helicopter, tank, APC, searchlight, dogs, flares, ambulance or refuge - put all the Israeli/American propaganda aside for a few minutes and try to imagine, please, the courage it requires to do what these youngfighters do, knowing that the odds are against escape and that, every time they do succeed in evading death, the odds against a further survival are shortened. Even if the operation is a success the price is always high.
Two days before she wrote this, one of the “young fighters” she admired so much got on a bus in Haifa and blew himself up—murdering 16 people, most of them teenagers.
That’s the “operation” she wrote about.
Sunday, March 16, 2003
Rage Against the Machine:
Rage = 0
Machine = 1
Rachel Corrie shows Palestinian proto-terrorists how best to burn a US flag.
[Thanks to Little Green Footballs for the pic]
Although stupidity is not a crime, it rarely goes unpunished.
Israeli army bulldozer crushes US peace protester in Gaza Strip
Peace campaigner killed as Israeli army destroys homes in Palestinian refugee camp
An Israeli army bulldozer crushed an American peace activist to death in the Gaza Strip yesterday in what witnesses described as a deliberate killing. Rachel Corrie, 23, died as she attempted to prevent the military destroying homes in the Rafah refugee camp, one of the most dangerous in the occupied territories.
"She was standing on top of a pile of earth," said another activist, Richard Purssell, who was a few feet away. "The driver cannot have failed to see her. As the blade pushed the pile, the earth rose up. Rachel slid down the pile. It looks as if she got her foot caught. The driver didn't slow down; he just ran over her. Then he reversed the bulldozer back over her again. She was very courageous."
Other activists said the bulldozer had approached from several metres away and that Ms Corrie, who was wearing a brightly coloured jacket, was waving and they were shouting at the driver to stop but he ignored them.
Witnesses said another protester had been slightly injured about half an hour earlier when the same bulldozer knocked him into barbed wire.
Ms Corrie was one of eight foreign volunteers - four from the US and four from Britain - with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) seeking to block house demolitions.
You know, although I feel sorry for her family, and that her idiocy cost her life, you gotta wonder what the hell she was doing there?
The 11th Commandment: Thou Shall Cover Thine Own Ass
And so it begins.
I guess they know that they have lost the battle of words. War with Iraq will start soon, and the bullshit arguments that have been given to stop the war will be shown to be the lies that they are.
After Iraq is put down and Saddam Hussein is nothing more that a naked child sitting in a prison, or worse, the truth once and for all will be known. The true extent of the weapons programs, the complicity of ‘key official’ violating sanctions, and all the assorted horror stories if the Iraqi regime will be made known.
But like the 11th commandment compels us to do, the most rabid of the rabid are now scrambling for some CYA.
Already there are vague, unconfirmed stories of preliminary manufacture of the necessary smoking guns that can be deployed by undercover teams as U.S. troops advance and then dramatically disclosed to the hungry press. For those who entertain doubts about the likelihood of the United States or its ally Britain manufacturing necessary "evidence," consider the recent explicit charge of forgery leveled by Mohammed ElBaradei, the chief UN inspector looking for evidence of nuclear capability in Iraq.
Alexander Dickrub, I mean, Cockburn
Bunkers allegedly containing chemical weapons will be cordoned off – too dangerous for any journalist to approach, of course. Perhaps they actually do contain VX or anthrax. But for the moment, the all-important thing for Washington and London is to convince the world that the causus belli was true – and reporters, in or out of military costume, will be on hand to say just that.
Robert “I like to be beaten by Pakistani mobs” Fisk
Desperately scrambling to maintain some kind of credibility, they now have to resort to “unconfirmed stories” and their flock will eat it up.
“Moment of Truth”
Tomorrow is St Patrick’s day. As anyone from Chicago will tell you, it’s a big freaking deal around here. For those of you who don’t know, tomorrow honors St Patrick, the man who drove the snakes [pagans] from Ireland.
I find it interesting that tomorrow, President Bush will begin to drive the snakes from Iraq
While watching the anti-war protests on C-SPAN the other evening, I was taken aback by the comments of ANSWER’s main organizer for the DC protest Larry Homes,
These protests, these actions, this movement will not stop until our demands are reached. Not just the war in Iraq, but for all movements for people’s liberation worldwide, this is just the beginning.
If I did not know any better, that sounds almost like a terrorist Fatwa.
Besides being one of the main front men for ANSWER, Holmes is also the media director for the World Workers Party
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
In an order to reduce the spam, i have changed my email
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Well isn't this cute
LA HABRA -- Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since.
