Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[jeffmoskin]

Welcome aboard, Indianhead.

Bush has been reading (scratch that - Bush can't read). The neo CON ARTISTS have been reading  Clausewitz who wrote, 100 odd years ago, that:

"War is a continuation of policy by other means".

Perhaps Caspar Weinberger's 6 rules are more useful:
1. Commit only if our or our allies' vital interests are at stake.

2. If we commit, do so with all the resources necessary to win.

3. Go in only with clear political and military objectives.

4. Be ready to change the commitment if the objectives change, since wars rarely stand still.

5. Only take on commitments that can gain the support of the American people and the Congress.

6. Commit US forces only as a last resort.
How many of these six have the NEO CON MEN covered? By my count, ZERO.

BUMP!

The mods are cleaning house again.

[Livyjr]

BUMP!

The mods are cleaning house again.

Well, that will keep the rafters in here clear of cobwebs until the next time, then!

[Livyjr]

Welcome aboard, Indianhead.

Bush has been reading (scratch that - Bush can't read).

The neo CON ARTISTS have been reading Clausewitz who wrote, 100 odd years ago, that:

"War is a continuation of policy by other means".

Perhaps Caspar Weinberger's 6 rules are more useful:

1. Commit only if our or our allies' vital interests are at stake.

2. If we commit, do so with all the resources necessary to win.

3. Go in only with clear political and military objectives.

4. Be ready to change the commitment if the objectives change, since wars rarely stand still.

5. Only take on commitments that can gain the support of the American people and the Congress.

6. Commit US forces only as a last resort.

How many of these six have the NEO CON MEN covered?

By my count, ZERO.

Roundheads
Related: United Kingdom History

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r/roundhea.asp

Derisive name for the supporters of Parliament during the English civil war.

The name, which originated c.1641, referred to the short haircuts worn by some of the Puritans in contrast to the fashionable long-haired wigs worn by many of the supporters of King Charles I, who were called Cavaliers.

Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright © 2005.

And here, jeffmoskin, I would tend to agree with you, BUT .....

IT IS NOT OUR DIME, NOR IS IT OUR PARADIGM, and there is where we go "south" as it were, in this hypothetical argument with the Bush Co.'s over whether Caspar Weinberger's Six or Sixty or even Six Hundred RULES are at all relevant here, because the NEW CON CROWD would simply negate not them, BUT HIM, and so, all that his intellect produced, which is those RULES!

Back in the John Kerry forum, I had captured quite a bit of material where quotes were being made ABOUT George W. Bush and his then-ASCENDENT NEW CONS, and the one that sticks in my mind comes, I believe from either PROPAGANDA, er, make that NEWSWEEK, or the Washington Post, and it was to the effect that the BUSH CO.'S DIDN'T NEED HISTORY AS A GUIDE, BECAUSE THEY WERE WRITING THE HISTORY THAT EVERYONE FROM THIS TIME FORWARD WOULD BE READING!

This is a MIND SET that is hard, I believe, for people to even conceive of, here in OUR America, since it is the first time in my lifetime that I believe that I have encountered this type of mindset OVER HERE in this nation of OURS, and without some knowledge of "personality types" based on real world experience of people, and a knowledge of human psychology and history, I MIGHT NOT HAVE RECOGNIZED IT FOR WHAT IT IS TO BE, which is a totally DELUDED command structure in charge of this nation AND ITS MILITARY!

THERE IS NO HISTORY WHICH APPLIES TO GEORGE W. BUSH!

GEORGE W. BUSH IS LIVING HISTORY!

QED!

Alpha and Omega, all in one!

And so, Caspar Weinberger is just not relevant!

WHEN YOU ARE GOD, YOU ARE INFALLIBLE!

When you serve GOD, as do the NEW CONS, then as vessels, and conduits, you are pure!

This is LORD PROTECTOR CROMWELL and the ROUNDHEADS all over again!

Or some perverted variation on that "scenario", more likely, as I see it!

OR .....

Maybe this is really BIBLICAL PROPHESY COME TRUE, just as KARL ROVE HAS SAID!

SO!

THE "PARADIGM"!

Stay tuned!

[Livyjr]

And that brings us to today!

SO!

How about that?

And who of us shall survive to see the other side, if in fact there is to be one?

Stay tuned!

That is something we are all quite curious about in here, as George W. Bush and Condoleeza "CON-JOB" Rice now get set to take on ALL OF EUROPE over the question of who is the BIGGEST, BADDEST NATION ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH:

World - AP Asia

"Rice: European Nations Must Not Arm China"

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

BEIJING - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested Sunday that European governments are irresponsible if they sell sophisticated weaponry to China that might one day be used against U.S. forces in the Pacific.

"It is the United States, not Europe, that is defending the Pacific," Rice said.

The European Union may soon lift an arms embargo on China that was imposed after the deadly 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square.

Lifting the embargo would allow sale of technology and weapons that China badly wants to modernize its creaky military.

China has recently gone on a military spending spree that Rice said concerns the United States.

"The European Union should do nothing to contribute," to the possibility that Chinese forces might turn European technology on Americans, Rice said after meetings with the South Korean president and foreign minister.

Rice said she would raise U.S. objections to the Taiwan development with Chinese officials in two days of talks, along with long-standing concerns over Chinese human rights practices and violations of intellectual property rights.

Rice will also ask China for more help to persuade communist North Korea to return to international nuclear disarmament talks.

In Seoul, Rice conducted an unusual press conference with Korean Internet reporters.

The event, meant to highlight the freewheeling nature of computer communication in an open democracy, got off to a bad start when American security guards tackled a peace activist as he shouted to get Rice's attention.

"Miss Rice, the North Korean people are dying and they are crying for your help," yelled the activist, German physician and former aid worker Norbert Vollertsen.

He held up a poster that read "Freedom for North Korea: 50 Years Overdue," until a State Department employee ripped the poster in half.

As Rice took her seat for the news conference, security officers literally muffled Vollertsen while wrestling him to the carpeted floor.

He had talked his way into the event before Rice arrived, but a U.S. Embassy public affairs officer recognized him at the last moment and demanded he be removed.

In replies to the Korean journalists, Rice described TRUE DEMOCRACY as the ability to "say what you wish, worship as you please and educate your children, boys and girls."

In contrast to the closed society of North Korea, Rice said, "you can come here and think what you want and ask me anything — the United States secretary of state — and what a wonderful thing that is."

end quotes

So long as you do not ask about peace or whatever for North Korea, I guess, right "CON-JOB"?

SURREAL: having the intense irrational reality of a dream!

Which certainly defines and describes what this Bush Co. seems like to me, ESPECIALLY AFTER this most wierd PRESS CONFERENCE in Seoul that Miss Condoleeza just held, where AFTER her thugs took down a man hard and MUZZLED HIM, by exercise of overwhelming physical force, ON HIM, to prevent him from even having, let alone exercising, his right to FREE SPEECH in SOUTH KOREA, which is supposed to be a sovereign nation INDEPENDENT OF the United States, WHERE Miss Condoleeza would only be a guest, herself; Miss Condoleeza then goes on to tell these Korean internet reporters that this act of brutality that they had just witnessed Miss Condoleeza's thugs committing on this man, TO SUPPRESS FREE SPEECH, WAS IN FACT, DEMOCRACY, GEORGE W. BUSH-STYLE, IN ACTION!

What a JOKE!

"ANY OF YOU KOREANS OUT THERE THINKING CONDOLEEZA RICE AIN'T TOUGHER THAN ANY MAN, OR THAT SHE IS AFRAID TO USE VIOLENCE HERSELF AS A TOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY ON BEHALF OF GEORGE W. BUSH, GUESS AGAIN!"

And here, as a kind of "internet reporter", myself, and one at that who is most definitely interested in TRUE DEMOCRACY, what I would like to ask Miss Condoleeza on behalf of OUR America is WHO POPPED THAT ITALIAN GUY over there in Iraq?

Has anyone figured that out yet, Miss Condoleeza, OR IS IT A NATIONAL SECRET!

And if you are thinking of sending your thugs my way to wrestle me down and MUFFLE me, send a bunch!

[Livyjr]

SO!

Politics - Reuters

"Bush Calls on Hizbollah to Lay Down Arms"

By Steve Holland

"We view Hizbollah as a terrorist organization and I would hope that Hizbollah would prove that they're not by laying down arms and not threatening peace," Bush told reporters with Jordan's King Abdullah at his side.

Bush, who is using the early months of his second term to push for democratic reforms across the Middle East, was gentle on the subject with Abdullah, a close U.S. ally.

