I think that, just to be sure, the US should install warning labels
on all fingers indicating that putting them in proximity to one’s
mouth while holding food could result in dire obesity, particularly in North America. But does
anyone really think that Warning Labels are meaningful anymore, after
decades of useless labels on CDs, Cigarettes, and Ladders?

In the longer term I think that history will illustrate that the real
problem isn’t simply, “sugar” (which is a generic term referencing
dozens of different additives) but instead High Fructose Corn Syrup,
or what I call “engineered sugar”. HFCS was born in the 1970s, in
part to address two things: the high cost of sugar, due to America’s
ongoing embargo of Cuba (which has traditionally ranked highly within
the top five exporters of sugar); and the dramatic overproduction of
corn, due to America’s moronic ongoing subsidy of its growth by
farmers (which has also resulted in the wholly unnecessary emergence
of Ethanol, BioDiesel, and lots of other stupid Corn-Into-Gold
technologies).

High Fructose Corn Syrup is not natural. Its existence is the result
of a mad chemist’s array of processes, fermentations, chain
reactions, and engineering. As such it’s natural to assume that we
organisms might have a really hard time ingesting, processing, and
excreting it safely. Consumed in high enough quantities (which most
of us do today) it has been revealed to effectively turn our bodies
into mush.

What’s circumstantially different between the relatively svelte
peoples of Europe and the statistically obese heifers of North
America is the quality of the sugars we intake. Europeans consume
lots of sucrose (from beet and cane) and us Americans eat mostly
biochemically-engineered sugars. We’re fat. They ain’t.
Confectioners can’t even use the term “chocolate” in the EU unless
their product uses real sugars, which is one reason why Mars bars in
the UK kick ass on North American ones.

So go ahead and label Soda cans all you want, but it’s pure,
unmitigated folly and will have no appreciable effect on the number
of forklift cases faced by paramedics in the future.

You really wanna cope with the obesity problem?

– Educate children (and adults) in schools on how to eat
better in SIMPLE terms
– Stop subsidizing the growth of corn and other crops we
don’t need
– Stop fucking with our food supply unless you’re going to test thoroughly the effects
– Disincentivize the sale and distribution of junk food with extra taxes, etc.
– Close forever the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto

.. of course we won’t do that, because the Fat Kids can’t afford
expensive Washington/Ottawa lobbyists as can Monsanto, Yum! Foods,
and McDonald’s. Instead, the problem will just continue to amplify
until — like the hormonally-unbalanced, permanently ill beef cattle
of the North American livestock industry — many of the people of our
countries will be managed in a continuous state of illness and sloth,
taxing our social services to the maximum while displacing the truly
sick. All of this at no expense and to the massive profitability of
a dwindling (through consolidation) number of megacorporations
(including, of course, health providers who triage and manage the
lingering deaths of the populace) in the BioTechnology, Food, and
Health Care industries.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is a poison by many names (dextrose, glucose-
fructose, etc.), and is so pervasive in North American foods that
it’s almost impossible to avoid consuming it. My Snapple that
contains the “Best Stuff On Earth!” lists glucose-fructose second in
quantity only to water on the label. Just about the only package on
my desk today that doesn’t contain any HFCS is my bottle of Evian.

Some info:

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun99/927695713.Ch.r.html

A short term answer: go organic.

But what happens to society when only rich people can afford to eat a
healthy diet, free from chemicals and engineered foods?

-Ian.

-Ian.

—- http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php?articleId”11&lang=en

The Real But Unspoken Reasons For The Iraq War – OIL U$ Dollar vs. Euro 08.04.2003 [12:37]

