One wonders.
Henry Alminas
Some rather muddled thoughts on a
cold and windy Sunday.
First let me say that to no small degree I agree
with Kalmenas - the societies and their goals
on the two sides of the Atlantic are quite similar.
And yet there is no denying that the current
disagreement is being played to the hilt. In
my mind the suspicion is that perhaps people
were just bored - in a way (ignoring now the
temporary economic difficulties) things were
going too good and developing in a positive
direction all too predictably.
Having said that one can not ignore some
very real issues as well as some echoes from
the past. To start with one can ask oneself
who has the most to gain from this cross-
Atlantic bashing. Why - Russia of course.
Russia has made no secret of the fact that
she would do her utmost to break the
Atlantic linkage. In addition one of her
(again - very open) goals has been to either
break up or to emasculate NATO. Lately
(perhaps delayed due to an oversight) this
same holds true for the EU. Needless to
say there are also all those oil concessions
worth many billions that Russia has garnered
in Iraq. I do not consider
Russian machinations to be the primary cause
of the current ruckus but there is no denying
that her hand has been involved in the initiation
of this process as well as its continuation
and, indeed, acceleration thereof. In that
respect it was interesting for me to read an
article written by a Germany-resident russkie.
He indicated that Russia fully understood the
frustration that Germany is undergoing and
that there was but one answer to the problem.
The eastern tier still remembered the "Prague
initiative" (remember - the older one) well
and that this was the way to handle them.
Echoes of the past.
A second and equally important factor is the
resurgent activity of the seemingly rejuvenated
left. Certainly there is no denying that the
demonstrations within the US have been organized
by the left - in fact - the Stalinists. When this
was pointed out to the gullible it was shrugged
off with the statement that "well, they had the
organization and got there first". Demonstrations
are a god-sent to the left of course. They garner
attention, they give a show of strength and
no less importantly they lure the easily swayed
and gullible (thus performing a pre-screening
function) for subsequent indoctrination,
and possible recruitment. Thus the left has
enthusiastically joined in rowing the boat
of dissension with many hoped for rewards
on the horizon. Certainly painting the US
as the fount of all evil is just about their
oldest strategy - just read some of the
Holmanian posts of the past.
There is the French influence of course. That
one is quite easy to read. The French
have long been sour on anything not stressing
French glory or seemingly reducing their
influence on world events. In fact they are not
wrong in that perception - it has been shrinking.
About their only claim to world power is their
veto right within the security council of the UN
which was given them to assuage their injured
pride post WW2. Of course one also can't
forget the 60 bil. dollars worth of oil concessions
that they have in Iraq. Yet again, that is not
to mention the active French-Iraq trade not
even related to oil. But then the US is not
nearly as annoyed with France. After all - such
behavior on the part of France has become a
tradition and was fully expected.
Yet as important as the "contributions" to the
current disharmony the above listed factors
may be the main problems lies with Germany
and I fear that worse is to come (in fact there
are developments as I type). Historically
Germany has suffered from as bad a case
of paranoia as have the russkies. As a result
and not surprisingly there is a worrying resurrection
of the old "stab in the back" mantra in the German
press. Now if we know history at all we are aware
of the fact that Germany has been "stabbed in the
back" repeatedly. If anything went wrong in their
imperial plans - it was either an internal (by some
or other rotten group) stab in the back or an external
one. While Germany stood nobly on her principles
some one or group of scoundrels did the dirty deed.
Well, it has happened again. The accusations
thrown at Washington including mental retardation
and insanity I will ignore. The US, after all, is a
big boy and needs no defending - at least not from
the likes of Fisher and other selected German
politicians and pundits. It is the accusations thrown
at everybody else who dares to disagree with Germany
that is worrying. First the Germans were "stabbed
in the back" by the "gang of eight". Shortly thereafter
it was the "no-name ten" (as one German paper
put it "whatever the names of those countries are").
In addition they fully expect France to do the
deed as well (as I type I see that the French deny
there is a "secret German-French plan")
So where will this whole thing go?
Best - - Henry
Jonhillr
An expansion of *control* wherever possible.