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy in which citizens have limited political rights.

The king appoints the prime minister, cabinet and a 55-member Senate, while a 110-member lower house is elected.

Bush said a recent U.S.-Jordan free trade agreement would help make Jordan more prosperous.

"It's much easier to reform when there's prosperity, when people are able to see his majesty's vision about a prosperous future," Bush said.

White House - AP
 
"Bush: Saddam's Ouster Inspired Reformers"

Sat Mar 19, 2:07 PM ET   

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WACO, Texas - The U.S. military victory against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq  gets the credit for "inspiring democratic reformers from Beirut to Tehran," President Bush said Saturday.

"Today, women can vote in Afghanistan, Palestinians are breaking the old patterns of violence, and hundreds of thousands of Lebanese are rising up to demand their sovereignty and democratic rights," Bush said in a weekly radio address that marked the two-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

"These are landmark events in the history of freedom," he said.

With his primary rationale for the war — Saddam's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction — discredited, Bush has turned to the argument that the war in Iraq was justified because it freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and now gives the Middle East a model for democracy.

Bush said "the Iraqi people are taking charge of their own destiny," citing the country's first free and fair elections in its modern history, this week's first meeting of the Transitional National Assembly and the upcoming drafting of a constitution for a "free and democratic Iraq."

Against that progress, insurgents have carried on a relentless campaign of suicide bombings, kidnappings and beheadings while rampant crime, power outages, unemployment over 50 percent and a fuel crisis in one of the world's prime oil-exporting countries continues.

Even as the Iraqi legislators convened, they did not set a new date to meet reconvene, elect a speaker or nominate a president and vice president.

Some have questioned Bush's repeated claims that recent democratic developments in several global hotspots are due to both the Iraq war and his second-term drive to push for reforms in friend and foe.

Still, the president has pointed to democratic gains in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, as well as the relatively peaceful elections in Iraq.

"Today we're seeing hopeful signs across the broader Middle East," Bush said.

"The victory of freedom in Iraq is strengthening a new ally in the war on terror, and inspiring democratic reformers from Beirut to Tehran."

The president saluted military personnel who died in Iraq, numbering more than 1,500 since the start of the war in March 2003, and the families who have endured long separations from loved ones.

"I know that nothing can end the pain of the families who have lost loved ones in this struggle, but they can know that their sacrifice has added to America's security and the freedom of the world," he said.

"Because of our actions, freedom is taking root in Iraq, and the American people are more secure."

Bush is spending the weekend at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, arriving there Friday night after a day traveling in Florida to pitch his plans to overhaul Social Security.

On Monday, he embarks on a two-day trip in the West to continue pitching his Social Security proposals and then returns to his ranch for meetings Wednesday with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Afterward, Bush plans to spend the rest of Easter week at the ranch before going back to Washington.

And while George W. Bush is risking a massive dislocation of his right arm from over-vigorous and over-zealous "PATTING" of his own self on the back for all the GOOD that he has wrought since he first created the world, what is this that is going on over there in Iraq, BETWEEN BUSH CO.'S CLIENT STATE OF IRAQ, AND BUSH CO.'S CLOSE ALLY, JORDAN?

A lover's spat?

Signs of the famed and fabled PAX BUSHICANA?

Or is it POX BUSHICANA?

Oh, to be an English major!

What a glorious life it would be!

Middle East - AP

"Iraq, Jordan Pull Envoys From Countries"

3 minutes ago

By RAWYA RAGEH, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq and Jordan engaged in a tit-for-tat withdrawal of ambassadors Sunday in a growing dispute over Shiite Muslim claims that Jordan is failing to block terrorists from entering Iraq, while U.S. forces killed 24 insurgents in a clash south of Baghdad.

An American convoy was traveling through the Salman Pak area, 20 miles southeast of Baghdad, when it was attacked, U.S. officials said.

Six soldiers and seven militants were wounded.

Sunday's diplomatic row erupted even as a Jordanian court sentenced in absentia Iraq's most feared terrorist — who was born in Jordan — to a 15-year prison term.

As news emerged of the largely symbolic sentencing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose whereabouts are unknown, his al-Qaida in Iraq organization claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing that killed a top anti-corruption official in northern Mosul.

Al-Zarqawi already has been sentenced to death twice by Jordan.

Sunday's events capped a week of rising tensions that included a protest in which Shiite demonstrators raised the Iraqi flag over the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad and claims by the Shiite clergy-backed United Iraqi Alliance that Jordan was allowing terrorists to slip into Iraq.

"Iraqis are feeling very bitter over what happened."

"We decided, as the Iraqi government, to recall the Iraqi ambassador from Amman to discuss this," Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told The Associated Press.

Jordan acted first, when Foreign Minister Hani al-Mulqi announced his charge d'affaires in Baghdad had been recalled to Amman.

"We are hoping that the Iraqi police will devise a plan to protect the embassy," al-Mulqi said.

"Meanwhile, we have asked the charge d'affaires to come back because he was living in the embassy."

He added that other Jordanian diplomats will remain in Baghdad because they do not live in the embassy compound.

Both countries said the officials were being recalled for "consultations," leaving open the possibility for their return.

Shiites began holding protests after the Iraqi government on Monday condemned celebrations allegedly held by the family of a Jordanian man suspected of carrying out a Feb. 28 terrorist attack that killed 125 people in Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad.

Nearly all the victims were Shiite police and army recruits.

The Jordanian daily Al-Ghad reported that Raed Mansour al-Banna carried out the attack, the single deadliest of the Iraqi insurgency.

The newspaper later issued a correction, however, saying it was not known where al-Banna carried out an assault.

Al-Banna's family has denied his involvement in the Hillah attack, saying al-Banna carried out a different suicide bombing in Iraq, and Al-Zarqawi's group claimed responsibility for the Hillah bombing.

A military court sentenced al-Zarqawi to 15 years in jail and imprisoned an associate for three years for planning an attack on the Jordanian Embassy, the offices of the Jordanian military attache, and unspecified American targets, all in Iraq.

The two Jordanians allegedly met in Iraq in November 2003 to plan an assault on the embassy after an August bombing of the same building killed 18 people.

Al-Zarqawi has also been accused in the August attack.

The United States has issued a $25 million reward for al-Zarqawi, who was previously sentenced to death twice in Jordan: once for the Oct. 28, 2002, killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley, and again for planning to attack U.S. and Israeli targets during 1999 New Year's celebrations in the kingdom.

Also Sunday, in Iraq's north, a suicide bomber blew himself up inside a government compound in Mosul, killing himself and Walid Kashmoula, the head of the Iraqi police anti-corruption department, officials said.

Three others were injured.

Al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack.

"The renegade Walid Kashmoula has been assassinated by a martyrdom operation, thanks to God, and he is the No. 1 American agent in Mosul," Abu Maysara al-Iraqi, the group's designated "media coordinator," purportedly said in a message posted on an extremist Islamic Web site.

In other violence Sunday:

_ A homemade bomb exploded near the northern city of Kirkuk, killing a U.S. soldier and injuring three others, the U.S. military said in a statement.

At least 1,520 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war, according to an Associated Press count.

_ In Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, militants jumped out of their car and opened fire on a policeman walking to work, police Maj. Sadoun Ahmed said.

Police who went to collect the man's body also came under attack, prompting a gunfight that left three police and three of the attackers injured.

Lt. Qassim Mohammed said the injured assailants were captured.

_ In the southern city of Basra, attackers targeted a police patrol with a roadside bomb, killing one civilian and injuring a policeman, police Col. Karim al-Zeidi said.

_ Insurgents lobbed mortar rounds into a neighborhood just outside the walls of an Iraqi army base in Mahmoudiyah, south of Baghdad, killing one civilian and injuring two others, said Ikbal Sabir, an official at the Yarmouk Hospital where the victims were taken.

_ At a checkpoint on the outskirts of Baqouba, a car bomb injured 10 Iraqi soldiers and two civilians, police official Ahmed Mohammed said.

The U.S. military said 12 Iraqi soldiers were injured in the blast.

Insurgents followed up the attack with small arms and rocket-propelled grenade-fire, and three insurgents were killed in ensuing clashes, the U.S. military said.
_____

Associated Press reporter Dale Gavlak contributed to this story from Amman, Jordan.

[Livyjr]

And while George W. Bush is risking a massive dislocation of his right arm from over-vigorous and over-zealous "PATTING" of his own self on the back for all the GOOD that he has wrought since he first created the world, what is this that is going on over there in Iraq, BETWEEN BUSH CO.'S CLIENT STATE OF IRAQ, AND BUSH CO.'S CLOSE ALLY, JORDAN?