Summary Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking – it an an oil CURRENCY war. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration’s goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the “petro-dollar” and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. THE REAL REASONS FOR THE UPCOMING WAR IN IRAQ A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth By W. Clark wrc92 [at] aol [dot] com “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be … The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe.” Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that have beset our nation. As our government prepares to go to war with Iraq, our country seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this war. First, why is there virtually no international support to topple Saddam? If Iraq’s WMD program truly possessed the threat level that President Bush has repeatedly purported, why is there no international coalition to militarily disarm Saddam? Secondly, despite over 300 unfettered U.N inspections to date, there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraqi WMD program. Third, and despite Bush’s rhetoric, the CIA has not found any links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some analysts believe it is far more likely Al Qaeda might acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction, or potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized Pakistan. Moreover, immediately following Congress’s vote on the Iraq Resolution, we suddenly became aware of North Korea’s nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. President Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam’s seemingly dormant WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea’s active program? Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were “exiled” we could avoid an Iraq war? Confused yet? Well, I’m going to give their game away – the core driver for toppling Saddam is actually the euro currency, the â,. Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the ruling class at Langley and the Bush oligarchy view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration’s goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the “petro-dollar” and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and anonymous friend alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq… “The Federal Reserve’s greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar’s steady depreciation against the euro.” (Note: the dollar declined 15% against the euro in 2002.) “The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq – or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq – is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way.” (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran – the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports). Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our ‘client state,’ the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak/ threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe a “Saudi Revolution” might be plausible in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq (ie. Iran circa 1979) (1). Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and grab Saudi’s oil fields in the event of a coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq. “Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) – at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can – short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime.” Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they’ll rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India, China.” This information about Iraq’s oil currency is censored by the U.S. media as well as the Bush administration & Federal Reserve as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/ spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off middle-eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards war in Iraq. This quasi “state secret” can be found on a Radio Free Europe article discussing Saddam’s switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on Nov. 6, 2000 (2). “Baghdad’s switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington’s hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency.” At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing to give up millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and transaction currencies. The euro has gained roughly 17% against the dollar in that time, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq’s U.N. “oil for food” reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same percent value since the switch. What would happen if OPEC made a sudden switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition? “Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You’d have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there’d surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario. The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar’s role as reserve currency. This doesn’t mean that the U.S. couldn’t function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy).” In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no “exit strategy” in Iraq, as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed Iraqi regime, and perhaps send a message to other OPEC producers that they might receive “regime change” if they too move to euros for their oil exportsâ¤. Another underreported story from this summer regarding the other OPEC ‘Axis of Evil’ country and their interest in the selling oil in euros, Iran. (3) “Iran’s proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe in euros instead of U.S. dollars is based primarily on economics, Iranian and industry sources said. But politics are still likely to be a factor in any decision, they said, as Iran uses the opportunity to hit back at the U.S. government, which recently labeled it part of an “axis of evil.” The proposal, which is now being reviewed by the Central Bank of Iran, is likely to be approved if presented to the country’s parliament, a parliamentary representative said.”There is a very good chance MPs will agree to this idea …now that the euro is stronger, it is more logical,” the parliamentary representative said.” More over, and perhaps most telling, during 2002 the majority of reserve funds in Iran’s central bank have been shifted to euros. It appears imminent that Iran intends to switch to euros for their oil currency (4) “More than half of the country’s assets in the Forex Reserve Fund have been converted to euro, a member of the Parliament Development Commission, Mohammad Abasspour announced. He noted that higher parity rate of euro against the US dollar will give the Asian countries, particularly oil exporters, a chance to usher in a new chapter in ties with European Union’s member countries. He said that the United States dominates other countries through its currency, noting that given the superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies, the US monopolizes global trade. The lawmaker expressed hope that the competition between euro and dollar would eliminate the monopoly in global trade.” Indeed, after toppling Saddam, this administration may decide that Iran is the next target in the “war on terror.” Iran’s interest in switching to the euro as their standard transaction currency for oil exports is well documented. Perhaps this recent MSNBC article illustrates the objectives of the neo conservatives (5). “While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration is already looking for other targets. President Bush has called for the ouster of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. Now some in the administration⤔and allies at D.C. think tanks⤔are eyeing Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior British official put it: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” Aside from these political risks regarding Saudi Arabia and Iran, another risk factor isactually Japan. Perhaps the biggest gamble in a protracted Iraq war may be Japan’s weak economy (6). If the war creates prolonged oil high prices ($45 per barrel over several months), or a short but massive oil price spike ($80 to $100 per barrel), some analysts believe Japan’s fragile economy would collapse. Japan is quite hypersensitive to oil prices, and if its banks default, the collapse of the second largest economy would set in motion a sequence of events that would prove devastating to the U.S. economy. Indeed, Japan’s fall in an Iraq war could create the economic dislocations that begin in the Pacific Rim but quickly spread to Europe and Russia. The Russian government lacks the controls to thwart a disorderly run on the dollar, and such an event could ultimately force and OPEC switch to euros. Additionally, other risks might arise if the Iraq war goes poorly or becomes prolonged, as it is possible that civil unrest may unfold in Kuwait or other OPEC members including Venezuela, as the latter may switch to euros just as Saddam did in November 2000. Thereby fostering the very situation this administration is trying to prevent, another OPEC member switching to euros as their oil transaction currency. Incidentally, the final “Axis of Evil” country, North Korea, recently decided to officially drop the dollar and begin using euros for trade, effective Dec. 7, 2002 (7). Unlike the OPEC-producers, their switch will have negligible economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical fallout of the President Bush’s harsh rhetoric. Much more troubling is North Korea’s recent action following the oil embargo of their country. They are in dire need of oil and food; and in an act of desperation they have re-activated their pre-1994 nuclear program. Processing uranium appears to be taking place at a rapid pace, and it appears their strategy is to prompt negotiations with the U.S. regarding food and oil. The CIA estimates that North Korea could produce 4-6 nuclear weapons by the second half of 2003. Ironically, this crisis over North Korea’s nuclear program further confirms the fraudulent premise for which this war with Saddam was entirely contrived. Unfortunately, neo conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle fail to grasp that Newton’s Law applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well: “For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.” During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed but essentially benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (90-91′ & 98′), Serbia and Kosovo (99′) were undertaken with both U.N. and NATO cooperation and thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the “America first” policies of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International Treaties, along with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, has significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that President Bush’s “warmongering rhetoric” has created global tensions – as we are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval.Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at our government. This administration’s bellicosity haschanged the worldview, and “anti-Americanism” is proliferating even among our closest allies (8). Even more alarming, and completely unreported in the U.S media, are some monetary shifts in the reserve funds of foreign governments away from the dollar with movements towards the euro (China, Venezuela, some OPEC producers and last week Russia flushed some of their dollars for euros) (9). It appears that the world community may lack faith in the Bush administration’s economic policies, and along with OPEC, seems poised to respond with economic retribution if the U.S. government is regarded as an uncontrollable and dangerous superpower. The plausibility of abandoning the dollar standard for the euro is growing. An interesting U.K. article outlines the dynamics and the potential outcomes (‘Beyond Bush’s Unilateralism: Another Bi-Polar World or A New Era of Win-Win?’)(10) “The most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a combination of high oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle East) and deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many economists). Some elements of this scenario: 1) US global over-reach in the “war on terrorism” already leading to deficits as far as the eye can see — combined with historically-high US trade deficits – lead to a further run on the dollar. This and the stock market doldrums make the US less attractive to the world’s capital. 2) More developing countries follow the lead of Venezuela and China in diversifying their currency reserves away from dollars and balanced with euros. Such a shift in dollar-euro holdings in Latin America and Asia could keep the dollar and euro close to parity. 3) OPEC could act on some of its internal discussions and decide (after concerted buying of euros in the open market) to announce at a future meeting in Vienna that OPEC’s oil will be re-denominated in euros, or even a new oil-backed currency of their own. A US attack on Iraq sends oil to â,40 per barrel. 4) The Bush Administration’s efforts to control the domestic political agenda backfires. Damage over the intelligence failures prior to 9/11 and warnings of imminent new terrorist attacks precipitate a further stock market slide. 5) All efforts by Democrats and the 57% of the US public to shift energy policy toward renewables, efficiency, standards, higher gas taxes, etc. are blocked by the Bush Administration and its fossil fuel industry supporters. Thus, the USA remains vulnerable to energy supply and price shocks. 6) The EU recognizes its own economic and political power as the euro rises further and becomes the world’s other reserve currency. The G-8 pegs the euro and dollar into a trading band — removing these two powerful currencies from speculators trading screens (a “win-win” for everyone!). Tony Blair persuades Brits of this larger reason for the UK to join the euro. 7) Developing countries lacking dollars or “hard” currencies follow Venezuela’s lead and begin bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals. President Chavez has inked 13 such country barter deals on its oil, e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban health paramedics who are setting up clinics in rural Venezuelan villages. “The result of this scenario? The USA could no longer run its huge current account trade deficits or continue to wage open-ended global war on terrorism or evil. The USA ceases pursuing unilateralist policies. A new US administration begins to return to its multilateralist tradition, ceases its obstruction and rejoins the UN and pursues more realistic international cooperation.” As for the events currently taking place in Venezuela, items #2 and #7 on the above list may allude to why the Bush administration quickly endorsed the failed military-led coup of Hugo Chavez in April 2002. Although the coup collapsed after 2 days, various reports suggest the CIA and a rather embarrassed Bush administration approved and may have been actively involved with the civilian/military coup plotters. (11) “George W. Bush’s administration was the failed coup’s primary loser, underscoring its bankrupt hemispheric policy. Now it is slowly filtering out that in recent months White Houseofficials met with key coup figures, including Carmona. Although the administration insists that it explicitly objected to any extra-constitutional action to remove Chavez, comments by senior U.S. officials did little to convey this.” “The CIA’s role in a 1971 Chilean strike could have served as the working model for generating economic and social instability in order to topple Chavez. In the truckers’ strike of that year, the agency secretly orchestrated and financed the artificial prolongation of a contrived work stoppage in order to economically asphyxiate the leftist Salvador Allende government.” “This scenario would have had CIA operatives acting in liaison with the Venezuelan military, as well as with opposition business and labor leaders, to convert a relatively minor afternoon-long work stoppage by senior management into a nearly successful coup de grace.” Interestingly, according to an article by Michael Ruppert, Venezuelan’s ambassador Francisco Mieres-Lopez apparently floated the idea of switching to the euro as their oil currency standard approximately one year before the failed coup attempt… Furthermore, there is evidence that the CIA is still active in its attempts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez administration. In fact, this past December a Uruguayan government official recently exposed the ongoing covert CIA operations in Venezuela (12): “Uruguayan EP-FA congressman Jose Bayardi says he has information that far-reaching plan have been put into place by the CIA and other North American intelligence agencies tooverthrow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias” “Bayardi says he has received copies of top-secret communications between the Bush administration in Washington and the government of Uruguay requesting the latter’s cooperation to support white collar executives and trade union activists to “break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration” Venezuela is the fourth largest producer of oil, and the corporate elites whose political power runs unfettered in the Bush/Cheney oligarchy appear interested in privatizing Venezuela’s oil industry. Furthermore, the establishment might be concerned that Chavez’s “barter deals” with 12 Latin American countries and Cuba are effectively cutting the U.S. dollar out of the vital oil transaction currency cycle. Commodities are being traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela’s oil, thereby reducing reliance on fiat dollars. If these unique oil transactions proliferate, they could create more devaluation pressure on the dollar. Continuing attempts by the CIA to remove Hugo Chavez appear likely. The U.S. economy has acquired several problems, including as our record-high trade account deficit (almost 5% of GDP), $6.3 trillion dollar deficit (55% of GDP), and the recent return to annual budget deficits in the hundreds of billions. These are factors that would devalue the currency of any nation under the “old rules.” Why is the dollar still strong despite these structural flaws? Well, the elites understand that the strength of the dollar does not merely rest on our economic output per se. The dollar posses two unique advantages relative to all other hard currencies. The reality is that the strength of the dollar since 1945 rests on being the international reserve currency and thus fiat currency for global oil transactions (ie. “petro-dollar”). The U.S. prints hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by nation states to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq, to some degree Venezuela, and perhaps Iran in the near future). These petro-dollars are then re-cycled from OPEC back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate, etc. The “old rules” for valuation of our currency and economic power were based on our flexible market, free flow of trade goods, high per worker productivity, manufacturing output/trade surpluses, government oversight of accounting methodologies (ie. SEC), developed infrastructure, education system, and of course total cash flow and profitability. While many of these factors remain present, over the last two decades we have diluted some of these “safe harbor” fundamentals. Despite imbalances and some structural problems that are escalating within the U.S. economy, the dollar as the fiat oil currency created “new rules”. The following exerts from an Asia Times article discusses the virtues of our fiat oil currency and dollar hegemony (or vices from the perspective of developing nations, whose debt is denominated in dollars). (13) “Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard (at $35 per ounce) that had been agreed to at the Bretton Woods Conference at the end of World War II, the dollar has been a global monetary instrument that the United States, and only the United States, can produce by fiat. The dollar, now a fiat currency, is at a 16-year trade-weighted high despite record US current-account deficits and the status of the US as the leading debtor nation. The US national debt as of April 4 was $6.021 trillion against a gross domestic product (GDP) of $9 trillion.” “World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world’s interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies.To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world’s central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world’s central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.” “By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp correction, US stock valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56 percent premium compared with emerging markets.””The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit. Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US state action and the dollar is a fiat currency,the US essentially owns the world’s oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win.” This unique geo-political agreement with Saudi Arabia has worked to our favor for the past 30 years, as this arrangement has raised the entire asset value of all dollar denominated assets/properties, and allowed the Federal Reserve to create a truly massive debt and credit expansion (or ‘credit bubble’ in the view of some economists). These current structural imbalances in the U.S. economy are sustainable as long as: 1)Nations continue to demand and purchase oil for their energy/survival needs 2)The fiat reserve currency for global oil transactions remain the U.S. dollar (and dollar only) These underlying factors, along with the “safe harbor” reputation of U.S. investments afforded by the dollar’s reserve currency status propelled the U.S. to economic and military hegemony in the post-World War II period. However, the introduction of the euro is a significant new factor, and appears to be the primary threat to U.S. economic hegemony. More over, in December 2002 ten additional countries were approved for full membership into the E.U. In 2004 this will result in an aggregate GDP of $9.6 trillion and 450 million people, directly competing with the U.S. economy ($10.5 trillion GDP, 280 million people). Especially interesting is a speech given by Mr Javad Yarjani, the Head of OPEC’s Petroleum Market Analysis Department, in a visit to Spain (April 2002). He speech dealt entirely on the subject of OPEC oil transaction currency standard with respect to both the dollar and the euro. The following exerts from this OPEC executive provide insights into the conditions that would create momentum for an OPEC currency switch to the euro. Indeed, his candid analysis warrants careful consideration given that two of the requisite variables he outlines for the switch have taken place since this speech in early 2002. These vital stories are discussed in the European media, but have been censored by our own mass media (14) “The question that comes to mind is whether the euro will establish itself in world financial markets, thus challenging the supremacy of the US dollar, and consequently trigger a change in the dollar’s dominance in oil markets. As we all know, the mighty dollar has reigned supreme since 1945, and in the last few years has even gained more ground with the economic dominance of the United States, a situation that may not change in the near future. By the late 90s, more than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions, and half of all world exports, were denominated in dollars. In addition, the US currency accounts for about two thirds of all official exchange reserves. The world’s dependency on US dollars to pay for trade has seen countries bound to dollar reserves, which are disproportionably higher than America’s share in global output. The share of the dollar in the denomination of world trade is also much higher than the share of the US in world trade. Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the long run the euro is not at such a disadvantage versus the dollar when one compares the relative sizes of the economies involved, especially given the EU enlargement plans. Moreover, the Euro-zone has a bigger share of global trade than the US and while the US has a huge current account deficit, the euro area has a more, or balanced, external accounts position. One of the more compelling arguments for keeping oil pricing and payments in dollars has been that the US remains a large importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude producer itself. However, looking at the statistics of crude oil exports, one notes that the Euro-zone is an even larger importer of oil and petroleum products than the US.” “From the EU’s point of view, it is clear that Europe would prefer to see payments for oil shift from the dollar to the euro, which effectively removed the currency risk. It would also increase demand for the euro and thus help raise its value. Moreover, since oil is such an important commodity in global trade, in term of value, if pricing were to shift to the euro, it could provide a boost to the global acceptability of the single currency. There is also very strong trade links between OPEC Member Countries (MCs) and the Euro-zone, with more than 45 percent of total merchandise imports of OPEC MCs coming from the countries of the Euro-zone, while OPEC MCs are main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe.” “Of major importance to the ultimate success of the euro, in terms of the oil pricing, will be if Europe’s two major oil producers ⤔ the United Kingdom and Norway join the single currency. Naturally, the future integration of these two countries into the Euro-zone and Europe will be important considering they are the region’s two major oil producers in the North Sea, which is home to the international crude oil benchmark, Brent. This might create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros.” “In the short-term, OPEC MCs, with possibly a few exceptions, are expected to continue to accept payment in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future. The Organization, like many other financial houses at present, is also assessing how the euro will settle into its life as a new currency. The critical question for market players is the overall value and stability of the euro, and whether other countries within the Union will adopt the single currency.” Should the euro challenge the dollar in strength, which essentially could include it in the denomination of the oil bill, it could be that a system may emerge which benefits more countries in the long-term. Perhaps with increased European integration and a strong European economy, this may become a reality. Time may be on your side. I wish the euro every success.” Based on this important speech, momentum for OPEC to consider switching to the euro will grow once the E.U. expands in May 2004 to 450 million people with the inclusion of 10 additional member states. The aggregate GDP will increase from $7 trillion to $9.6 trillion. This enlarged E.U. will be an oil consuming purchasing population 33% larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. This does not include other potential entrants such as the U.K., Norway, Denmark and Sweden. I should note that since this speech the euro has been trading at parity or above the dollar since late 2002, and analysts predict the dollar will continue its downward trending in 2003 relative to the euro. Further, if or when the U.K. adopts the euro currency, that development could provide critical motivation for OPEC to the make the transition to euros. It appears the final two pivotal items that would create the OPEC transition to euros will be based on if and when Norway’s Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, and when the U.K. adopts the euro. Regarding the later, Tony Blair is lobbying heavily for the U.K. to adopt the euro, and their adoption would seem imminent within this decade. Again, I offer the following information from my astute acquaintance who analyzes these matters very carefully regarding the euro: “The pivotal vote will probably be Sweden, where approval this next autumn of adopting the euro also would give momentum to the Danish government’s strong desire to follow suit. Polls in Denmark now indicate that the euro would pass with a comfortable margin and Norwegian polls show a growing majority in favor of EU membership. Indeed, with Norway having already integrated most EU economic directives through the EEA partnership and with their strongly appreciated currency, their accession to the euro would not only be effortless, but of great economic benefit. As go the Swedes, so probably will go the Danes & Norwegians. It’s the British who are the real obstacle to building momentum for the euro as international transaction & reserve currency. So long as the United Kingdom remains apart from the euro, reducing exchange rate costs between the euro and the British pound remains their obvious priority. British adoption (a near-given in the long run) would mount significant pressure toward repegging the Brent crude benchmark – which is traded on the International Petroleum Exchange in London – and the Norwegians would certainly have no objection whatsoever that I can think of, whether or not they join the European Union.” Finally, the maneuvers toward reducing the global dominance of the dollar are already well underway and have only reason to accelerate so far as I can see. An OPEC pricing shift would seem rather unlikely prior 2004 – barring political motivations (ie. motivations of OPEC members) or a disorderly collapse of the dollar (ie. prolonged high oil prices due to Iraq war causes Japanese bank collapse)- but appears quite viable to take place before the end of the decade.” In otherwords, around 2005, from an economic and monetary perspectivem, it will be logical for OPEC to switch to the euro for oil pricing. Of course that will devalue the dollar, and hurt the US economy unless it begins making some structual changes – or use its massive military power to force events upon the OPEC states… Facing these potentialities, I hypothesize that President Bush intends to topple Saddam in 2003 in a pre-emptive attempt to initiate massive Iraqi oil production in far excess of OPEC quotas, to reduce global oil prices, and thereby dismantle OPEC’sprice controls. The end-goal of the neo-conservatives is incredibly bold yet simple in purpose, to use the “war on terror” as the premise to finally dissolve OPEC’s decision-making process, thus ultimately preventing the cartel’s inevitable switch to pricing oil in euros. How would the Bush administration break-up the OPEC cartel’s price controls in a post-Saddam Iraq? First, the newly installed regime (apparently a U.S. General for the first several months) will convert Iraq back to the dollar standard. Next, with the U.S. military protecting the oil fields, the Bush junta will undertake the necessary steps to rapidly increase production of Iraq oil, quintupling Iraq’s current output – and well beyond OPEC’s 2 million barrel per day quota. Dr. Nayyer Ali offers a succinct analysis of how Iraq’s underutilized oil reserves will not be a “profit-maker” for the U.S. government, but it will serve as the crucial economic instrument used by the Bush junta to leverage and hopefully dissolve OPEC’s price controls, thus causing the neo conservative’s long sought goal of collapsing the OPEC cartel (15): “Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level proportionate to the reserve base. Since the Gulf War, Iraq’s production has been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food program (by which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the last 5 years) and what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion barrels per year. If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow massive investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year, or about 7 million barrels a day. Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels, and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels. What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things. First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting production to maximize price will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce that much oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit it to 2 million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC will give up 5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC would die. This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a collapse in the price of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world currently uses 25 billion barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save oil-consuming nations 375 billion dollars in crude oil costs every year.” “The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker. That however is a long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be successfully reconstituted into a functioning state in which massive oil sector investment can take place.” The American people are largely oblivious to the economic risks regarding President Bush’s upcoming war. Not only is Japan’s economy at grave risk from a spike in oil prices, but additional risks relate to Iran and Venezuela as well, either of whom could move to the euros, thus providing further momentum for OPEC to act on their “internal discussions” and switch to the euro as the fiat currency for oil. The Bush administration believes that by toppling Saddam they will remove the juggernaut, thus allowing the US to control Iraqi’s huge oil reserves, and finally break-up and dissolve the 10 remaining countries in OPEC. This last issue is undoubtedly a significant gamble even in the best-case scenario of a quick and relatively painless war that topples Saddam and leaves Iraq’s oil fields intact. Undoubtedly, the OPEC cartel could feel threatened by the Bush junta’s stated goal of breaking-up OPEC’s price controls ($22-$28 per barrel). Perhaps the Bush administration’s ambitious goal of flooding the oil market with Iraqi crude may work, but I have doubts. Will OPEC simply tolerate quota-busting Iraqi oil production, thus delivering to them a lesson in self-inflicted hara-kiri (suicide)? Contrarily, OPEC could meet in Vienna and in an act of self-preservation re-denominate the oil currency to the euro. Such a decision by would mark the end of U.S. dollar hegemony, and thus the end of our precarious economic superpower status. Again, I offer the astute analysis of my expert friend regarding the colossal gamble this administration is about to undertake: “One of the dirty little secrets of today’s international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America’s preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the foreseeable future. That such a course hasn’t been pursued to date bears more relation to the fact that other Westernized, highly developed nations haven’t any interest to undergo the great disruptions which would follow – but it could assuredly take place in the event that the consensus view coalesces of the United States as any sort of ‘rogue’nation. In other words, if the dangers of American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling the international order (or, alternately, if an ‘every man for himself’ crisis as discussed above spirals out of control and forces their hand). The Bush administration and the neo conservative movement has set out on a multiple-front course to ensure that this cannot take place, in brief by a graduated assertion of military hegemony atop the existent economic hegemony. The paradox I’ve illustrated with this one narrow scenario is that the quixotic course itself may very well bring about the feared outcome that it means to preempt. We shall see!” Under this administration we have returned to massive deficit spending, and the lack of strong SEC enforcement has further eroded investor confidence. Regrettably, the flawed economic and tax policies and of the Bush administration may be exacerbating the weakness of the dollar, if not outright accelerating some countries to diversify their central bank reserve funds with euros as an alternative to the dollar. >From a foreign policy perspective, the terminations of numerous international treaties and disdain for international cooperation via the UN and NATO have angered even our closest allies. Lastly, and despite President Bush’s attempt to use the threat of applying military force to OPEC producers who may wish to switch to the euro for their oil payments, it appears their belligerent neo conservative policies may paradoxically bring about the dire outcome they hope to prevent – an OPEC currency switch to euros. The American people are not aware of such information due to the U.S. mass media, which has been reduced to a handful of consumption/entertainment and profit-oriented conglomerates that filter the flow of information in the U.S. Indeed, the Internet provides the only source of unfiltered “real news.” Synopsis: It would appear that any attempt by OPEC member states in the Middle East or Latin America to transition to the euro as their oil transaction currency standard shall be met with either overt U.S. military actions or covert U.S. intelligence agency interventions. Under the guise of the perpetual “war on terror” the Bush administration is manipulating the American people about the unspoken but very real macroeconomic reasons for this upcoming war with Iraq. This war in Iraq will have nothing to with any threat from Saddam’s old WMD program. This war will be over the global currency of oil. Sadly, the U.S. has become largely ignorant and complacent. Too many of us are willing to be ruled by fear and lies, rather than by persuasion and truth. Will we allow our government to initiate the dangerous “pre-emptive doctrine” by waging an unpopular war in Iraq, while we refuse to acknowledge that Saddam does not pose an imminent threat to the United States? We seem unable to address the structural weakness of our economy due to massive debt manipulation, unaffordable 2001 tax cuts, massive current account deficits, trade deficits, corporate accounting abuses, unsustainable credit expansion, near zero personal savings, record personal indebtedness, and our dependence and over consumption of cheap Middle Eastern oil. How much longer can we reliably import our oil from middle eastern states that dislike or despise us because of our biased foreign policy towards Israel? Lastly, we must bear in mind Jefferson’s insistence that a free press is our best, and perhaps only mechanism to protect democracy, and part of today’s dilemma lies within the U.S. media conglomerates that have failed to inform the People. Regardless of whatever Dr. Blix finds or doesn’t find in Iraq regarding WMD, it appears that President Bush is determined to pursue his “pre-emptive” imperialist war to secure a large portion of the earth’s remaining hydrocarbons, and then use Iraq’s underutilized oil to destroy the OPEC cartel. Will this gamble work? Undeniably our nation may suffer not only from economic retribution, but also from increased Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism as well. Will we stand idle and watch CNN, as our government becomes an international pariah by discarding International Law as it wages a unilateral war in Iraq? Is it morally defensible to deploy our brave but naÃve young soldiers around the globe to enforce U.S. dollar hegemony for global oil transactions – via the barrel of their guns? Will we allow imperialist conquest in the Middle East to feed our excessive energy consumption, while ignoring the duplicitous overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Latin America? Shall we accept the grave price of an unjust war over the currency of oil? We must not stand silent and watchour country become a ‘rogue’ superpower, relying on brute force, thereby forcing the industrialized nations or OPEC to abandon the dollar standard – thus with the mere stroke of a pen – slay the U.S. Empire? Informed citizens believe this administration is pushing us towards that dire outcome. Remaining silent is not only misguided, but false patriotism. This need not be our fate. When will we demand that our government begin the long and difficult journey towards energy conservation, the development of renewable energy sources, and sustained balanced budgets to allow real deficit reduction? When will we repeal of the unaffordable 2001 tax cuts to create a balanced budget, enforce corporate accounting laws, and substantially reinvest in our manufacturing and export sectors to move our economy from a trade account deficit position back into a trade account surplus position? Undoubtedly, we must make these and many more painful structural changes to our economy if we are to restore our “safe harbor” investment status. Ultimately we will have to make sacrifices by reducing our excessive energy consumption that we have become accustomed to as a society. It is imperative that our government also begins economic and monetary reforms immediately. We must adopt our economy to accommodate the inevitable competition to the dollar from the euro as an alternative international reserve currency and oil transaction currency. The Bush administration’s seemingly entrenched political ideology appears quite incompatible with these necessary economic reforms. Ultimately We the People must demand a new and more responsible administration. We need leaders who are willing to return balanced, conservative fiscal policies, and to our traditions of engaging in multilateral foreign policies while seeking broad international cooperation. It has been said that all wars are fought over resources or ideology/religion. It appears that this administration may soon add “currency wars” as a third paradigm. I fear that the world community will not tolerate a U.S. Empire that uses its military power to conquer sovereign nations who decide to sell their oil products in euros instead of dollars. Likewise, if President Bush pursues an essentially unilateral war against Iraq, I suspect the historians will not be kind to his administration. Their agenda is clear to the world community, but when will U.S. patriots become cognizant of their modus operandi? “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945 END OF ESSAY