By various means possible.
For reasons that are not being made public.
There are big expansions within larger ones.
Each expansion requires additional loss of controls at the citizens' level.
The best government is a local government,
jonhill
Martin Georgin
this is rift is that, in the view of some European countries, the
USA's war against terrorism appears to have gone off the rails, with
the USA focusing it's effort at Iraq. Their question is: What has Iraq
got to do with Septemer 11 and the war against terrorism? Perhaps as a
US resident Henry, you could shed some light on this?
Regards,
Martin
"Henry Alminas" <halm...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<WRA1a.49173$tq4.2772@sccrnsc01>...
Eugene Holman
<halm...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Some rather muddled thoughts on a
> cold and windy Sunday.
>
> First let me say that to no small degree I agree
> with Kalmenas - the societies and their goals
> on the two sides of the Atlantic are quite similar.
Superficially they might appear similar, but underneath they are quite
different. The US is still a young society with a strong sense of rugged
individualism and a correspondingly weak sense of collective social
responsibility. Western European societies are more collectivist with a
far stronger sense of social responsibility. The post-communist societies
of Central and Eastern Europe have not yet fully decided whether emulating
the US or the Western European model would be best for their future
development, although their firm and incessant knocking on the door of the
EU seems to indicate that, in the final analysis, they prefer the Western
European welfare state with its high living standards, high quality social
services and generous social safety net to the wilder, woolier, and more
socially polarized American model.
> And yet there is no denying that the current
> disagreement is being played to the hilt. In
> my mind the suspicion is that perhaps people
> were just bored - in a way (ignoring now the
> temporary economic difficulties) things were
> going too good and developing in a positive
> direction all too predictably.
The current disagreement is about a fundamaental issue: war.
Is Iraq guilty of anything so serious that it justifies war? Will
destroying Iraq's infrastructure and killing thousands of its people
accomplish anything positive? Will the doctrine of the right of strong
countries to make pre-emptive strikes on countries half-way around the
world that they don't like replace the current imperfect but nevertheless
more manageable system of international relations based on the prestige
and seriousness of the United Nations? And, of course, will the United
States be be able to prevent attacks on its own territory or that of its
allies, including the Baltics, if it goes ahead with the attack on Iraq.
The other side of the "an attack on one is an attack on all" doctrine is
"an attack by one is an attack by all".
> Having said that one can not ignore some
> very real issues as well as some echoes from
> the past. To start with one can ask oneself
> who has the most to gain from this cross-
> Atlantic bashing. Why - Russia of course.
> Russia has made no secret of the fact that
> she would do her utmost to break the
> Atlantic linkage. In addition one of her
> (again - very open) goals has been to either
> break up or to emasculate NATO.
True. Putin's Russia has the restoration of Russia to major power status
as a top-priority objective. Nor is this strange or even undesirable.
Russia as a major power behaving as a responsible member of the world
community is better than Russia as a frustrated and isolated country,
dreaming of days of past glory. Russia and many others see NATO as a
relict of the Cold War and would, like to see it emasculated or radically
changed. But you can't blame everything on Russia. The United States, as
the world's only superpower, is happy to ignore the opinions of its NATO
allies and act unilaterally if it wants to or thinks that it must, as has
already been seen in the recent past. Russia only *wants* to see NATO
emasculated, US unilateralism and desire to fight rather than negotiate is
effectively doing that job.
> Lately
> (perhaps delayed due to an oversight) this
> same holds true for the EU. Needless to
> say there are also all those oil concessions
> worth many billions that Russia has garnered
> in Iraq. I do not consider
> Russian machinations to be the primary cause
> of the current ruckus but there is no denying
> that her hand has been involved in the initiation
> of this process as well as its continuation
> and, indeed, acceleration thereof.
Russia, like the US, has its eyes on Iraqi oil and, unlike the US, has
invested billions of dollars in upgrading the Iraqi infrastructure. Like
any prudent capitalist country, it does not desire to see its investment
go up in smoke.
> In that
> respect it was interesting for me to read an
> article written by a Germany-resident russkie.