However, although officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon, police did not arrest three people seen damaging the display because they were "exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were,' La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said Monday.
"For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,' he said.
Rees said in order for police to take any action, the owner of the fence would have to file a complaint.
Jeff Collison, owner of The RV Center in La Habra, who has allowed residents to add patriotic symbols to the fence on his property, said he just might do that.
"Their free speech stops at destruction of private property. If they are allowed to come on my property and burn flags, does that mean I can go to City Hall or the police station and light their flags on fire because that is freedom of speech? To me, this is vandalism,' Collison said.
Some residents Monday hung signs criticizing those who destroyed the display.
Tracey Chandler, a Whittier mother of four who has maintained the spontaneous memorial since it was created by other area residents soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said she was shocked by the destruction.
"They trashed 87 flags, ripped 11 memorial tiles made by myself and my children out of the ground and glued the Bob Dylan song to a sign that said, 'America, land of the brave, home of the free,' ' she said.
The Bob Dylan song she referred to is "With God on Our Side,' an antiwar anthem of the 1960s.
"It's unbelievable, because there were absolutely no political messages on this fence. It was all about supporting our troops, which could mean bringing them home, and about remembering 9-11.'
Les Howard, a sociology professor at Whittier College, said the incident might be an indication of some confusion among people trying to stop a possible war against Iraq but uncertain how to express their sentiments. However, he said he does not condone the destruction of symbols important to those who erect them.
"Some think (the best way to support the troops) is to not question their role. Some think the best way is to pursue all means possible to avoid putting them in danger,' he said. "That still does not excuse any desecration of people's symbolic participation.'
Chandler said she plans to rebuild the Sept. 11 memorial.
"We are going to rebuild this memorial, and it will be brighter, bigger and better than ever,' Chandler said.
Monday, March 10, 2003
Broken Records at Mother Jones
A recent article from Mother Jones has been getting quite a bit of play by the left as of late. The Thirty Year Itch
, by Robert Dreyfus, outlines what Dreyfus believes to be a long term plan to seize all petroleum reserves in the Middle East and control the world.
If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil.
Today, a growing number of Washington strategists are advocating a direct U.S. challenge to state-owned petroleum industries in oil-producing countries, especially the Persian Gulf. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and CSIS are conducting discussions about privatizing Iraq's oil industry. Some of them have put forward detailed plans outlining how Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other nations could be forced to open up their oil and gas industries to foreign investment.
Just which companies would get to claim Iraq's oil has been a subject of much debate. After a war, the contracts that Iraq's state-owned oil company has signed with European, Russian, and Chinese oil firms might well be abrogated, leaving the field to U.S. oil companies. "What they have in mind is denationalization, and then parceling Iraqi oil out to American oil companies," says Akins.
"One of the major problems with the Persian Gulf is that the means of production are in the hands of the state," Rob Sobhani, an oil-industry consultant, told an American Enterprise Institute conference last fall in Washington. Already, he noted, several U.S. oil companies are studying the possibility of privatization in the Gulf. Dismantling government-owned oil companies, Sobhani argued, could also force political changes in the region. "The beginning of liberal democracy can be achieved if you take the means of production out of the hands of the state," he said, acknowledging that Arabs would resist that idea. "It's going to take a lot of selling, a lot of marketing," he concluded.
The main thrust of the article is to convince the reader that the main goal of the war is to denationalize the oil industry in the Middle East and then replace it with a US controlled oil infrastructure. This would provide the US with a lever to control Western Europe as well as Asia.
Interesting thesis, but what’s his evidence?
Dreyfus extensively quotes former US/Middle East diplomat James Akins, to back up his claims that a war in Iraq, (as well as Afghanistan) were a prelude to the construction of this US global Hegemony.
Although Akins appears to be a credible source, Atkins claims
that in 1975 former US secretary of State Henry Kissinger wanted to commit genocide in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia and repopulate the region with Russian Jewish exiles.
Now Henry Kissinger may be a lot of things to a lot of people, [I would consider him the king of Realpolitik], but to think that he had a secret plan to exterminate every Arab in the middle east and then repopulate it with Russian Jewish exiles to solve the oil crisis does not even pass the laugh test.
The other main thrust of the Dreyfus article is an attempt to link American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and Center For Strategic & International Studies [what Dreyfus believes to be “right-wing” think tanks] and administration officials in a grand scheme to privatize oil assets.
Conservative think tanks advocating the privatization of OPEC oil resources in order break up monopolistic cartels and allow market forces to dictate oil process instead of a handful of Arab sheiks?