A lover's spat?

Signs of the famed and fabled PAX BUSHICANA?

Or is it POX BUSHICANA?

Oh, to be an English major!

What a glorious life it would be!

Middle East - AP
 
"Iraq, Jordan Pull Envoys From Countries"

By RAWYA RAGEH, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq and Jordan engaged in a tit-for-tat withdrawal of ambassadors Sunday in a growing dispute over Shiite Muslim claims that Jordan is failing to block terrorists from entering Iraq, while U.S. forces killed 24 insurgents in a clash south of Baghdad.

Sunday's events capped a week of rising tensions that included a protest in which Shiite demonstrators raised the Iraqi flag over the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad and claims by the Shiite clergy-backed United Iraqi Alliance that Jordan was allowing terrorists to slip into Iraq.

In other violence Sunday:

_ A homemade bomb exploded near the northern city of Kirkuk, killing a U.S. soldier and injuring three others, the U.S. military said in a statement.

At least 1,520 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war, according to an Associated Press count.

And what other REWARDS is the alleged "famed" and "fabled" POX BUSHICANA reaping for OUR America?

Or in other words, CAN TOO MUCH OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS really be quite enough, and too much at that, at least to some people out there in the world, in their own countries, INDEPENDENT OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S MURIKA, with their own right to an independent opinion of what the continued reign of George W. Bush in the Middle East means to them?

Let us look and see, as they say:

Middle East - AP

"Anti-Western Sentiment on Rise in Qatar"

2 minutes ago

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Qatar and other energy-rich countries of the Persian Gulf are some of the most crime-free places on Earth and among the most friendly to U.S. interests.

Even so, anti-Western feelings are on the rise, and with a Saudi crackdown on terror pushing militants into neighboring countries, observers say the Gulf states must act fast to prevent more bombings like Saturday's theater blast in Doha to halt serious damage to the region's appeal to Western tourists, residents and business.

"If the Qataris can dismantle this cell quickly and prove they are effective, I don't think this will have a great impact on expatriates or tourism," said Mustafa Alani, a terrorism analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

But if the investigation founders or if attackers strike again soon, "this will undermine credibility."

"A lot of people will hesitate to come to the Gulf," Alani said.

A Briton, Jonathan Adams, was killed in the suicide car bombing Saturday night.

A dozen others, including six Qataris, a Briton, an Eritrean and a Somali, were injured, Qatari officials said.

Qatari authorities identified the charred body of a suicide bomber inside the vehicle as Omar Ahmed Abdullah Ali, an Egyptian computer programmer and father of two.

The officials said he detonated his explosives-packed car behind the Doha Players Theater during a production of Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night."

Even as an investigation begins, with British and French authorities helping, the attack has brought normally bucolic Qatar into an unappealing club.

Now, only one of the six Gulf Cooperation Council states — the United Arab Emirates — has yet to experience attacks or public crackdowns after thwarted terror plots.

"This will be psychologically unnerving for many people."

"It shows a serious threat to countries traditionally thought of as safe," Kevin Rosser, an analyst with Control Risks Group, told Dow Jones Newswires.

Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Osama bin Laden, has implemented a tough crackdown after suffering terrorist bombings and gunbattles for almost a decade, pushing militants into neighboring countries, including Kuwait, where police have fought running street battles with fundamentalist outlaws.

Oman rounded up dozens of suspects this year after uncovering a bomb plot.

Bahrain late last year tried a group of men for plotting attacks and having contacts with foreign terrorist groups.

Saturday's bombing in Doha showed the infection of violence has spread there, too.

The blast erupted on the second anniversary of the start of the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Many believe it was launched at the behest of Saleh al-Aoofi, al-Qaida's leader in the Gulf, who urged militants last week to attack "crusaders" throughout the Gulf, including Qatar.

"These groups want to show they can attack any target in any state," Alani said.

"They've proved they have sleeping cells in these countries and they can activate them when they want."

Anti-American sentiment — mainly against U.S. foreign policy — is strong in close-knit Qatar, best known as the home of Al-Jazeera TV and the forward headquarters of the U.S. military's Central Command.

But the bombing of a theater packed with civilians, next to a school, may have backfired, undercutting support for anti-Western militants.

"The majority of Qataris sympathize with the fundamentalist movement, including me," said Najeeb al-Nauimi, a prominent lawyer.

"But this incident will make us change our minds."

Al-Nauimi said his two sons, ages 9 and 12, boycott American restaurants like McDonald's and Pizza Hut.

And, like millions of others in the region, they back bin Laden's battle against U.S. support for Israel and its invasion of Iraq.

But on Sunday, al-Nauimi took his sons to see the theater destroyed in the bombing the day before.

"These people are criminals," al-Nauimi quoted one son as saying.

Al-Nauimi said an attack on a different target, such as the giant U.S. al-Udeid air base in the Gulf state, probably would not have provoked an outcry.

"People would say, 'Ah, the Americans have been attacked.'"

"They won't condemn it," he said.

In November 2001, a Qatari was killed after he fired a Kalashnikov at the U.S. base.

"Everyone called him a martyr," al-Nauimi said.

"They said he will go to heaven."

"But this guy who died in front of the school, he will go to hell."

What's more, the blast could damage Qatar's efforts to build beach resorts and hotels catering to foreigners, diversifying an economy based on its vast reserves of natural gas, said Youssef M. Ibrahim, an oil and political risk analyst who heads Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group.

"If you're an expatriate firm putting people here, you need to factor into your decision the fact that your employees are at risk," Ibrahim said.

"That means money: more insurance, more spending on security, more security staff."

[Livyjr]

CAN TOO MUCH OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND HIS really be quite enough, and too much at that, at least to some people out there in the world, in their own countries, INDEPENDENT OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S MURIKA, with their own right to an independent opinion of what the continued reign of George W. Bush in the Middle East means to them?

Middle East - AP
 
"Anti-Western Sentiment on Rise in Qatar"

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Qatar and other energy-rich countries of the Persian Gulf are some of the most crime-free places on Earth and among the most friendly to U.S. interests.

Even so, anti-Western feelings are on the rise, and with a Saudi crackdown on terror pushing militants into neighboring countries, observers say the Gulf states must act fast to prevent more bombings like Saturday's theater blast in Doha to halt serious damage to the region's appeal to Western tourists, residents and business.

"This will be psychologically unnerving for many people."

"It shows a serious threat to countries traditionally thought of as safe," Kevin Rosser, an analyst with Control Risks Group, told Dow Jones Newswires.

What's more, the blast could damage Qatar's efforts to build beach resorts and hotels catering to foreigners, diversifying an economy based on its vast reserves of natural gas, said Youssef M. Ibrahim, an oil and political risk analyst who heads Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group.

"If you're an expatriate firm putting people here, you need to factor into your decision the fact that your employees are at risk," Ibrahim said.

"That means money: more insurance, more spending on security, more security staff."

CONTROL RISKS GROUP IN IRAQ

http://www.crg.com

Control Risks Group has established a project office in Iraq to assist organisations operating or planning to operate in the country.

Its presence means that we are well placed to provide accurate, up-to-date information on the situation in-country and are available to help clients to understand the uncertainties and volatility that affect activities in the region, to mitigate the risks involved and to successfully manage the security of their assets and staff.

We are currently providing project security management services in Iraq for a number of government departments, companies and NGOs, and have security managers permanently deployed in Iraq for these clients.

Our office has been set up to co-ordinate these activities and provide on-the-ground advice.

Our presence in Iraq and our expertise in all areas of risk management mean that Control Risks can provide a range of services for any company operating or planning to operate in Iraq:

Project risk assessment:

to assess the level and nature of security and political risks to personnel, assets and operations, and to offer advice on appropriate risk mitigation strategies.

These assessments are customised to the specific requirements of the task and take into account regional variations in the security situation and differences in the nature of the risk.

- Contact iapworldwide@control-risks.com

Project security management:

to provide on-the-ground security management and protection for personnel, facilities and operations.

Control Risks’ security consultants plan and implement security procedures and tasks:

* including security audits;

* collecting essential local information;

* co-ordinating with the coalition administration;

* managing VIP close protection; and

* providing secure travel, communications, local guard force supervision and ‘meet-and-greet’ services.

- Contact iapworldwide@control-risks.com

Monitoring and advice services:

to assist corporate-level security managers and strategic planners in monitoring the situation and responding to developments on the ground.