> He indicated that Russia fully understood the
> frustration that Germany is undergoing and
> that there was but one answer to the problem.
Both countries have suffered from war in ways the United States never has.
They have learned their lesson.
> The eastern tier still remembered the "Prague
> initiative" (remember - the older one) well
> and that this was the way to handle them.
> Echoes of the past.
The US is talking about Saddam Hussein in the same way that the USSR
talked about Aleksandr Dubc^ek.
> A second and equally important factor is the
> resurgent activity of the seemingly rejuvenated
> left. Certainly there is no denying that the
> demonstrations within the US have been organized
> by the left - in fact - the Stalinists.
What? How many "Stalinists" are there in the US? The demonstrations have
been organized by people with a sense of conscience and social
responsibility. People who are disgusted by the idea of a big bully
getting ready to beat up a little bully. There are plenty of states in the
world with weapons of mass destruction, including North Korea and Israel,
and Saddam Hussein, although he runs a brutal state, is not the worst
dictator around. People ask how the United States will gain from attacking
and defeating Iraq? Will it wipe out intenraitonal terrorism? No. Will it
further the cause of world peace? No. Will Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, or
any of the other halks and oil hounds see their childen coming back in
zink coffins? No. Will a US or combined NATO attack on kill tens or
hundreds of thousands of people and create hundreds of thousands or even
millions of refugees in an areas of the world ill equipped to handle them?
Yes. Is being involved in such an imbroglio what the Baltic countries were
bargaining for when they sought NATO membership? No.
> When this
> was pointed out to the gullible it was shrugged
> off with the statement that "well, they had the
> organization and got there first". Demonstrations
> are a god-sent to the left of course. They garner
> attention, they give a show of strength and
> no less importantly they lure the easily swayed
> and gullible (thus performing a pre-screening
> function) for subsequent indoctrination,
> and possible recruitment.
What a load of crap. Demonstrations show that people are dissatisfied with
the course their country is presetly taking, and that they have the
courage to express their dissatisfaction publicly. We have had
demonstrations against American militarism all over Europe duing the past
weeks, and we shall have a big one here in Helsinki on February 15.
> Thus the left has
> enthusiastically joined in rowing the boat
> of dissension with many hoped for rewards
> on the horizon.
It is not just the left. All shades of opinion are represented. The
present system for dealing with international relations has kept the world
at relative peace for the past 58 years. People are not ready to dump it
for a return to the "might is right" doctrine of the past.
> Certainly painting the US
> as the fount of all evil is just about their
> oldest strategy - just read some of the
> Holmanian posts of the past.
The US is not the fount of all evil, but it is about to open a Pandora's
box, which could have horrific ramifications. If the US can remove Iraq's
government because it doesn't like it, why can't Russia remove Lithuania's
government for the same reason? And if you thought that September 11 was
unjustified, the next major terrorist attack on US territory will most
certainly be if America goes through with the attack on Iraq unilaterally.
>
> There is the French influence of course. That
> one is quite easy to read. The French
> have long been sour on anything not stressing
> French glory or seemingly reducing their
> influence on world events.
The French also have an important presence in the Arab world, as well as
large North African and Middle Eastern Arabic-speaking and/or Muslim
minorities.
> In fact they are not
> wrong in that perception - it has been shrinking.
> About their only claim to world power is their
> veto right within the security council of the UN
> which was given them to assuage their injured
> pride post WW2. Of course one also can't
> forget the 60 bil. dollars worth of oil concessions
> that they have in Iraq.
Correct. Like the Russians, they don't want to see their investments there
blown to hell.
> Yet again, that is not
> to mention the active French-Iraq trade not
> even related to oil. But then the US is not
> nearly as annoyed with France. After all - such
> behavior on the part of France has become a
> tradition and was fully expected.
The French have been involved in the Middle East for a very long time.
They have interests and friends there. They also have a major Muslim
presence in their own country which has far more politial clout and
influence than Muslims do in the US.
> Yet as important as the "contributions" to the
> current disharmony the above listed factors
> may be the main problems lies with Germany
> and I fear that worse is to come (in fact there
> are developments as I type).