+

Background Information on Hydrocarbons To understand hydrocarbons and how we got to this desperate place in Iraq, I have listed four articles in the Reference Section from Michael Ruppert’s controversial website: ‘From the Wilderness.’ Although some of Ruppert’s articles are overwrought from time to time, their research detailing the issues of hydrocarbons, and the interplay between energy and the Bush junta’s perpetual “war on terror” is quite informative. Other than the core driver of the dollar versus euro currency threat, the other issue related to the upcoming war with Iraq appears related to the Caspian Sea region. Since the mid-late 1990s the Caspian Sea region of Central Asiawas thought to hold approx. 200 billion barrels of untapped oil (the later would be comparable to Saudi Arabia’s reserve base)(16). Based on an early feasibility study by Enron, the easiest and cheapest way to bring this oil to market would be a pipeline from Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan to the Pakistan border at Malta. In 1998 then CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, expressed much interest in building that pipeline. In fact, these oil reserves were a *central* component of Vice President Cheney’s energy plan released in May 2001. According to his report, the U.S. will import 90% of its oil by 2020, and thus tapping into the reserves in the Caspian Sea region was viewed as a strategic goal that would help meet our growing energy demand, and also reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East (17). According to the French book, The Forbidden Truth (18), the Bush administration ignored the U.N. sanctions that had been imposed upon the Taliban and entered into negotiations with the supposedly ‘rogue regime’ from February 2, 2001 to August 6, 2001. According to this book, the Taliban were apparently not very cooperative based on the statements of Pakistan’s former ambassador, Mr. Naik. He reports that the U.S. threatened a “military option” in the summer of 2001 if the Taliban did not acquiesce to our demands. Fortuitous for the Bush administration and Cheney’s energy plan, Bin Laden delivered to us 9/11. The pre-positioned U.S. military; along with the CIA providing cash to the Northern Alliance leaders, led the invasion of Afghanistan and the Taliban were routed. The pro-western Karzai government was ushered in. The pipeline project was now back on track in early 2002, well, sort… After three exploratory wells were built and analyzed, it was reported that the Caspian region holds only approximately 10 to 20 billion barrels of oil (although it does have a lot of natural gas) (16). The oil is also of poor quality, with high sulfur content. Subsequently, several major companies have now dropped their plans for the pipeline citing the massive project was no longer profitable. Unfortunately, this recent realization about the Caspian Sea region has serious implications for the U.S., India, China, Asia and Europe, as the amount of available hydrocarbons for industrialized and developing nations has been decreased downward by 20%. (Globalestimates reduced from 1.2 trillion to approx. 1 trillion) (18, 19). The Bush administration quickly turned its attention to a known quantity, Iraq, with it proven reserves totaling 11% of the world’s oil reserves. Our greatest nemesis, Bin Laden, was quickly replaced with our new public enemy #1, Saddam Hussein… For those who would like to review the impact of depleting hydrocarbon reserves from the geo-political perspective, and the potential ramifications to how this may ultimately create an erosion of our civil liberties and democratic processes, retired U.S. Special Forces officer Stan Goff offers a sobering analysis in his essay: ‘The Infinite War and Its Roots’ (20). Likewise, for those who wish to review the unspeakable evidence surrounding the September 11th tragedy, the controversial essay “The Enemy Within” by the famous American writer Gore Vidal offers a thorough introduction. Although published in Italy and a major UK newspaper, The Observer, you will not read Gore Vidal’s controversial essay in the U.S. media. Note: Gore Vidal’s latest book, ‘Dreaming War’ features this as the opening essay (21). Finally, ‘The War on Freedom” by British political scientist Nafeez Ahmed asks disconcerting questions about the 9/11 tragedy (22). FOOTNOTES (1)London, Heidi Kingstone, ‘Middle East: Trouble in the House of Saud’ (January 13, 2003) http://www.jrep.com/Mideast/Article-0.html (2)Recknagel, Charles, ‘Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro’ (November 1, 2000) http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp (3)Gutman, Roy & Barry, John, Beyond Baghdad: Expanding Target List: Washington looks at overhauling the Islamic and Arab world (August 11, 2002) http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/newsweek081102.html (4)’Economics Drive Iran Euro Oil Plan, Politics Also Key’ (August 2002) http://www.iranexpert.com/2002/economicsdriveiraneurooil23august.htm (5)’Forex Fund Shifting to Euro,’ Iran Financial News, (August 25, 2002) http://www.payvand.com/news/02/aug/1080.html (6)Costello, Tom, ‘Japan’s Economy at Risk of Collapse’ (December 11, 2002) http://www.msnbc.com/news/845708.asp?0cl=cR (7) Gluck, Caroline, ‘North Korea embraces the euro’ (December 1, 2002) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2531833.stm (8) ‘What the World Thinks in 2002 : How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America’ (2002) http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID5 (9) ‘Euro continues to extend its global influence’ (January 7, 2002) http://www.europartnership.com/news/02jan07.htm (10) Henderson, Hazel, ‘Beyond Bush’s Unilateralism: Another Bi-Polar World or A New Era of Win-Win?’ (June 2002) http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Bush’s%20unilateralism.htm (11) Birms, Larry & Volberding, Alex, ‘U.S. is the Primary Loser in Failed Venezuelan Coup,’ Newsday (April 21, 2002) http://www.coha.org/COHA%20_in%20_the_news/ Articles%202002/newsday_04_21_02_us__venezuela.htm (12) ‘USA intelligence agencies revealed in plot to oust Venezuela’s President,’ (Dec 12, 2002) http://www.vheadline.com/0212/14248.asp (link now dead) (13) Liu, Henry C K, ‘US Dollar hegemony has got to go,’ (Asia Times, April 11, 2002) http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html (14) ‘The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill,’ Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC’s Marketing Analysis Department (April, 2002) http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm (15) Dr. Ali, Nayyer, ‘Iraq and Oil,’ (December 13, 2002) http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/12132002.html (16) Pfeiffer, Dale, ‘Much Ado about Nothing — Whither the Caspian Riches? ‘ (December 5, 2002) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120502_caspian.html (17) Ruppert, Michael, ‘The Unseen Conflict,’ (October 18, 2002) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101802_the_unseen.html (18) Jean Charles-Briscard & Guillaume Dasquie, ‘The Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden’, Nation Books, 2002. (19) Ruppert, Michael, ‘Colin Campbell on Oil.'(October 23, 2002) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102302_campbell.html (20) Golf, Stan, ‘The Infinite War and its Roots,’ http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/082702_infinite_war.html (21) Vidal, Gore, ‘Dreaming War: Blood for Oil & the Cheney-Bush Junta,’ Nation Books, 2002. His essay, ‘The Enemy Within’ was first printed in the UK’s Observer (Oct 27, 2002) http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html (22) Ahmed, Nafeez, ‘The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001’, Tree of Life Publications, 2002.

Aziz is one of a very select few members of Hussein’s Baath Party with a formal education, having studied English Literature at the University of Baghdad College of Fine Arts. He joined the Baath party in the 1950s, helping to overthrow British rule, and became a close associate of Saddam Hussein’s during his rise to power in the 1970s. During these years he edited Baath party newspapers and served as the cultural affairs minister. Aziz has had full command of Iraqi foreign policy since 1979, and has been responsible for obtaining arms and supplies despite crushing sanctions imposed by the UN.

Throughout his career, Aziz has maintained close connections with the West, thanks to his command of the English language, his understanding of political and cultural imperatives throughout the English-speaking world, and his frequent travels and dealings with Western diplomats. As an individual, he has befriended and commanded the respect of every major Arab leader.

Aziz is successful because of another key attribute in his background: He is Christian. That is to say, he was born Christian. As such, Aziz himself will never be a threat to Saddam’s power within the Baathist party, and so therefore he is trusted by Hussein. While Hussein has surrounded himself with “Yes Men”, Aziz has the luxury of a bond of trust with Hussein, and has the unique ability to tell it like it is. Without the counsel of Tariq Aziz, Hussein would live in an absolute information vacuum, having no connection with reality. He would ultimately shoot himself in the foot.

Aziz is also responsible for the Iraqi strategy which ultimately defeated the commitment of the UN to put any bite into the bark of its various resolutions seeking to disarm Iraq. If the preamble to today’s war during 2002 was a battle of diplomats between Colin Powell and Tariq Aziz, the latter clearly showed his tenure and greater adeptness; creating rifts not only throughout the UN, but within the Security Council itself as well as NATO and the EU. While the Bush Administration may win the war, the politics of Aziz won the peace and has exposed the US to international criticism and made a martyr of Iraq.

Aziz is a masterful diplomat, a skilled statesman, and Hussein’s most crucial strategist. You kill him, and the Baath Party will be reduced to a mess of thugs and thieves vying for power internally while a weakened Saddam struggles to understand the forces against him.

The Bush Administration clearly understands this.

Yesterday Tariq Aziz appeared at a press conference in Baghdad to quel rumours he had defected. Hours later, the US launched a cruise missile attack designed to kill, according to US military officials, several key Baathists. My suspicion is that Aziz’s movements were tracked from the press conference by ground personnel and/or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to a building, which then became a target of opportunity too big for the US to resist. It’s even possible that the rumours he had defected were started by the US in order to draw him out of hiding and into the light, though this is giving Bush’s hawks a lot of credit.

If Aziz is killed, it will be some time before this information is revealed. Iraqis know and trust Aziz, and recognize his influence on the outcome of any war with the West. Killing Aziz would be a crippling blow to Iraqi morale, as well.

-Ian.

“You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, France is accusing the US of arrogance and Germany doesn’t want to go to war.”

WASHINGTON

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, under its new chairman, Richard Lugar, should make its first order of business an inquiry into President Bush’s maladroit and shortsighted decision-making in the So San affair.

Our National Security Agency, to its credit, spotted the movement of 15 Scud missiles and 85 drums of chemicals from a factory in North Korea to its secret loading aboard the freighter So San, and tracked the unflagged ship around the world to the Arabian Sea.

The C.I.A. was unable to determine the customer of these offensive weapons, unreliable in military combat but useful in striking terror into cities. State and Defense, worried that the ultimate customer might be Iraq, enlisted the Spanish Navy in stopping and boarding the vessel.

Apparently nobody thought the crisis through enough to ask: What do we do when we find the missiles? What if they are destined for an ally in the war on Al Qaeda like Egypt or Yemen or Saudi Arabia? What’s our policy on the movement of terror weapons into a tinderbox?

Then came Saleh into our alley. The dictator of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh (pronounced sally), claimed the destructive cargo, for which I am told he had paid North Korea $41 million.

U.S. officials were thunderstruck. Had Saleh not solemnly assured us 18 months ago, when we purchased his support in the war on terror, that he would no longer buy Scuds from North Korea? His disputes with the Saudis and Eritreans were long since resolved; the only logical explanation was that he planned to re-sell the secret shipment at a whopping profit to a nation or group that did not wish us well.

The Yemeni insisted he had bought the missiles years before he made his promise to us and just never got around to telling us about it. Nobody believed that, but Saleh lets us kill Al Qaeda leaders on his territory, and our knowledge of this shipment means he won’t be able to re-sell it easily.

So President Bush decided to sacrifice the principle of the interdiction of terror weaponry entering a war zone on the altar of practicality. Instead of suggesting a fair compromise — “We’ll reimburse you for your $41 million purchase, and we’ll impound the cargo” — he chose to appease an unreliable ally and turned the 15 missiles, with the unidentified chemicals, over to the man who had made the U.S. look foolish.

Because the news of our turnover broke before we had alerted Madrid, we humiliated a real ally, Spain, which — at our request — had put its sailors’ lives at risk by firing across the bow of a hostile vessel and boarding it. Spain has been a stalwart European supporter against Saddam, and is almost alone with us in urging Turkey’s admission to the European Union. Our So San signal to eight other U.S. allies patrolling waters against Al Qaeda in the region: Go out on a limb for America, then watch us saw the limb off behind you.