Control Risks’ online Country Risk Forecast (CRF) service provides analysis and interpretation of events on the ground in Iraq and other countries, and is updated each working day.

CR24, our 24-hour operations centre, provides immediate advice and support for security managers.

- Contact enquiries@control-risks.com

Corporate investigations:

to enable companies to make informed decisions about establishing relationships with local Iraqi partners.

Due diligence on such partnerships is necessary to ensure that proposed local contractors are legitimate and have the necessary local contacts to ensure a smooth working relationship.

- Contact investigations@control-risks.com

Contingency planning and training:

to provide companies operating in difficult and dangerous areas with reviews of existing plans against new threats and with the development of new plans:

* including business continuity;

* medical and emergency evacuation planning;

* executive ‘buy-in’ seminars on the risks of doing business in Iraq; and

* exercises for new country management teams prior to, or immediately after, entry.

- Contact crisis_management@control-risks.com

Governance and integrity services:

to provide governments and international organisations with the capability to implement medium to long term sustainable programmes to construct transparent, accountable and effective central government functions, especially in the areas of national security, law enforcement and national policy development and oversight.

The division also advises on anti-corruption strategies to governments and corporate clients.

- Contact response2@control-risks.com

To contact our Iraq office, email cmiraq@control-risks.com

end quotes

SO!

If I have this right, continuing unrest in the Middle East, like this Qatar "bombing" above here that this security analyst fellow from this Control Risks Group is talking about, why, that continued unrest is just damn good for the security business over there, and well, that just has to be good for OUR America, doesn't it?

Or does it?

What say you, Mr. Kevin Rosser?

Got another money-maker for you security boys on the line here, thanks to that ALLEGED Egyptian guy and his alleged bombing of that movie theater over there in Doha, Qatar?

Looks it to me, anyway, but what the hey, what can I possibly know about such things?

You guys are the real experts on that kind of stuff, after all, WHICH IS WHY I AM ASKING YOU?

SO?

Is it a money maker, then?

Bombing gonna be just good for the bottom line, eh?

[Livyjr]

And here is someone from the fabulous Bush Co.'s that we really haven't heard much from lately and that is Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz's once best friend and buddie, none other than the inestimable Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, himself, the TRANSFORMER of OUR military into something largely unrecognizable to me!

And what does America's Donald have to say to us today?

Listen up, give the man room, let him speak his piece freely!

Thank you, America, and the candid world as well!

And now, without further ado, here's OUR Donald, and what?

What this he is saying, here?

HARK:

White House - AP Cabinet & State

"Rumsfeld Laments Iraq Invasion Restriction"

30 minutes ago

By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The level of insurgency in postwar Iraq wouldn't be so high if the U.S.-led coalition had been able to invade from the north, through Turkey, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday.

Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday" that if the United States had able to get its 4th Infantry Division into northern Iraq through Turkey, more of Saddam's Baathist regime would have been captured or killed, diminishing the insurgency.

U.S. forces had to enter Iraq from the south, so by the time Baghdad was taken, much of Saddam's military and intelligence services had dissipated into the northern cities, Rumsfeld said.

"They're still, in a number of instances, still active," he said.

As Iraqi security forces develop, Rumsfeld said, they will take increasing responsibility and the insurgency will diminish over time.

He estimated current Iraqi security forces at over 145,000.

U.S. forces in Iraq are being reduced from 153,000 to 137,000 or 140,000, Rumsfeld said, although it's possible more security will have to be put into place when new elections take place next year.

Rumsfeld told ABC's "This Week" that at least 30 projects are under way to reduce stress on U.S. forces.

For example, he said, a new national security personnel system allows for the use of fewer military people in civilian positions, and the Pentagon is rebalancing the active force with the reserve component.

"So far, we've only used in Iraq and Afghanistan something like 40 percent of the Guard and Reserve," he said.

"It's not like everything's been used up."

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the all-volunteer force is "working marvelously."

"I've served in the draft force, I've served in the volunteer force," he said.

"The American public should not be at all confused about the volunteer force and how well it's performed."

On Fox, Rumsfeld defended his "old Europe" characterization of nations such as France and Germany that opposed U.S. policy in Iraq.

"That's not haunting me," he said.

"I don't think it was a stunning comment, and it certainly wasn't in any way denigrating anything."

[Livyjr]

And here is someone from the fabulous Bush Co.'s that we really haven't heard much from lately and that is Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz's once best friend and buddie, none other than the inestimable Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, himself, the TRANSFORMER of OUR military into something largely unrecognizable to me!

And what does America's Donald have to say to us today?

Listen up, give the man room, let him speak his piece freely!

Thank you, America, and the candid world as well!

And now, without further ado, here's OUR Donald, and what?

What this he is saying, here?

HARK:

White House - AP Cabinet & State

"Rumsfeld Laments Iraq Invasion Restriction"

By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The level of insurgency in postwar Iraq wouldn't be so high if the U.S.-led coalition had been able to invade from the north, through Turkey, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday.

Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday" that if the United States had able to get its 4th Infantry Division into northern Iraq through Turkey, more of Saddam's Baathist regime would have been captured or killed, diminishing the insurgency.

U.S. forces had to enter Iraq from the south, so by the time Baghdad was taken, much of Saddam's military and intelligence services had dissipated into the northern cities, Rumsfeld said.

"They're still, in a number of instances, still active," he said.

And for everyone who might not know or cannot recall what Donald Rumsfeld is talking about with respect to this fiasco of the 4th Infantry Division having to sit out in the Mediterranean Sea on ships, off the coast of Turkey, at a cost to US of several millions of dollars per day, and then finally to have to set sail for some other port of debarkation, OTHER THAN TURKEY, so that they could finally get into action in George W. Bush's HOLY WAR of aggression to take over by military force the oil fields of Iraq, thanks to botched-up planning in the matter by the fabulous Bush Co.'s, we have this following refresher in the matter, for your information:

"U.S., Turkey at Odds on Troops in N. Iraq"

ABC News

03-24-03

In front of a map of Cyprus, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan attends a meeting with President Necdet Sezer in Ankara Monday, March 24, 2003.

Despite warnings from the United States and other NATO allies, Erdogan said Sunday his government was seeking to send troops into northern Iraq to prevent instability at the Turkish-Iraqi border. (AP Photo/Burhan Ozbilici)

ISTANBUL, Turkey March 24 — A U.S. special envoy rushed back to Turkey but failed to reach agreement Monday on Turkey's plans to send troops into northern Iraq.

Fearing friendly fire incidents with U.S. forces and clashes with Iraqi Kurds, the United States opposes Turkish intervention.

President Bush said Sunday his administration had made clear that it expected the Turks to keep out of northern Iraq.

U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who was accompanied by U.S. Ambassador Robert Pearson and American military officials in his meetings with Turkish leaders, said afterward that no agreement had been reached.

He pledged to hold more talks Tuesday.

Opposition to a Turkish intervention increased Monday with Germany and Belgium announcing that a Turkish incursion could force NATO to review its mission to boost the country's defenses against a possible Iraqi attack.

The countries said such a move would compromise the defensive basis of NATO's deployment of AWACS surveillance planes and other specialist units to Turkey.

The European Union also warned Turkey against entering northern Iraq.

Such a move could hurt Ankara's candidacy to join the union.

Even so, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed a possible Turkish intervention Monday with the country's military leader, Gen. Hilmi Ozkok.

"The Turkish armed forces have made certain plans and preparations in this matter."

"When the right time and place comes, the necessary decisions will be made and put into effect," Ozkok said after the meeting.

Turkey has had several thousands of troops in northern Iraq since the late 1990s, but wants to beef up its military presence there to prevent a massive refugee flow from Iraq.

Up to 750,000 Iraqi Kurds fled to Turkey during the 1991 Gulf War.

Turkey also fears that the fall of Saddam Hussein could lead to the creation of an independent Kurdish state in Iraq.

That, in turn, could boost the aspirations of Turkey's Kurdish rebels, who fought a 15-year war for autonomy in southeastern Turkey.

Iraqi Kurdish forces have warned of clashes if Turkey sends in troops.

Safeen Dizayee, an official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, which controls part of northern Iraq, said Monday that even if Turkey and the United States agreed on an increased Turkish military presence in northern Iraq, that deal would not be binding on the Iraqi Kurds.

The U.S.-Turkish talks come as relations between the NATO allies have been strained over Turkey's refusal to allow 62,000 U.S. combat troops to use Turkey as a staging ground to open a northern front against Iraq.