Germany also has a large - about 4,000,000 - Muslim minority, in addition
to being the one European power which is on good terms with both israel
and the Muslim world. They have no desire to see this advantageous
position jeopordized by an unjustified and destructive military campaign
when other means of resolving the problem are available.
<snip>
> Well, it has happened again. The accusations
> thrown at Washington including mental retardation
> and insanity I will ignore.
From the perspective of Europe, the intention to attack Iraq appears to be
a sign of mental retardation and insanity. So-called international
terrorism, which is actually the poor man's version of war, will surely
increase rather than decrease as a consequence. More importantly, the
doctrine that the UN is a joke, and that strong countries have the right
to attack and effect "regime changes" in smaller or weaker countries will
once again become the guiding principle of intenational relations. No sane
person would want to revert to that system.
> The US, after all, is a
> big boy and needs no defending - at least not from
> the likes of Fisher and other selected German
> politicians and pundits.
We saw over the weekend that Mr. Fischer has a moral sense that Mr.
Rumsfeld evidently lacks.
> It is the accusations thrown
> at everybody else who dares to disagree with Germany
> that is worrying. First the Germans were "stabbed
> in the back" by the "gang of eight". Shortly thereafter
> it was the "no-name ten" (as one German paper
> put it "whatever the names of those countries are").
> In addition they fully expect France to do the
> deed as well (as I type I see that the French deny
> there is a "secret German-French plan")
>
> So where will this whole thing go?
I hope for peace but would bet on war. The US has already invested too
much money and prestige in this thing to go home not having fired a shot.
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
<halm...@attbi.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
> A second and equally important factor is the
> resurgent activity of the seemingly rejuvenated
> left. Certainly there is no denying that the
> demonstrations within the US have been organized
> by the left - in fact - the Stalinists. When this
> was pointed out to the gullible it was shrugged
> off with the statement that "well, they had the
> organization and got there first".
<snip>
Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html
<quote>
Exclusive: Scott Ritter in His Own Words
The former weapons inspector explains his switch from getting up Saddam's
nose to picking fights with Bush
By MASSIMO CALABRESI
ALI HAIDER/AP
Former UN inspector Scott Ritter at an antiterrorist training camp in Iraq
Person of the Week: Scott Ritter
Saturday, Sep. 14, 2002
Scott Ritter was the UN's top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, when
he resigned claiming President Clinton was too easy on Saddam. Now he says
the dictator doesn't seem to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
that trying to oust Saddam is "extremely dangerous." TIME's Massimo
Calabresi asked the voluble former marine about his recent private trip to
Baghdad, Jane Fonda, and accusations he's a spy for Israel, Iraq or
Russia.
Time: What were you doing in Baghdad?
Ritter: Waging peace. My goal in Baghdad was to facilitate a debate here
in the United States on America's policy toward Iraq, a debate that's been
sadly lacking. We're facing a critical moment in American history and I
believe this is something that has to be more thoroughly looked at. Why go
to Iraq? You're talking to me now because I went to Iraq. I've been saying
the exact same thing for years and I didn't get the call from Time
magazine.
Who paid for the trip? Were any of your expenses paid for by the Iraqis?
No. The only thing that could be construed as an Iraqi expense is that
they provided a vehicle that drove me from the hotel to the meetings with
the government officials. I did not reimburse them for the gas used or the
time of the driver.
Some on the right call you the new Jane Fonda, and joke about what you'll
call your exercise video.
(Long pause?) Those on the right who say that disgrace the 12 years of
service I gave to my country as a Marine. I love my country. I'll put my
record of service up against anyone, bar none. If they want to have an
exercise video then why don't they come here and say it to my face and
I'll give'm an exercise video, which will be called, "Scott Ritter Kicking
Their Ass."
In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't
have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?
I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said
that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD
capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say
that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets
caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in
the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in
the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.
Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity
to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?
I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert
procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and
I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has
someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions
violations? We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq
to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he
has acquired that capability doesn't necessarily translate into
incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that
he hasn't done anything.
Are you being investigated for espionage?