Meanwhile, the interdiction of this unflagged ship on the high seas was seized upon as an insult by the North Koreans. Pyongyang trumpeted plans to start up plutonium production, which could be seen as a provocative use of Saleh’s fungible $41 million.

The Bush administration’s embarrassment at this irate reaction to its high-seas flip-flop was heightened by former President Bill Clinton. He struck a fierce pose in Rotterdam: “We actually drew up plans to attack North Korea and destroy their reactors,” the retroactive hawk told a security forum, “and we told them we would attack unless they ended their nuclear program.” (Talk about secrecy: Who knew, in 1994, that those cowboys in the Clinton White House were threatening preventive war?)

The So San affair, still shrouded in diplomatic secrecy, does not show the vaunted Bush national security team at its best. With plenty of time provided by satellite intelligence, Bush did not formulate plans to deal with operational contingencies; humiliated by a Yemeni double-crosser, the president had the White House spokesman retreat into pettifoggery to explain away a policy flinch on the spread of terror’s weaponry.

Yes, we need unstable Yemen’s help at the moment. But President Bush is duty bound to drive home the message to our least savory “partners” that they need America more.

———–

The decline and fall of the American empire An expert on geopolitics says forget Islamic terrorism — the real future threat to America’s supremacy will come from Europe.

– – – – – – – – – – – – By Suzy Hansen

Dec. 2, 2002 | The title of Charles A. Kupchan’s new book, “The End of the American Era,” sounds grim, but after a year of terrorist violence, “spectacular” attack warnings and ominous analyses of fundamentalist Islam, his argument is almost refreshing. According to Kupchan, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, it isn’t radical Islam that we should be most concerned about. It’s our friends across the Atlantic, the European Union, that pose the greatest threat to American primacy.

In “The End of the American Era,” Kupchan compares the current world situation to past turning points in history — the end of World War I, the federation of the American colonies, the Great Depression — to suggest ways in which the world might transform itself. In some of his most illuminating passages, Kupchan disputes the predictions of such optimistic leading thinkers as Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman, who perceive democracy and globalization as great panaceas, and pessimists such as Samuel Huntington who foresees a “clash of civilizations.” Instead, Kupchan’s global map resembles that of the 19th century, when the reigning empire, Great Britain, gave the rising United States entree as a world power. This time, Kupchan says, it’s America’s turn to make room for Europe.

Kupchan spoke to Salon from his office in Washington, D.C.

I know historians and scholars hate the word “inevitable,” but you imply that sooner or later all great empires will fall. Is that right?

If there’s any trend that keeps coming back, it’s that great powers come and go. No one stays at the top forever. Rome was a great empire with a huge territory under its weight for probably 300 to 400 years, which is a pretty long time. Some have come and gone much more quickly.

One of the reasons that America’s moment at the top will be short-lived is that history is moving much more quickly than it used to. The countries that get into the digital age go into fast-forward. If you take a snapshot of the world today and say, “A-ha! This is what the world’s going to look like for the next century,” it’s very dangerous. Tomorrow could look very different.

Which empire do we compare most to? Is it Rome?

Two analogies come to my mind as most insightful to the present. First, the Roman case. The split that we’re now seeing between Europe and America reminds me of the split between Rome and Byzantium that occurred in the end of the third century and into the fourth century. You had a unitary imperial zone divided into two, and once you had two separate capitals, Rome and Constantinople, you immediately had rivalry rather than unity. The same thing is happening between Washington and Brussels.

As far as the nature of our empire, I’d say the British probably comes closer to ours. The Roman empire was more contiguous. We have a more far-flung empire that relies on offshore balancing, which is what the Brits did: Send troops abroad but more to keep the balance than to occupy. You could almost call it Empire Lite. That’s more or less how we run the show. One of the benefits of that is that Empire Lite is cheaper and it also provokes less resistance.

But one of the real dangers that we face at the moment is that Empire Lite might become Empire Heavy and rather than reassure others, we’ll alienate them. Rather than appear as a benign hegemon, we appear predatory. We appear to lose our legitimacy as a great power, which is probably our most precious commodity. If that happens, then all bets are off. Then you really see countries run for cover and join arms against the United States.

What mistakes do historians and scholars make when they say that America is different, that for some reason American primacy will last indefinitely?

Part of it stems from looking at what I would say are the wrong indicators. They look at the GDP and the military capability of the United States vs. other countries. If you do that, it doesn’t look like anybody is going to come close for many decades. I agree with that. But Europe is no longer a group of sovereign countries; it’s coming together just like [the United States] did [in the 18th century]. That’s why you have to talk about Europe as a collective entity and its ability to serve as a counterweight to the United States.

Also, oftentimes historians and particularly political scientists tend to look at the world structurally. They say, “Forget about what’s going on inside states and just look at the relations among states.” The end of America’s dominance will to some extent be made in America. It will come from America’s domestic politics, its own ambivalence about empire and its own stiff-necked unilateralism, which alienates others. In that sense, a lot of where we go as a country will come from internal factors — demographics, politics, political culture, populism. Those are issues that lots of political scientists don’t pay attention to.

Now, is that a trend that you see happening regardless of what political party is in power?

Yes. That’s a debate that I have with my colleagues here because they say, “Listen. Once the Bushies are gone everything will be fine. If Gore had won, everything would be fine.” I don’t agree. If Gore had won, the changes we are seeing now would have taken longer to come about, but both parties face the same political pressures in the end. If the Democrats win by 2015, it doesn’t matter. We’ll be in the same place.

Still, you’re basing a lot of your argument on what you’ve seen in the last year, aren’t you? The idea that American intervention and multilateralism is on the wane … that has a lot to do with what happened in the last year. And that’s just one year.

Interestingly enough, I wrote the first draft of the book before Bush was elected. The core themes were all there. What I’m quite shocked by is the speed with which all of this has happened. I thought that my general analysis would take a good decade to play out. Once Bush came to office it seemed like someone stepped on the gas. I had to rewrite the book and I put much more emphasis on America’s turning inward and its ambivalence about running the world. After Sept. 11, the unilateralists’ angry lashing-out side came back. The emphasis in the book on that was written after Bush came to office, and after Sept. 11.

So you think this trend might slow down with Democrats — if they’re ever in power again — but not halt.

Yes, and that’s partly because when I was in the Clinton administration in the early 1990s — only a few years after the end of the Cold War — I already saw trends that were seeds for the book. Congress was beginning to check out. The media was stopping its coverage of foreign affairs. Even Clinton, who was a liberal internationalist by inclination, wasn’t so wild about the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court and all this other stuff that the Bush people said no to. When it all comes down to it, I see the arrows all pointing in one direction, but the emphasis and the speed changes from party to party.

Part of your theory is that now we see isolationist and unilateralist extremes working at the same time. The alternative you propose is liberal internationalism? What does that mean? What conflicts would we have engaged in during the 1990s, and now, if we followed that line of thought?

The world I envisage is one where the U.S. enters a period of transition in which it helps other actors build up the capability to do what we’ve been doing. I just don’t believe that, given American politics, we will intervene in [situations such as] Rwanda and East Timor. I don’t think that’s the way the world works. Rather than no one doing it, we ought to work toward a world in which there are alternative centers of authority with the will and capability to do peacekeeping and intervention. I would love to see the European Union get to the point where it can take care of Kosovo and the Balkans. I’d love to see some sort of association of African states that could go into a Rwanda-type activity. The U.S. will no doubt remain willing and able to intervene in the Western hemisphere, but my view is that intervention far afield will diminish over time with a couple of exceptions — where there are clear strategic interests like Northeast Asia and the Persian Gulf.

How does the Bush administration’s desire to attack Iraq fit into these trends? You did write that we would be staying home and shoring up defenses post-Sept. 11, but here we are ready to wage another war already. What does this war represent?

The political landscape is so skewed that the unilateralist camp is essentially unchecked. In the Republican Party, there are three ideological camps: the neoconservatives, who are unilateralists; the moderate centrists, who are essentially liberal internationalists of the sort that I advocate such as Father Bush, Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger; and this new, young ascendant wing of the Republican Party represented by President Bush. That’s the heartland wing — the agrarian South and the mountain West. It’s populous and its inclinations are neo-isolationist.

That’s why from Jan. 20 to Sept. 11 the centrist wing was pushed to the margins and the neoconservatives and the heartland conservatives were duking it out. That’s why one day Bush would say we can’t be everything to everybody and the next day Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz at the Pentagon would say, “We’re going to run the world.” Then comes Sept. 11 and the heartland conservatives have their legs cut off. So right now there’s no check on the neoconservatives and the Democratic Party has folded its tent, lost the midterm elections. That’s why there’s so little debate about Iraq. That doesn’t mean, however, that the heartland wing is gone. They’re in suspension now politically, but they will be back.

The other thing that is important on Iraq is that the Bush administration could, if it’s not careful, find itself in over its head and have a set of commitments on its plate — including a five- to 10-year occupation of Iraq — that ultimately causes a political backlash in which the American people say enough already.

Could that scenario speed up this whole process of the decline of the American era?

It depends on how it goes. If the war goes smoothly and Saddam falls and all goes well and there aren’t chemical weapons exploding in Tel Aviv, I think it will probably turn out OK and not change the landscape all that much. If anything, it will fuel the neoconservative view.

If it goes poorly … I think the war will go smoothly actually. What I really worry about is the occupation. You ought to see a therapist if you want to occupy Iraq. It’s just the last place I would want to set up shop. The whole region is deeply anti-American. They’ll probably be dancing in the streets for 24 to 48 hours and then they’ll take up sniper positions. That’s where I think things could go wrong with barracks exploding, etc. If that were to happen, at the end of the day it would cause us to pull in our horns and cause Americans to say, “What have we gotten ourselves into?”

And our main challenger, in your view, is not radical Islam or Saddam Hussein, but the European Union. What kind of threat do you really see the European Union posing? Do you ever see us going to war with Europe?

To work backwards, no. The likelihood of military conflict between the U.S. and Europe is very low, almost beyond the stretch of imagination. The main threat is to order. The main threat is to the stability of the world. Everyone right now is focusing on terrorism and environmental degradation, and I’m all for those things. But we’ve gotten complacent about the big picture. We’re used to a world where America runs the show. We may wake up one morning and find that we don’t have complete control, that we go to the IMF or the World Bank or the United Nations, and say, “Here’s our plan for the next week.” And the E.U. looks at us and says, “We’re not onboard. We’re not going to do that.”

In fact, everyone saw the recent voting at the U.N. Security Council as victory for the U.S. But what really happened? The U.S. went in and said, “This is our position, take it or leave it.” Most of the Security Council, save Britain, said, “Leave it.” They locked arms with France rather than with us, which is what they’ve been doing for the last 50 years. That’s just the beginning of what the world could look like — main powers not working together. If it comes to that, then these other threats will diminish in importance and pale in comparison to a world in which the key players are no longer on the same sheet of music, in which Europe sets itself against us, rather than with us.

The illusion, however, is that we control the major international organizations. Also, we seem to be reaching out to NATO. How could we lose control of them?