Despite overwhelming popular opposition to the war, Turkey has allowed the United States to use its airspace to bomb Iraq and fly troops into northern Iraq.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the two sides were discussing ways to prevent refugee flows and terrorism and ensure humanitarian aid so the Turks won't feel compelled to enter northern Iraq.

"We believe strongly the current circumstances do not warrant any intervention by Turkish forces, and we expect all parties involved to be responsive to our concerns," Boucher said.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/874536/posts

[Livyjr]

And for everyone who might not know or cannot recall what Donald Rumsfeld is talking about with respect to this fiasco of the 4th Infantry Division having to sit out in the Mediterranean Sea on ships, off the coast of Turkey, at a cost to US of several millions of dollars per day, and then finally to have to set sail for some other port of debarkation, OTHER THAN TURKEY, so that they could finally get into action in George W. Bush's HOLY WAR of aggression to take over by military force the oil fields of Iraq, thanks to botched-up planning in the matter by the fabulous Bush Co.'s, we have this following refresher in the matter, for your information:

"U.S., Turkey at Odds on Troops in N. Iraq"

ABC News

03-24-03

ISTANBUL, Turkey March 24 — A U.S. special envoy rushed back to Turkey but failed to reach agreement Monday on Turkey's plans to send troops into northern Iraq.

President Bush said Sunday his administration had made clear that it expected the Turks to keep out of northern Iraq.

The U.S.-Turkish talks come as relations between the NATO allies have been strained over Turkey's refusal to allow 62,000 U.S. combat troops to use Turkey as a staging ground to open a northern front against Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/874536/posts

And here is another view of the "up-coming" 4th Infantry Division debacle that Donald Rumsfeld "LAMENTS" above, which debacle occurred on his watch, this one from February of 2003, BEFORE the fiasco with Turkey involving the 4th Infantry Division became imminent, and caused the 4th Infantry Division to have to sail for another port of debarkation into Iraq, other than Turkey:

"Iraqi rebels join US invasion forces"

The Scotsman

Sat 15 Feb 2003

TIM RIPLEY

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843783/posts

REBEL Iraqi troops will join the US invasion force in any bid to free their nation from Saddam Hussein.

Some 3,000 have been trained by the US army’s European Command in Hungary to work with American troops.

In spite of press speculation in Washington that troops will soon stage lightning strikes into Iraq, it looks more likely that the experience of the US’s top Middle East commander, General Tommy Franks, in Afghanistan will lead him to use psychological warfare and special forces first to try to pry the Iraqi army away from the Saddam loyalists in the Republican Guard.

A radio station is now calling on Iraqi troops to disobey Saddam’s orders and for the Baghdad regime to be overthrown.

Millions of leaflets are being dropped over southern Iraq to reinforce this message.

In the wake of this propaganda effort, US special forces and British Special Air Service teams are reported to be operating along the fringes of Iraq’s borders.

The main focus of this effort is in the Kurdish safe haven in northern Iraq where special forces liaison teams are now working with rebel groups and tribal chiefs.

The Kurdish KDP and PUK are the main points of contact for the western forces, although rebel Iraqi officers are also receiving help to set up bases in the liberated zones.

By the end of the month General Franks is expected to be installed in his forward command post in Qatar.

He will arrive to find a military force ready for invasion.

The bulk of the 70,000 ground troops ordered to the Middle East just after Christmas are already in place in Kuwait or on ships in the Gulf.

A second army of more than 80,000 US and British combat troops will be in place by early March.

Hundreds of extra fighter jets, attack helicopters and scores of warships, manned by 80,000 sailors and airmen, have also arrived in the past three weeks, enabling Franks to begin an offensive by the end of the month.

For US commanders the most dangerous phase has already passed.

The nightmare scenario for battle planners was a surprise Iraqi attack.

Apart from a half-hearted attempt to move an Ababil-100 missile battery near to Kuwait earlier this week, the Iraqis have so far not tried to pre-empt the US deployment.

Genral Franks can now count on a full army division of 20,000 men in Kuwait, backed up by the 30,000 strong 1st Marine Division.

They muster nearly 400 M1A1 Abrams tanks and thousands of other armoured vehicles.

He also has an attack helicopter brigade with some 60 AH-64 Apache gunships armed with Hellfire missiles and a transport helicopter brigade with giant Chinooks.

The Marines also have almost 100 attack helicopters, backed by Harrier jump jets and F/A-18 Hornet strike jets.

Britain’s carrier HMS Ark Royal and the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean are now in the Gulf, poised to land the 4,000 Royal Marines of 3 Commando Brigade in Kuwait or southern Iraq by helicopter.

Air power in the region has been boosted to almost 500 combat and 150 support aircraft and by the arrival of USAF F-117 stealth bombers and two additional US Navy aircraft carriers.

The first of the RAF’s additional Tornado GR4 bombers left their bases in Britain earlier this week, and by the time the USAF and RAF build-up is complete in the next week, some 700 US and British strike aircraft will be in place.

The final pieces in the commanders’ jigsaw will fall into place over the next two to three weeks when the 120 Challenger 2 tanks of Britain’s 7th Armoured Brigade begin to arrive in Kuwait.

Turkey looks set to allow 37,000 soldiers of the US 4th Infantry Division to start moving to northern Iraq and the first airborne forces will be positioned within striking range of Baghdad.

A brigade of paratroopers the US 82nd Airborne Division is in the process of setting up a base at a "secret" location in the Middle East and Britain’s 16th Air Assault Brigade has also started to move to the region.

The location of these two units’ bases is being kept a closely guarded secret to ensure they have the element of surprise when they are launched into action.

Some 270 helicopters of the US’s elite 101st Airborne Division are being shipped this weekend and will not be ready for action in the Middle East for at least three weeks.

General Franks might want to wait until it is ready to strike, but he could be planning to feed it in to replace tired front-line units as the battle unfolds.

The first and crucial phase of Franks’ battle plan is already unfolding.

This is the neutralisation of key Iraqi air defence sites to ensure the USAF has air supremacy.

Almost daily air strikes under the guise of enforcing the no-fly zones are hitting Iraq’s air defence command hard.

[Livyjr]

And here is another view of the "up-coming" 4th Infantry Division debacle that Donald Rumsfeld "LAMENTS" above, which debacle occurred on his watch, this one from February of 2003, BEFORE the fiasco with Turkey involving the 4th Infantry Division became imminent, and caused the 4th Infantry Division to have to sail for another port of debarkation into Iraq, other than Turkey:

"Iraqi rebels join US invasion forces"

The Scotsman

Sat 15 Feb 2003

TIM RIPLEY

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843783/posts

The final pieces in the commanders’ jigsaw will fall into place over the next two to three weeks when the 120 Challenger 2 tanks of Britain’s 7th Armoured Brigade begin to arrive in Kuwait.

Turkey looks set to allow 37,000 soldiers of the US 4th Infantry Division to start moving to northern Iraq and the first airborne forces will be positioned within striking range of Baghdad.

And since we are on this subject of the LAMENTATIONS of Mr. Donald Rumsfeld over what could possibly be called the incompetence of the fabulous Bush Co.'s in general, we have this view on Turkey's refusal to allow the 4th Infantry Division to debark in that country from the perspective of Mr. Eric Margolis, an Award winning author, columnist, and broadcaster who has covered 14 wars and is a leading authority on military affairs, the Middle East, South Asia, and Islamic movements:

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2003/03/index.php

Posted by eric.margolis at 10:55 PM, March 10, 2003

"FRANCE IS RIGHT AND THE US OWES IT AN APOLOGY"

Miami - Watching American TV can be a surreal experience.

Sandwiched between ads for instant weight loss products, predigested fast food, and incontinence panties, cable TV commentators bay like rabid dogs for war against Iraq, and subject nations daring to oppose President Bush’s crusade to venomous abuse or sneering disdain.

France, which speaks with the strongest, most logical voice of those opposing war, has become the special target of vituperation and hatred in American’s leading neo-conservative media - Fox TV, Wall Street Journal, National Review, New York Post - and the Bush Administration’s special bete noire.

Particularly so, now that France and Russia vow to veto US attempts to ram a war-enabling resolution through the UN Security Council

France, many Americans claim, should do whatever Washington orders out of gratitude for US ‘saving’ it in two world wars.

US TV features angry veterans standing in American military cemeteries in Normandy, denouncing France for ‘stabbing America in the back’ - as if invading Iraq to grab its oil and crushing Israel’s enemies had anything to do with World War II.

I happen to be a US Army vet and member of the American Legion who thinks France is doing exactly the right thing.