I've been called a spy of Israel since 1996, and since I made my
documentary film in 2000 the FBI has investigated me as an agent of Iraq.
The FBI has also opened up an investigation into my wife calling her a KGB
spy. So there is this form of harassment taking place.
Did you write a report, at the time you were doing inspections in Votkinsk
in the Soviet Union in 1988 that said the group your wife worked for was
full of spies?
No. I indicated that given past models of Soviet penetration techniques
that these young girls, of which my wife was one, who were brought in by
the Soviets to carry out translation services had been used in the past to
attempt sexual compromise. I subsequently wrote a series of reports that
said this did not appear to be the case in Votkinsk. In fact, because of
the human intelligence work I did in the Soviet Union I was able to
ascertain that the girls were actually dissatisfied with the Soviets. They
showed a tendency to speak out against the KGB to the U.S. inspectors.
You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you
describe what you saw there?
The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters,
which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison
for children ‹ toddlers up to pre-adolescents ‹ whose only crime was to be
the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime
of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to
describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can
be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now
I'm waging peace.
You told the Iraqi parliament that Saddam had legitimate complaints about
the prior inspection regime. What did you mean?
The U.S. had a track record of putting pressure on the weapons inspectors
program during my entire seven years there. It's ironic that everyone has
focused on the struggle of the inspectors vs. Iraq. Not too many people
speak of the struggle between the weapons inspectors and the U.S. to beat
back the forces of U.S. intelligence which were seeking to infiltrate the
weapons inspectors program and use the unique access the inspectors
enjoyed in Iraq for purposes other than disarmament. Iraq has a clear case
that under this past inspection regime unfortunately it was misused for
purposes other than set out by the Security Council resolution.
Did you get any spying done on your trip?
Haha. Did I spy on Iraq my most recent trip? I wasn't there to collect
intelligence on Iraq. To be frank, I didn't see barricades in the streets
or earthen berms being erected or fortifications underway. I did see a lot
of troops in the streets and I saw that Iraq had beefed up their air
defense in the capital. I saw that they were moving these air defense
units frequently to avoid a strike. But I wasn't there to carry out a full
canvas of Iraq's military capabilities.
</quote>
Eugene Holman
<quote>
one-page leaflet for distribution
Quotes from Scott Ritter
former head of UN Weapons Inspection Team in Iraq & former US Marine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the 8-year economic sanctions against the people of Iraq:
"The inherent inhumanity of economic sanctions damages those who impose
it. As an American, I resent having my national character stained this
way." - From his newly published book - Endgame (page 198)
"We're killing 5,000 kids under the age of five every month. Now people
say Saddam's killing them, but ultimately, sanctions are killing them, and
we shouldn't be supportive of something that causes innocent people to
suffer to such a degree." - From an interview with CBN, March 30, 1999
About Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction':
"Today, Iraq no long possesses arms of mass destruction." - From an
interview with the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat, March 31, 1999
"The Iraqi army is in total disarray, capable of little more than manning
security pickets along the Iran-Iraq border, in northern Iraq (Kurdistan),
and in southern Iraq. I have visited numerous Iraqi military barracks and
have seen soldiers in tattered uniforms and bare feet. Military training
is without substance, barely sufficient to convert recruits into simple
soldiers, let alone provide skills in the intricacies of modern combined
arms combat-the integration of infantry, armor, artillery, and air power
in a single military action. Reduced to five corps from seven before the
Gulf War, the army today relies on an armored force whose centerpiece is
the T-55 tank, a relic of the 1950's. The few T-62 tanks and BMP armored
fighting vehicles are only one generation newer, and countless generations
behind world-leading U.S. battlefield technology." - From his newly
published book - Endgame (page 199)
"I have seen the Republican Guard, too ... enough to put down internal
unrest, but not enough to match the armed forces of any of its neighbors.