We still do control them, but that control is slipping away in several respects. First of all, we see major institutions devolving against our wishes. The E.U. takes the lead and says, “You want to drive SUVs and drill wells in the Alaska wilderness? Well, we’re going to go ahead with the Kyoto Protocol without you. You don’t like the International Criminal Court? We’ll do it without you.” Does it hurt the ICC that we’re not there? Yes. But does it also start building a world where you have these other countries coming together with major steps forward and we’re not there? Yes. Does that degrade order? Yes.

In existing institutions we’ll find ourselves increasingly isolated. One of the reasons that we tend to have as much say as we do is that, for example, in the IMF, the U.S. has a larger share than any other country. But that’s because the countries are represented solely by their country representatives. If the E.U. starts coming together with its own single representative, then we will no longer be the dominant country. We’re not going to be able to go in and pound our fist on the table anymore.

It’s a subtle shift that I’m talking about and that’s why most people say, “Oh, it’s nothing compared to Osama bin Laden.” But, on the other hand, it’s the superstructure, it’s the guts of the international system, and that’s why the stakes are so high.

What issues and conflicts will we diverge on with the E.U.? The Middle East?

That’s probably the area where the U.S. and Europe most disagree. It’s quite striking if you go to Europe and turn on the TV. The presentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict is so different that you scratch your head and say, “What part of the world are they talking about?” That’s part of the problem. We reside in different mind-sets.

The trade and monetary issues will grow more difficult over time if the euro gradually rises. It’s a real challenger to the dollar. That’s going to make us look like we’re back in the 1930s where you had the pound sterling and the dollar together and the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England trying to manage jointly the international economy. It didn’t work; the two went off in their own direction. Now it’s going to be the Federal Reserve vs. the European Central Bank. If we don’t get that relationship right, there could be very serious implications. We are so used to being alone at the top that it’s going to be hard for us to get used to that.

Where will England stand in all of this? They’re our best friends these days.

The Brits are right now trying to have their cake and eat it too. They’re kind of edging into the E.U. but also playing the traditional role of bridge to America. Those days are numbered. It’s a strategy that will diminish over time in terms of its utility, but also in terms of its political feasibility. The Brits will change their strategy to trying to change the Franco-German coalition into the Franco-German-British troika. That’s because if the Brits don’t get into the driver’s seat in Europe, they’ll be marginalized. My guess is that by 2005 and certainly by the end of the decade, the Brits will be buying their fish and chips with euros and they will be one of the engines behind European integration rather than lagging behind.

When Bush said you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists, was he trying to create a new map of the world, one that’s black and white and similar to the Cold War bipolar world? It’s almost nostalgic for the Cold War. Why would he want to do that, and why can’t that work with terrorism?

Part of it may be instrumental. It’s a useful talking point for both domestic and international politics. Part of it is sincere — the Bush people really do believe the world has changed and that it’s all about terrorism and either you are against the terrorists or with them.

First of all, that grossly distorts the implications of Sept. 11, in that I don’t think the world has changed all that much. Beneath the surface, the same old agenda is still relevant, it’s just got one new thing on it: terrorism. If we’re terrorism 24/7 we’re going to miss all those other issues. We’re going to miss the fact that we’re alienating the Europeans, we’re going to miss the fact that we have a potential environmental disaster looming on the horizon.

The other problem is that terrorism is a very weak reason upon which to build American internationalism. That’s partly because it’s not the type of threat that — similar to the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — gets us riled up for the long haul. It’s elusive. We’re in this weird zone where we’re being told we’re at war but when asked what should we do about it, we’re supposed to go shopping and take vacations so that our planes have people on them. It doesn’t quite click. Something’s not right about this story. Some of the greatest successes in this battle will be the ones we never hear about — covert operations, the averted attack — and so in that sense, it’s very tough to get this country into a mode of centrist moderate internationalism on terrorism.

I also think — and this definitely cuts against the grain for now — that ultimately there will be a counterresponse. Right now, it’s, “Let’s go get the barbarians,” but over time there will be an alternative voice that says, “Let’s raise protective barriers, let’s get out of some of our overseas commitments.” Going back to the founding fathers, we can, because of our location, enjoy a sort of natural security.

Where’s that voice going to come from? The left or the right?

It’s going to come from all different quadrants. More from the right and the heartland than from the left. I make a point to give talks in Kansas and Texas, Birmingham and Nashville, and there’s just a different view of the world there. Even people who are involved in the international economy are not quite as gung ho about the American empire as we hear in Washington today. That’s why over time that voice will gain strength. It’s important to keep in mind that if you look at how other countries have responded to terrorism or how we have responded, sometimes it does make you pull in your horns. We got out of Lebanon in 1983, we left Aden when the Cole was bombed; Nigerian attacks on the French mainland got the French to leave Algeria. It’s not particularly politically correct to say so, but terrorism does engender one to hunker down.

What other alliances might we see? Where does China fit in all this?

In the near term, the main actor is Europe because it has the clout, population and economic weight. It’s beginning to have the collective character as the states pass more and more authority up to the supranational authority.

I spent less time on China in the book because most people exaggerate China’s importance. China is still a relatively small country economically with an economy smaller than California’s. Ten years from now China will be an Italy with nuclear weapons. Once you get into the second quarter of the century, 2025 and beyond, then China starts to begin to take its place as one of the top-ranking countries. Then, you might spend a lot more time worrying about China.

But, what do I think the most volatile relationship will be, the one that changes most this decade? It’s U.S.-Europe.

How will that affect ordinary Americans? What changes will we see if it’s not a military threat? I mean, the American people can’t see past terrorism right now because we can see very clearly what that threat is.

I’d say that right across the board there are some consequences. The trade and investment with Europe is very strong and healthy. If that becomes politicized it could be a problem. There are already looming disputes over biotech, bioengineered greens.

The disputes on other areas — on the Middle East, on Iran, on Iraq — could lead to trouble. NATO, which has been our main tool in influencing Europe, is withering on the vine, partly of our own doing. We’re just losing interest in Europe.

I’d probably put it in these terms: Europe will be our competitor but not necessarily our adversary. That’s why we’re in a switching point where we really have to get it right. Negotiating a treaty, rebuilding Afghanistan, dealing with the Middle East process — all that stuff usually moves forward with the U.S. taking the lead and Europe backing off. If we wake up one day and the U.S. tries to take the lead and Europe tells us to take a hike, then we’re in a brave new world. Doing business on a day-to-day basis becomes much more difficult. At the broadest level, all the money and lives that we expended since World War II to tame the international system and give it a benign character — all of that’s at stake. It’s possible that we could wake up and it will be 1935 and I don’t think any American wants that.

You do say that the unipolar world that we have now is a peaceful one and historically unipolar worlds are always peaceful. You say that a world without American primacy will be an unpredictable and unpleasant world. For everyone, or just for Americans?

Everybody. Even though a lot of countries wouldn’t necessarily say so, they’ve had a pretty good deal. Big Daddy’s been there and he takes care of everything. The Europeans don’t have to spend much on defense. China and Japan basically don’t like each other, but they’re not gnawing at each other’s heels because the U.S. keeps a presence there. We provide stability. What we’re seeing now is the end of that. The U.S. is decamping from Europe because we’ve got nothing else to do there, but it does leave the Europeans with the new onerous task of taking care of themselves. That’s going to be scary for them even though there’s a certain schizophrenia. The Europeans are annoyed with us but scared of what Europe will look like without the American pacifier. In the same respect, the Saudis believe that the U.S. destabilizes them but what happens if the U.S. leaves? The stakes are very high.

I’ll take a wild guess that most Americans will be surprised that Europe might challenge us. Are Europeans?

Depends on what you mean. They will never be a superpower; they’re never going to spend the money to rival the U.S. in military terms. What we’ll see is that they will build up enough capability to take care of the Balkans and other small conflicts, and the U.S. will take care of other parts of the world. Sort of a division of labor. But that division of labor means the end of the Atlantic alliance.

You say most Americans will be surprised at this and I think that’s right. I don’t think most Europeans will be. This issue gets much more traction there. They are engaged in international issues in ways that we are now. There is this abiding sense that we’re all in the same family, that these are our cousins. That’s probably what will keep us from going to war, but it’s not going to keep us from drifting apart.

So how do you fear that America might react to this?

The worst that we can do is bite back. The historical analogy that is most useful here is what happened in the 19th century when America rose because it federated. Basically, history is reversing itself: This time we’re at the top and Europe is coming together, last time Europe was at the top and we came together. There wasn’t war over America’s rise because the British made room for us. They cut deals on all kinds of issues and they said we need to have a rapprochement with the rising great power, America. We ought to do the same thing.

We ought to say: Europe is rising, Europe wants voice, influence, and we’re going to make room. I don’t think that we’ve been doing that. We’re still in the mode of “How dare you challenge us?” Probably the best anecdote is about the E.U. Defense Force. The U.S. fought the war over Kosovo, and then Congress said, “This is ridiculous. This is not our problem. Europe, you need to spend more and build your own military.” So Europe said, “OK.” And then the U.S. went bonkers: “What do you mean you’re going to build your own military? You don’t love us anymore?”

Europe is growing up and leaving home to go to college and we’re just not ready for it. We ought to say, “Go to college, be independent, and just call us once a year or something.”

But you don’t think that terrorism is the unifying great threat that it’s been made out to be?

No. Everyone was saying, “Aha, the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century!” This couldn’t be further from the truth. We have quite rapidly drifted back to disengagement.

Couldn’t a couple more attacks change that?

Yes. That’s the big unknown. If a nuclear weapon goes off, God forbid, if there’s another catastrophic attack, then I think we’re in a brave new world. Do I think it will bring the country together and make us internationalist? I don’t know. It could also make us pull in and retreat. It’s dangerous to be confident that terrorism is the sort of threat that will keep us engaged in the world. It does the opposite — pushing us to both unilateralist and isolationist extremes.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

About the writer Suzy Hansen is an assistant editor at Salon.

———–

Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:35:36 -0400 New American Time

The popular radio talk show, the Savage Nation, has proposed that it is not enough for the US to squander most of the earth’s resources, bully the rest of the world, and invade any country that disagrees with it. A superpower should actually be the center of the universe.

Even the Savage Nation would not recommend we turn Newtonian physics on its head and put the earth at the center of the solar system. Even right wing talk radio wouldn’t go that far. But host Michael Savage does recommend that, given the power, money, and supremacy of the US, we need another concept of time that celebrates American dominance.

Savage argues that it makes sense that America should bring sense and order to time, the most metaphysical of notions. When the world was Christ-centric, the calendar started with the birth of Christ. This was all very good while Christianity was in flower. But even then, Moslem, Hebrews, Chinese, and Buddhists were following different calendars The Moslem calendar begins in 622 with the flight of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina and this is the beginning of the age of Hizdra for Moslems. Emperor Constantine pronounced that the world began in 5508 BC and that is good enough for the Greek Orthodox Church which follows that calendar.

For Savage all this is mumbo jumbo, relative, and confusing. “Wars have been fought over religious calendars and millions of people have been killed. We need a bona fide secular calendar, devoid of all religious impulses. We need to bring an antiquated world into real time. We need to bury much of the chronological past that really is no more than a celebration of mayhem. We need modern measures and tools. We need a concept of time that is no longer subjective. We need an American time. After all, America is the center of the universe. We hold the power. Why not put the world on the American clock.”