Well no shit Mr. Dreyfus! Economic enterprises not owned by the state is a pretty key concept in free market ideology.
Conservatives with ties to these think tanks in key policy roles within the Bush administration?
Well no shit Mr. Dreyfus! If it was not for think tanks, politics, and academia, policy wonks would not have much to do.
But I also think that Dreyfus’ fixation on privatization seems to follow in line with the standard group-think mindset of the left.
Now before someone out there begins whining at me for red-baiting, this is hardly the first time Dreyfus had taken this point of view
there is little or no evidence in the history they cite that the socialist movement would have propelled America toward an undemocratic form of government. Instead, it looks as if the actors in this drama were merely fighting for social democracy, equality, and justice--and lost. Would it be such a bad thing if a new generation of progressive activists took inspiration from our resilient American-style socialists? We can learn from their failures, but, seeing them as more than ghosts from a distant past, we can learn also from their passion, their willingness to confront power, and their soaring hopes for a better society.
but my favorite Dreyfus Article would have to be The Phantom Menace
, which appeared in the September/October 2000 edition of Mother Jones. Here are some of the choicest pieces.
The problem is, the threat of such an attack appears to be no more real than the mock terror in Portsmouth. According to data collected by the State Department and the FBI, terrorism worldwide (in all its forms, including old-fashioned bombs, guns, and airplane hijackings) has plummeted since the end of the Cold War -- and in the United States, it is virtually nonexistent.
Those "worst-case scenarios" have provided the military and defense agencies with a much-needed rationale to sustain high levels of spending in the wake of the Cold War. With so much money being spread around, virtually every agency of the U.S. government is fast developing an antiterrorism program to cash in. And in an ominous move, the Clinton administration has given the Pentagon and the FBI sweeping new powers that threaten to erode civil liberties. Counterterrorism laws have allowed the FBI to expand surveillance of American dissidents and U.S. backers of Third World guerrilla groups, while U.S. armed forces have set up special commands that enable uniformed soldiers to erect domestic roadblocks, make arrests, and engage in house-to-house searches in response to an alleged terrorist act or threat.
In effect, the Clinton administration has used what it concedes is an unlikely threat of a terrorist attack to create an unprecedented partnership involving the military, intelligence agencies, and domestic law enforcement. "
Terrorists were a well-known threat to American embassies and other targets abroad, and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by Islamic fundamentalists brought the danger home. Now the generals and spymasters had a new enemy -- and new ways to bolster their declining budgets.
With such a steady diet of horror stories, it's no wonder the public has come to regard the threat of terrorism as very real. In a 1998 poll conducted for the Henry L. Stimson Center, a national security think tank, more than three-quarters of those questioned said they consider a nuclear attack by terrorists "likely." Among potential nuclear threats to the United States, terrorist groups were ranked as the greatest danger, ahead of China, Iraq, Iran, and Russia. "People have transferred their fear of communism to fear of terrorism," says John Parachini, executive director of the Washington office of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, a research organization specializing in arms control.
Yet the government's own data suggest that the fear is out of proportion to the threat. According to the State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism," terrorism is actually on the decline. In the 1980s, the administration recorded a yearly average of 562 terrorist attacks worldwide. In the 1990s, the annual figure dropped by a third to 382.
Indeed, some critics charge that cases of foreign terrorists striking within the United States are so rare that the FBI has been slow to publish its annual report, Terrorism in the United States. In June, the bureau finally released the 1998 edition, blaming the delay on troubles in compiling data. But some suggest that the FBI knows the figures undercut its case for increased antiterrorist funding. "I think they'd be embarrassed about how little there is," says Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology.
According to a recent study by the Monterey Institute for International Studies in California, only one American has died this century from a terrorist attack using nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. In 1973, a school superintendent in Oakland was killed by a cyanide-laced bullet -- fired not by a shadowy foreigner, but by a member of the California-based Symbionese Liberation Army.
The main reason terrorists haven't used weapons of mass destruction is simple: Such devices, which involve complex and dangerous technologies, are not easy to acquire or use.
Many proponents of the antiterrorist mobilization make it seem as if would-be bombers could simply cobble together apocalyptic weapons using supplies found at the neighborhood hardware store. D.A. Henderson, head of the Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies at Johns Hopkins University, insists that well-connected criminals could construct an anthrax weapon for less than $1 million by hiring former Soviet scientists and buying Russian equipment. "There is some reasonable certainty that we will have a significant bioterrorism event within the next 10 years," Henderson says. "It's just a matter of time."