Few flag-waving pundits mention America sat out almost 40% of WWII until attacked by Japan.

In 1940, the German armed forces were the equivalent of the US armed forces today - a full military generation ahead of all other nations.

France’s entire army was destroyed in battle by the invincible Germans; had the US fought Germany in 1940, it too would have been routed.

The Soviet Union, not the US, defeated Germany, destroying over 100 Nazi divisions.

So enough with all the bombast about World War II.

In the eyes of Europeans and most of the world, George Bush’s administration looks dangerously aggressive, dominated as it is by petrohawks and neo-conservative ideologues linked to Israel’s far right.

These little Mussolinis have no time for diplomacy or multi-nationalism.

No wonder a recent Pew Research poll found that formerly favorable ratings of the US have plummeted in 19 of 27 nations surveyed.

It seems at times that President Bush is even more eager to bomb Paris than Baghdad.

In fact, the Administration has been treating France like an enemy, rather than America’s oldest ally and intimate friend.

Neo-conservatives even accuse France of anti-Semitism, a disgusting slander.

Far from being an enemy, France has been doing what a true good friend should do: telling Washington its policy is wrong and dangerous, unlike the handkissing leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy, who crave Bush’s political support, or the East European coalition of the shilling, ex-communist politicians pandering to Washington for cash.

Seventy percent of British, and 90% of Italians and Spaniards oppose Bush’s crusade.

France’s President Jacques Chirac speaks for an overwhelming majority of Europeans and, indeed, the world’s people, in urging the US to opt for diplomacy and UN inspections over a war that will not be worth the loss of a single American soldier, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis and chaos across Mesopotamia.

So, too, warns the great and wise Pope, John Paul II.

The contrast between France’s reasoned diplomatic response and Bush’s belligerent behavior could not be more stark.

As is the dignified, logical tone set by President Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villlepin compared to the bullying, low-brow, locker-room talk issuing from the White House that has seriously damaged America’s reputation and image around the globe.

This does not mean France will not join the oil-rush to plunder Iraq when the US invasion appears inevitable, simply that wiser heads in Paris realize that war is the worst solution to the now minor problem of Iraq.

This week Turkey’s new parliament, chosen in the first truly democratic election in memory, followed Europe, courageously rejecting Washington’s bribes and demands US ground forces be allowed to attack Iraq from Turkish territory.

Washington’s churlish response - withdrawing its bribes, threatening punishment - contrasted curiously to Bush’s claims his goal in Iraq is bringing democracy to the Mideast.

Democracy, its seems, is fine so long as it does US bidding.

Inconveniently, Turkey’s people and democratic government voted a resounding no to war.

How long the Turks can resist intense pressure from the US and its allies, Turkey’s hardline generals, remains to be seen.

Bush’s crusade against Iraq will go on with or without Turkey.

The war will be akin to throwing a grenade into a huge hornet’s nest.

France, which lives next to the Arab World and has 5 million Muslim citizens, warns an invasion and occupation of Iraq will roil the entire region, spark more terrorism, and hit Europe with a dangerous backblast.

But Bush couldn’t care less, as he would say.

While Bush prepares war against demolished Iraq, he is ducking the surging nuclear confrontation with North Korea, which, unlike Iraq, truly threatens North America.

His outrageous dereliction of duty over Korea, obsessive warmongering against Iraq, crude, aggressive behavior worthy of Leonid Brezhnev’s Soviet Union, threats against the UN, US $400 billion deficit that will infect the world with inflation, and damage to America’s reputation - such are Bush’s ‘accomplishments’ to date.

Who needs enemies with world-class blunderers like this in charge?

Bush’s tirade against Iraq last Thursday simply confirmed that the US military is an army of lions, led by asses.

America’s friends and neighbors, led by France, the mother of diplomacy, rightly warn the steroidal Bush Administration to halt its rush to war.

President Chirac and Foreign Minister de Villepin deserve the Noble Peace Prize.

Americans owe France an apology, and a hearty ‘merci.’

[Abu Beacon]

"War is a continuation of policy by other means".

Perhaps Caspar Weinberger's 6 rules are more useful:
1. Commit only if our or our allies' vital interests are at stake.

2. If we commit, do so with all the resources necessary to win.

3. Go in only with clear political and military objectives.

4. Be ready to change the commitment if the objectives change, since wars rarely stand still.

5. Only take on commitments that can gain the support of the American people and the Congress.

6. Commit US forces only as a last resort.

241 U.S. Marines killed in their barracks !

When did this happen?

Where?

How?

Why?

Questions that need answers.

241 Marines were killed on October 23, 1983.

This tragedy took place in Beirut, Lebanon.

A truck packed with explosives, driven by a suicide bomber drove into the marine barracks at the Beirut Airport.

And the big question -- WHY?

To fully understand the answer to that , one would have to know just what the civil war in Lebanon was all about. That was a long and brutal civil war.

It lasted 15 years from 1975 until 1990.

Unlike the civil wars that we are accustomed to hearing about, which usually are between two warring factions, primarily the party in power and the opposition, this civil war encompassed several parties.

To even make a start in explaining all the twists and turns of this war would take much more time and space than we have here. Nor is this the proper venue for that explanation.

Perhaps on another thread at another time.

What we are interested in now is why these marines were killed.

In fact, why were they even in Lebanon in 1983.

There were many players in Lebanon during that time. All of them had their own reason for being there. They each had an AGENDA which suited their purpose.

Who were these players?

Syria - Israel - Russia - Iran - The United States.

Since this thread is about OUR AMERICA that is the player we are concerned about.

First, a bit of history.

1n 1958, Lebanon had been an independent nation for just 15 years.

At Lebanon’s request, to help with internal problems, President Eisenhower sent 14,000 marines to Lebanon who stayed for 3 months.
During that time there was a total of one American fatality.

This set two precedents. To the U.S. it meant that the U.S. could repeat this at another time for a reasonable cost in money, time, lives, and prestige.

To the Lebanese and others of the region, it meant that the U. S. could be counted on to maintain order and solve problems.

The United States failed to recognize there was a huge difference between the Lebanon of 1958 and the Lebanon of the early 1980’s.

Some of the differences: Syrian troops were in Lebanon. An Israel invasion of Lebanon was under way. Palestinian fighters were active in Lebanon. There were several Lebanese factions heavily armed and dangerous, each with their own purpose and goal.

Two other big problems

There was no clear policy as to why we were there, no clear mission statement was made. It was sort of a play it by ear enterprise.

The other problem: The three main American players involved had different ideas on how to go about doing our thing , using our power. These three players were : 1. Sec’y. of State, George Shultz
2. Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger - 3. National Security Advisor. Robert MacFarlane.

Once again, because of space limitations, much of the detail has to be omitted from this narration.

To go right to the point of why our marines were slaughtered, which is what really happened to them, the perception of one of the warring factions which was the Shi’ite Muslims, was that the U.S. was there to help the Maronite Christians, who were the ruling class at the time. This was an accurate conclusion on their part.

In September of 1983, the U. S. battleship, New Jersey, took an off shore position and with its 16-inch guns shelled the position of a number of Shi’ite troops in the Chouf Mountains. ( For the benefit of those who do know what a 16 inch gun means - the 16 inches refers to the width of the artillery shell., not the length. That is one big piece of ammunition. )

In retribution, a Shi’ite militia ( Hizbullah is universally considered to be the perpetrator ) blew up the Marine barracks.

In reading back through this, I have to admit I see a huge amount of over simplification.

As I mentioned, space limitations are the reason.

Perhaps at another time, I could provide specifics.

For sure, this tragedy was caused by, poor planning, lack of clear policy, bickering among the higher ups in Washington, negligent security measures and a whole lot of wishful thinking by our leaders who assumed that just by being there we could intimidate the opposing fighters.

Did someone say " Just like Iraq? "

A.B.

[jeffmoskin]

The United States failed to recognize there was a huge difference between the Lebanon of 1958 and the Lebanon of the early 1980’s.

Some of the differences: Syrian troops were in Lebanon. An Israel invasion of Lebanon was under way. Palestinian fighters were active in Lebanon. There were several Lebanese factions heavily armed and dangerous,  each with their own purpose and goal.

Yes, and there were more than 300,000 Palestinian fighters, AKA Arafat's rag-tag PLO faction, freshly evicted from Jordan by King Hussein (whom Arafat tried to overthrow).

I hate to keep harping on Arafat, except that, in looking back, he was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for a lot of needless killing.

[Livyjr]

I hate to keep harping on Arafat, except that, in looking back, he was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for a lot of needless killing.