... Even at its best, the Republican Guard was decimated in a matter of
hours once it engaged the U.S. Army in 1991. Any international threat from
today's Republican Guard is imaginary. ... Saddam's air force in action
could be shot out of the sky by any of the modern air forces of its
neighbors. ... Iraq simply lacks the stocks of chemical and biological
agent needed to have any militarily significant effect. Tens of thousands
of munitions would be required, and at best Iraq has but a few hundred." -
From his newly published book - Endgame (page 200)
About the US administration's goal to overthrow the Iraqi regime:
"The current U.S. policy of trying to overthrow Saddam is misguided. The
underlying problems will continue to exist. Saddam did not create the
animosity between Iraq and Iran, nor did Saddam fabricate the Iraq-Kuwait
border issue. He is not the source of the Israeli-Arab conflict. His
extreme positions and irresponsible actions have exacerbated these
problems, but they would have arisen without him, and his disappearance
would solve none of them." - From his newly published book - Endgame (page
201)
"Practically speaking, there is virtually no chance that opposition groups
could overthrow Saddam." - From his newly published book - Endgame (page
202)
About the December bombings in 1998:
"The U.S. has perverted the U.N. weapons process by using it as a tool to
justify military actions, falsely so. ... The U.S. was using the
inspection process as a trigger for war." -- From an interview on the NBC
Today show, December 17, 1998.
Iraq Action Coalition ... http://iraqaction.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on weaponry, refer to the following section: '
Weapons of Mass Destruction? '
[Iraq Action Coalition - homepage ]
</quote>
Henry Alminas
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-1002...@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
> Source: http://leb.net/IAC/oldsite/ritter.html
Holman -
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors riding the
"Ritter" horse. Take the line below"
> "We're killing 5,000 kids under the age of five every month. "
Bringing Mr. Ritter up in the same paragraph with children
is a losing proposition Holman. The same relative to
Iraqi funding of his activities. Unless, of course, you
believe that Iraqi "businessmen" are not influenced by
el leader supremo. Do you get *any* news in Helsinki?
Best - - Henry
Eugene Holman
<halm...@attbi.com> wrote:
Yes, we do. Mr. Ritter's book *War on Iran*, co-authored with William
Pitt, just came out in a Finnish edition.
Source: http://www.likekustannus.fi/kirjakeko/tiedot.php?id=872
<quote>
Irakin sota
(War On Iraq)
Tekijä: Ritter, Scott & Pitt, William
Suomentaja:
ISBN: 952-471-135-4
Sidosasu: nid., 96 s.
ilm: 01/2003
Saatavuus: Saatavissa normaalisti
Hinta: 14.00 e
Saddam Husseinilla ja al-Qaidalla ei ole mitään yhteistä.
Irakin asevarastot on tuhottu Persianlahden sodan jälkeen.
Ulkoa päin pakotettu vallanvaihto ei johda demokratiaan.
Teos vie pohjan pois kaikilta argumenteilta, joita muun muassa presidentti
Bush on käyttänyt USA:n hyökkäyksen puolesta. Teos on ollut
bestsellerlistoilla USA:ssa monta viikkoa heti ilmestymisestään.
Kirjan toinen tekijä Scott Ritter on YK:n entinen asetarkastaja. Hän
tietää sodan todelliset riskit sekä siinä tapauksessa, että USA hyökkäisi
Irakiin, että siinä tapauksessa, ettei sotaa aloitettaisi. Ritter on
tunnettu republikaani, ja hän on kertonut äänestäneensä George W. Bushia
presidentiksi.
<quote>
Translation:
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida have nothing in common.
Iraqi stores of arms were destroyed after the Gulf War.
Externally forced regime change will not lead to democracy.
The book pulls the rug out from under all the arguments which President
Bush among others have used in support of a US attack. The book made the
US best-seller lists immediately after it was published and has remained
there for several weeks.
One of the authors, Scott Ritter, is a former UN arms inspector. e knows
the real risks of war both if the US attacks Iraq as well as if a war is
not begun. Rotter is a well-known Republican, and he has disclosed that he
voted for George W. Bush as president.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
kalmenas
> In article <WRA1a.49173$tq4.2772@sccrnsc01>, "Henry Alminas"
> <halm...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > Some rather muddled thoughts on a
> > cold and windy Sunday.
> >
> > First let me say that to no small degree I agree
> > with Kalmenas - the societies and their goals
> > on the two sides of the Atlantic are quite similar.