Savage does not suggest we rewrite history as we invent new timepieces. On the contrary, he suggests we “by and large ignore history, especially involving the effeminate French and English kings. Keep Shakespeare and a few noisy Germany composers but the rest should go in the box with old Swiss watches.”

For all the hyperbole this is offered as a serious proposal. The first suggestion is to change the Prime Meridian. “After all”, Savage asks, “why should Greenwich, England any longer be the prime meridian. That was ok as long as England was a global power and the sun never set on the British Empire. Now it never even comes up in Greenwich.

“I recommend that the Prime Meridian be moved to New York. Let’s put it right down the middle of Ground Zero so all our enemies will know where our time begins. Instead of a polite English voice announcing the hour, we will use voices of the survivors of the terrorist attack. And every year, on the precise anniversary of the attack, we will stop time for a few minutes to honor the dead and force the whole world to mourn with us, whether they like it or not.

“Sure the cartographers will be busy drawing new maps which, to emphasize our relative power, will show the US in the center of the chart and the other countries, especially those where Muslims and other terrorists live, appropriately small. Countries belonging to the Axis of Evil will be colored Black, while the America will be colored Green and White, symbolizing our hope and optimism. We will leave out countries we don’t recognize or those that annoy us. If countries are not on the map, their representatives will not be allowed to attend United Nations functions in New York. No country, no visa, no speeches. This will keep a lot of freeloaders, who park illegally, out of the US.”

According to Savage, other activities will naturally follow. “American Time (AT) will begin September 11, 2001. Everything before that will be considered Before American Time (BAT). American Time will start with Year One. There will be no zero as that is negative and America should not associate itself with the term. Before American Time will extend to 1776, the start of the American experience. American textbooks should not find it necessary to deal with events before this date.

“America should not give aid to countries that do not accept the concept of American Time. This includes Israel. Evangelical Americans should not have difficult with this idea as it is generally recognized that god created America and has a covenant with this great nation. America will still be a place of religious tolerance as long as the various sects throw out their dangerous and musty religious calendars and accept this country as the center of the universe.”

Savage realizes there is considerable subtlety to establishing a New World order of American Time. He notes that “any changes must include changes in how time is perceived; that is the psychology of time. In order for the rest of the world to think like us, they have to be on our clock and our time. In other words we want the world awake when we are awake, and sleep when we are asleep. Obviously, this arrangement will require some adjustments in sleeping habits but world peace is well worth this effort and deprivation. It is important that we are able to keep an eye on these people.

“We are particularly interested in the rest of the world, including Europeans, getting on our work schedule. This means they will have to get used to longer working days and fewer vacations. If Europe doesn’t like it, we will import Disneyworld to the entire European Union.”

“America has the technology and know-how to actually intervene in Nature. Scientists are actually examining ways to slow down the earth’s rotation around the sun, this giving the US the option of creating longer working days or shorter winters. We will probably be able to stop the sun over certain countries-such as Iraqand raise the ambient temperature to 150F, which is even too for desert rats. That will take the mustard out of the Elite Republican Guard.

President Bush is scheduled to address the nation shortly about rewriting American time, history, and ontology.

The idea came to him while on holiday in Texas.

———–

And the bland played on…

Internet radio stations may have to shut up shop if record industry giants are allowed to demand retrospective revenues, writes Ashley Norris

Thursday October 17, 2002 The Guardian

DooWop Jukebox Gold is an internet radio station that has been playing harmony music of the 50s and 60s for more than two years. Run from his New York home by an enigmatic individual with the curious name of “papaoommowwow”, the station streams the best music from a genre long forgotten by mainstream radio. Its audience may be small, but for the internet DooWop community, it is invaluable.

That DooWop Jukebox Gold exists at all speaks volumes for the diversity of streamed music on the net. Whatever your taste in music, somewhere on the virtual dial, you’ll find a station playing your tune. Yet whether you’ll be able to enjoy that same degree of choice after Sunday seems to rest on the convictions of a small group of US senators.

It now looks likely that many webcasters, larger internet-only stations and college broadcasters could be forced out of business by a ruling made by the Librarian of Congress in July that the US Senate has failed to amend.

In fact, calling the web transmissions radio stations is something of a misnomer. Most stream music 24 hours a day via their own server or through one of the larger radio portals such as Live365.

The ruling that could silence them broke new ground in US radio by asking webcasters to pay 0.07 cents per performance for internet-only transmission per listener per song when terrestrial broadcasters pay no performance royalty fee. The fee would be retroactive for broadcasters to 1998.

With a deadline of October 20 looming, the date where stations would have to pay royalty fees for transmission, the Record Industry’s Association of America (RIAA) and groups representing the webcasters finally agreed a compromise solution – a new bill, the Small Webcasters Amendment Act, or HR 5469.

And while the bill was unanimously approved by the House of Representatives last week, it has yet to find its way through the US Senate. For the retroactive payments to be halted, the bill needs presidential consent by Sunday. To find time for the bill in a very busy Senate schedule, support needs to be unanimous.

Its backers claim the bill secures the future of internet radio by allowing small broadcasters to pay a royalty rate based on a percentage of their revenues or expenses, depending on which is greater. It also establishes a tier for non-profit making stations, which will keep them on air for an estimated $2,000 a year.

Even if the Senate does approve the bill, its supporters acknowledge it will change internet radio.

The publisher of the influential Radio and Internet Newsletter (Rain), Kurt Hanson, believes that HR 5469 “is not a perfect deal for everyone. However, for the pioneers of webcasting, accepting the option will allow them to stay alive after October 20; without the bill they could be bankrupted by their retroactive royalty obligation”.

Other webcasters are even more critical of the bill. “It is not a level-playing field for webcasters,” complains John Schneider of Radiopoly.com. “How can congress justify charging webcasters a performance royalty fee that has never existed for terrestrials?”

Kevin Shively, from the popular classical music station Beethoven.com, doubts the business can ever make a reasonable profit under HR 5469.

Potentially the biggest loser could be one of net radio’s richest music sources – Live365. The company started in 1999 and provided an easy way for hobbyists to get their music stations online. Using simple software, would-be DJs upload their music to Live365’s server to create their stream. Users pay $11 a month – considerably less than it would cost to set up using their own server.

Ironically, these small broadcasters, who invariably claim only a couple of listeners at a time, could be the real victims of the bill.

“The Small Webcasters Amendment Act does very little for us,” explains John Jeffrey, executive vice president of corporate strategies at the station. “While we are glad the legislation includes an option for smaller webcasters, it doesn’t apply to Live365. We are still obligated to pay the initial rates (0.7 cents per listener per track).”

For the moment, Live365 promises to absorb the rate without increasing its $11 base rate a month it charges station owners. However, it fears for its future. “For starters, we are going to have to pay a million dollars in retroactive royalties. The new rates are going to make it much more difficult to attract new capital to help the company grow,” says Jeffrey.

If time constraints in the Senate scupper HR 5469, or webcasters can’t stomach the new costs, there are other places would-be broadcasters could consider. Moving their operations outside the USA would enable broadcasters to evade the royalty fees. A deal agreed a couple of weeks ago by the European Competition Commissioner, Mario Monti, means that EU countries can compete with each other in collecting royalties for Europe-wide net broadcasters. Net-based radio stations can then gravitate to the country that has the lowest rates. It’s an option the larger webcasters are considering.

“I think it’s a last resort for some webcasters,” says Paul Maloney, editor of Rain. “There has been some talk of Europe, but if things came to the crunch, most webcasters would look closer to home – Costa Rica is always mentioned. Personally, I think that webcasters will wait until they get their bills, and then decide what to do.”

For the hobbyists, there is also the option of Peercast, which uses file-sharing technology but users pass audio stream to each other, instead of swapping files. It is almost impossible for the record industries to track down owners and demand royalties. While it hasn’t proved successful so far – only a handful of stations are online at the Peercast site – the failure of the US Congress to pass the bill could transform it into one of the most talked-about technologies on the web.

Whatever happens in the Senate this week, for many net radio stations, October 20 2002 looks set to become the day the music died.

Websites

www.peercast.org www.live365.com www.kurthanson.com www.vugt.homestead.com (DooWop Jukebox Gold)

———–

Internet Freedom Also Victim of Sept 11, Group Says Thu Sep 5, 2:15 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) – Security measures have curbed cyberspace so much since the September 11 attacks that the Internet can be counted among the collateral damage caused that day, a worldwide media watchdog group said Thursday.

The Paris-based Reporters without Borders (RsF) group said in a report that western countries normally concerned about press freedom used last year’s attacks as a pretext to curb basic freedoms or crack down on domestic opponents.

New laws extending the time data is held by Internet service providers (ISPs) and making data available to intelligence services has make ISPs and telecommunications companies into “a potential arm of the police,” RsF head Robert Menard said.

“The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the G8 nations have all challenged cyber-freedoms over the past year,” Menard said in a statement accompanying the report.

Citizens in Europe and elsewhere would be outraged if their governments let police routinely read letters sent through their postal services, he argued.

“Yet these are exactly the kind of measures that have been taken or are being taken concerning the Internet,” he said. “We need to be much more vigilant.”

Among the laws RsF criticized as curbing Internet rights were the U.N. Security Council resolution 1373 on fighting terrorism, the U.S.A. Patriot Act and amendments tightening European Union ( news – web sites) rules on protecting electronic data.

The U.S.A. Patriot Act let the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI ( news – web sites)) monitor e-mail traffic of people suspected of contacts with a foreign power, but messages from innocent private citizens have been intercepted, the RsF report said.

In Britain, the RsF report said, police in many cases no longer need prior approval from a judge to monitor financial transactions and private e-mail online.

France has given judges the power to order e-mail messages to be decoded and encryption firms to hand over their codes so authorities can read e-mail. Police can also make remote online searches of ISP records.

Germany has given its intelligence services unlimited access to the police database and given both more access to telephone and Internet records about suspected persons, it said.

Italy eased rules for Internet surveillance and greatly increased the number of police and security officials authorized to do so, according to the report.

India’s Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance authorized the government to monitor e-mail without prior permission, it said, and use the evidence it found in court cases.

RsF said the current Danish presidency wanted the EU to oblige telephone companies and ISPs to retain all traffic records so security services could consult them if necessary.

———–

It is rare to see such a disturbing piece of isolationist fluff these days, mostly because I don’t usually take the time to read deeply conservative, revisionist rags like the “National Review”. It occurs to me that if I searched thru the archives of the American press in 1939 I might see similar rhetoric to this article.

One advantage of living in Canada (granted it’s not Victor Hanson’s hobby farm) is the exposure to a number of different media and a plethora of opinions and “facts”, rather than the CNN/CNBC/ABC/CBS unfiltered Bush/Cheney viewpoint. It’s clear, having watched the limited spectrum of information being spoon-fed to right-wing bastards like Hanson, that he wouldn’t have the foggiest clue what is really happening in the middle east, thus exonerating his banal inquiries.

Now granted, it’s 3:30 AM and these are simply my views, based upon an education in this field, an open mind, and no substantial bias in any direction, but they might help Hanson in his quest for answers. Someone had better forward them to him. I know he’ll be willing to listen to my arguments and reflect objectively on the issues.