And if the subject is really going to be tallying up a scorecard with respect to who is really the most responsible for the most "needless killing" in this world of OURS, then we will have a lot of competition, here.

Arafat MAY have been responsible for a lot of needless killing, but then, of course, other TOP CONTENDERS for that TITLE would of necessity have to include Ariel Sharon, and certainly, George W. Bush, and well, let's see, there certainly is Lyndon Baines Johnson, and ........

Oh, yeah, Hitler and Stalin certainly would have to be on that list as well.

And then, of course, there is Tamerlane, although some would argue that he engaged in "needed killing", as opposed to "needless killing", so maybe not Tamerlane ......

And that is the trouble with compiling such a list, it uses up a lot of time and space that could be used differently, and when we are talking about the past, as is the case now with Arafat, what purpose is served?

To continue to vilify and demonize him?

For what?

A continuing argument about the real "racial superiority" in the Middle East?

"God's Chosen" versus everyone else, and the rest of us have to take sides, or else?

Well, not me!

Not in that "debate", at all!

I just have this funny thing about being told who I have to love, and who I am supposed to hate!

Old-fashioned, I guess, me!

And don't forget, jeffmoskin, that when it comes to "rag-tag", that is THE description which fits OUR own Continental Army and militias at the time of OUR Revolution against the tyranny and despotism of England and its fat king, George III.

And with respect to King Hussein of Jordan, he really means nothing whatsoever to me, as I am not Jordanian, and I really don't recognize kings as being other than people with a fancy title.

I certainly don't hate or belittle them for carrying the title of "KING", but as it means nothing to me, I also don't worship either them, OR WHAT IS PERCEIVED BY THEM TO BE SOME KIND OF "RIGHT" TO RULE, regardless!

That would be a real backward step for any American to take, is what I think, paying homage to a despotic or tyrannical king anywhere in the world, including Washington, D$C$.

And as to Arafat and Jordan, I have no real idea at all about what Yassir Arafat might have been doing in Jordan, and if he got tossed out, well, I guess there are at least fifty to ten thousand different assumptions that can be drawn from that, depending, and I am not going to speculate myself, especially as I have no stake in what that dispute, if it was one, was really all about.

History tells us that some kings apparently needed to be tossed down, and maybe Hussein was one of those, BUT .....

I just don't know, and I do know that there will be hundreds of opinions about that, most of them emotional, and so, I just don't go there, nor do I invite the argument, because that is all it ever can be, just like who is the best team in the AFL, or who has the best NASCAR team.

And so ......

[Livyjr]

And here, I want to take a moment to again re-iterate what this thread is all about, which is LIFE, here in OUR America.

This thread started right after the November 2004 elections, with the premise, straight from the news, along with THEIR statistics, that OUR America was in fact a divided nation.

Now, with a "melting pot" nation such as America is, that should come as no surprise, and in many ways, it did not, and had it been that alone, that we are "divided" because of ethnic and cultural values, or divided over who really IS the very best team in the AFL, or NFL, then I would not have bothered to even come in here to have a thread at all, because what is the sense in having a daily argument that is based on emotion without substance?

Since it is done all over America, arguing about the AFL versus the NFL, I suppose that there must be some purpose to it, but whatever that purpose might be, IT IS NOT MINE!

My "purpose", if indeed I have one, is different, and it comes from the words above here of Mr. Thomas Paine, and it carries forward through the Declaration of Independence, if anyone really knows what I am referring to, there, and then it comes forward through the United States Constitution, and in MY case, the New York State Constitution, and finally, it comes down to right now, and the QUESTION OF IMPOSED CLASS, here in OUR America, where "CLASS" is not supposed to matter, as this is supposed to be a REPUBLIC, and not some type of fascist state, or communist worker's paradise, or whatever.

Which is not to say that people can't believe in fascist states, or communist worker's paradises, if such a thing can ever really exist outside of the warped and twisted mind of a European city-dweller in some other century arising out of alleged "social" conditions that he perceived IN THAT PLACE, and here, of course, I mean Marx, himself, and all that intellectual gobble-de-gook about the "DIALECTIC" that he was in to spouting in coffee shoppes, or whatever, back in his own time, WHICH IS NOT MY TIME, OR PLACE, AT ALL!

I AM AN AMERICAN!

Always have been, and intend to be, until I can be no more!

The problem, of course, is that my statement about MY being an American is really empty and meaningless rhetoric, OUTSIDE OF WHAT I MAKE IT BE ON A DAILY BASIS, and that is really what this thread is all about!

And I cannot and will not claim exclusivity with respect to what it means to be an American!

"MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY?"

George W. Bush, maybe, but not me!

After all, what makes me "perfect", or "all-knowing", beyond my own ego?

And so, we have "opinions" in here, because we are not "perfect" and all knowing, and there enters the need for "balance", which I guess falls to me, since this is "my" thread, if such a thing can really be said.

The issue of "balance" is really, "WHAT DOES WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HAVE TO DO WITH OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION", or the concept of "DEMOCRACY", which I believe George W. Bush and his are making a complete and total mockery of, BY THEIR WORDS AND ACTIONS, not only here, but across the world as well, and so .....

We endeavor to persevere, AND UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER, all at the same time!

As Mr. A.B. says, there are some subjects WHICH REALLY DO NEED TO BE DISCUSSED, and so, sometimes should be the subject or topic of a "spin-off", which has happened many times in here, and even back in the John Kerry Forum before this, where, for example, there was a thread on the "Armenian Genocide" as a single topic of discussion.

Maybe there is a need for a thread on Yassir Arafat, or Lebanon, and its rich and diverse history, and so, those threads will arise, in my belief system, if they are needed or desired or warranted by circumstances.

In here, however, to dwell on the impacts of the unique "Druze" religion on the acendency of the Maronite Christian religion to a place of political power or prominence in the 20th Century in Lebanon, would really cause this thread to become so confused as to be totally indecipherable, and so, while I am interested myself in the Druze religion, as it is unique, I don't take the time in here to talk about it, AS IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY THAT I CAN NOW PERCEIVE, THREATEN OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

Nor does the Druze religion seem to cause us to be divided as Americans, while George W. Bush's HOLY WAR in the Middle East certainly does, at least in my own view of the subject, AS AN OLDER AMERICAN!

And so, back to balance.

What is it?

Who has it?

And why?

SO!

Stay tuned!

In this corner, in the white trunks, we have jeffmoskin, from sunny California, weighing in at ........

And in this other corner, weighing in at ..., we have Mr. A.B., in the greyish hair and beard ....

And over here, of course, there is me ....

And then since we can have as many corners in here as we want, there is the candid world as well!

Now, at the sound of the bell, gentlemen, and ladies, too, come out and ......

[Livyjr]

And here, I want to take a moment to again re-iterate what this thread is all about, which is LIFE, here in OUR America.

This thread started right after the November 2004 elections, with the premise, straight from the news, along with THEIR statistics, that OUR America was in fact a divided nation.

And what is an example of "imposed class" here in OUR America, then, that I personally might be concerned about, as causing us to be divided, or that I think might pose a threat to "OUR" rights, under law, or the Constitution?

Well, hhhhmmmmm!

How about this?

U.S. National - AP

"GOP Governors Cut State Workers' Rights"

Mon Mar 21, 2:49 AM ET

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

Republican governors in a few spots across the country are angering state employees by removing one of organized labor's strongest tools — the right to collective bargaining.

Governors in three states who've taken the step say it's about making government more efficient or being fair to non-union workers.

Critics say it's political payback for labor's traditional support of Democrats and part of a wider shift to undermine workers in favor of big business.

Within hours or days of taking office this year, Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Matt Blunt in Missouri eliminated collective bargaining agreements for state employees, affecting about 50,000 workers.

Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher did the same when he took office in 2003.

In each case, the agreements had only been granted by executive order, not by law.

In Mississippi, where state employees don't have collective bargaining rights, GOP Gov. Haley Barbour supports a legislative effort to eliminate existing civil-service protections.

In Oklahoma, the GOP-controlled state House approved a measure to repeal a law granting collective bargaining to municipal employees.

Blunt said the union rules of the business world should not apply to government.

"Fundamentally, public employees are different than private sector employees — their employer is the people of Missouri," he said on his first day in office.

"Taxpayers should not be bound by collective bargaining agreements."

Union leaders see the actions as concerted effort among new, more conservative leaders, and tie it to President Bush, whose administration exempted some employees from collective bargaining at the Homeland Security Department.

"It's unconscionable."