>
> Superficially they might appear similar, but underneath they are quite
> different. The US is still a young society with a strong sense of rugged
> individualism and a correspondingly weak sense of collective social
Young? The US is in fact one of the oldest Republican governments on
the face of this planet. Britain might make a claim, but it is
arguable. All others do not come close. In fact when traveling
between the US and Lithuania this is one of the differences which
definitely exist - Lithuania is indeed a very young Republic and
it shows in many ways. On the other hand France or Italy or Sweden
in all cases less then half as 'old' as the US have their
Republican diapers also far behind. In general I do not think
that a time frame beyond something like 50 years is meaningful.
That is the concious lifetime of almost all voters and anything
beyond that is pretty much infinity.
The stuff about 'ruggedness' is social hogwash as
well. That I know from personal experience. When I came to the
US from gentle, unrugged Europe, I found that the US was in
fact a considerably more 'gentle' and 'politicaly correct'
country. A difficult claim to generalize, because the US is
so varied. But the opposite claim is even more difficult to
prove. Lets not confuse the Holywood bang-bang and crash that
car films with US society. These films are made for the
world market and indeed that is their problem. It is the
market out there that pays for these mindless displays
of virtual 'ruggedness'.
But not to diverge too much from the subject. In spite of
all the sociological jargon and explanations in their heart
most of the French and certainly the Germans know that
evil will persist and grow until it is stopped. Especially
Germany owes its democratic government and its present
well being to the fact that the US stepped in to fight
the evil of Nacism. The claim I hear from an oh so gentle
and freedom loving German commentator that "let the
Iraqui people decide for themselves" can be seen in
its true light if just a few decades are shaved and we
say (for example in 1939 or 1942) "let the poeple of
Germany decide for themselves."
I do not claim to know the inner workings of the German
or especially the French mind, but I suspect that
a guilty concience and a feeling of impotence has
much to do with their present theatrical display
of anti-Americanism
Kalmenas
Jonhillr
(While using quaint canned phraseology to further communism (sort of like a
Stalinist aunt Bea)).
>The US is still a young society
That's crazy; two hundred years of continous democracy is older than almost
every european government.
>and a correspondingly weak sense of collective social
>responsibility.
There is no such thing as "collective social
responsibility" in a international setting - unless you are a communist or euro
lemming. (much the same thing, actually)
>Western European societies are more collectivist with a
>far stronger sense of social responsibility.
Right. That's because they are more communist (still).
>The post-communist societies
>of Central and Eastern Europe have not yet fully decided whether emulating
>the US or the Western European model would be best for their future
>development
Oh, they know. NATO has offered them tangible protection - while the EU looks
like another recently endured socialist 'union'.
>although their firm and incessant knocking on the door..
'Too much knocking on your head' you mean..
(This is an example of your trite yet paraochial literary
'communistic-aunt-Beaism'.)
To continue.. 'Beaing' unable to otherwise participate in the local
international trade did present a problem to any newly re-independent eastern
democracy.
But membership in the WTO has solved that problem...
There is no longer a need to be part of the EU in order to gain 'most favored
nation' trading status as MFN membership in the WTO forces all members to grant
such status internally to all other WTO members.
And therefore there is no longer an economic need for the EU. Except for the
war-mongering French and Germans so it seems.
>they prefer the Western
>European welfare state with its high living standards, high quality social
>services and generous social safety net to the wilder, woolier, and more
>socially polarized American model.
Huh? What about the aunt-Beaish 'wild and woolly 'russkie' model'. You left
that one out.
But you are ignorant in assuming that *any* model - other than the already
existing *native* models would be sought for - or even needed.
The eastern nations have not sought independence to merely and *only* choose
between:
1) the US, or
2) the EU socialist states.
..there are more than two flavors in the world... and it is not yet a bi-polar
world. Not even close.
>Is Iraq guilty of anything so serious that it justifies war?
I don't think so. Bad decision making has been evident in the US administration
since the Wolfowitz faction gained the upper hand.
>Will
>destroying Iraq's infrastructure and killing thousands of its people
>accomplish anything positive?