>”Why does Mr. Mubarak lecture us to become intimately engaged in the
>Middle East Peace process, when Mr. Clinton, who was very recently
>intimately engaged, got the intifada for his efforts?”

Well, Sharon made the intifada by marginalizing the PLO by committing brutal, violent attacks on innocent Palestinians while Arafat was suing for peace. As a result the Palestinians lost faith in Arafat’s ability to win through peace what intifada promised to win through war. Mr. Clinton was a marginal player at best. The same ruthless, greedy bastards that supported Sharon’s campaign financially in the US voted for Bush. So Clinton doesn’t have much to do with it at all.

>”And why does Mr. Mubarak seek to advise us about our proper diplomatic
>role, rather than explain to us why an Egyptian masterminded the deaths
>of 3,000 of our citizens and others of his countrymen are top lieutenants
>of Mr. Bin Laden and are now killing Americans in Afghanistan?”

Because Mr. Mubarak can no longer appeal to the UN because it is a benign bureaucracy, usurped by the US. The fact that several culprits were Egyptian is simply not relevant. Several were also British and American (Walker), so does that mean we should blame those countries because of the fact that 1 person out of tens of millions decided to fly a fucking 767 into the World Trade Center?

>”And why, instead of warning about rising anti-Americanism in his
>country ‹ itself the dividend of the virulent propaganda of his own
>state-run presses ‹ does he not ponder another recent poll, one showing
>that 76 percent of Americans themselves have an unfavorable view of the
>Arab world?”

First of all, show me that there’s any difference between the State-Run media in Egypt and the free press in the US right now (in terms of their unrepentant affirmation of government policy) and I will buy you a beer. Second, those people living in the third world have every reason to be hateful of the US, given their exploitation by US multinationals, the pervasiveness (particularly in Egypt) of rude US tourists, and the cultural imperialism which imprints a Leo DiCaprio/Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys aura upon every society in the world. Thirdly, American isolationism is not a new concept. That 76% of Americans don’t trust the Arab world is surprisingly low, given historical statistics.

>”Why do Middle Easterners become excited and haughty as they gloat to
>you that Americans are unpopular in their countries, but suddenly grow
>shocked, silent, and hurt when you politely and calmly explain why the
>feeling is becoming ‹ and perhaps should be ‹ mutual?”

The fact is that America, as a first world nation and our world’s only true superpower, can and must be held to a higher standard. As PLATO once said, the best form of government is a Benevolent Despot. As the governor of the planet earth in this decade, America must display convicted benevolence. Americans (and anyone) have an innate distrust of that which is unknown to them. The US media have done almost nothing to bridge that gap in helping Americans to understand that which opposes them.

>”Why do so many from the Middle East come here to find freedom, security,
>and safety ‹ and then criticize the country that they would never lea
>as they praise the country that they would never return to?”

As a Canadian who lived in the US for three years only to return home to Vancouver I must wonder aloud what could possibly be wrong with trying to amend a society’s behaviour to include that which you think is morally correct. That is how American Democracy was founded in the first place, and that is a fundamental tenet of a democratic society. America offers opportunities which are obvious however one need not ascribe to the entire ideology to benefit from its stronger points.

>”Why did we incur only anger from Eastern Europeans and Orthodox Christians
>for saving the Muslims of the former Yugoslavia from Milosevic, but no
>praise at all from the Islamic world itself?”

You incurred anger from those few who were displaced from their homes in Bosnia — their anger had little to do with religion. And the Islamic world, I certainly shouldn’t need to point our, is as fractious as Christianty and so one shouldn’t expect tacit support for every small deed. Frankly, I wasn’t aware that America’s participation in such events was strategically designed to win praise.

>”If the West Bank is the linchpin of the current Middle East crisis,
>what were wars #1, #2, and #3 there about, when it was entirely in Arab
>hands?”

The Middle East hasn’t been “entirely in Arab hands” for more than two centuries. In fact, in World Wars #1 and #2, the Arabs and Palestinians as well as other Muslims were promised self-rule and the withdrawal of imperialism in exchange for helping us with our war efforts in Europe. Go rent “Lawrence of Arabia”, dumbass.

>”Is there a difference between Palestinians preferring to kill
>Israeli civilians rather than soldiers, and Israelis preferring to
>kill Palestinian fighters rather than civilians?”

I know that I will get an emotional reaction to this statement in the wake of 9/11 but Terrorism is a tool of war for those who cannot fight wars. Israel must be held to a higher standard because they are clearly an army of occupation. Despite that, Isreali forces have shown no qualms, especially under Sharon’s leadership throughout the years, regarding the targeting of civilians. In the 1950s, then General Sharon burned entire villages and towns to rubble to make a highway safe for the passage of Israeli tanks, thus leading to his current legal troubles battling a Belgian war crimes tribunal.

>”Would the world be angry if a Jewish terrorist forced a captured
>Muslim to admit to his race and faith as he executed and beheaded
>him on film?”

Sadly this is the type of incident that has frequently occurred on both sides of the 50 years war. No one’s hands are clean here. I remind you that war is a brutal, savage thing and atrocities are committed on both sides. The correct question is: if an American special forces colonel captured an Al Quaeda soldier and tortured him, would we even hear about it on CNN?

>”Why do not Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, who overtly and
>stealthily war along side the Palestinians, simply all join with
>the former to gang up and declare war openly on Israel and then
>settle the issue on the battlefield?”

Because they themselves cannot get along with each other. Just like in Catholicism there are many sects within the Islamic faith, differing widely on cultural and political issues. The US has had a policy over the last 50 years of maintaining a delicate balance between the Sunnis, Shi’ites, and other more moderate groups in order to prevent Pan-Arabism from threatening not only Israel, but also the worldwide oil supply.

>”If we remove the fascist regime in Iraq and help institute
>consensual government there, why would we need troops any
>longer next door in Saudi Arabia? What and from whom would we
>then be there to protect?”

Since Saddam Hussein represents the Sunni minority in Iraq, if you removed him and held an election you would install a Shi’ite government which, when it aligned with the Iranian Shi’ites, would threaten the region in ways never before conceived of. The result would be a permanent and massively mechanized US presence in Saudi Arabia.

>”Has any American in any live broadcast on television ever
>asked a Saudi prince, the king of Jordan, the President of
>Egypt, or the royalty of Kuwait, whether they plan on allowing
>a free press or democratic government? If not, why not?”

American foreign policy is not focused on the global acceptance of democracy. American foreign policy seeks to support those governments which are favourable to US interests, and that will maintain a free-flowing supply of oil.

>”If 19 Americans incinerated 3,000 Muslims in Mecca or Medina,
>and blew up 20 acres in either of those cities with a two-kiloton
>explosion, would the Saudis or the Egyptians a few weeks later
>politely listen to admonitions from the American government about
>their incorrect Islamic policies in the Middle East?”

In 1991, American B-52s carpet bombed and killed somewhere between 125,000 – 200,000 Shi’ite conscripts who were herded out into the Kuwaiti desert by the Iraqi Republican Guard and were essentially starving to death and running out of ammunition and who were effectively waiting to surrender. At issue here is the fact that the incident was the most under-reported atrocity of the war, estimates of the numbers of dead varying so widely because not a single Western journalist chased down the story.

>”If the Eiffel Tower had been wrecked by an al Qaeda hijacked
>airliner, would the French have gone into Afghanistan after the
>terrorists? And if so, how and why? And would they have asked our
>help? And would we have given it?”

Since the French cannot effectively project power into the region, they would have sought the support of NATO. America would have used this as an excuse to do exactly what they’re doing today. If you think that the US is in the region solely to fight a war on terrorism then I have a bridge to sell you. It would have been much more difficult of course to sell the war to the American public, which traditionally turns a blind eye to deaths in foreign countries. Most Americans, including Joe Kennedy, thought that Hitler was a progressive leader while he was slaughtering jews by the tens of thousands in 1939.

>”Why in the last decade have we seen a succession of Israeli prime
>ministers and opposition figures but only Mr. Arafat alone?”

Last time I checked, Palestine isn’t even a country and the PLO isn’t a government. How can one have a democracy without borders?

>”Why do Middle Easterners become far more enraged at Israelis for
>shooting hundreds of Muslims than at Iranians, Iraqis, Jordanians,
>Syrians, Indians, Algerians, Russians, Somalis, and Serbians for
>liquidating tens of thousands?”

Israeli jeeps regularly pull up to taunt the inhabitants of Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, where Muslims live in poverty without running water, plagued by disease, and walled in by the lack of education. Understandably, the occupants of the camps (young boys mostly) vent their frustration by throwing rocks at these jeeps. The Isrealis return fire with rockets. Does that not deserve criticism? All murder is worthy of examination and analysis — for instance, how many times more people have the US killed in Afghanistan than were killed at the WTC?

>”Will Palestinians cheer when Saddam Hussein launches chemical-laden
>missiles against Israel when we invade his country?”

Yes. Why shouldn’t they? I keep getting this feeling they’re at war… Oh yes, that’s right! THEY ARE.

>”If someone blew up another 3,000 Americans, would the EU do anything?”

Did America declare a war on Terrorism after the hostage disaster at the 1972 Munich Olympics, where the Isreali athletes were held hostage and subsequently killed by Palestinian terrorists? Did they declare a war on Terrorism when the US-supported IRA bombed a hotel during a wedding at Enneskillen in 1981?

>”Has anyone made an inventory of the all the goods, services, and
>equipment that France has sold to Iraq since 1991?”

Has anyone inventoried the military hardware sold by the US over the last 30 years to Iran, one of the most prominent members of Bush’s “Axis of Evil”?

The point of my selective responses to this profoundly disturbing article is to illustrate that hypocrisy is everywhere and that America, as imperialists, are necessarily held to a higher standard than third world countries. America is plagued by the difficulty of being “reluctant imperialists”, wherein American foreign policy requires the projection of power and influence worldwide to keep the economy moving but the citizens of the US are largely isolationists.

-Ian.

On 3/16/02 7:20 PM, “John Hall” wrote:

> http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson031502.shtml
>
>
>
> Some of the better ones:
>
>
>
> If the West Bank is the linchpin of the current Middle East crisis, what were
> wars #1, #2, and #3 there about, when it was entirely in Arab hands?
>
>
>
> Is there a difference between Palestinians preferring to kill Israeli
> civilians rather than soldiers, and Israelis preferring to kill Palestinian
> fighters rather than civilians?
>
>
>
> If the Eiffel Tower had been wrecked by an al Qaeda hijacked airliner, would
> the French have gone into Afghanistan after the terrorists? And if so, how and
> why? And would they have asked our help? And would we have given it?
>
>
>
> What would the world think if Mr. Sharon displayed a revolver and then
> attempted to strike one of his ministers at a Cabinet meeting?
>
>
>
> Why do Palestinians shoot machine-guns up into the air at funerals and
> Israelis do not?
>
>
>
> If nearly two-thirds of the Arabic world believe that Arabs were not involved
> in September 11, why should any American believe anything that two out of
> three people from that region say?
>
>
>
> Has anyone heard a Muslim in the United States condemn September 11 without
> employing the word “but?”
>
>
>
>
>