"This is about the very soul of our movement," said Andy Levin of the AFL-CIO, who said his group will fight the governors' efforts.

"Collective bargaining is how we built the middle class in this country."

Spokesmen for the governors all dismissed any notion that they had acted together, pointing out that each had their own motivation.

None of the governors responded to requests for interviews.

In Missouri, Blunt had fought the unions for years as secretary of state, particularly over bargaining fees charged to state employees who aren't union members, and vowed during the campaign to rescind a 2001 executive order that allowed collective bargaining.

Fletcher spokeswoman Jeanne Lausche in Kentucky said the governor had promised to streamline state government and "ensure that tax dollars are expended in a business-like manner."

Daniels said his decision would allow him to more swiftly improve government services.

After he eliminated collective bargaining, he immediately created a separate, cabinet-level agency to oversee child protection services, a step he said would have been slowed by union negotiations.

The governors' actions come amid a round of soul-searching and turmoil for the nation's labor movement, which has been watching union membership slide in the past few decades, down to 12.5 percent of wage and salary workers in 2004.

Representation among government workers remains labors' strongest base, at 36 percent.

Private industry alone is at 7.9 percent, according to the Labor Department.

The ability to negotiate with employers with the strength that comes from a united group is the basic tool of unions.

But comprehensive bargaining — defined as the ability to bargain over wages, benefits and work conditions — is only allowed in 25 states, according to the AFL-CIO.

The fight is often a seesaw.

In New Mexico, Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson signed a law in 2003 giving bargaining rights to public workers, after years of opposition from former Gov. Gary Johnson, a Republican.

The GOP strategy aims to weaken a foundation of the Democratic party, said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, with 1.5 million members.

"I see this as an effort to make the Republican right-wing conservatives the party of the future for a long, long time."

He worried about other efforts by Republican governors that weigh heavily on government workers — Arnold Schwarzenneger's struggle in California over pensions for state workers and Robert Ehrlich's proposal in Maryland to raise state employees' health care costs.

Yet there's no denying that unions have traditionally been more supportive of Democrats than Republicans, said Robert Bruno, an associate professor of labor and industrial relations at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

"It's an easy way to make enemies," he said.

end quotes

Yes it is easy to make enemies!

Up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York where I am, if you want to be made an "ENEMY" of the government, try acting with integrity, and demanding that it do the same, the GUMMINT, that is!

And then watch out!

YOU SHALL BE IN THE EXCLUDED CLASS!

And I think that tosses the Constitution right out the window, myself, but what can I possibly know of such things?

After all, I am neither ordained by GOD, or annointed by GOD, as is George W. Bush, and I am not a Republican, and so .......

Back to you, jeffmoskin!

[Abu Beacon]

In this corner, in the white trunks, we have jeffmoskin, from sunny California, weighing in at ........

And in this other corner, weighing in at ..., we have Mr. A.B., in the greyish hair and beard ....

And over here, of course, there is me ....

And then since we can have as many corners in here as we want, there is the candid world as well!

Now, at the sound of the bell, gentlemen, and ladies, too, come out and ......

Thanks for giving me a great laugh this morning,Livyjr.

I don't know how big a person jeffmoskin is, but since I weigh in at only 139-140 pounds, I'm sure he is has a bit of a weight advantage on me. Plus - he is 20 years younger - plus I'd rather love than fight - plus since I feel much more friendly to the person in the white trunks than hostile toward him, - for these reasons I do not believe there will be an unfriendly encounter.

Oh yes, one more thing - There is no issue to fight over anyhow.

He has strong feelings toward a certain individual, or should I say against this person which is certainly his right to have. ( I am not mentioning this person's name on this thread anymore ). I do not disagree with him on that either. I just feel there are many others who are as bad or worse.

Some of the these people are in our own government. They're just a bit more polished, which really makes them more dangerous.

As long as I have the floor, let me state that I completely agree with your statement concerning France and Jacques Chirac as stated right below.

It seems at times that President Bush is even more eager to bomb Paris than Baghdad.

In fact, the Administration has been treating France like an enemy, rather than America’s oldest ally and intimate friend.

Neo-conservatives even accuse France of anti-Semitism, a disgusting slander.

Far from being an enemy, France has been doing what a true good friend should do: telling Washington its policy is wrong and dangerous, unlike the handkissing leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy, who crave Bush’s political support, or the East European coalition of the shilling, ex-communist politicians pandering to Washington for cash.

Seventy percent of British, and 90% of Italians and Spaniards oppose Bush’s crusade.

France’s President Jacques Chirac speaks for an overwhelming majority of Europeans and, indeed, the world’s people, in urging the US to opt for diplomacy and UN inspections over a war that will not be worth the loss of a single American soldier, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis and chaos across Mesopotamia.

So, too, warns the great and wise Pope, John Paul II.

The contrast between France’s reasoned diplomatic response and Bush’s belligerent behavior could not be more stark.

As is the dignified, logical tone set by President Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villlepin compared to the bullying, low-brow, locker-room talk issuing from the White House that has seriously damaged America’s reputation and image around the globe.

This does not mean France will not join the oil-rush to plunder Iraq when the US invasion appears inevitable, simply that wiser heads in Paris realize that war is the worst solution to the now minor problem of Iraq.

I was beginning to think I was the only person who felt the way the words above describe the person and the country.

BTW, if I have used up too much space in my previous posting about the 241 marines on the situation in Lebanon, I apologize.

There was no way I felt I could lead up to the actual attack on the marines without providing some background.

Anyhow, we do have plenty of serious, existing problems happening right now, right here in Our America.

None of these problems are insurmountable.

Especially, if we have wise leadership in Washington.

Which we don't.

A.B.

[jeffmoskin]

Thanks for giving me a great laugh this morning,Livyjr.

I don't know how big a person jeffmoskin is, but since I weigh in at only 139-140 pounds, I'm sure he is has a bit of a weight advantage on me. Plus - he is 20 years younger - plus I'd rather love than fight - plus since I feel much more friendly to the person in the white trunks than hostile toward him, - for these reasons I do not believe there will be an unfriendly encounter.

I outweigh you, Mr. A.B.

And that is all I care to say about that.

In fact, the Administration has been treating France like an enemy, rather than America’s oldest ally and intimate friend. Far from being an enemy, France has been doing what a true good friend should do: telling Washington its policy is wrong and dangerous, unlike the handkissing leaders of Britain, Spain and Italy, who crave Bush’s political support, or the East European coalition of the shilling, ex-communist politicians pandering to Washington for cash.

So, too, warns the great and wise Pope, John Paul II.

And let us not forget the Dixie Chicks who also oppose Bush's Crusade.

[Livyjr]

I outweigh you, Mr. A.B.

And that is all I care to say about that.

SO, jeffmoskin, should there be a handicapping factor added in or subtracted out of your score in here, then, to keep things on an even keel?

And is it add weight and divide by age difference?

Or is it that nasty quadratic equation where weight is squared and divided by Pi?

[Livyjr]

Oh yes, one more thing - There is no issue to fight over anyhow.

He has strong feelings toward a certain individual, or should I say against this person which is certainly his right to have.

(I am not mentioning this person's name on this thread anymore).

I do not disagree with him on that either.

I just feel there are many others who are as bad or worse.

A.B.

And here, Mr. A.B., I have to say that in all the time that jeffmoskin and I have been conversing in here, we have not had any real disagreements that have caused any "issues" that have been insurmountable in any way that I can discern, and the last thing that I will ever do is stifle jeffmoskin!

He comes into here from HIS background, whatever that may be, and with his point of view intact!

If I recall, jeffmoskin was successfully escaping from New York State the same year that I was graduating from high school, inside of New York State, and jeffmoskin grew up as a young person in New York City, which was the exact opposite of my rural environment to the north of him, and which experience for a young child such as jeffmoskin was, had to be incredible, at least to me, who is from the country!

And that up-bringing surely must shape jeffmoskin in ways that to me are very unique, as my views may also be to him, because of the almost extreme difference in OUR relative environments when young, and in what would be our formative years!

And it is really the differences between jeffmoskin and myself that fuels this discussion is what I think, for interestingly, despite all of our differences, jeffmoskin and I are not all that different at all!

And that is what the discussion in here is really all about, WHO WE ALL ARE AS AMERICANS TODAY!

And so, in here, jeffmoskin is and remains his own man, with respect to who he likes or dislikes, and if it becomes necessary to talk of this one man again, for any reason, I am sure the matter will be dealt with as all others have been in the past, in whatever manner was most appropriate at the time of discussion!