From the US's point of view it will secure oil and regional control. The
wolfowitz faction, unfortunately, considers this to be sufficient.
(Very short term.. but if you follow recent history..everything has been
typified as a short term goal.
Yet sufficient numbers of achieved short term goals begin to look like a long
string of achieved long term policy.)
>Will the doctrine of the right of strong
>countries to make pre-emptive strikes on countries half-way around the
>world that they don't like replace the current imperfect but nevertheless
>more manageable system of international relations based on the prestige
>and seriousness of the United Nations?
What was it, aunt-Bea-Holeman that you said regarding previous russian power
grabs...
Oh yeah, something like.. "live with it", and "shit happens.", ... and "get
over it".
Didn't you? Don't tell me you didn't mean it.
>And, of course, will the United
>States be be able to prevent attacks on its own territory or that of its
>allies, including the Baltics, if it goes ahead with the attack on Iraq.
Why should anyone attack the Baltics?
You get sillier than ever.
>The other side of the "an attack on one is an attack on all" doctrine is
>"an attack by one is an attack by all".
Not at all. NATO is a defensive alliance - not aggressive. The US has engaged
in many wars that its NATO allies have not.
'Vietnam' comes to mind.
(And with a nod to Henry's idea... Yes indeed, the russians almost broke NATO
by agitating the Danes to withing a hairs-breadth of leaving NATO in the
mid-80's.)
I return, again, to my evaluation of the faulty decision making of the
woflowitz faction. They are trying to secure the NATO asset for aggresive
actions. And I don't think it will fly. It can't by the terms of the NATO
Charter itself. The attempt should fail.
And too bad that Iraq is not a member of NATO, ej?
>Russia as a major power behaving as a responsible member of the world
>community is better than Russia as a frustrated and isolated country,
>dreaming of days of past glory.
So many lies..
Where to start...
Russia's behavior in Chechnya, Georgia, Abkhazia, Kaliningrad, the Baltics.. is
not "reponsible" behavior.. it is "criminal behavior".
Russia is not "isolated".
Clearly any nation interfering in the above nations' affairscannot be termed
isolationist.
And inn what way is russia "frustrated"?
In that it cannot, once again, openly invade, loot, kill, and pillage?
...And what the hell do "days of past glory" have to do with anything in a
rational discourse of geo-politics?
You should remember that most of us here..other than yourself... have little
use for past russkie "days of glory".
You seem to be getting maudlin in your pining and keening for your past days of
unbridled communist blood-letting.
>Russia only *wants* to see NATO
>emasculated, US unilateralism and desire to fight rather than negotiate is
>effectively doing that job.
Unfortunately, true.
>Is being involved in such an imbroglio what the Baltic countries were
>bargaining for when they sought NATO membership? No.
Also true. Nevertheless it was an astute move for the 'Vilnius Ten' to make
clear their support for the US initiative. Logistically the cost was little,
diplomatically the dividends might be large, and politically it also served
notice to the EU lemmings that their centralization grab is not appreciated.
jonhill
Dmitry Fedotov
"kalmenas" <alm...@aiva.lt> wrote in message
news:cecb0a80.03021...@posting.google.com...
I don't like stereotyping either, but when the president acts like a
character in Hollywood bang-bang movie the image can be very convincing.
>
> But not to diverge too much from the subject. In spite of
> all the sociological jargon and explanations in their heart
> most of the French and certainly the Germans know that
> evil will persist and grow until it is stopped. Especially
> Germany owes its democratic government and its present
> well being to the fact that the US stepped in to fight
> the evil of Nacism. The claim I hear from an oh so gentle
> and freedom loving German commentator that "let the
> Iraqui people decide for themselves" can be seen in
> its true light if just a few decades are shaved and we
> say (for example in 1939 or 1942) "let the poeple of
> Germany decide for themselves."
>
> I do not claim to know the inner workings of the German
> or especially the French mind, but I suspect that
> a guilty concience and a feeling of impotence has
> much to do with their present theatrical display
> of anti-Americanism
Or anti-war?
>
> Kalmenas