The antiterrorism drive has done far more than funnel money into federal agencies: It has also quietly expanded the government's powers to spy on political organizations. Key provisions of the Antiterrorism Act of 1996, which civil liberties groups call "one of the worst assaults on the Constitution in decades," made it a felony to raise money for organizations deemed "terrorist" and repealed laws preventing the FBI from investigating organizations simply because of their political activities.
That's exactly what the FBI did in its COINTELPRO program during the 1970s and in its operation against Americans who supported the rebels in El Salvador during the 1980s. Had the provisions of the Antiterrorism Act been in place then, the FBI could have investigated and arrested U.S. backers of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, which would have met the criteria to be deemed "terrorist."
It’s a common them for leftists like Dreyfus. For years they told us that communism was just another way of doing things and Marxist societies posed no threat to us. Genocide was not integral to the operation of a well oiled Marxist society, they were in no way shape of form interested with hostilities with the west, and most of all the fear against these societies based on “justice” and “fairness” was manufactured to justify large military expenditures and the repression of dissidents.
We all know now that this bit of historical revisionism is bullshit.
Just as we all know that 9/11 shattered Dreyfus’ claim in September of 2000 [ironic ehh?]
that terrorism was nothing more than a “Phantom Menace” being generated to beef up security.
Anyone want to wager what will come of Dreyfus’ newest allegations?
Friday, March 07, 2003
Found this link over at InstaPundit
and I think it beautifully summarizes the French position:
In recent weeks, France has led resistance at the United Nations and in world forums against U.S. pressure to begin war against the government of President Saddam Hussein. Today its foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, issued a new challenge to Washington, coming together with his counterparts from Russia and Germany to declare that their governments will block a pro-war resolution in the U.N. Security Council.
"This is not about Saddam Hussein, and this is not even about regime change in Iraq or even the million people killed by Saddam Hussein or missiles or chemical weapons," Pierre Lellouche, a legislator who is close to Chirac, said in an interview. "It is about what has become two conflicting views of the world.
"It's about whether the United States is allowed to run world affairs and battle terrorism and weapons proliferation essentially with a small group of trusted allies," or whether many nations should have a say, he said.
So who do you trust? The UN who has Colonel Momar Quadafi of Libya as the chairman of the UN commission on human rights?
Insight recently published an article detailing the sale and transfer of Magnequench Inc, a high tech rare earth magnet firm, to Chinese ownership. Seems as if the sale was simply a precursor to the transfer of the firm, as well as its proprietary technology into the waiting hands of the Chinese army.
Outraged U.S. technology experts and documents obtained by Insight indicate that the acquisition and subsequent transfer of high-tech rare-earth-magnet equipment and technology to the People's Republic of China is the result of a long-range espionage plan by the late "Paramount Leader" Deng Xiaoping directly involving two of Deng's sons-in-law.
The revelations come as Magnequench Inc., a company partially owned by the San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co. – itself at least partially owned by the PRC government – prepares to shut down a factory in Valparaiso, Ind., that produces critical parts for U.S. precision-guided weapons. The company then plans to ship the machine tools to China. Insight has learned from technology experts, plant insiders, internal PRC documents and historical records that the PRC had targeted the U.S. technological advantage in exotic materials and manufacturing and developed a long-term plan to acquire it in the United States and export a crucial U.S. military advantage to the communist-controlled mainland.
In 1995, San Huan New Materials and China Nonferrous Metals Industrial Corp. partnered with a U.S. investment firm to buy Indiana-based Magnequench from General Motors Corp. Insight has learned that the president of China Nonferrous Metals Industrial, Wu Jianchang, is married to Deng Lin, the eldest daughter of the late Deng Xiaoping. The chairman of San Huan New Materials, Zhang Hong, now chairman of Magnequench, is the husband of Deng Nan, second daughter of Deng Xiaoping. Deng Nan also is vice minister of state on science and technology for the PRC.
Though blocked by secrecy rules from going public, government officials expressed alarm about allowing the Chinese government access to strategic technology now being used to produce critical neodymium-iron-boron magnets for servos used in U.S. guided missiles and smart bombs. An even more critical technology, according to experts, was exported to the PRC in 1999 by Magnequench. That transfer included high-tech equipment used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, raising additional concern because of China's record of proliferating nuclear technology to rogue nations.
But after looking into this for a few minutes this morning, I was happy to see that someone, Congressman Pete Visclosky (D-In) and Senator Evan Bayh (D-In), was doing something